[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE FOSTERING CONNECTIONS TO SUCCESS
AND INCREASING ADOPTIONS ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INCOME SECURITY AND
FAMILY SUPPORT
of the
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 15, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-30
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
53-733 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
INCOME SECURITY AND FAMILY SUPPORT SUBCOMMITTEE
JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington, Chairman
FORTNEY PETE STARK, California JOHN LINDER, Georgia, Ranking
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama Member
JOHN LEWIS, Georgia CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR.,
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada Louisiana
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland DEAN HELLER, Nevada
KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois
SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
Janice Mays, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Jon Traub, Minority Staff Director
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Ways and Means are also published
in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the official
version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare both
printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of
converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
McDermott Announces Hearing on the Implementation of the
Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act.. 2
WITNESSES
The Honorable Brenda Donald, Office of the Secretary, Maryland
Department of Human Resources, Baltimore, Maryland............. 16
Erwin McEwen, Director, Illinois Department of Children and
Family Services, Chicago, Illinois............................. 26
Jacqueline Johnson Pata, Executive Director, National Congress of
American Indians (NCAI)........................................ 36
Margaret ``Greta'' Anderson, Former Foster Care Youth and College
Student, Au Claire, Wisconsin.................................. 42
Linda Spears, Vice President, Policy and Public Affairs, Child
Welfare League of America, Arlington, Virginia................. 46
Kathleen McNaught, J.D., Assistant Director, Center on Children
and the Law, American Bar Association.......................... 55
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
American Academy of Pediatrics, Statement........................ 76
Amy Lemley, Statement............................................ 79
Beverly Tran, Statement.......................................... 80
Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), Statement.............. 84
Children's Defense Fund, Statement............................... 89
Donna M. Butts, Statement........................................ 96
Frank J. Mecca, Statement........................................ 98
Jane Burstain, Ph.D., Statement.................................. 100
Jodie Lee Klaassen, Statement.................................... 101
John R. Vaughn, Statement........................................ 102
HEARING ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE FOSTERING CONNECTIONS TO SUCCESS
AND INCREASING ADOPTIONS ACT
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2009
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Subcommittee on Income Security
and Family Support,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:00 p.m., in
Room B-318, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Jim
McDermott [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:]
ADVISORY
FROM THE
COMMITTEE
ON WAYS
AND
MEANS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INCOME SECURITY
AND FAMILY SUPPORT
CONTACT: (202) 225-1721
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 08, 2009
ISFS-4
McDermott Announces Hearing on the
Implementation of the Fostering Connections to
Success and Increasing Adoptions Act
Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA), Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Income Security and Family Support of the Committee on Ways and Means,
today announced that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing to review the
implementation of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing
Adoptions Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-351). The hearing will take place on
Tuesday, September 15, 2009, at 1:00 p.m. in B-318 Rayburn House Office
Building. In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, oral
testimony at this hearing will be from invited witnesses only. However,
any individual or organization not scheduled to appear may submit a
written statement for consideration by the Subcommittee and for
inclusion in the record of the hearing.
BACKGROUND:
Last September, Congress passed the bipartisan Fostering
Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act to provide for the
most significant changes in child welfare policy in over a decade. The
new law includes specific requirements aimed at improving the oversight
of foster kids' health care needs, educational stability, and
connection to family members. It provides additional Federal assistance
to support caseworker training, to directly assist children in tribal
foster care, and to promote policies that provide support and
incentives for adopting children out of the foster care system.
Finally, the law establishes two new important options for States to
improve outcomes for children in foster care: (1) Federal matching
payments for States choosing to provide assistance to grandparents and
other relatives who become legal guardians of foster children; and (2)
Federal matching payments for States choosing to continue foster care
assistance up to the age of 21 for youth engaged in school, work, or
other constructive activities.
In announcing the hearing, Chairman McDermott stated, ``Our action
last fall to improve the child welfare system represented a bipartisan,
bicameral commitment to work together to significantly improve the
lives of our most vulnerable children. But our work is not done. We
need to both ensure a successful implementation of this new law and
continue to work to improve other aspects of the system in need of
reform.''
FOCUS OF THE HEARING:
The hearing will focus on the implementation of the Fostering
Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008.
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
``Committee Hearings''. 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, complete all informational forms and click ``submit'' on
the final page. ATTACH your submission as a Word or WordPerfect
document, in compliance with the formatting requirements listed below,
by close of business Tuesday, September 29, 2009. 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.
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.
Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on
the World Wide Web at http://waysandmeans.house.gov.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. The meeting will come to order.
A year ago, Congress passed the ``Fostering Connections to
Success and Increasing Adoptions Act.'' The basic premise of
the law is that foster children need the same things to succeed
that all children need: a safe home, caring family, good
education, and access to health care. And yet, the foster care
system too often unnecessarily disrupts connections to family
and home and school, whether it is expecting foster kids to go
it alone at age 18 or denying assistance to grandparents who
become legal guardians or unnecessarily displacing kids from
their schools or separating them from their siblings. Now, the
result is to sever and to reduce the links that foster children
need to successfully navigate their way to adulthood. With the
Fostering Connections Act, Congress acted on a bipartisan basis
to address these issues in a positive and proactive way.
Recently, our Committee has heard that the timing of the
legislation presents challenges for some of the States. Given
the recession and the havoc it has played on State budgets--and
I can testify for my own State, as well--while I understand the
harsh budget realities faced by nearly every State, I also know
that children in foster care can't wait for time when reform is
convenient.
All of us have a responsibility for foster children, and we
need to squarely meet that obligation. So I, therefore, thought
it was good to look forward to hearing from our witnesses about
the implementation of the law's new options and requirements.
The Committee is particularly interested in learning how
States have extended support to grandparents and other
relatives who wish to act as legal guardians for foster kids.
We are also interested in hearing how States intend to extend
foster care services up to the age of 21, as well as extend
other supports to older youth.
Furthermore, we would like to know if States have fulfilled
the new requirements related to providing greater oversight of
the health care and educational needs of all foster kids,
placing siblings together whenever possible, and notifying
relatives within 30 days of a child's removal from their
biological home.
Additionally, we are interested in learning about the
experience of those tribal governments who are planning to
operate their own tribal welfare system, as well as those that
are considering such a move. And, finally, we are looking
forward to hearing about the impact of the law on promoting and
increasing the number of kids who are adopted out of the foster
care system.
This act was a landmark piece of legislation. It included a
number of policy changes and reforms without adding one penny
to the Federal deficit. The legislation represents the Congress
at its very, very best. It shows what can be achieved when both
sides come together to work in good faith to address a problem.
There are certainly other challenges in the foster care
system that demand more of this vision and energy and
commitment. And I look forward to hearing from all our
witnesses today.
And now I yield to my colleague, Mr. Linder, for any
opening remarks he may wish to give.
Mr. LINDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today's hearing reviews the implementation of the Fostering
Connections law approved last fall. That law made important
changes we all hope will benefit young people in foster care.
Changes included stepped-up efforts to place children with
relatives instead of strangers and improved incentives for
adopting children out of foster care.
I am especially interested in provisions designed to
improve the school stability and performance of foster youth,
among others. We need to do a better job of ensuring foster
youth stay connected with their school. Research and common
sense suggest that would help more graduate on time instead of
dropping out, as too often happens. We welcome the testimony of
Kathleen McNaught of the American Bar Association on that
score, both on implementation of the law and on challenges that
remain to making that vision a reality.
While it is certainly worth reviewing these issues, I am
struck by what we are not considering today. For example, the
Subcommittee has jurisdiction over the special extended
unemployment benefits program created in June of 2008, which
already has been extended and expanded twice. The Federal
Government has paid or promised a total of $73 billion in
special and extended benefits to date. Proponents suggest that
this would stimulate the economy and create jobs, yet
unemployment has risen to 9.7 percent, nearly 2 percentage
points higher than stimulus supporters predicted.
Further stretching the bounds of logic, last week the
Administration claimed 1 million jobs had been created with the
stimulus law. In fact, there have been 3 million jobs
eliminated since February. This weekend, National Economic
Council Director Larry Summers said, ``Unemployment will, by
all forecasts, remain unacceptably high for a number of
years.''
Just currently approved spending has drained the State and
Federal unemployment accounts and will lead to deficits
totaling more than $100 billion by late 2010 and another $200
billion by 2012. Further extensions and expansions will add
massively to that tide of red ink. But what of the promised
jobs? When will they arrive? And, in the meantime, how high
will unemployment, spending, borrowing, and, ultimately, taxes
go? How much will that tax hike hurt job creation?
Those would be good topics for future hearings, too. It is
past time for us to review how we can really increase jobs so
laid-off workers can get paychecks, not unemployment checks.
We also recently learned that stimulus checks were paid to
thousands of current prisoners. Was that intended? How much did
that cost? Is that being fixed? Another excellent oversight
hearing for us.
Or how about the fact that New York State recently issued
$200 back-to-school checks to welfare and food stamp recipients
using Federal stimulus funds under our jurisdiction? That set
off a mad scramble for ATM withdrawals and spending on liquor,
flat screen TVs, and who knows what else--all with Federal
taxpayer dollars, all for the children, and especially
stimulative, we were told, because low-income folks were likely
to spend the money quickly. They did. Yet New York's
unemployment rate remains high and rising, as does the debt we
are leaving our children.
So while I welcome today's hearing, I respectfully suggest
there are other topics well worth exploring also. Those might
also provide useful information about ensuring taxpayer dollars
are well and effectively spent and maybe even about creating
real jobs. Everyone, including foster youth as they become
adults, would benefit from that.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to include in the
record at this point two articles that detail concerns about
recent abuses involving stimulus funds.
The first is an August 27th AP article that notes 3,900
stimulus checks went to inmates. As the article relates, some
checks were sent in error. About 2,200 of the inmates who
received checks got to keep them because, under the law, they
were eligible, said a spokesman for the Social Security
Administration.
The second article from CBS News on September 2nd relates
how welfare recipients in New York State received $200 back-to-
school payments, which some adults used to purchase flat-screen
TVs, video game systems, phone cards, and even cigarettes and
beer--none of which has anything to do with helping school
children go back to school, but all of which was paid for with
Federal stimulus dollars.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Without objection.
[The statement of Mr. McDermott follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Although, I would point out, those
subject matters are not before the Committee today. You might
want to keep them and also submit them again when we do have a
hearing on issues related to it.
All Members have 5 working days to submit statements for
the record.
And Mr. Camp has submitted a report, which I would like to
submit for the record. Without objection, they are entered in
the record.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Mr. Van Hollen is here to introduce our
first witness.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Well, first, thank you, Mr. Chairman and
Mr. Linder, for holding this hearing today, and thank you for
your work on the Fostering Connections legislation. This is an
opportunity for us to address the implementation of that
legislation.
I welcome all the witnesses, but I want to give a special
welcome from my State of Maryland to our secretary of human
resources in Maryland, Brenda Donald. And I want to thank her
for her leadership in Maryland.
And prior to serving the State of Maryland, helping with
foster kids and adoption and protective services, she was the
deputy Mayor of the District of Columbia, working on these
issues as well. So she has a lot of experience that has been
put to very good use in our State. And I know the congressional
delegation has enjoyed working with her and our Governor.
And welcome to this Committee. Thank you for being here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Ms. Donald.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BRENDA DONALD, OFFICE OF THE
SECRETARY, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, BALTIMORE,
MARYLAND
Ms. DONALD. Thank you very much. I really do appreciate the
opportunity to be here with you today.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Can I stop you for 1 second? Your whole
statement will be put in the record, so we hope that you will
stay within 5 minutes.
Ms. DONALD. Absolutely, sir. I know the ground rules.
And I do want to compliment you on your ``Save the
Children'' tie. It is most appropriate for today's hearing.
Shortly after Governor Martin O'Malley appointed me
secretary in February of 2007, I launched a comprehensive child
welfare reform agenda, known as ``Place Matters.'' The premise
is very simple and certainly quite consistent with the
Fostering Connections Act, and that is: Nothing matters more to
a child than a place to call home.
Since the inception of Place Matters, Maryland has made
some significant progress. In just 2 years, we have reduced the
number of children in care from 10,300 to 8,800 and reduced the
number of children in group homes by 40 percent. Seventy-2
percent of our children are currently in family settings, and
we are seeing record numbers of adoptions, guardianships, and
reunifications.
I would like to take my few minutes with you this afternoon
to discuss how we are implementing Fostering Connections in
Maryland. The act underscores some of what Maryland is already
doing around subsidized guardianships and supports for older
youth. It has also spurred activity in areas that Maryland
knows must be priorities. In this way, the act provides a
catalyst and a foundation to support further progress.
Nonetheless, this is comprehensive and complex legislation.
We have spent many hours strategizing about how to implement
Fostering Connections. As ahead of the curve as Maryland is in
some ways, it should not be a surprise that we are not quite
there yet. It will be a major lift to work successfully with
our State's health and education systems. In addition, we are
operating, as you mentioned, in an economic environment that
leaves little room for new programs or unfunded mandates.
In terms of the guardianship program, Maryland provided
subsidized guardianship payments before the act was passed. We
began with a 5-year Federal demonstration waiver that was
continued with State funding for about 500 children. Our
initial projections call for a recoupment of approximately
$600,000 annually when the Fostering Connections guardianship
program is fully implemented, and our intention is to reinvest
those funds to support other child welfare programs.
In terms of kinship providers, currently Maryland makes
foster care payments to some 700 relatives providing care to
about 900 children. Another 1,700 children, also placed with
relatives, receive a subsidy through child-only TANF dollars.
If all of these kin were to become licensed, as is encouraged
under the act, this could have a significant fiscal impact.
And I should point out also that all of our kin, whether
they are licensed and receiving room and board payments or TANF
only, still receive the same services and supports for their
children, and their children are part of our foster care
system.
In terms of older youth, Maryland currently provides a
robust support system for older youth already up to age 21.
Now, of course, youth over age 18 are currently not eligible
for Title IV-E reimbursement, so the services are entirely
State-funded. When the Fostering Connections provisions become
effective, they will generate significant additional Federal
funds for us to reinvest in critical services for children and
families. Thank you very much.
Maryland's independent living policy meets virtually all of
the new requirements, but we still require guidance for a
number of things: whether we can still make payments directly
to youth who are in our semi-independent living program; what
can be considered a supervised independent living setting; what
types of, quote/unquote, ``medical conditions'' might opt youth
out of educational or work provisions; and what types of
ongoing court supervision is required. And we await regulations
for those critical elements.
Fostering Connections provides a good foundation for
supporting educational stability and good outcomes for children
in foster care, but Maryland will need time to fully realize
this goal. We work very closely with our State department of
education, and our policies are consistent with the act.
However, full implementation requires considerable cooperation
and collaboration with 24 local education authorities. There
are a number of unanswered questions. We have to grapple with
issues of attendance records, transportation, and who is
responsible for the associated costs.
In terms of health care, our current health care system
meets many of the Federal requirements, but we have requested
an extension on the full implementation of this provision. We
are working with our State department of health around the
data-sharing element, and those will require legislation and
funding for technology upgrades, so we have asked for an
extension.
In summary, thank you again for this landmark legislation.
As I discuss with my colleagues what is missing, front-end
service is on everyone's list. We cannot emphasize strongly
enough the benefits of maintaining children safely at home when
at all possible.
Another critical need is that all children and families
found to be in need of public child welfare services we believe
should be eligible for Federal support. And I know many of the
panelists are going to talk about the delink issue, and so I
will leave that to their testimony.
And thank you for your time, and I am available for any
questions that you may have.
[The statement of Ms. Donald follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you for your testimony.
I must say that, like you, we are eager for the Senate to
confirm some appointments for the Department of Health and
Human Services on some of these program questions you will be
able to get answers from the Federal Government.
Mr. Davis of Illinois is here.
Mr. Davis, would you like to introduce your guest, Mr.
McEwen?
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And it is indeed my pleasure to introduce Mr. Erwin McEwen, the
director of the Illinois Department of Children and Family
Services.
Mr. Chairman, Illinois is a national leader in developing
and demonstrating the effectiveness of pioneering child welfare
reforms and the ``Fostering Connections to Success and
Increasing Adoptions Act,'' which enacts many of Illinois's
successful reforms.
Mr. McEwen, or ``Mac'' as we know him in Illinois, is
responsible for much of the vision and dedication to such
reforms in Illinois. He is a remarkable leader in improving
child welfare, and I am confident that his experience will help
our Subcommittee understand how States are implementing the
Fostering Connections law.
Mr. McEwen has an impressive academic and professional
background. He started his social work career 15 years prior to
earning his master's degree in social service administration at
the University of Chicago. He has worked throughout the
Illinois social service community, understanding the child
welfare system from the ground up.
Many State advisory commissions and councils have benefited
from his expertise. Indeed, Mr. McEwen has served as a Member
of the Illinois Statewide Foster Parent Advisory Council, the
Illinois Child Care Association Board of Directors, the Child
Welfare Advisory Committee on Performance-Based Contracting,
and the African-American Family Commission's Monitoring and
Oversight Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I have a very active child welfare advisory
Committee in my congressional district that is chaired by one
of the most dynamic and energetic women in America, a woman
named Annetta Wilson. And they are in constant contact with Mr.
McEwen and his staff on a regular and ongoing basis. And I look
forward to his comments today and welcome him.
Thank you very much.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. You are welcome.
We are holding this hearing today because we know the State
directors are all here in Washington, so we could get some live
ones right up here today.
And we welcome you, Mr. McEwen.
STATEMENT OF ERWIN MCEWEN, DIRECTOR, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
Mr. MCEWEN. Thank you, Chairman McDermott, Ranking Member
Linder, and a big thanks to Congressman Davis from Illinois,
who is a great supporter of our department in Illinois in
helping us get the job done.
My name is Erwin McEwen. I am the director of the Illinois
Department of Children and Family Services. We call it one of
the most reformed child welfare systems in the Nation. We have
been working really hard since the implementation of the
``Adoptions and Safe Family Act'' in 1997, when we had about
53,000 children in care. Now in Illinois we have about 16,000
children in care. And so we have really been working on trying
to find ways to reduce the number of kids in care and better
provide services to families. And this legislation is a big
help to us in accomplishing that.
Even though we have our deficit challenges and budget
problems in Illinois, just like a lot of other States, it is
not going to prevent us from implementing this legislation and
some of the important parts of it.
One of the ones I really want to talk about is supporting
youth, the improvement of being able to provide services to
youth between 18 and 21. In Illinois, we participated in a
three-State study with Chapin Hall, a longitudinal study that
looked at children in care who age out of care between the ages
of 18 and 21. That study is now in its fourth phase, I think,
and I think we are looking at kids 26 years old.
But what we know from that research is that kids do better
when they have the support of the State; that a lot of kids in
care, they graduate high school in later years, 19 and 20, as
opposed to 18 in the general population, and having the benefit
and the support of the State is critical. And so we really,
really look favorably upon that part of the legislation and
wish you could implement it today rather than wait until
October the 1st of 2010.
In Illinois, we have carried kids in care to 21 for a long
time. It is optional up to 19. And we recently just passed--
Governor Quinn signed into law, our legislators passed,
``Foster Child Successful Transition Into Adulthood.'' What
this legislation does is it allows kids who make the choice of
leaving the system at 18 and 19 years old and then find out how
difficult it is to go it alone to come back into care and
receive the support of the State up to 21. And we just passed
that legislation in anticipation of that October the 1st date
when we will be able to get some help from the Federal
Government to also support these kids.
The idea is that education is extremely important, allowing
kids to finish school and go on to college. We have got about a
thousand kids in our Youth in College program in Illinois, of
that 16,000 kids. It is important for foster children to have
that opportunity for education.
In looking at education, we have also implemented our
``SchoolMinder'' rotational intake. What that does is we try to
identify the closest foster home to the child's home of origin
so that they don't have to change schools and so that, if they
can maintain the same school placement as when they came into
care, it helps them have better educational outcomes, because
we know that changing in school placements creates a great deal
of problems for kids and it sets them back even further than
they may already be set back.
We have met some challenges in implementing that program,
but, using that same technology, we are now able to pinpoint
where we need to do foster care recruitment so that we can try
to increase the number of available foster homes and keep those
kids close to their homes of origin. And this is, again, going
to help us achieve those goals in education that we are looking
at.
And we just also recently passed the ``DCFS Service Plans
Improvement and Foster Permanency Changes Act.'' And, in this
act, we allowed the courts to reinstate parental rights on
children who turn 13 or older in the system. And I know this
may raise some eyebrows, but that same study that we did, it
also showed that kids who turn 13 and 14 years old in the
foster care system have a 98 percent chance of aging out of
care and not going to permanency.
And so what we were trying to do was create ways of working
more closely with parents. It doesn't always lead to
reunification, but we know when kids exit care they return to
their parents' home. And so, how can we work with parents who
may be able to now care for these teenagers when they were
unable to care for kids? And how do we help the kids to learn
to how to navigate and work with their families and not be
reinjured or reharmed in returning to home on their own? And so
we look forward to working in that area, as well.
The other area that we looked at is supporting relative
care. We think it is important. We just have one concern about
the legislation. In looking at the legislation and
understanding that you grandfathered in our kids who are in our
subsidized guardianship category, who are in already through
our demonstration project, we had concerns about other
relatives who might not be licensed or unable to become
licensed or not willing to engage in that process and not being
able to claim those kids as well. Because we believe that that
is great placement for those kids. A lot of the child and
family services reviews have determined that those are good
placements for these children. And we would like to have the
support of the Federal Government in those placements.
I see I am out of time. The last thing I wanted to talk
about was the delinking issue, but I am sure some of our other
panelists will address that issue as well.
[The statement of Mr. McEwen follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you very much.
Our next witness is Jackie Johnson Pata, who is the
executive director for the National Congress of American
Indians.
Jackie.
STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE JOHNSON PATA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS
Ms. PATA. Thank you very much.
On behalf of our country's tribal nations, NCIA, National
Congress of American Indians, is pleased to present our
testimony on the implementation of the Fostering Connections
Act.
And I wanted to let you know that our testimony has been
drafted in concert with the National Indian Child Welfare
Association and the Association for American Indian Affairs,
who we have been collaborating with on the implementation
issues. And, of course, we look forward to working with this
Subcommittee as the act is implemented, with consultation with
tribal nations.
Of course, we have looked forward to this for a couple of
decades, of trying to get tribal inclusion and access to Title
IV-E, and so we were very excited around the inclusion. And I
am going to talk a little bit about what some of our
observations are about tribal nations, activities regarding the
act, and also some challenges that we foresee in the
implementation.
To date, we have 73 tribes who have signaled that they are
interested in implementing the program and signed a letter of
intent to the Children's Bureau. We have 15 tribal entities who
have applied for the development grant that support the Title
IV-E readiness activities for up to 2 years. And given the
number of tribes that have participated in other kinds of
similar Federal programs, like the TANF implementation one,
that was eligible, this shows a very healthy response from
Indian country and a great interest in moving forward to
participate in these programs that we think are very critical
to our communities.
We also have some challenges with these opportunities. But
in the opportunities it creates, we have seen a lot of things
happening as far as improved discussions with States as tribes
and States work on collaborating how the implementation will be
and who will take responsibility in the coordination. And so,
we see an opportunity for improved cooperation and cooperative
agreements.
We also see tribes engaging more in broad child welfare
reform within their own communities, really talking about where
we are with the seventh generation and how we are addressing
our tribal children's needs.
And we are looking at additional tribal requests for
technical assistance in implementing the program, particularly
culturally relevant technical assistance that can help us adapt
to our community structures. And then we have been having
forums at the national level with strategies on implementation
and trying to share the information and best practices.
Some of the tribes, a couple of the tribes, see this as an
opportunity for totally revamping and really making some
meaningful system changes. Currently, the Navajo Nation, the
largest nation in this country, and my own tribe, the Tlingit
and Haida tribes of Alaska, are two examples who are seeking
this as an opportunity for total revamping or really re-
evaluating our systems.
And even though, you know, one of the greatest challenges,
of course, that all tribes are really having to take time to
assess is the in-kind contributions. And I think that, you
know, we will talk a little bit about that, but the match
requirement and the challenges that gives for tribes,
particularly without really knowing some of the nuances of how
those regulations will be developed, so what will be an
eligible match or not.
And given the current, as you heard from the State
directors, the current economic conditions of the country
affect tribal nations the same way. We are trying to get the
additional matches that are necessary for us to implement these
kinds of programs.
We are looking for opportunities that this act helps our
communities. We know that we will have to deal with tribal
court and code reform. We will have to deal, as I said before,
with culturally relevant appropriate technical assistance at
the local level, but clearly developing for the first time the
kinds of data and accounting systems that are necessary for our
coordination, either with our State parties or for reporting
requirements to HHS. And so, we have been doing a lot of work,
our organization, with other organizations, looking at existing
systems in tribes that receive Federal assistance and how that
data reporting works and how we can look at streamlining those
data systems to make them work in our tribal communities.
But we also know that it is going to be important for HHS
and the Children's Bureau to be very responsive to the unique
needs in tribal communities, and so we are looking forward to
developing forums of ongoing dialog as we talk about program
implementation and policy development. We want to be able to
make sure that we utilize the expertise in Indian country and
that their voice is heard within the Department as they develop
their policy regulations and that we adequately understand the
agency's requirements and expectations.
But when we get into some of the implementation challenges,
of course we were glad that the Committee and Congress made
sure that tribal consortias were eligible to apply--that is a
good forum for us--protecting tribal children's eligibility for
services when they switch from States to tribal or to direct
funding, tribal direct funding.
But we also know that, as I said earlier, the sufficient
non-Federal sources to meet the match requirement is probably
going to be one of the biggest barriers for tribes as we deal
with the implementation. I remember when my own tribe was one
of the first ones to take on the TANF programs, and we
struggled, as a tribe, being able to meet the match. We are
Alaska tribes with very few resources for our own programs, our
own citizens' programs that we need to do.
And, also, securing the development of compliant automated
data systems.
And then, also, the unique tribal service delivery issues
with the multi-State needs of Navajo Nation, for example. It is
over three States, and so that nation will have to address the
requirements of three States. Or perhaps maybe we will be able
to work out some flexibility with HHS or re-address or re-
evaluate some flexibility to be able to make sure that they
could have a program that is consistent throughout their nation
but still meet the requirements that the States will also need.
So there will be some conversations that we need to deal with
that.
And then, of course, securing the development grants for
timely--to be able to assist in the program readiness. Right
now, with 15 tribes already indicating that they would like to
apply for those funds, that means only a third of those tribes
will be eligible to receive the development funds, which means
that we will have to wait another 2-year cycle before the next
third could be eligible. And so we are looking at a very slow
implementation for tribes unless we are able to deal with the
resources.
And then, as I said earlier, once again, going back to the
in-kind match, being able to make sure that when HHS develops
the regulations, that we are able to broaden the use of those
match requirements in the regulations.
But I would like to thank you very much for making sure
that tribes were included in this legislation. It was a
landmark for us. We think it is really going to change the way
that we deal with the welfare of our Indian children. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Pata follows:]
Statement of Jacqueline Johnson Pata, Executive Director, National
Congress of American Indians (NCAI)
On behalf of our country's tribal nations, the National Congress of
American Indians (NCAI) is pleased to present testimony on
Implementation of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing
Adoptions Act. The recommendations that we are making are supported by
the National Indian Child Welfare Association and the Association of
American Indian Affairs, with whom we collaborate on this and other
child welfare matters. We look forward to working with this
Subcommittee to ensure that the critical programs and initiatives
authorized and supported by this body are implemented with
effectiveness in consultation with tribal governments.
This Act authorizes tribes, for the first time, to receive
administer the Title IV-E federal programs for foster care and adoption
assistance. While tribal governments are not eligible to receive
reimbursement from Title IV-E under this law until October 1, 2009,
there has been increasing interest from tribal governments to prepare
for implementation of this important new funding and service
opportunities for their children, families and communities. The work of
the Ways and Means Committee along with this Subcommittee was crucial
to the enactment of this new law and the many benefits we see beginning
to take shape. In particular, we want to recognize the leadership of
Chairman McDermott, former Ranking Member Weller, Representative
Pomeroy, and Representative Camp. Through their support, the Fostering
Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act authorizes tribes
to directly administer the Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption
Assistance programs.
NCAI has facilitated numerous tribal discussions regarding
implementation of the Act. This testimony reflects our observations on
tribal activities regarding the Act and some of the challenges to
tribal participation in the Title IV-E program. Not since the 1978
enactment of the Indian Child Welfare Act has there been a federal law
with such potential for positively transforming tribal child welfare
services for American Indian and Alaska Native children.
As the number of tribal governments participating in the Title IV-E
program increases, we anticipate that the number of our tribal children
achieving permanency will also grow significantly.
Implementation Achievements
While at this early stage in the process, there are not any tribes
directly administering the IV-E program, there are good indications of
interest and progress being made towards tribes successfully applying
to directly administer the Title IV-E program. As of the date of this
hearing, approximately 73 tribal entities have signaled their interest
in submitting a plan to operate the Title IV-E program through letters
of intent provided to the Children's Bureau. These tribal entities
include singular tribal governments, tribal organizations, and tribal
consortia. They represent tribal entities from seven out of the ten
federal regions in the United States. In addition, 15 tribal entities
have submitted grant applications for the development grants authorized
under the law that provide tribes with funding to support their Title
IV-E readiness activities for up to two years. Given the number of
tribes that applied to operate similar federal assistance programs
after they have become available for the first time, including
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Child Support Enforcement,
these numbers represent a healthy tribal interest and movement towards
participating in the Title IV-E program.
Other areas where there are indicators of progress in implementing
the new law include:
Increased discussion with states on collaboration
regarding Title IV-E;
More tribes engaging in broad child welfare reform
within their communities;
Additional tribal requests for technical assistance
on implementing the Title IV-E program; and
Forums and workgroups being formed to facilitate
discussion of implementation issues and development of tribal
strategies for addressing these issues.
Since enactment last October, states and tribes have been engaged
in discussions regarding the opportunities present in the new law, the
role of each government in supporting greater access to IV-E services
to tribal children, and new strategies for increasing tribal support to
operate the program directly. In several states there have been
discussions about states continuing--and even increasing--tribal access
to state Title IV-E resources, including funding to meet non-federal
match requirements and data collection systems. Some tribes are
considering contracting with state or county agencies to perform
certain specific IV-E functions with the tribe as the lead applicant,
such as eligibility determinations, and others are looking at mutually
beneficial training activities authorized under the law. Another
important area of collaboration is information sharing between tribes
and states to help tribal children maintain their eligibility for
health and other services provided under other federal or state
programs. Memorandums of Understanding and intergovernmental agreements
are being discussed and will likely be available for broader
dissemination in the future.
One of the barriers for tribal governments engaging in large-scale
child welfare reform has been the absence of a solid funding base. With
the opportunity to access Title IV-E funding many tribes can now
consider meaningful systems change. Two tribal nations that are engaged
in child welfare reform and have expressed an interest in applying for
Title IV-E directly are the Navajo Nation and the Tlingit and Haida
Indian Tribes of Alaska. Both tribes are working with the National
Indian Child Welfare Association through the Administration for
Children and Families' Western and Pacific Implementation Center
(www.wpic.org), which is part of the Children's Bureau technical
assistance network. These tribes were selected for participation from
among a number of applicants, including states, counties and tribes.
They will be required to evaluate their entire child welfare system,
including current and proposed funding sources like Title IV-E, and
plan and implement system changes to improve outcomes for their tribal
children and families. The systems reforms they are planning now will
help them become better prepared to operate the IV-E program directly
and potentially become a model for other tribes. Without the potential
access to Title IV-E, it is unlikely that these tribes could have
undertaken these extensive efforts.
A number of national organizations, both Indian and non-Indian,
have come together since last October to provide forums for discussion
of key implementation issues, such as strategies for culturally-
appropriate technical assistance, tribal court and code reform, and
resources for developing tribal IV-E data systems. The organizations
include National Congress of American Indians, National Indian Child
Welfare Association, Association on American Indian Affairs, Casey
Family Programs and Child Welfare League of America. Together they have
provided over 20 technical assistance events for tribes both regionally
and locally, developed a number of critical written resource materials
for tribes, and have often consulted with state and federal agencies on
Title IV-E implementation matters. These collaborations have been
provided without federal support and are continuing today.
Several regional Indian organizations, including the All Indian
Pueblo Council in New Mexico and the Indian Child and Family Resource
Center in Montana, have been providing technical assistance and helping
tribes assess their readiness to operate the Title IV-E program. In
addition, we have witnessed a number of states holding forums to
discuss implementation issues and offer technical assistance to tribes
when requested.
Tribes have also had good access to the Children's Bureau through
regional forums and conference calls regarding the new law and program
requirements of Title IV-E. The Children's Bureau, like many of the
technical assistance providers, has a steep learning curve in preparing
for implementation of the law, but has provided quick responses to
issues that have been raised by tribes and Indian organizations. The
Children's Bureau has a key role in helping tribes with implementing
the IV-E programs. This role includes being responsive to unique tribal
needs, utilizing the expertise and knowledge in Indian Country, and
adequately explaining their agency's requirements and expectations.
Implementation Challenges
Congress anticipated several of the challenges that tribes might
have in trying to implement the IV-E program and included specific
provisions to address those issues, such as making tribal consortia
eligible to apply, protecting tribal children's eligibility for
services when tribes switch from an agreement to direct funding, and
establishing tribal-specific technical assistance. However, some
additional challenges for tribes are starting to appear. The top
challenges currently are:
Identifying sufficient non-federal match sources to
meet IV-E requirements;
Securing the development of a Title IV-E compliant
automated data system;
Managing unique tribal service delivery issues that
were not contemplated in the IV-E program; and
Securing a development grant in a timely manner to
assist program readiness.
Match Requirements. A key challenge for tribal governments who are
considering operation of the Title IV-E program is meeting the non-
federal match requirements. Even with the allowances for the use of
third party in-kind sources and expanded cash match sources many tribes
are finding it difficult to identify sufficient match sources. This is
not a measure of tribal commitment to the operation of foster care
services or lack of capacity to effectively run the IV-E program, but
rather a reflection of the economic realities that many tribes face.
With unemployment rates in many tribal communities above 20% and
poverty rates well above the national average, many tribes' ability to
generate unrestricted general revenue is extremely limited. This is
especially for true for those tribes that are in more geographically
isolated rural areas where economic and job development opportunities
are scarce. As has been the case with the TANF program, tribes that
have been able to take advantage of this program are usually those
tribes that either have enough of an economic base to match federal
payments or have been able to secure matching funds from states. While
there are benefits for states to provide funding to help tribes
participate in federal programs and serve their community members, a
number of states with tribes in them do not provide this support.
The Fostering Connections Act provides some use of in-kind funds
for tribes to use as a non-federal match, and gives DHHS until October
2011 to implement final regulations. In light of the difficulty for
tribes to identify sufficient match funds, we urge that the final in-
kind regulations be as broad as possible so as to eliminate any
unnecessary limitations that are hindering the Act's effective
application. We appreciate that Congress provided this flexibility with
regard to the final tribal in-kind regulations and urge you to monitor
this issue.
Data Systems. Title IV-E requires tribes and states to collect and
submit required data via an automated data system. State experiences
with this task indicate that development of this data system can be
both very expensive and time consuming. One larger tribe recently told
us that even with a $300,000 development grant they could easily spend
all of the development grant, and more, getting a comprehensive system
in place, and that it would take the full two years or more to develop
and successfully test the system. As tribes consider whether to apply
for and accept development grant funding, the ability to create a
viable data system looms very large. Tribes are exploring their
options, and organizations like the National Congress of American
Indians and National Indian Child Welfare Association are trying to
assist tribes through the creation of written materials and development
of open source data system software that any tribe could use without
expense. In addition, the National Congress of American Indians is
developing a report and guidance on data system issues for tribes
examining the option of operating the IV-E program. The Children's
Bureau has indicated that they will soon be issuing data system
protocols for tribes that will clarify some of the questions, including
whether tribes could collect and report data using simplified
electronic spreadsheet software. Nonetheless, many tribes are
interested in developing a more comprehensive system similar to the
State Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) that provides
more coordinated information collection across all child welfare
service areas and is available for greater federal reimbursement under
IV-E.
Unique Tribal Service Delivery Issue. Tribal service delivery and
jurisdictional realities are very different than those for states,
which creates unique challenges in meeting IV-E requirements and
managing the program as effectively and efficiently as possible. As an
example, several tribes have tribal lands in more than one state.
Because Fostering Connections requires that individual tribal
children's eligibility is based upon the state from which they were
removed, tribes with reservation lands in more than one state will have
to manage differing eligibility standards for their children, making
program administration complicated and inefficient. These types of
challenges could be relatively easily addressed if the Children's
Bureau had the flexibility to issue waivers to address these types of
non-safety issues.
Development Grants. Title IV-E is an admittedly complex and
administratively time-consuming program to operate--even for states.
Tribes have been working diligently to evaluate their readiness and
construct plans for getting their programs and communities ready to
operate this important program. For most tribes, this means securing a
development grant authorized under the Fostering Connections Act to
assist them in many of the readiness activities needed to successfully
apply for and operate the program. However, the Children's Bureau
estimates that only five tribal development grants a year will be
available. With 15 applicants this year, even under the best
circumstances a third of these will have to wait an additional two
years before beginning their readiness activities and another two years
before they will likely be able to submit an application for approval.
For the children that need these services now, the wait to get these
services and protections is critical barrier.
Conclusion
The opportunities for tribal governments under the Fostering
Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act have the potential
to transform child welfare services for tribal children and families in
several significant ways. Creating access to new funding to support
permanency services, helping provide support for new data systems,
training of care providers and agency staff, and helping tribal
governments fulfill their governmental responsibility to serve their
communities are some of the most important. As we have seen in other
federal programs, tribal governments are ready to apply their expertise
and knowledge of their community to develop the most effective programs
for their children. We thank you for the opportunity to share our
observations regarding the progress tribes are making in implementing
the Title IV-E program, and we appreciate this Subcommittee's support
and leadership in these crucial matters.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. I did not point out that the committee
is joined by one of the Members of the Full Committee, Earl
Pomeroy from North Dakota, who is one of those who was very
often bending my ear on this issue.
Ms. PATA. Yes. And in my written testimony, we definitely
mention that, Earl Pomeroy, and certainly Congressman Camp and
yourself, who have been very, very instrumental in helping us
be included. Thank you.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you for your testimony.
Our next witness is Margaret Anderson.
I understand you are called ``Greta.''
Ms. ANDERSON. Yes.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. So we will welcome your testimony.
She is a former foster youth and college student in
Wisconsin----
Ms. ANDERSON. Correct.
Chairman MCDERMOTT [continuing]. And is going to tell us
how it actually works on the ground.
So, Greta, you are on.
STATEMENT OF MARGARET ``GRETA'' ANDERSON, FORMER FOSTER CARE
YOUTH AND COLLEGE STUDENT, EAU CLAIRE, WISCONSIN
Ms. ANDERSON. Okay.
Chairman McDermott, Ranking Member Linder, and Members of
the Subcommittee, I am honored to be given the opportunity to
share my story with such impactful and inspiring people today.
So, really, thank you for having me.
Among the 14 Members of Congress on this Subcommittee, you
have nearly 40 children--that is a lot--and a few
grandchildren, too, from what I hear.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. You have been looking on our Web sites.
Ms. ANDERSON. That is right.
But, in reality, as citizens and as elected officials, you
also act as Mom and Dad for the half-million children and young
adults in foster care, and I am one of them.
My name is Greta Anderson. I am 21 years old and was a
foster youth in Wisconsin. I am proud to say that I am
currently a junior at the University of Wisconsin-Stout, but my
educational outlook wasn't always so rosy.
Much of my high school education was attained in hospitals.
I attended nine different schools during my high school career,
and six of them were in hospital-like treatment facilities. A
school in a treatment facility meant a room designated for us
to do homework catch-up in, not a classroom where I would be
attaining the same knowledge as my peers. Consequently, to
graduate with my class, I took summer school every summer, as
well as attending night classes 3 days a week on top of a part-
time job my senior year.
With this scattered educational experience, the most I
could do was to concentrate on finishing high school. When I
applied for college, I did so on a whim. I thought my high
school career had been too messy to ever be considered college
material until a school counselor told me that I should write a
strong essay, fill out an extenuating circumstances form, and
apply anyway.
I took the ACT in June 2006, and, after seeing that I did
well enough to get accepted, I applied for college in July. I
received a scholarship from Wisconsin's Department of Children
and Family Services in August and officially decided to start
school that September. I had no idea how I would finance the
following years of my education; I just knew that if this was
my ticket out I wanted to give it my best shot.
When I was placed into guardianship with a relative at age
16, many of the problems that had initially led to my removal
from my family were better, but they weren't gone. I felt
gypped. I didn't get the help youth who aged out of the foster
care system got, but I also lacked the financial support from
my biological family, meaning I was left to support myself.
At a Wisconsin Youth Advisory Council meeting in October of
last year, my State independent living coordinator did a
presentation called, ``Exciting New Legislation.'' When I
learned how the Fostering Connections Act would impact all
youth in care after the age of 16, I was ecstatic. I remember
turning to the girl next to me and excitedly saying, ``This is
going to change my life.''
When the ``Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing
Adoptions'' legislation was passed, it made it possible for
young people across the country who find permanence through
guardianship to retain their eligibility for services through
their independent living program, including support for higher
education.
This year was the first time my estimated family
contribution on my FAFSA coincided with the actual financial
contribution my family is able to make: $0. Access to Chaffee
funding and services make it possible for me to concentrate on
my studies and not be faced with choosing to drop out to
support myself with minimum-wage jobs. Doors have opened
because now I am eligible for many more potential grant and
loan opportunities.
My first year of college was the first time I had been
allowed to focus on something bigger than merely surviving,
and, although I liked it, it was an adjustment. I didn't know
how not to worry about my family, and although I had emotional
intelligence, I lacked a strong foundation in logic-based
classes, such as math and science. College was the first chance
I had to receive a normal education, not one interrupted by
placement changes, meetings with social workers, and court
dates.
The college experience is one every foster youth deserves.
Had I not received the additional financial support made
possible by the Fostering Connections Act, it would have been
very easy for me to wallow in self-pity about the educational
opportunities that were not available to me. This semester is
the first where I will not be taking out the maximum amount in
student loans for living expenses. And when I graduate from
college, I will be in a stronger position to tackle adulthood.
Over this past summer, I have had the opportunity to intern
as a FosterClub All-Star. I led conferences aimed at youth
empowerment, showing them there is life after foster care and
that it can be more and better than they ever dreamed. To be
able to tell foster youth that there are opportunities out
there gives kids without a lot of hope something to hold on to.
I have met so many of my brothers and sisters of the system
who are hungry for a better future, and you are opening that
door for them. In one of our workshops, FosterClub asks foster
youth who plans to go to college and they raise their hand. We
always get an overwhelming response. Usually at least 90
percent say ``yes.'' It is hopeful to know that foster youth do
indeed aspire to pursue their educational dreams.
But we all know that the statistics don't reflect those
dreams being reality for most foster youth. Foster care and
circumstances that lead to it place obstacles in our path that
don't always exist for our peers. The fact that even 3 percent
of foster youth are going to college is a testament to foster
kids' resiliency. I feel like the question that we need to be
asking is not, ``Why youth are failing?'' but, more important,
``Why do some foster youth succeed? What resources are they
using? And how can we help even more foster youth succeed?''
For the past 2 years, I have traveled to my State capitol
with the Youth Advisory Council to advocate for extending
foster care until 21 in Wisconsin. When I spoke to legislators
prior to the passing of the Fostering Connections Act, I was
often told, ``Yes, we agree, but where is the money coming
from?'' For the first time last year, I was able to tell them
that the Federal Government would support State legislators'
decision with funding, and they were much more receptive.
It has been shown through research, which was mentioned
earlier, that youth in States where foster care goes until 21
are succeeding at much higher rates. And because of this
legislation, many States are going to be better prepared to
offer their youth that chance at success.
This year marks the 10th anniversary of the ``Foster Care
Independence Act,'' which established the Chaffee program and
created new opportunities for youth aging out of foster care to
achieve their goals and dreams. The Fostering Connections Act
builds on the legacy of Chaffee to expand opportunities to more
foster youth and allows States to truly foster our potential as
a parent would.
Thank you for supporting me and my 513,000 brothers and
sisters of the system.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Anderson follows:]
Statement of Margaret ``Greta'' Anderson, Former Foster Care Youth and
College Student, Au Claire, Wisconsin
Chairman McDermott, Ranking Member Weller, and Members of the
subcommittee, I am honored to be given the opportunity to share my
story with such impactful and inspiring people today.
Among the fourteen Members of Congress on this subcommittee, you
have nearly 40 children, and probably a few grandchildren, too. In
reality, as citizens and as elected official, you also act as mom and
dad for the half million children and young adults in foster care. I am
one of them.
My name is Greta Anderson. I am 21 years old and was a foster youth
in Wisconsin. I am proud to say that I am currently a junior at the
University of Wisconsin--Stout, but my educational outlook wasn't
always so rosy.
Much of my high school education was attained in hospitals. I
attended 9 different schools during my high school career and six of
them were in hospital-like treatment facilities. A school in a
treatment facility meant a room designated for us to do homework catch-
up in, not a classroom where I would be attaining the same knowledge as
my peers. Consequently, to graduate with my class, I took summer school
every summer as well as attending night classes three days a week on
top of a part-time job my senior year.
With this scattered educational experience, the most I could do was
to concentrate on finishing high school. When I applied for college, I
did it on a whim. I thought my high school career was too messy to ever
be considered college material until a school counselor told me that I
should write a strong essay, fill out an extenuating circumstances
form, and apply anyway. I took the ACT in June 2006, and after seeing
that I did well enough to get accepted, I applied for college in July.
I received a scholarship from Wisconsin's Department of Children and
Family Services in August and officially decided to start school that
September. I had no idea how I would finance the following years of my
education; I just knew that if this was my ticket out, I wanted to give
it my best shot.
When I was placed into guardianship with a relative at age 16, many
of the problems that had initially lead to my removal from my family
were better, but not gone. I felt gypped; I didn't get the help youth
who aged out of the foster care system got, but I also lacked the
support from my biological family, meaning I was left to support
myself.
At a Wisconsin Youth Advisory Council meeting in October of last
year, my state Independent Living Coordinator did a presentation
called, ``Exciting New Legislation!'' When I learned how The Fostering
Connections Act would impact all youth in care after the age of
sixteen, I was ecstatic. I remember turning to the girl next to me and
excitedly saying, ``this is going to change my life . . .''
When the Fostering Connections to Success and Increased Adoptions
legislation was passed, it made it possible for young people across the
country who find permanence through guardianship to retain their
eligibility for services through their Independent Living Program,
including support for higher education. This year was the first time my
Estimated Family Contribution on my FAFSA coincided with the actual
financial contribution my family is able to make--zero dollars. Access
to Chaffee funding and services make it possible for me to concentrate
on my studies and not be faced with choosing to drop out to support
myself with a minimum wage jobs. Doors have opened because now I am
eligible for many more potential grant and loan prospects.
My first year of college was the first time I had been allowed to
focus on something bigger than merely surviving, and although I liked
it, it was an adjustment. I didn't know how not to worry about my
family, and although I had emotional intelligence, I lacked a strong
foundation in logic-based classes such as math and science. College was
the first chance I had to receive a ``normal'' education, not one
interrupted by placement changes, meetings with social workers and
court dates.
The college experience is one every foster youth deserves. Had I
not received the additional financial support made possible by the
Fostering Connections Act, it would have been very easy for me to
wallow in self-pity about the educational opportunities that were not
available to me. This semester is the first where I will not be taking
out the maximum amount in student loans for living expenses,, when I
graduate from college, I will be in a stronger position to tackle
adulthood.
Over this past summer, I had the opportunity to intern as a
FosterClub All-Star. I led conferences aimed at youth empowerment,
showing them that there is life after foster care and it can be more
and better than they ever dreamed. To be able to tell foster youth that
there are opportunities out there gives kids without a lot of hope,
something to hold on to. I've met so many of my brothers and sisters of
the system who are hungry for a better future, and you are opening that
door for them. In one of our workshops, FosterClub asks foster youth
who plan to go to college raise their hand. We always get an
overwhelming response--usually at least 90% say ``YES.'' It is hopeful
to know that foster youth do indeed aspire to pursue their educational
dreams.
But we all know that the statistics don't reflect those dreams
becoming reality for most foster youth. Foster care and the
circumstances that lead to it place obstacles in our path that don't
exist for our peers. The fact that even 3% of foster youth are going to
college is a testament to foster kids' resiliency. I feel like the
question we need to be asking is not why youth are failing, but, more
important, why do some foster youth succeed? What resources are they
using? How can we help even more foster youth succeed?
For the past two years I have traveled to my state capitol with the
Youth Advisory Council to advocate for extending foster care until 21
in Wisconsin. When I spoke to legislators prior to the passing of The
Fostering Connections Act, I was often told, ``Yes, we agree. But where
is the money coming from?'' For the first time last year I was able to
tell them that the Federal Government would support state legislators'
decision with funding, and they were much more receptive. It has been
shown through research that youth in states where foster care goes
until 21 are succeeding at higher rates, and because of this
legislation many states are going to be better prepared to offer their
youth that chance at success.
This year marks the tenth anniversary of the Foster Care
Independence Act, which established the Chafee Program and created new
opportunities for youth aging out of foster care to achieve their goals
and dreams. The Fostering Connections Act builds on the legacy of
Chafee to expand opportunities to more foster youth, and allows states
to truly ``foster'' our potential as a parent would. Thank you for
supporting me and my 513,000 brothers and sisters in foster care.
Greta Anderson
Wisconsin
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Ms. ANDERSON. Thank you.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Ms. Linda Spears is the vice president
for policy and public affairs for the Child Welfare League of
America.
Ms. Spears.
STATEMENT OF LINDA SPEARS, VICE PRESIDENT, POLICY AND PUBLIC
AFFAIRS, CHILD WELFARE LEAGUE OF AMERICA, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
Ms. SPEARS. Thank you, Chairman McDermott.
I have to start by thanking Greta for her wonderful words
that bring this to reality so that we all understand the
concrete nature of the benefits that this program can bring to
young people.
I also want to thank the chairman, Ranking Member Linder,
and Members of the subcommittee for their stellar work in this
regard and for having this hearing today and inviting us to
testify.
As you all know, this legislation was passed in 2008 to
bring some of these agenda items to the fore. I will not go
through a detailed review of each and every piece of the bill,
but I do want to highlight for you some of the momentous
concerns that we have and some of the progress that we think is
being made on the legislation.
As you know, provisions of the bill call for improvements
in services to youth in transition, like this young lady
sitting next to me; improvements in kinship care and
guardianship; educational awareness and educational
programming; health care and adoptive services. As you know,
each of these pieces is phased and will take some time to
implement, and many States are struggling with implementation.
As of October 1st, the legislation will take one important
step, and that is that it will replace--I am going to start
where others didn't, which is to start with the delink, so we
talk about it.
As of beginning October 1, the legislation will take one
small but important step in beginning to replace the outdated
eligibility requirements that now exist in Title IV-E by
phasing out the eligibility link between special-needs adoptive
children and the nonexistent Aid to Families with Dependent
Children program.
We are looking forward to the completion of this work
because we believe that this should be extended beyond this to
also cover eligibility for children in kinship care and in
foster care eligibility in the same way. CWLA appreciates the
recent action of a Member of this Subcommittee, Congressman
John Lewis, for his recent introduction of H.R. 3329, which
addresses this challenge, and we look forward to working with
him and this Subcommittee on this further.
Positive developments that I want to talk about in regards
to implementation: This legislation is historic in its reach
and its nature. The new policies come, however, at a time, as
we have already mentioned, that is filled with challenges, as
the Nation faces a severe recession. And States are having to
enact cuts in not only court child welfare services, but across
a spectrum of programs that affect children and families.
States in recent years have relied on a range of Federal
funds to address child welfare service system needs. Two of
these are TANF and the Social Services Block Grant, which have
respectively provided 19 and 12 percent of the total Federal
funds used for child welfare. These two block grants have also
been under demand as States look to address the concerns
created by their straining State budgets. As a result, many
States have not been able to adopt the full provisions that
have been required under the new law.
An additional challenge that we are facing in
implementation is the challenge of transition from one
administration to the other, as has already been referenced.
Recent history tells us that these transitions take longer and
longer after each changeover. The end result of Fostering
Connections has been delay in guidance that is needed by the
States to do the implementation work that they need. As
Secretary Donald talked about, many of the requirements and
guidance that she would like to have she is still waiting for.
CWLA believes that such an expansive and important reform
requires an aggressive promotion and training by HHS in regard
to what States can and should do in implementing the law. We
find that, as we talk with our Members, public and private,
across the country, that they are eager to learn about the new
law and how the policy changes that it encourages can be
implemented based on best practice models. But we feel that
nothing carries the leadership weight of the HHS in providing
some guidance and clarity around these issues.
It is encouraging to see that some of the policy changes
are beginning to take place despite barriers that may be in
their way. As of last week, the Children's Bureau indicated
that seven States, plus the District of Columbia, have filed
plan amendments to extend Title IV-E funding to kinship
subsidized guardianship. These States are Connecticut, Maine,
Missouri, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island, whose request
has been approved, along with Tennessee.
In addition, through our informal surveys and our
conversations with other partner organizations like American
Public Human Services Association and our discussion with our
Members, we know that Illinois, Michigan, Oklahoma,
Massachusetts, Alaska, and New Mexico are among the States who
have expressed interest and are pursuing consideration for how
they can move forward on the kinship option. We expect more
States to take direct action on this as the debate settles and
as guidance is provided in greater detail.
Initial guidance in regard to States taking the kinship
option would suggest that current kin families covered by the
State funds and other Federal funds, such as TANF, may not be
eligible for future Federal funding under the new kinship
option, even if the child is IV-E eligible and met all the
other conditions set out in the law when he or she was placed.
We urge Congress to work with the Administration to address
the possibility that some of these current kinship families
would, in fact, be eligible for Federal funding after the State
has taken the guardianship option. Clarification of this and
other possible issues will help States to asses their options
and to implement the new provisions.
Some guidance may also be needed with regard to how to
structure guardianship assistance payment and the process for
establishing and adjusting such agreements, as well as the
relative consultation process.
Since many States use TANF through child-only grants, we
hope that by taking the IV-E option that the decisionmaking
around the use of this program will not be limited to whether
or not there is only a financial advantage in TANF or IV-E but
whether or not the program choice meets the best interests of
the family and the child.
An additional provision that has taken effect addresses the
educational stability and requires that, as part of casework
plans, that when it is in the student's best interest he or she
remain in the same school, even if that child resides in
another school district's boundaries.
Recently, States like Pennsylvania and Missouri have taken
new steps to address the education needs and rights of children
in foster care.
Missouri's Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
sent out instructions to school administrators based on the new
legislation and a State bill called State Bill 291, the Foster
Care Education Bill of Rights, which requires schools to
designate an educational liaison for children in foster care.
The child has rights outlined in the Federal act to remain in
or near his home school, and it outlines options to address the
cost of transportation for these children.
In Pennsylvania, as a result of the new law, the State
issued new guidance in January that, among other issues,
addresses the previous prohibitions on children living outside
school district lines from continuing to attend the same
school. In this guidance, the State urges local education
agencies to develop policies and agreements to address these
issues.
While we are supportive of the requirement, to be truly
effective, equal responsibility needs to be placed on school
and local education, as well as child welfare. Amending the
``Elementary and Secondary Education Act'' will highlight for
educators how important it is that the needs of this population
be addressed. We also urge that, once the leadership is
confirmed in both the Department of Education and Health and
Human Services, that they issue joint guidance to the States to
make sure that these provisions are carried out.
We also are looking at the transition planning, et cetera.
We feel it is vital that we make sure that transition planning
requirements continue to be monitored. We believe that many
States have in place the frameworks available to them to do
this because of the requirements under Chaffee and prior law.
We want to make sure that we are able to monitor that and to
make sure that that happens appropriately.
A final element that I will want to talk about just a half
a second--I know I am exceeding my time, sir--is the health
planning requirements that were also put into place under the
bill. These new requirements build on what was already in law
to strengthen health access and health services for kids,
making sure that kids in care are screened and that the
services they need are delivered, and includes better tracking
and monitoring of the use of medication.
Studies indicate that between half and a third of children
in foster care exhibit behavior and social competency problems
that warrant mental health care. We are not really sure how
well and how much increased coordination and planning between
State child welfare and Medicaid agencies has yet taken place.
But a recent letter by the American Academy of Pediatrics
states that, based on their work with individual chapters, it
does not appear that the new requirements of the law are being
fully met.
We urge that when HHS issues its new pre-print, which is
the form that they submit the 5-year plan on, that we be more
specific in its direction to States regarding the requirements
around planning and consultation that can take place. This will
help ensure that the services in the law, including screening,
monitoring of care, and medication tracking and medical records
tracking, are carried out.
And, finally, I just want to make mention of two things.
One is that we know that the needs of this bill have taken us
very, very far, but there are still areas that we need to
address, and that is the prevention of child abuse and neglect.
We encourage the support and continued work on home visitation
and other prevention programs that are out, so that we can
begin to learn, know, and do more that is outcome-based to
prevent child abuse and neglect as we move forward.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Spears follows:]
Statement of Linda Spears, Vice President, Policy & Public Affairs,
Child Welfare League of America, Arlington, Virginia
The Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) is a ninety year-old
non-profit organization representing hundreds of state and local child
welfare 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.
Chairman McDermott, Ranking Member Linder and Members of the
Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, CWLA thanks you for
inviting us to testify today about the important legislation passed by
this Subcommittee last year, legislation that resulted in a significant
new law on child welfare.
Historic Legislation
Last fall, Congress enacted and President Bush signed the Fostering
Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (Fostering
Connections to Success, P.L. 110-351). CWLA believes this legislation
is the most significant federal child welfare legislation enacted in at
least a decade--if not since the creation of Title IV-E foster care and
adoption assistance in 1980.
Chairman McDermott, CWLA thanks you for your leadership last year
and for your continuing interest and dedication to addressing the needs
of abused and neglected children and all families that come into
contact with our nation's child welfare system. Members of this
subcommittee, and key leaders including former Congressman Jerry
Weller, the Senate Finance Committee and the staff of this subcommittee
working across house and party lines can be proud of your efforts and
accomplishments in passing P.L. 110-351. This law, when fully phased in
and implemented at the state and local level, will have a significant
and positive impact on outcomes for children and families facing
crisis. It takes a major step forward in kinship care. It will increase
special-needs adoptions across the country. The new law begins the
critical task of focusing on the overrepresentation of some minority
populations in child welfare by providing federal funding to some
kinship families and by allowing direct access to tribal governments--
and, by extension, to children in Indian country. Under the law youth
aging out of foster care will be better served. It also holds the
promise of improving education and health care for children in care and
offers the promise of moving this nation, at least in some small way,
toward a sounder workforce development policy in the area of child
welfare.
Background on Important Policy Changes
After many years of debate, some experimentation by states and a
patchwork of financing, Congress has now given states the option to use
federal Title IV-E funds for kinship guardianship payments for children
raised by relative caregivers. Children eligible under this provision
must also be eligible for federal foster care maintenance payments,
must reside with the relative for at least six consecutive months in
foster care, and it must be determined that reunification is not
possible and adoption is not appropriate. It also clarifies that under
current guidance, states may waive non-safety licensing standards (as
determined by the state) on a case-by-case basis in order to eliminate
barriers to placing children with relatives. State agencies must
exercise due diligence to identify and provide notice to all adult
relatives of a child within 30 days after the child is removed from the
custody of the parent(s).
A second significant policy area that is addressed in several ways
is youth transitioning from foster care to independence. A year from
now, states will have the option to extend care to youth age 19, 20, or
21 with continued federal support to increase their opportunities for
success as they transition to adulthood. Importantly, the law also
attempts to strengthen the current transition planning requirements by
requiring states to engage youth more directly in planning and
addressing their needs after they leave foster care. By requiring child
welfare agencies and caseworkers to help youth develop a transition
plan during the 90-day period immediately before a youth exits from
care and directly addressing specific issues such as continued access
to health care, job training, education, housing and other vital
services, we can--if properly implemented--assure better outcomes for
the more than 26,154 \1\ youth who currently ``age-out'' of foster
care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Children who age out of foster care are captured by the AFCARS
emancipation data element. Children who exit care to emancipation are
those who reach the age of majority according to state law by virtue of
age, marriage, etc. CWLA, Special AFCARS tabulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the most momentous parts of the new law will begin to take
effect in a few weeks, on October 1, when tribal governments and
consortia will be allowed to apply directly to HHS to operate their own
Title IV-E foster care, special needs adoption, and kinship care
programs. These provisions were debated and sponsored in Congress for
many years and CWLA is pleased they are included in the final law.
Along with the kinship care provisions, this can be an important tool
to help address the challenge of overrepresentation of certain
populations in our nation's child welfare system. These changes also
begin to address a long-time inequity in access and funding that tribal
communities have faced for many years.
Also significantly the legislation takes one small but important
step in beginning to replace the outdated eligibility requirements that
now exist in Title IV-E by phasing out the eligibility link between
special needs adoption children and the non-existent Aide to Families
with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. This provision which also takes
effect October 1, means that all children sixteen and older, children
in care for five years or siblings of another eligible special needs
child will no longer have their federal funding and commitment linked
to whether or not that child was removed from a family that would have
been eligible for AFDC as it existed on July 16, 1996. We look forward
to seeing Congress completing its work in this area by also de-linking
kinship and foster care eligibility in the same way. CWLA appreciates
the recent action of a Member of this Subcommittee, Congressman John
Lewis (D-GA) for his recent introduction of H.R. 3329 \2\ which
addresses this challenge and we look forward to working with him and
the subcommittee on this. As part of the adoption improvements included
in the Fostering Connections to Success Act, Congress also extended and
increased the incentive program to encourage more adoptions of older
children waiting to be adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ H.R. 3329, ``Look-Back Elimination Act of 2009, introduced July
24, 2009. Sponsor Congressman John Lewis (D-GA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, Congress enacted changes that took effect last October
when the bill was signed into law, in the areas of workforce
development, strengthening education and improving health care. These
provisions, when fully implemented and practiced, will strengthen the
child welfare workforce and improve both the health and education
outcomes for children in care.
Through Fostering Connections to Success, the availability of
federal training dollars to cover training of staff not only in public
agencies but in private child welfare agencies and for court personnel,
attorneys, guardian ad litems, and court appointed special advocates
can, and we believe will, be an important tool in developing the child
welfare workforce.
The health care planning requirement that state child welfare
agencies work with the state Medicaid agencies and other healthcare
experts to create a plan for the ongoing oversight and coordination of
health care services for children in foster care can serve as a tool to
address the frequently unmet health and mental health needs of children
in care. If implemented effectively, we will see better health
screenings; better identification of needs; greater medical information
sharing; greater oversight and tracking of medication and increased
continuity of care.
Education outcomes and opportunities for children in foster care
will be significantly enhanced due to provisions in the new law, and
with an assist from the education community. We know this was a key
concern for Members of this subcommittee and CWLA appreciates that
leadership. There is good reason for this concern. While national data
is sparse several individual studies and surveys show that half of
youth emancipating from foster care will not have received a high
school diploma.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In a national survey, 54% of former foster youth had completed
high school. Cook, R. (1991). A national evaluation of Title IV-E
foster care independent living programs for youth. Rockville, MD:
Westat Inc. At 12-18 months after leaving foster care, 55% of former
foster youth in Wisconsin had completed high school. Courtney, M., &
Piliavin, I. (1998). Foster youth transitions to adulthood: Outcomes 12
to 18 months after leaving out-of-home care. Madison: University of
Wisconsin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As of last October new requirements in the law are in effect and
state child welfare agencies are to coordinate with local education
agencies to ensure that children are able to remain in the school they
are enrolled in at the time of placement into foster care, unless that
would not be in the child's best interest. In that case, the state must
ensure transfer and immediate enrollment in the new school. In
addition, the act provides increased federal support to assist with
school-related transportation costs. Finally, the state plan must
ensure that every child receiving IV-E assistance is enrolled as a
full-time student or has completed high school.
Positive Developments In the First Months, Further Action Required
Before the enactment of Fostering Connections to Success, various
state surveys found a range of approaches to supporting these families.
A recent survey by Child Trends determined that 49 states allow kin to
pursue a legal guardianship for children in state custody while
receiving some financial support. That same survey indicated that forty
of these states required that reunification had to be ruled out first
before support was extended and twenty-eight states reported that
adoption also had to be ruled out.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Allen, T., K.; DeVooght,K., & Geen, R. (2008). Findings from
the 2007 Casey Kinship Foster Care Policy Survey. Washington, DC: Child
Trends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the enactment of the Foster Connections to Success Act is
historic in its reach, it comes at a particularly challenging time. The
nation is facing one of the most severe if not the most severe
recession since the great depression of the 1930s. As a result, states
have been enacting budget cuts that have impacted not just the core
child welfare services but a cross section of programs that affect
families by providing key human services. Just when families face
increased stress due to layoffs, and reduced wages and incomes,
community and societal efforts to cushion the blow are being curtailed.
States have, in recent years, relied on a range of federal funds to
address their child welfare systems. Two of these sources are TANF
(Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) and SSBG (Social Services
Block Grant) which have respectively provided nineteen percent and
twelve percent of total federal funds \5\ used for child welfare as of
2006. These two block grants have also been in demand to fund other
increasing human service needs in this time of strained state budgets.
As a result, many states have not yet been able to adopt the options
provided to them through the new law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ DeVooght, K.; Allen, T.; & Geen, R. (2008). Federal, State, and
Local Spending to Address Child Abuse and Neglect in SFY 2006.
Washington, DC: Child Trends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An additional challenge is the transition from one Administration
to the next. Recent history suggests that these transitions take longer
and longer after each changeover. The end result for Fostering
Connections to Success has been a delay in guidance that is much needed
by the states. CWLA believes that such an expansive and important
reform requires an aggressive promotion and training by HHS in regard
to what states can and should do in implementing the new law. CWLA,
along with many child welfare and children's organization, is working
to educate its membership. We find our member agencies, both public and
private, eager to learn about the new law and how the policy changes
encouraged by the new law can be implemented following a best practice
model, but we feel nothing carries as much force as the leadership of
the agencies and the Department vested with the oversight of the new
law.
At the same time it's encouraging to see that some policy changes
are beginning to take place. As of last week, the Children's Bureau
indicated that seven states plus the District of Columbia had actually
filed plan amendments to extend Title IV-E funding to kinship/
subsidized guardianships. Those states are Connecticut, Maine,
Missouri, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island (which has been approved),
and Tennessee. In addition, through informal surveys by organizations
such as our colleagues from APHSA and through some of our own informal
discussions, the states of Illinois, Michigan, Oklahoma, Massachusetts,
Alaska and New Mexico have indicated some interest or preparation in
moving forward with the kinship option. We would expect more states to
take action both as budget debates settle and as guidance is provided
in greater detail.
Initial guidance in regard to states taking the kinship care option
would suggest that current kin families covered through the use of
state funds and other federal funds such as TANF may not be eligible
for future federal funding under the new kinship option even if the
child had been Title IV-E eligible and met all the other conditions set
out in the law when he or she was placed in care.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Title IV-E Plans, Kinship Guardianship Assistance Training,
Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoption Act of 2008.
ACYF-CB-PI-08-007. http://www.cwla.org/advocacy/
adoptionhr6893acfinstructions.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We urge Congress to work with the new Administration to address the
possibility that some of these current kin families would in fact be
eligible for federal funding after a state has taken the guardianship
option. Clarification of this and possible other issues may speed up
the ability of states to assess their options and to implement this
kinship provision. Some guidance may also be needed in regard to how to
structure guardianship assistance payments and the process for
establishing and adjusting such agreements and the relative
consultation process. Since many states have used TANF funds through
the child-only grant to fund kinship programs, we would hope taking the
Title IV-E option would not be based solely on the financial advantages
or disadvantages of choosing TANF over Title IV-E but would be based on
what is in the best interest of these families and children.
An additional provision that has taken effect is Section 204 of the
Fostering Connections to Success Act which addresses educational
stability. The law now requires that as part of the casework plans,
when it is in the child's best interest, he or she remain in the same
school even if that child resides in another school's district
boundaries. As part of this new requirement, states are now allowed to
draw-down the higher matching Title IV-E maintenance funds instead of
administrative funds to help address the transportation costs of
transporting a child to his or her old school. The new provisions also
require that when the child must move and cannot remain in the same
school district, that he or she be enrolled immediately in a new school
with his or her records. This is an important new requirement in the
law that we believe will take a continued effort by states to fully
implement. It is unclear how well these new provisions have been
implemented. Several states have indicated that they do meet the
education needs of children in care. Other states have indicated to us
that it can sometimes be a challenge to get the local school districts
to focus on this population when schools are challenged on so many
other fronts. In recent months, other states have taken some action to
address state laws that may be present barriers that restrict where a
child attends school.
In recent weeks states such as Pennsylvania and Missouri have taken
new steps to address the education needs and rights of children in
foster care. On September 9, 2009 the Missouri Department of Elementary
and Secondary Education sent out instructions to school administrators
based on new enacted state legislation, Senate Bill 291. This new
``Foster Care Education Bill of Rights'' requires school districts to
designate an education liaison for children in foster care, the child
has the rights outlined in the new federal act to remain in his or her
new school district, and outlined options to address the cost of
transportation funding for these children.\7\ In Pennsylvania, also as
a result of new laws, the state issued new guidance in January 2009
that among other issues addresses previous prohibitions on children
living outside school district lines from continuing to attend their
same school. In this guidance the state urges local school education
agencies to develop policies and agreements to address the movement of
children in foster care and their need to remain in the same school
districts when it is in their best interest.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Foster Care Education Bill of Rights. September 9, 2009.
Memorandum to School Administrators, Missouri Department of Elementary
and Secondary Education.
\8\ Enrolment of Students. January 22, 2009. Basic Education
Circulars, Pennsylvania Department of Education. Online at: http://
www.pde.state.pa.us/k12/cwp/view.asp?A=11&Q=84241.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At this point, despite some progress, both administrative and
congressional action are needed. As we have seen, the new law now
places the burden on child welfare agencies. While we are supportive of
such a requirement, to be truly effective an equal responsibility needs
to be placed on state and local education agencies. Amending the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (No Child Left Behind Act), will
highlight for educators how important it is that the needs of this
population are addressed.
Second, we would urge that once the leadership has been confirmed
by the Senate that both the Education Department and the Department of
Health and Human Services issue joint guidance to both the state child
welfare and education departments to make sure the education provisions
of the new law are carried out. Again, we hear examples that some local
education agencies when approached by child welfare agencies to address
these new requirements are unaware of the new provisions. As our
colleagues from the American Bar Association have indicated, the issues
surrounding immediate enrollment, the transfer of records in a timely
fashion, and the provision of needed transportation services to some
foster children are complex issues but they must be addressed if we are
to assure the education success of foster children. CWLA will be
working with our child welfare partners, others and hopefully Members
of Congress to address needed changes in the education reauthorization
to close this gap.
Transition planning is another important provision that was
included in the Fostering Connections Act. As of last October, states
were required to have new planning requirements for young people
preparing to leave foster care. The new law requires caseworkers to
actively engage young people no less than ninety days before he or she
leaves care in developing a plan that is both personalized and at that
young person's direction. The plan must include specific options with
regard to several important services such as access to health care,
housing options, work force supports and educational opportunities.
This is in addition to requirements around transition planning already
in the law. CWLA feels it is vital that we make sure that these
additional transition and planning requirements be carried out the way
the law specifies, including the requirement that the young people be
actively involved and direct the planning. This will take some time to
both implement and measure. Ultimately if this provision is carried out
the way the Subcommittee envisions--and we hope it is--it will mean we
have to make sure caseworkers are trained and adequately staffed so
that they will be properly working with these young people to address
their varied needs.
A final element that took effect last October and will be important
to see that it is effectively implemented are the requirements that we
know the Chairman has had a great deal of interest in--the new health
planning requirements. Similar to the transition planning, these new
requirements build on what is already in law to strengthen health
access and health services to children in care. It is vital that
children in care be screened and that the services they need be
delivered. This includes better tracking and use of medication. As your
Subcommittee learned from earlier hearings, this is not always done.
As CWLA has stated before, studies indicate that between one-half
and three-fourths of children entering foster care exhibit behavior or
social competency problems that warrant mental health care.\9\ We are
not sure how much increased and coordinated planning between state
child welfare agencies and Medicaid agencies have taken place. A recent
letter by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) states that based on
work with their individual AAP chapters, it does not appear that the
new requirements of the law are being met. We would concur with many of
the recommendations and suggestions in that letter regarding the kind
of consultation between not just the two state agencies but also a host
of key stakeholders including health care providers and other parties
that effect children in child welfare.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Landsverk, J.A., Burns, B.A., Stambaugh, L.F., & Rolls Reutz,
J.A. (2006). Mental Health Care for Children and Adolescents: A Review
of the Literature. Retrived online October 22, 2007. Seattle: Casey
Family Programs.
\10\ American Academy of Pediatrics. August 20, 2009. Letter to
Honorable David Hansell, Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and
Families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We urge HHS when they issue their new pre-print, which is the form
that states may use to submit their five year state plan, to be more
specific in its direction to states to assure that all the requirements
around planning and consultation take place. This will ensure that the
services outlined in the new law such as screening, monitoring of and
provision of care, the tracking and use of medication and the tracking
of a child's medical records are in fact being carried out and are in
place in all fifty states.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Title IV-E Pre-Print. (2008). OMB Request for Public Comment:
State Plan for Foster care and Adoption Assistance--Title IV-E. OMB
No.: 0980-0141 http://www.cwla.org/advocacy/
adoptionhr6893acfpreprint.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2010
Two aspects of the law take place in a few weeks when the new
fiscal year starts. On October 1, tribal governments and consortia will
be able to apply to HHS to run their own Title IV-E foster care,
kinship care and special needs adoption assistance programs drawing
federal funds directly. Our understanding is that several tribes have
expressed an initial interest in applying to run their own Title IV-E
programs. This new law represents a historic opportunity to extend
support and funding to Native American populations who for too long
have not had equal access to federal funding and support. This lack of
access to services and support has been a contributing factor to the
overrepresentation of Indian children in the child welfare system in
some parts of the country. As positive as this development is, it too
will take time to be implemented properly. As we stated in our comments
to HHS last May, the opportunities presented in this new law can and
should encourage collaboration between three key partners: tribal
governments, state child welfare agencies and the Federal Government,
in particular the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). As
this new law is implemented and as more tribal governments take the
option to establish Title IV-E Foster Care, Adoption Assistance and
Kinship Guardianship programs, we urge the Department to invest the
time and resources necessary to assist in the successful implementation
of these new plans. Indications are that HHS recognizes this challenge.
A tribal government willing to take on the operation of a Title IV-
E program must also address issues around data collection and
requirements for raising local matching funds. While this may take
time, we feel that positive initial steps have been taken with the
increased dialogue and discussion within tribal communities as well as
between state and tribal governments.
The second change in law that takes place on October 1 is the
gradual de-link from the AFDC eligibility requirements for special
needs adoptions. At the start of the fiscal year, all special needs
adoptive children sixteen and older, or children who have been in care
for five or more consecutive years, and their siblings, placed into an
adoptive family where one of these children is Title IV-E eligible will
all become eligible for Title IV-E funding. No longer will the
eligibility for federal support be limited to children removed from a
family that would have been eligible for AFDC in 1996. An important
part of this phase-out is the requirement that Congress inserted that
if a state experiences a savings because federal funds are extended to
special needs placements not previously covered, those saving have to
be reinvested into other child welfare services. We recognize the
challenges this presents in the economic environment states now face
but we believe that effective execution of this requirement can set up
an important avenue to re-invest state dollars into prevention services
as a result of the Federal Government taking over a fairer share of
adoption funding.
We urge the new Administration to outline how this spending will be
tracked so that funds now currently within the child welfare system
will remain in other areas of need such as prevention services and
post-adoption services.
Hopes for the Future
Although it has been nearly a year since enactment of this law, in
terms of implementation, we are just beginning. We feel confident that
as state budgets settle, as the new Administration fills out its policy
positions and they get Senate approval, and as organizations such as
ours continue our efforts at explaining the opportunities and the best
practice approaches, more states will implement changes that will move
more children toward permanency and that will ultimately improve
outcomes for children and youth in the child welfare system. We believe
that as Tribal governments explore and learn about the potential to
draw down direct funding and as a dialogue between the Federal
Government, the states and tribes expand their initiatives, new
partnerships can be built and more children living in Indian country
will be better served.
There are provisions of the new law that require regulation and
further guidance. We hope through guidance from Congress and by
soliciting information and views from the field including the views of
state and local agencies, the public, faith-based and non-profit
communities and by always including the feedback and concerns of
children and families most effected by these programs, we can implement
all of these provisions in a way that will improve outcomes for
children and families. We urge the subcommittee to continue this
oversight and we hope you will be vigilant for any way that the law can
be strengthened and improved in the coming months.
Next Steps
We urge the subcommittee, as the Fostering Connections to Success
Act is implemented and phased in, to continue to take the next steps
that the Chairman has talked about in recent months--as have the
leaders of the Senate Finance Committee--about examining ways to
provide greater focus and federal support for programs that can prevent
child abuse and neglect from taking place. CWLA is very pleased that
bipartisan legislation introduced by the Chairman, Congressman Danny
Davis (D-IL) and Congressman Todd Platts (R-PA), which will expand
support for proven home visiting programs, is continuing to move
forward in Congress. It is an important tool that can reduce the
incidents of abuse and neglect. We also hope that the next phase of
reform will allow states to invest Title IV-E funds into prevention
services that can demonstrate their effectiveness. There are several
proposals in development that merit consideration. Last Congress, for
example, the Chairman introduced HR 5466 \12\ which included a
provision to use Title IV-E funds for programs that can reduce
placements in foster care, and strengthen post reunification and post
adoption services. We have been a part of a coalition of advocacy
groups, the Partnership to Protect Children and Strengthen
Families,\13\ which has offered another example for reinvesting Title
IV-E funds. We also feel that the 2010 budget which includes some
limited funding for demonstration projects that seek to reduce long
term foster care can assist in the development of reforms that can
begin to help reduce both the number of children entering foster care
and the length of stay for those children who do have to be placed in
care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ H.R. 5466, ``Invest in KIDS Act'', introduced February 14,
2008. Sponsor Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA).
\13\ Partnership to Protect Children and Strengthen Families Act
(2007) http://www.cwla.org/advocacy/nurturingfamilies.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The subcommittee will also be dealing with the reauthorization of
TANF. As we indicated earlier, TANF contributes nearly one-fifth of
federal child welfare funding. In regard to the financial role TANF
plays, many states have used the TANF block grant to invest in
innovative ways to provide child welfare services that can help prevent
placement into out-of-home care. We need to protect these types of
investments and perhaps gather a better understanding of how these
investments are made and how they supplement the system. The
subcommittee will also have to examine the link between Title IV-E
kinship care and the use of child only placements to make sure children
in child welfare receiving kin support through these grants are being
adequately served. We need to take a careful look at this because we do
not want a situation where a family is forced into child welfare just
to access services. At the same time we do not want families already
connected to the child welfare system to be denied services through
Title IV-E. As we indicate earlier in this statement, it is important
that the choice of the Title IV-E kinship option be based on what is in
the best interest of the child.
There are obvious overlaps between TANF and child welfare. Some,
even within the human service advocacy community, fail to recognize
that many of these are the same vulnerable families and we need to
examine whether or not there is adequate coordination between child
welfare and TANF agencies.
Finally, CWLA feels that the reestablishment of a White House
Conference on Children and Youth, similar to the Aging Conference,
would be an important tool to help communities and states deal with
many of these challenges from creating effective community-based
prevention strategies to tackling the implementation of the Fostering
Connections to Success Act. Ultimately the Federal Government can
provide vital support and leadership--but we will truly improve
outcomes for this nation's most vulnerable children and families only
if these new laws and programs are carried out down to the casework
level. This is CWLA's mission and we believe, our collective
responsibility.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Help us pass health care.
Ms. SPEARS. We will do what we can.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you for your testimony.
Ms. SPEARS. You are quite welcome. Thank you.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Our next witness is Ms. Kathleen
McNaught, who is the assistant director of the American Bar
Association's Center on Children and the Law.
Ms. McNaught.
STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN M. MCNAUGHT, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CENTER
ON CHILDREN AND THE LAW, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
Ms. MCNAUGHT. Good afternoon, Chairman McDermott, Ranking
Member Linder, and Members of the Subcommittee.
My name is Kathleen McNaught. I am the assistant director
for child welfare at the American Bar Association's Center on
Children and the Law, as well as the project director for the
Legal Center for Foster Care and Education, a national
technical assistance resource and information clearinghouse on
legal and policy matters affecting the education of children in
the foster care system.
I am pleased to appear today at the request of Carolyn
Lamm, president of the American Bar Association. The ABA has
long been committed to improving the educational outcomes of
children in care. And in August of 2009, the ABA House of
Delegates unanimously passed an education policy urging Federal
and State legislators to pass laws and for child welfare and
education agencies to implement and enforce policies that help
advance a child's right to remain in school, complete school,
and obtain a high-quality education.
Thank you for this opportunity to share the views of the
ABA on foster care and education policy.
Thanks in no small part to the strong leadership and
dedication of Chairman McDermott, the Fostering Connections Act
contains key educational provisions that are essential to
breaking the cycle of poor educational outcomes for children in
foster care. The act requires the child welfare agency to
coordinate with local education agencies to ensure that
children remain in their same school even when their living
placements change. If it is not in the child's best interest to
remain, the agencies must coordinate to ensure immediate and
appropriate enrollment in a new school.
Critically, the act also clarifies that Federal child
welfare funds can be used by States for reasonable travel costs
to allow children in foster care eligible for IV-E
reimbursement to stay in the same school.
The Fostering Connections Act has brought much-needed
attention at both the Federal and the State levels to the poor
educational outcomes of children in care and this critical need
for collaboration between child welfare and education agencies
to improve these outcomes.
As we have heard from my fellow panelists, many States and
local child welfare agencies are now mobilizing to implement
these education provisions in their States. Some have organized
State or local interagency work groups and developed
interagency agreements to address educational stability. Some
States have adopted or are in the process of adopting
legislation, regulations, or guidance to identify the
responsibilities of each agency in implementing these
provisions of the act.
Advocates who represent children and those who are working
at the systems level are becoming better informed about the
law's requirements and have started to advocate for educational
stability and immediate school access. As a result, some
students in foster care are already experiencing improved
stability and continuity in school.
While much more work needs to be done, the past 10 months
have included positive steps forward to changing both policy
and practice to align with these new mandates. However, despite
these significant efforts in the States, there are four main
barriers to full and effective implementation of the
educational provisions of the Fostering Connections Act.
Number one, there is a need to create reciprocal mandates
in education law, requiring education agencies to coordinate
and collaborate with child welfare agencies to ensure the
stability and continuity of students in care.
Number two, there is a strong need to provide further
clarification that the mandate to ensure school stability
includes a mandate to provide arrange and fund transportation
when necessary.
Number three, there is a need to provide additional
support, guidance, and resources to States on how to best work
together and collaborate across agencies and how to set clear
lines of responsibility for each agency. It would be important
to see Federal-level collaboration between the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services and Department of Education to
serve as a model for States.
Some of the collaboration issues States are currently
struggling with include: determining which agency will make the
best-interest determination for the child to remain in their
school; what factors to consider when you are making that
determination; how to identify and involve all necessary
individuals, including youth, in these decisions; how to create
and fund clearly identified points of contact in both the child
welfare and education agencies at the State and local level,
desperately needed support to ensure stability and resolve
disputes; and how to ensure a child's right to transportation
to remain in that school; and how to coordinate to provide,
arrange, and pay for that transportation.
Finally, barrier number four to successful implementation:
There is a need to improve the collection of data that can
track education outcomes and improvements for children in care.
Even in the States that have already made some great strides to
improve educational stability, there is minimal data to
document these advances.
States must collect this critical data and receive support
and guidance to track improvements for children in care.
Tracking data such as attendance, the number of school changes,
enrollment delays, is necessary to document the implementation
of these education provisions, but they also must link them to
the improvements and track improvements in educational outcomes
for children in care. Without effective information and data
sharing across child welfare and education agencies, it is
impossible to capture this critical information.
In closing, I would like again to thank the Subcommittee
for the opportunity to present the views of the American Bar
Association. This is an exciting moment and a real opportunity
to improve the education and the lives of many children in our
Nation's foster care system.
I would be happy to answer any questions. Thanks.
[The statement of Ms. McNaught follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you very much.
Thank the whole panel for your testimony.
I just have a question that struck me as I listened across
the whole question of education, because it is sort of woven
through everybody's experience, and the decision to keep the
child in the school that they were going to or trying to place
them close to home.
What kind of problems has that created when you have the
youngster, when they can still go back, walk if they want to,
back to where they were taken out by the State? It is just sort
of Murphy's law of unintended consequences. I wonder what the
response is or what experience you have in that.
Ms. Donald.
Ms. DONALD. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. I think that is a
great question; and, of course, every decision we make always
has to be what is in the best interest of the child. But our
experience is that if you can keep a child placed first in
their own home community that then you reinforce ties to
family, school, church, and other activities that are less
likely to disrupt a child's life.
When we first bring a child into foster care, the goal for
that child always is reunification initially, unless there are
extreme safety issues. That is what is required under ASFA and
we are working very diligently within the first 12 months to
try to reestablish that linkage with the family and to keep
that child connected, at the same time, we are supporting the
family, doing supportive services, enrolling the parents in
substance abuse and mental health services, if that is
necessary.
Certainly if there are safety issues, extreme abuse or any
fears of danger of a bad environment for that child to be
around, then of course we would make a different decision. But
the vast majority of our children in the beginning we want to
keep them close to their home communities and try to avoid the
total disruption of their lives.
Mr. MCEWEN. I would add to that that, prior to us
implementing the school monitoring the rotational intake, we
worked with foster parents. So we did surveys to try to
determine what foster parents were willing to work with
biological parents and to what extent were they willing to work
with biological parents. Would they attend school meetings with
biological parents and would they attend medical appointments
with biological parents, up to and including would they
supervise visitation with the biological parent in their home?
And so knowing that a significant number of foster parents
expressed interest in working with biological parents helped us
to make that decision to move in that direction. And so it
certainly sets up some mediation situations in some instances.
But a lot of times when folks are from the same community, they
have knowledge of each other, they may not know each other
directly but they do have knowledge of each other, that kind of
mitigates a lot of these problems and situations from coming
up.
The other thing, as Secretary Donald stated, too, is that a
lot of times we consider kids' connections to siblings, but
their best friend and the person who they talk to the most and
sought consultation sat at the desk next to them, maybe didn't
sleep in the bed next to them. So maintaining those connection
with friends and the social connections are particularly
important for kids. And so it has worked out to benefit a lot
of kids.
And making a decision to not place that kid closer to the
school is the one that workers have to make. So the foregone
decision is to first try to keep them in the school, and then
prove out or weed out why you can't keep that kid in the school
is the approach that we have been taking, and so we have seen
it happen.
The problem is we have used up a lot of those foster homes
in the first couple of years of their program that were closest
to the kids, to the area where our larger number of kids were
coming from. So now it is about recruitment and sustaining that
available pool of foster parents who make the decision to work
with both the kid and the biological parents.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Greta, can you tell us from your own
experience with your education, you sort of alluded to some of
it, but why were the decisions or what were the decisions made
and how did it effect you?
Ms. ANDERSON. Sure. When I entered the foster care system,
I was taken and they hadn't really fully thought out where they
would put me, so I went to a residential lockdown facility
despite--sort of criminalized, despite not having done anything
except coming from a messy family. After that, I entered a
group home and entered the foster care system; and my foster
family was in a different school district than the one I was
originally from. So I have definitely experienced kind of
displacement with my education.
As far as would it have been helpful for me to remain at my
home school and also maintain those connection with peers, of
course, definitely. Would it have made me seek out
relationships with my biological family more than I did after
being transferred out of that school district? I think that if
a child is determined to see their biological family, they are
going to find a way to do that. But I don't think I ever
considered that my school is the way to go about doing so.
Yeah.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you.
Mr. Linder will inquire.
Mr. LINDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Our colleague, Dave Camp from Michigan, has a long-time
interest in these issues and presented a question I would like
to present to Ms. Donald and Mr. McEwen.
The law said that States must notify the adult relatives of
children entering foster care of their option to participate in
the care and placement of the child. And a new demonstration
grant program will encourage establishment and support of
intensive family finding efforts to locate biological kin and
then to work to reestablish relationships and to explore
permanent family placements. Can either of you tell us how the
implementation process for these two notice of relative
provisions is going in your States?
Ms. DONALD. Thank you for that question.
We have a number of strategies to notify relatives, because
that is also part of our Place Matters philosophy. We want to
keep children with their families if we can safely do so or
seek out relatives for their care if we cannot. And so, first,
we have implemented our family center practice which requires
family team meetings prior to our removal of a child if at all
possible. And that is a process in which we identify from the
birth parents any other known relatives. We have some outreach
efforts to try and bring as many people to the table as
possible.
We also do the formal family finding program in a couple of
our jurisdictions, and we have applied for one of the grants so
that we can extend that statewide. And that would be very
useful, both in terms of initial identification of relatives,
but also in helping older youth to connect with family as they
transition through the foster care system.
And the other thing is I have the advantage of also
overseeing our child support operations for the State. And
through our child support we have parent locator services, so
we are creating agreements with our child support folks. They
are experts in doing that and have search engines and
databases, so we will be linking with them to ensure that we
fully utilize those resources.
Mr. MCEWEN. In Illinois, we have historically taken the
approach of placing children in relative foster care first.
Right now, about 35 percent of our kids in care are currently
placed with relatives; and so we do seek out those relatives
and follow up with the legislation.
The challenge that we find is getting paternal relatives
involved earlier on in the process, as identifying those
resources for the children. A lot of times the maternal
relatives are readily available; and so that is one of the
challenges we have taken on, is trying to identify those
paternal relatives who represent another set of resources for
the children.
The biggest struggle around working with our relative care
givers is that a lot of times they are treated like a
perpetrator or they are treated like somebody who was involved
in the abuse and neglect situation while going through the
placement process, and they weren't. So, as a result, a lot of
them don't want to go through the licensing process in advance,
feeling like it is going to make them more advanced or more
entrenched in the system. And so that creates a challenge for
us, and that is why it is a real important issue that a lot of
the kids who are candidates for 4-year eligibility because they
are not placed in a licensed relative's home we don't receive
the reimbursement for them. And that is the biggest challenge
that we have.
Right now, in Illinois, I think we have about 3,000 kids
who we believe would be candidates who would be eligible but
there are no licensed relative homes. So we are trying to take
a big push in licensing those relatives. We have about 1,200
new applications to work with relatives to work around
licensing. Because one of the things that it does is it creates
a higher reimbursement rate for the board rate to those
relatives. And a lot of these are poor families. And so that
higher reimbursement really allows another additional set of
resources to the relative care givers, and so we look at it as
a great challenge to try to work with relatives.
Ms. DONALD. I just wanted to add one quick thing to the
issue of notification that has been raised by our Attorney
General's office, is that, again, we need guidance from our
friends at HHS as to what constitutes due diligence and what we
can use to document notification. We have our own ways of doing
this, but clearly we want to do it in a way that meets the
requirements of the Act, and so we need that guidance, and I
wanted to put that on record.
Mr. LINDER. Everyone is talking about the importance of
education for the future of these kids and staying in school
and familiar with, if possible. Do you have any recommendations
for other Federal programs that would benefit from increased
emphasis on improving educational outcomes? Welfare benefits,
food stamps, housing, and other mean-tested benefits? Have you
given any thought to that?
Ms. MCNAUGHT. I have not. Our focus has been on the
educational component. I would be happy to follow up with you
on that.
Mr. LINDER. Would you?
Ms. MCNAUGHT. Yes.
Mr. LINDER. In terms of requiring education for the
recipients of the programs, we will send you a letter and ask
you for follow up.
Ms. MCNAUGHT. Absolutely.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Mr. Davis will inquire.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McEwen, I am very interested in young children who are
coming out of correctional facilities, teenagers who have been
released, served whatever time they had to serve. I know that
there is a program in Illinois to try and deal with this
effort. How successful would you say that has been in
recruiting foster parents homes for these young people?
Mr. MCEWEN. That is our adolescent foster care program. We
have a number of kids in care who were incarcerated or served
time in juvenile detention facilities. We had a substantial
number of them who were there beyond a release date, about 100.
We have gotten that down to five. Through research, we
identified that a lot of the recommendations were to send these
kids back to residential treatment; and 80 percent of the kids
who went into juvenile detention exited from residential
treatment. So it was not really making a lot of sense to keep
that cycle of residential treatment to juvenile detention back
to residential treatment, and we started an adolescent foster
care program.
It is really being up front and honest with the foster
parents to say, these are the challenges of these children, and
this is the support that we are looking for. And we use the
professional foster parent model to try to place no more than
two kids in that home and have a full-time parent who doesn't
work outside the home but focuses on the children.
Today, I think we have about 140 some kids in that program.
We contract for 250 beds, so that will let you know how
difficult it is to grow this program. But we have about 140
some kids in that adolescent foster care program, a number of
whom have been incarcerated as youths; and we have got about a
98 percent stability rate in that program. The average age is
15.10 months--15 years, 10 months.
So we think it is a successful approach. A lot of
recidivism is not occurring with the kids who are in this
program. A lot are graduating from high school and moving on. I
think the average length of stay right now is about 2 years in
that program. And so kids are doing well, and these kids do
adjust and do better in foster homes.
And I think the important part is to have that conversation
up front in the recruitment process, to say this is what we are
recruiting you for; this is the resource and the job we are
asking you to do. And you find people really committed to
trying to work with that population.
And then we have a special recruitment effort through the
church, who were formerly One Church One Child. They are now
One Family One Child, who are leading that recruitment effort
of trying to find parents to take in these children.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Thank you very much.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Mr. Roskam will inquire.
Mr. ROSKAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Greta, thank you for telling your story. You are a very
gifted and very able communicator. It was very, very clear; and
I just want to let you know I really appreciate that.
You said sort of in some of the closing comments in your
testimony that we should focus on what it is that is helping
students to succeed rather than kind of focusing in on the
obstacles of failure. I am paraphrasing that. Could you give us
a sense of perspective? In other words, if, Greta, you were
going to have a conversation with an 8th grader or a 6th
greater in the system, knowing what you know now, and you have
been through this journey yourself, and you are where you are
and you reflect back, what are the words of encouragement that
you would be giving to them other than hang in there and
persevere? But what did you mean when you put that in your
testimony? I guess that is my real question.
Ms. ANDERSON. Okay. Yeah, I actually had the opportunity to
do that this summer through my internship. I got to meet youth,
and I looked at them and I was like, you were me at 14. And the
weight of that and the responsibility of that was definitely
amazing.
When I met those youth, the thing that I guess I was able
to push most was just hang in there, get through this
circumstance. Because if you do, what is waiting for you at the
end, like, you wouldn't even believe.
And I think through opportunities such as the one that this
Act is creating it gives them that hope that, okay, so my
situation right now may not be perfect, but afterward there
will be more waiting for me. And I wish someone had told me
that at 14: Just hang in there. Just stick it out. It may stink
for the next couple of years, but once you get through it is
going to be worth it. So yeah.
Mr. ROSKAM. So the confidence of knowing that there is
something concrete at the other end----
Ms. ANDERSON. Exactly.
Mr. ROSKAM [continuing]. Gives you sort of the buoyancy in
a way to persevere in a real difficult season.
Ms. ANDERSON. And your experience doesn't have to be
something that just happened to you, that you don't go through
things like this in vain. The fact that I get to speak before
all of you today and actually make an impact with my story
rather than wallow in it is pretty amazing. So letting them
know that it can give a voice and change things for other youth
coming after them is really important, I think.
Mr. ROSKAM. Director and Madam Secretary, you both
emphasized in your testimony the need to keep children within a
school system; and I wholeheartedly agree with you. Can you
give a sense of the depth and the capacity that we have on
that? You alluded to it, Director, in terms of recruiting
pretty quickly through households within a particular high-need
area, but could you put that in a larger context for us to
realize is this sort of a goal? Are we on the verge of
achieving that or are we a long way off?
Mr. MCEWEN. This is one of the biggest challenges for
foster care systems. I have a youth advisory board, and I talk
to them on a regular basis. Any number of these children will
tell you that they have been to three and four elementary
schools, four and five high schools. So that is a really big
challenge facing the system.
I do believe, though, that through technology we have the
ability to try to collocate the resources near where the child
is coming from. And so how do we get the resources to the
communities that have more of the children exiting out of that
particular community is what we have done in Illinois. And so
we had a group of homes that we had recruited, and now it is
going back in and doing that recruitment.
A big help in doing recruitment is being able to tell a
foster parent that the kid is going to come from the school
down the street and the kid is going to come from the same
school your kid comes from. So a lot of them may think I might
know this kid, and that is a motivation for some people who may
not have fostered at all, the notion of fostering within the
community context.
The other thing is to try to start it earlier. We have been
using Strengthening Families programs in Illinois, and it
starts with day care centers. And what you are really doing is
working with day care providers to identify family stressors,
something as simple as a kid's change in eating habit, a kid's
change in hygiene, a parent's change in hygiene when they are
bringing the kid to school. Those are some oversimplified
examples. But identifying those stressors and starting to work
with families before they are coming into child welfare, and
understanding early learning is the beginning of education with
what we know about 0 to 3 and 3 to 5, and those sort of things.
That is also a vehicle can be used to stabilize the educational
outcomes from all kids but particularly stabilizing the
education outcomes from foster kids.
Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Secretary.
Ms. DONALD. Sure. I would echo the last comments of
Director McEwen. What we want to do is try to invest as much on
the front end and try to identify families who are struggling
and children in need to keep them from coming out of the foster
care system. Of course, as everybody knows, those are resources
that are so hard to get; and we have to have a child in foster
care before we can claim any Federal resources.
The other part of your question I think went to--the
biggest challenge is really having the right placement for
children in the right place. In the State of Maryland, we are
going through over the last 2 years what I call right-sizing
our placement resources. We have in some jurisdictions 50
percent or more of our children outside of their home county,
not just their school district but in a whole other
jurisdiction. And that has been because that is where the
placement resource have been. And we had hadn't mapped them
before, and we had not really looked at it strategically, and
all of that is what we are doing now.
We are now in an enviable position where we do have enough
foster families, we have had aggressive recruitment efforts and
retention efforts over the last 2 years, we are revamping our
group homes and making it harder for children to go into group
homes. But having more resources for them to stay in families
and then the outreach and support now with the Fostering
Connection Act for more assistance for kinship care all will
help to stabilize children in their home communities.
And just one more thing on the educational piece. We have a
great deal of cooperation with our State Department of
Education. But school districts are local; and it just all
depends on the jurisdiction, quite frankly. It will be for us,
we only have 24 jurisdictions but still really negotiating
jurisdiction by jurisdiction to make sure we are meeting the
requirements of the Act and that the records are being
transferred, the kids are being enrolled and that we work out
the transportation issues.
Mr. ROSKAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you.
Mr. Pomeroy will inquire.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, thank you and thank you for
letting me participate in this Committee hearing. I find it
absolutely fascinating. There is extraordinary work being done.
And, Greta, you are absolutely an amazing advocate by giving a
very articulate voice to the hundreds of thousands that are
very well served by the wonderful eloquence that you bring to
this issue.
Ms. ANDERSON. Thank you for having me here.
Mr. POMEROY. It is a privilege to get to hear you.
The issue, it is very interesting, because it has come up
not in the context of Native American foster issues but in the
context of you describing school-based, community based issues
within an urban setting. Well, in a setting where you have a
rural reservation in a remote region and no ability of the
tribe to run their own program, you have State systems that may
be taking not just away from school--and I really applaud the
innovations you have brought to try to keep within the
community. It would certainly have application also to the
situation we are dealing with, that Native American community,
pulling people out of their community, their school, indeed
their culture. We believe we can do much better than this.
One of the things that I so applaud the chairman on is the
legislation that he cobbled together from many different
specific pieces of legislation was including the legislation
that corrected, of all things, a drafting error. We did the
research on the legislative history, and it appeared to be a
drafting error that prevented tribes from running under Title
4(e), the Social Security system, their own programs.
Sometimes it would be like North Dakota, pretty
constructive State tribal contracts and working arrangements,
but not always. And that meant this community placement was
really thwarted, tribes trying to run this without resources.
It was a mess.
It has now been fixed, and we are bringing these programs
online, but we are early in the process.
I would just like to ask, Ms. Pata, your comments in terms
of how you think this is going to work. In the end, this State
tribal cooperation is extremely important. I would not want the
tribes to run their own system to in any way erode that
statement and tribal cooperation at dealing with this critical
issue so important to our young people. What are your thoughts?
Ms. PATA. Well, I think, first of all, what I like about
the legislation is it gives the opportunity for tribes to get
direct funding from the Federal Government or to continue to
work through the States. And I think the one question for us is
this good-faith effort of the States in the cooperation with
their tribal agreements. I mean, what is good faith really
going to mean? I think that really depends.
One thing that HHS did before in the implementation of TANF
where the tribes had the same kinds of options to collaborate
with their States or to go work directly is that they
encouraged the State tribal relationships. I think one of the
things that we are seeing out of this opportunity of this Act
is a greater ability of tribes to really make that assessment
of do we have the resources, the financial resources, to meet
all the demands, the data requirements and infrastructure or is
it better for us right now to be working closely with our
States in the implementation and have that mentorship, even
though the goal may ultimately be for our tribe to take it on.
So it is going to be the process that allows for us to flexibly
to grow within the program.
I think that is good, particularly given the fact that only
five--maybe five tribes are going to be able to get those early
dollars for development grants. And so I think that is going to
be important to us.
That is why I think the whole collaboration with trying to
create incentives that allow for the collaboration of States
and tribes together is going to be really, really important.
Even if the tribe becomes--receives direct funding, they are
still going to have to deal with the coordination of data, the
transfer of information. Some of our schools, are tribal
schools. Some are State schools.
So we have a lot of collaboration that is going to happen,
no matter what; and I think that will be real important for the
implementation. But we do need to deal with the challenges that
we have.
I think some of the State requirements are different than
the tribal requirements, particularly when we are shifting a
child from a home off reservation or on reservation or whether
child services will provide some of the standards, for tribal
homes are not the same, whether or not we have their own
bedroom and those kinds of requirements you know very much from
your own reservations in your community. So we need to deal
with those uniquenesses.
Thank you for the question.
Mr. POMEROY. Good luck.
You mentioned David Camp. I also want to mention David
Camp. He has been a real leader in the Ways and Means Committee
on these issues for a long time and was very helpful in the
particular bill that we are talking about today.
Ms. PATA. Yes, thanks.
Mr. POMEROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. We have a second Member of the Full
Committee that has showed up. It is an indicator of the
interest of the Committee on what happens in this Subcommittee
on this issue.
Joe Crowley, you want to inquire?
Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the chairman and the Ranking Member for
allowing myself and Mr. Pomeroy as well to participate, not
being, as you said before, Members of the Subcommittee, but
wanted to be here today because of the importance of this issue
to me and I think, as the chairman mentioned, to not only the
full committee but the House as well.
I want to thank in particular the work of the chairman for
his good work in effect being this legislation last year into
effect.
I want to thank also those of you here today to testify. I
wasn't here for your testimony, but just responding in the
brief moments I heard you got to respond to the query of my
colleague, the passion you bring to this and the community you
represent, the foster community, was noted by me in the short
time that I was here; and I want to thank you for that. All of
you--my colleague and I were talking about you are all a bunch
of heroes here at this table for the work that you do, unsung
heroes in many respects for the work that you do with some of
the most challenging lives in America today; and we want to
thank you for that.
One of the goals of the Fostering Connections to Success
and Increasing Adoptions Act was to increase the stability of
children in foster care, and I applaud the provisions of the
bill to achieve that goal. With foster children going through
so many changes throughout their lifetime within the system, I
believe we must do all we can to provide a stable, trustworthy
environment for those children; and one way to do that is by
encouraging something I have been very involved in, is long-
term relationships through mentoring. A mentor can provide a
constant presence in a foster child's life as they go through
different homes and schools and even through the time when the
child ages out of the system and starts their own adult life.
Particularly, I would like to ask Mr. McEwen and Dr.
Donald, how many States increased mentoring for foster children
as a result of the law or are States planning to do so that you
know of?
Mr. MCEWEN. We haven't as of yet really developed new
mentoring relationships and programs for our kids. And I
applaud your support of mentoring.
I also have a caution in my experience that you have got
some really great mentoring programs and then you have some
others where people just sign up and want to hold a child's
hand and babysit and not necessarily give that kind of
stability. And so I would be more than willing to have further
conversations with you about intent and experience in mentoring
programs and how we can ensure that young people have what I
believe is what I hear you saying and what those us of us in
the field know: We want to be sure they that have a lifelong
connection to someone, a caring adult.
We are building that in. We have a ready by 21 initiative.
It is not just for kids in foster care but all youth who are
involved in State systems, including the juvenile justice
system, our education system, but primarily youth and foster
care; and that would be an important component. We really need
to make sure that we are investing in the right kinds of
mentoring programs and services.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. McEwen.
Mr. MCEWEN. We are very interested in mentoring programs
and trying to utilize mentoring programs. Unfortunately, the
recruitment of mentors is a great challenge. Because the
community at large, a lot of the communities that our kids come
out of, they have a great need for mentors as well and kids
that are still at home with their birth parent and their
families. And so we find ourselves oftentimes with short
resources to really work on developing the mentoring programs
in that way.
A lot of times when we have gone through the budget cycles
and critical cycles, we focus on the mental health service and
those what I would call hard-treatment-type services, and it
doesn't give mentoring the attention that it needs. Because to
recruit mentoring specifically for child welfare is a challenge
and because mentors are being recruited heavily in a lot of
communities that are faced with challenges of educational
outcomes and gang violence and youth problems, that sort of
thing. So I think resources directed toward mentoring in foster
care is important.
Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you.
I would just bring to your attention the Los Angeles
mentoring model which I think is one that has demonstrated
success that ought to maybe be a model for other States outside
of California to implement as well.
I would just, maybe for my colleague's sake, just mention
that I have been working on legislation to provide for
increasing the level of mentors throughout the United States by
offering loan forgiveness in some way through college to get
those folks of adult college years to mentor to younger
individuals. I think that could be very successful, again
providing it is not just a short-term hit for the student. They
get a college loan reduction or forgiveness and then, when they
are done, they don't see that child through aging out or even
beyond. So I don't know how we can work through all those
things, but thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you.
We want to thank all of you.
I have one last question that I realize has been nagging at
me ever since you said it. Why is it that when you were taken
out of your home the first time they put you in a lockup? What
was the circumstance in the situation that made them do that--
was it no foster home available?
Ms. ANDERSON. I was taken as an emergency placement. So I
think initially when I was taken they were unsure. Actually, my
case is really complicated. I am still not 100 percent sure on
everything that happened. But it was an emergency placement,
and I think initially there was no emergency foster homes
available for a teen, and I entered a juvenile facility.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. And you wound up at the juvenile
detention center?
Ms. ANDERSON. Correct.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. I want to thank all of you for coming
and giving your testimony. We will be back on this issue. There
are still some issues that are not resolved.
Thank you. Meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:32 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Submissions for the record follow:]
Statement of American Academy of Pediatrics
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), a non-profit professional
organization of 60,000 primary care pediatricians, pediatric medical
sub-specialists, and pediatric surgical specialists dedicated to the
health, safety, and well-being of infants, children, adolescents, and
young adults, appreciates this opportunity to offer testimony for the
record of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Income Security and Family
Support hearing on implementation of the Fostering Connections to
Success and Improving Adoptions Act of 2009 (P.L. 110-351).
The AAP was proud to work closely with this Subcommittee and
Congress in crafting Section 205, Health Oversight and Coordination
Plans, which is designed to bring new attention to the health needs of
children in foster care. Despite the overwhelming evidence of need,
studies consistently demonstrate that many health care needs for
children in the foster care system go unmet. Stark evidence that
children are not receiving timely services has come from a range of
studies, from the 1995 General Accounting Office (GAO) report
demonstrating that 1/3 of children had health care needs that remained
unaddressed while in out-of-home care, to the 2004 analysis of the
National Survey of Child & Adolescent Well-Being documenting that only
a quarter of the children with behavioral problems in out-of-home care
received mental health services within a one-year follow-up period.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Burns BJ, Phillips SD, Wagner RH, et al. Mental health need and
access to mental health services by youths involved with child welfare:
a national survey. Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry. 2004;43(8):960-970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The new Fostering Connections law requires state child welfare and
Medicaid agencies to examine the delivery of health care services to
children in foster care in order to identify opportunities for
improvement. On June 3, the Administration for Children and Families
issued a Program Instruction (ACYF-CB-PI-09-06) that directed each
state to include a health oversight and coordination plan as part of
its Child and Family Services Plans for Fiscal Years 2010-2014.
The Program Instruction provided little guidance to states beyond
what was set out explicitly in the Fostering Connections statute. The
AAP would therefore recommend that ACF consider the following issues
when evaluating each state's Health Oversight and Coordination Plan
(HOCP) for completeness and sufficiency.
Consultation
Congress directed state child welfare and Medicaid agencies to
develop the HOCP in consultation with ``pediatricians, other experts in
health care, and experts in and recipients of child welfare services .
. .'' Given the complexity of the health needs of children in foster
care, a model consultation process should involve an interdisciplinary
Foster Care Health Coordination Team, which would ideally include:
health care providers
pediatricians
other physicians
mental health care providers
dental care providers
developmental and behavioral health
professionals
child welfare administrative professionals
child welfare caseworkers
judges and other judiciary branch officials
representatives of biological, kinship care, and
foster families
foster care youth or alumni
education system officials
county, legal aid attorneys
guardians ad litem
any others the Secretary deems appropriate (e.g.
CASA, child care providers, juvenile justice providers,
parenting experts, etc.)
In order to make the consultation process more manageable, the AAP
suggests that states consider strategies that streamline the process.
For example, plan development could be led by a Foster Care Health
Leadership Team comprised of child welfare administrator with the
authority to make decisions regarding financing and care, a
pediatrician, and a mental health care provider.
Plan Adequacy
Section 205 directs that the HOCP should consist of ``a coordinated
strategy to identify and respond to the health care needs of children
in foster care placements, including mental health and dental health
needs.'' At present, none of the states has a seamlessly coordinated
health strategy for the children under its care. While a number of
states may address some of the plan components required by Fostering
Connections, no state has been able to achieve the goal of providing
all the components to all children. As a result, the AAP urges ACF to
engage in a thorough examination of each state's submission under the
Child and Family Services Plans to ensure that it meets both the letter
and the spirit of the law, i.e. that it represents a fresh review of
opportunities to improve the health and well-being of children in
foster care, and an exploration of new approaches to these issues.
Plan Components
Fostering Connections requires that state plans address six
discrete issues, which we would like to address in turn.
Schedule of Screenings. The HOCP must contain a ``schedule for
initial and follow-up health screenings that meet reasonable standards
of medical practice.'' Standards for health screenings are issued by
the AAP and the Child Welfare League of America, among other
organizations. For children in foster care, the AAP recommends:
1. A medical/developmental/mental health screening within 72
hours of entering the child welfare system.
2. A comprehensive assessment, including review of physical,
mental, developmental, and dental health, within approximately
30 days after entering the child welfare system.
3. Additional visits as appropriate during the first 60-90
days of entering the child welfare system to assess the child
in the process of transition, monitor the adjustment to care,
identify evolving needs, and continue information-gathering.
4. Preventive health care in accord with an enhanced schedule
of well-child visits, immunizations, and related care developed
by authoritative professional organizations to meet the special
needs of children in child welfare system.
While many states already have these standards on the books, the
reality is that relatively few children in foster care receive medical
care in accord with the standards. The Health Oversight and
Coordination Plan should examine barriers to this standard of care and
set out concrete steps for improving compliance.
Monitoring and Treatment. The law requires the HOCP to address
``how health needs identified through screenings will be monitored and
treated.'' The AAP recommends that health needs identified during the
screening, comprehensive assessment, and other visits should be
monitored, treated and addressed in accordance with Early and Periodic
Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) requirements by health care
providers, caseworkers, and the judicial system in the setting of a
medical home. The HOCP should specify steps for ensuring that the
individuals involved in a child's care each know exactly what their
responsibilities are and how to fulfill them (e.g. a social worker is
responsible for ensuring that appropriate medical exams or screenings
are scheduled and appointments kept; a judge is responsible for
ensuring that the child is receiving regular medical care). In too many
cases, the lack of clear duties and lines of responsibilities results
in situations where no one takes a leadership role in the child's
health care. Given the complex, long-term health needs of many children
in foster care, concerted efforts must be made toward coordination.
Medical records. Virtually every pediatrician has encountered a
child in foster care who arrives in their practice with no medical
records or history. Fostering Connections requires that the states
develop a plan to address how ``medical information for children in
care will be updated and appropriately shared, which may include the
development and implementation of an electronic health record.'' The
AAP is aware that some states, such as Texas, are already exploring
electronic health records for children in foster care. Because the need
for consistent, complete medical records is so critical among children
in foster care, every state should be incentivized to examine ways to
improve the collection, maintenance and sharing of such information. In
addition, a strong state-federal partnership on this issue will ensure
interface among such records as a child may move across the country and
is cared for by another pediatrician in a different state.
In addition, there is a great need for better guidelines in states
regarding who has access to a foster child's health information and
under what circumstances. Health information may be needed not only by
physicians and other health care providers, but also by social workers,
foster parents, judges, educators, and others. The inability to share
such information appropriately can lead to potentially devastating gaps
in care for children. State plans should address provision of
appropriately detailed medical information to a foster family upon
placement or placement change; to the biological family upon
reunification; to a prospective adoptive family who is seriously
considering adoption of a particular child; to the adoptive family upon
adoption; and to the youth upon aging out of the system.
Continuity of Care. The law directs state plans to include ``steps
to ensure continuity of health care services, which may include the
establishment of a medical home for every child in care.'' The
``medical home'' refers to a system of patient-centered care in which
one physician is responsible for coordinating the entire universe of
care for the child. This includes coordinating care plans that may be
developed by other physicians, monitoring the number and potential
interaction of prescriptions, and ensuring that the caregiver is
equipped to care for the child appropriately. The medical home is a
critically important concept for children in foster care, given that
nearly half of all children in foster care have chronic medical
problems,2, 3, 4, 5 and up to 80% have serious emotional
problems.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 These health care
challenges require concerted, coordinated efforts on the part of not
only health care providers, but the entire child welfare system, to
improve the health and well-being of the child. State plans should seek
to establish a medical home for every child in foster care in order to
maintain that continuity through placement changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.S. General Accounting Office. Foster care: health needs of
many young children are unknown and unmet. Washington, DC: (GAO/HEHS-
95-114); 1995.
\3\ Takayama JI, Wolfe E, Coulter KP. Relationship between reason
for placement and medical findings among children in foster care.
Pediatrics. 1998;101(2):201-207.
\4\ Halfon N, Mendonca A, Berkowitz G. Health status of children in
foster care. The experience of the Center for the Vulnerable Child.
Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. 1995;149(4):386-392.
\5\ Simms MD. The foster care clinic: a community program to
identify treatment needs of children in foster care. Journal of
Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics. 1989;10(3):121-128.
\6\ Halfon N, Mendonca A, Berkowitz G. Health status of children in
foster care. The experience of the Center for the Vulnerable Child.
Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. 1995;149(4):386-392.
\7\ Landsverk JA, Garland AF, Leslie LK. Mental health services for
children reported to child protective services. Vol 2. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications; 2002.
\8\ Glisson C. The effects of services coordination teams on
outcomes for children in state custody. Adminstration in Social Work.
1994;18:1-23.
\9\ Trupin EW, Tarico VS, Low BP, Jemelka R, McClellan J. Children
on child protective service caseloads: Prevalence and nature of serious
emotional disturbance. Child Abuse & Neglect. 1993;17(3):345-355.
\10\ Clausen JM, Landsverk J, Ganger W, Chadwick D, Litrownik A.
Mental health problems of children in foster care. Journal of Child &
Family Studies. 1998;7(3):283-296.
\11\ Urquiza AJ, Wirtz SJ, Peterson MS, Singer VA. Screening and
evaluating abused and neglected children entering protective custody.
Child Welfare. Mar-Apr 1994;73(2):155-171.
\12\ Garland AF, Hough RL, Landsverk JA, et al. Racial and ethnic
variations in mental health care utilization among children in foster
care. Children's Services: Social Policy, Research, & Practice.
2000;3(3):133-146.
\13\ Pecora P, Kessler R, Williams J, et al. Improving family
foster care: findings from the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study.
Seattle, WA: Casey Family Programs, available at http://www.casey.org;
2005.
\14\ U.S. Government Accountability Office. Child Welfare:
Improving Social Service Program, Training, and Technical Assistance
Information Would Help Address Long-standing Service-Level and
Workforce Challenges. Washington, DC: U.S. GAO; 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oversight of Prescription Medication. A 2006 report prepared by the
Government Accountability Office found that 15 states identified the
overuse of psychotropic medications as one of the leading issues facing
their child welfare systems in the next few years.\14\ Another key
study demonstrated that in the Medicaid program, children in foster
care were much more likely to use three or more psychotropic
medications than children who qualified through the Supplemental
Security Income program. Those data have shown alarming interstate
variation in the prescription patterns of psychotropic medications for
children across our nation.
Clearly, medication can be helpful to some children, but with the
increasing use of these medications among children in general, there
comes the added responsibility to ensure that children have access to
an array of treatment strategies, from medication to community-based
services that may augment or replace the need for medications in many
circumstances. Furthermore, the failure to coordinate and provide
continuity in services and the absence of clear guidelines and
accountability to ensure that treatment decisions are in the child's
best interest, create a greater risk that medications will be
prescribed to control children's behaviors in the absence of
individualized service plans that might offer the best chance for
success. ACF's Program Instruction ``encourage[d] States to pay
particular attention to oversight of the use of psychotropic medicines
in treating the mental health care needs of children.'' The AAP urges
the agency to require every HOCP to include specific steps for
monitoring the prescription of medication to children in foster care.
Consultation Regarding Care. Lastly, the Fostering Connections law
directs states to indicate in the HOCP ``how the State actively
consults with and involves physicians or other appropriate medical or
non-medical professionals in assessing the health and well-being of
children in foster care and in determining appropriate medical
treatment for the children.'' This provision is critical to improving
systems of care for children in the child welfare system. Pediatricians
and other health care professionals should be partners with child
welfare workers in improving the health and wellbeing of their charges.
States should provide a detailed explanation, algorithm, or flowchart
of what systems are in place to ensure that medical decisions are made
by the appropriate individuals and the coordination among all parties
who are responsible, in whole or in part, for the child's health and
medical care.
Utilization of Plans
The AAP urges the agency to examine ways in which state Health
Oversight and Coordination Plans can be used by both the agency and the
individual states to track and improve care. On the federal level, it
is our hope that ACF will share the AAP's comments as potential
guidelines for states embarking upon the development of plans. The
agency should highlight particularly innovative plans as models for
other states. We encourage ACF to make clear that these plans are not
intended to be static documents but dynamic processes that help drive
continuous quality improvement. States should consider using this
planning process to help inform their Performance Improvement Plans
under Child and Family Service Reviews as well as other periodic
efforts to improve child welfare and foster care systems.
In closing, the American Academy of Pediatrics stands ready to
assist Congress and the Administration on Children and Families in
improving the health and wellbeing of children in foster care. The
Academy has substantial expertise and specific resources regarding
health care for children in foster care, including books, checklists
and guidelines. We hope the Subcommittee and ACF will call upon the AAP
as a resource both on the federal level and in assisting individual
states to improve the health of the children in their care.
Statement of Amy Lemley, John Burton Foundation
On behalf of the John Burton Foundation for Children Without Homes,
please accept this submission for the record to the Hearing on the
Implementation of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing
Adoptions Act to be held in the Subcommittee on Income Security and
Family Support on September 15, 2009.
The John Burton Foundation offers the following two recommendations
regarding the implementation of PL 110-351:
Guardianship Assistance Program (GAP) Reimbursement
Program Instructions CB-PI-08-007 for the Guardianship
Assistance Program (GAP), issued on December 24, 2008, state that
states may only claim GAP reimbursement starting the first day of the
first quarter in which their Title IV-E plan was approved and only for
cases in which a child exits from IV-E foster care into a kinships
arrangement.
This has the effect of excluding the over 14,000 children in
California's Kinship Guardianship Assistance Program (Kin-GAP) from
services provided by IV-E kinship care, including Medicaid eligibility,
along with thousands of other children in established state-funded
guardianship assistance programs. This was not the intent of the
legislation and the John Burton Foundation joins with the National
Governors Association, the National Conference on State Legislatures,
the National Association of Counties and the American Public Human
Services Association in calling for the Administration on Children and
Families to rescind the Program Instructions and issue new instructions
that allow states to claim current eligible cases retroactive to
October 7, 2008, as intended by Congress.
The Definition of ``Supervised Setting'' in FCSIAA Regulations
The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions
Act permits, for the first time, reimbursement for ``a supervised
setting in which the individual lives independently'' for youth between
the ages of 18 and 21, and requires that regulations be promulgated to
define this setting. The John Burton Foundation recommends that these
regulations reflect current best practices for semi-supervised living
settings, including but not limited to: individual scattered-site
apartments, clustered supervised apartments, shared homes, boarding
homes and host homes. Similarly, the regulations should permit states
the flexibility to individualize these settings and ensure they help
youth move towards permanency and other well-being goals.
California has tested this approach in its implementation of
the Transitional Housing Placement Program (THP-Plus) a state-funded
program that provides 24 months of affordable housing and supportive
services to former foster youth, ages 18 to 24. Of the 2,047 youth who
participated in THP-Plus in Fiscal Year 08-09, 48% lived in individual
scattered-site apartments, 37% lived in clustered supervised apartments
and 15% lived in host homes. Offering THP-Plus in a range of settings
has allowed the diverse developmental needs of youth to be met. THP-
Plus participants compare favorably to the general population of former
foster youth in a series of measured criteria. THP-Plus has also
provided older youth with the opportunity to live in age-appropriate
settings where they can apply and develop their independent living
skills.
California currently has pending legislation to extend federal
support for youth in foster care to age 21. This legislation, Assembly
Bill 12, includes a range of living settings for young adults, age 18
to 21. The John Burton Foundation requests that federal regulations
which define ``supervised setting in which the individual lives
independently'' mirror the definitions included in AB 12 (attached).
Thank you very much for your consideration of these issues. If you
have any questions, please contact me at 415-693-1322.
Sincerely,
Amy Lemley, Policy Director
Statement of Beverly Tran
My name is Beverly Tran and I rise to this occasion to thank you
for listening to the voice of the people, for it has been silenced for
far too long. I share with you my sole concern with the implementation
of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of
2008 (P.L. 110-351), and that is a lack of checks and balances.
Understanding the failure of implementation
Since 2001, I have been seeking the explanation of parental rights.
More than just a statutory definition, I sought to understand its
epistemology beyond the general consensus of social theory.
Why had there yet to be demonstrated a logically constructed,
conceptual and operational formula for the determining factor of
parental rights? My only recourse was to deconstruct the policies of
child welfare. What I found was the existence of a well-founded
methodology in determining parental rights, including its clear and
concise evidentiary standard. The foundation of parental rights had
been laid many centuries ago in property law, theorized through
microeconomics.
The reason child welfare, specifically child protective services,
foster care and adoption, in its current state, will never meet its end
goal of functioning in the best interest of the child with the current
implementation of this Act, is because no one understands what it is
that is being protected. It is not the child, per say, but the future
of the child to mature to be a tax-paying contributor to society.
No one understands that checks and balances of the child welfare
system do not exist.
Child welfare as a frontier industry
Child welfare must not be understood as an industry that was
constructed to maximize the profits of society through the best
interests of the child, but it must be understood as a profit-
maximizing industry that has schemes to increase its inputs,
throughputs and outputs to ensure the economic sustainability of the
public and private contractual arms of the states. Inputs are children
who enter child welfare; throughputs are foster children; and, outputs
are those children that exit the system, whether through reunification,
adoption, maturation or attrition.
The Fostering Connections Act can be properly implemented, but only
if this Congress understands that there needs to be a substantial
change in its current operations by implementing checks and balances.
A lack of market regulation
Since foster care and adoption statutorily became a fully, publicly
funded industry in 1974, it has operated strictly with federal funding
and regulations, only in the form of financial penalties if the market
shows signs of weakness, as states must meet and exceed the previous
year's federally mandated benchmark of the number of children under the
auspices of the state to avoid financial penalties. The market is
devoid of competition as the government is monopolistic with its
statutory control and possesses sufficient authority to acquire the
goods and procure the services, through the removal of the child by and
through the removal of the legal rights to the grant of custody and
guardianship.
Upon further examination, it will be demonstrated that it is the
right of the state to grant the custody and guardianship, for it is the
state that is the possessor of parental rights to the acquisition of
goods.
Due to the lack of this understanding, federal and state policies
have been improperly formatted and implemented. We, as a nation have
witnessed the residual effects of a system devoid of oversight, and
that is our financial system. Now, we are experiencing the second wave
of fraud as our national leadership is fast asleep at the helm of the
ship named health care.
Child welfare operates in a risk aversive market, as it
intentionally never included the oversight mechanism of accountability
and transparency; there are no checks and balances, hence, no incurred
liabilities from error.
The mechanical error that I have identified is the systemic
deficiency of checks and balances, embedded deep within the ethos of
foster care and adoption. Checks and balances, essential elements in
tripartite governments, must be readily recognized as accountability
and transparency.
No accountability
If it has been determined that law and policy has been violated
within the mechanical procedures of foster care and adoption, it is
considered as an acceptable mistake, with a federally acceptable range
of error of 0.10. This acceptable error is the destruction of a family.
Nothing is publicly reported, not even for the purposes of
ameliorating future material and provisional violations of law and
policy, particularly those committed under the color of law. This
phenomenon is largely due to an inherent conflict of interest breed
within the philosophical edifice of the child welfare system. Under the
doctrine of parens patriae, the states attorney general have been
granted the powers of parental rights through statutory declarations of
commerce.
It thus becomes a contentious issue of intervention: ``Do the
states attorney general advocate to further a compelling governmental
interest in the representation of the state and its contractual arms of
child welfare, or do the states attorney general advocate for the
citizen individuals who have been granted the gift of custody and
guardianship? The child welfare system, in whole, incorporating all
facets of the industry, functions on the fallacy of affirming the
disjunct, that is, the government operates in good faith and there is
no need to advocate for the citizen individuals who allegedly violated
the granted gift of custody and guardianship.
Simply put, it is in the best interests of the child for government
to invest in the profitable return of a future tax-paying, productive
citizen, and not to advocate for the non-productive individual citizen,
for that individual has violated the social compact in failing to
contribute to the society as a whole, whether it be morally,
intellectually, financially, or economically. Because of the belief
government functions in good faith, there is no need to construct and
implement a congruent system of checks and balances in child welfare.
The crime of poverty has been justified.
Public disenfranchisement
Where public access and voter participation into the mechanical
process of this market are the checks, the general public is
disenfranchised because child welfare law and policies are neither put
up for public discussion nor full disclosure. Even more so, a targeted
population is specifically disenfranchised because children are not
allowed the right to vote.
Child welfare protects and preserves itself by importing policies
to obviate transparency and accountability, whereby, it has
manufactured obfuscatory policies to terminate parental rights of the
granted gift of custody and guardianship to ``cloak'' the industry of
abuse and neglect.
That ``cloak'', for which I reference, is laced with public
policies to create the tapestry of public perceptions, to conceal the
inner workings of the industry of child welfare. This cloak is
impenetrable to empirical analysis, as it is hermetically sealed by the
Freedom of Information Act, and the institutionalized belief that
sealed information of child welfare policies furthers a compelling
governmental interest. That compelling governmental interest is the
general welfare of the public, now and in the future.
When the 1974 Child Abuse Prevention Treatment Act[i] was designed,
a fatal flaw was inculcated into 1997 Adoption Safe Families Act, and
its subsequent legislative actions. I speak again of the lack of checks
and balances. This philosophical tenet is embedded deep within core of
public belief, woven into the historical fabric of society and
engrained into the academic discipline of policy analysis, where
nothing could be of the contrary. Initial funding streams from Social
Security Title I, Title II, Title IV-A, B, D and E, Title V and
Medicaid Targeted Case Management (TCM), as well as others, were
created to flow down to the states to care for abused and neglected
children who were qualified as impoverished under the means test of
Title IV-A under the Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF). Simply
put, poverty is codified as abuse and neglect and the discipline of
Social Work has generated the only literature of analysis, which has
been mostly qualitative.
No transparency
Under the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution,
states possess sovereign immunity from prosecution of wrongdoing by the
Federal Government. Immunity is then draped to circumvent
accountability and transparency in non-reporting/non-disclosure through
Freedom Of Information Act exceptions. Basically, anything dealing with
errors in child welfare cases, more intuitively recognized as fraud,
waste and abuse, is kept from the public for the protection of the
child, justifying the lack of need for exclusionary databases and
reporting protocol.
Due to the lack of transparency, federal and state policies have
been improperly formatted and implemented. We, as a nation have
witnessed the residual effects of a system devoid of oversight, and
that is our financial system. Now, we are experiencing the second wave
of attack on our nation's economic security as our national leadership
have been fast asleep at the helm of the ship named health care. The
monster named Medicaid fraud has victoriously raised its ugly head,
with no one to battle, until now.
Sunshine initiatives
I take this time to honor a great man, former U.S. Attorney General
Michael B. Mukasey, for personally inspiring me to continue my work to
end Medicaid fraud in child welfare. He is the first leader to listen
and speak out on the need for investigation on the levels of political
corruption, fraud, waste and abuse in the U.S. Administration for
Children and Families through the early initiatives of the Health Care
Fraud Enforcement Task Force (H.E.A.T.)
I take this time to thank the dedication of U.S. Attorney Eric H.
Holder, Jr., U.S. DHHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. DHHS Inspector
General Daniel R. Levinson for listening to the people and developing
the Strike Forces to end Medicare fraud in child welfare.
As it stands, there is no system of ``checks and balances'' to
maintain the integrity of operations and best interests for all
stakeholders involved in the implementation of this Act. The amount of
power and money involved in child welfare is massive, involving
multiple funding streams of Social Security and Medicaid, yet pails to
the levels of fraud, waste and abuse of taxpayer dollars. Poverty is
codified as the crime of abuse and neglect for eligibility of a child
entering foster care is strictly based on being impoverished. Hence, as
poverty increases so shall the number of child removals to foster care.
Billions of dollars of federal fraud were found through only cursory
audits conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(DHHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) and U.S. Department of
Justice, but this shall be no longer for the people have been heard.
The OIG has identified a number of state financing arrangements and
other revenue-maximization tactics that inappropriately increase
Federal Medicaid payments to States. Children are being double-billed,
provided for unnecessary medical services and phantom programs are
funded that bill fictitious children and services. This is what is
called fraud, or more intuitively, federal false claims. Every year,
lawyers across the nation are settling an increased number of lawsuits
against states, child placing agencies and foster parents to the tune
of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars, all because the nation has not
had the opportunity to be exposed to the child welfare industry for
what it is: a market.
U.S. DHHS funded organization, Council On Accreditation, has
nothing to do with children and families as they only lobby for their
due-paying, state contracted, private agencies. An accreditation
organization is not supposed to be established to advocate for
transgressors of law, but it does.
It is time to hold these privatized child placing agencies to the
same standards they hold the guardians of children. If the agencies
possess the empowering authority to remove children and advocate
termination of parental rights, then, in the same wielding of justice,
the state should possess the empowering authority to remove licenses
and terminate contractual relationships, and effectuate contractual
debarment with these child placing agencies. The regulatory mechanism
of the OIG exclusion database is in place but is not utilized.
Implementation recommendations
Improve regulation
As these child welfare programs function devoid of any
accountability, the first instance of oversight would be to effectuate
financial sanctions and contractual debarment with privatized agencies
through the state licensing agencies. Privatized agencies operate as
not-for-profit, therefore excluding them from external audits.
Typically, child placing agencies self-report on an honor system
because it is too costly for a state to retain the manpower and
resources to properly ensure that each entity is in compliance with the
requirements or receiving federal funds pursuant to the Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-133. It becomes more cost-effective
for a state to turn its head and allow fraudulent billing to occur than
to enforce regulation.
The largest federally funded component of child welfare is not the
Social Security Title IV-E, as everyone would like to believe, it is
Medicaid: Targeted Case Management and Optional Targeted Case
Management. States need to decrease its percentage in the federal
formula for Medicaid funding. Right now it is approximately 50%. It
becomes more cost effective for a state to continue sinking money into
a dysfunctional child welfare system than come into federal compliance
with its operations, such as enforcing existing accountability statutes
in dealing with fraud. Assumption may be formulated that some states
use a portion of the Federal Funding Percentage to meet its State
Funding Percentage. This can only be disproved with regulation.
Encourage State Medicaid Fraud Units to prosecute and recover
State Medicaid Fraud Units need to finally step up to the plate and
start aggressively going after Medicaid fraud in child welfare. If the
Attorney General is ever able to release himself from the statutory
constraint of only advocating for transgressors of law, the recovery
percentage of the federal portions of the fraud would be situated at
10%, bringing back in billions of lost funds from over the past few
years and demonstrating exemplary standards to deter future fraudulent
transgressions.
These state units can be encouraged to work with its citizens, as
they may be the eyes and ears of regulation through public awareness
campaigns, whistleblower litigations, and state Medicaid False Claims
statutes. As many abuse and neglect programs are riddled with
fraudulent billing and poor or falsely generated performance reports,
the only way of verifying this is to listen to the people.
Promote the funding of public legal defense and grievance databases
Unfortunately, one of the few ways a family can access medical,
social, psychological services for children today is through a court
classification of abuse and neglect. Social welfare assistance programs
have been cut, but the only federal funding streams that has opened up
to provide for those who need help has been foster care. It has come to
the point where there are no other options.
A blueprint for accountability and transparency was never conceived
in child welfare. When a social system has a zero error rating in
decisions to remove children and/or terminate parental rights, no
databases of grievances, sanctions, fines, contractual debarment,
including violations of material provisions of law and policy, a red
flag should immediately be raised. There is a greater possibility of
being not found of murder than it is being not found guilty of child
abuse and neglect, as the jurisprudence of dependency courts are
unparallel to traditional courts, the adjudication standard being
guilty, until proven innocent.
It is my hope that this Congress will direct a portion of this
funding to legal defense and for the construction of a grievance
database, similar to what is called for in the U.N. Intercountry
Adoption Treaty to foster connections between the people, the U.S. DHHS
OIG and U.S. DOJ AG to stop Medicaid fraud in child welfare.
Reinstatement of parental rights
If a system is to be viewed as balanced, there is always a counter-
balance. This would be the reinstatement of parental rights. Currently,
there are four states, which have some form of limited exceptions to
reinstatements. Technology has removed the barrier of contact and time.
In light of the crux of my position on Medicaid fraud, there does exist
improper and unnecessary removals of children and termination of
parental rights, by what is considered as being legally kidnapped.
There are times where it may take an individual more than 12 months to
obtain the help needed to succeed in life. We must understand the
severance of a legacy has not proven to be the best means in dealing
with the hardships of others. Let us take the time to reunite these
children with the degrees of consanguinity and affinity so they may
have a chance to connect to a profitable and successful future for
their own best interests.
With sincerity and serenity,
Beverly Tran
Statement of Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP)
Thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement for the record
regarding the September 15, 2009 Hearing on the Implementation of the
Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act. CLASP is
a national nonprofit that works to improve the lives of low-income
people. CLASP's mission is to develop and advocate for policies at the
federal, state and local levels that improve the lives of low income
people. We focus on policies that strengthen families and create
pathways to education and work. To carry out this mission, CLASP
conducts research, provides policy analysis, advocates at the federal
and state levels, and offers information and technical assistance on a
range of family policy and equal justice issues for our audience of
federal, state, and local policymakers; advocates; researchers; and the
media. CLASP does not receive any federal funding and is funded
primarily by major national foundations.
The bipartisan Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing
Adoptions Act, signed into law last October, represents the most
significant federal reforms for abused and neglected children in foster
care in over a decade. CLASP applauds the work of this subcommittee
that went into the developing and passing this critical piece of
legislation. The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing
Adoptions Act would not have been possible without the tireless work of
Chairman McDermott, key Members of this subcommittee including former
Ranking Member Weller, the Senate Finance Committee and Congressional
staff. As Chairman McDermott noted in his opening statement at the
September 15, 2009 hearing on the implementation of Fostering
Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act, this law
``represents the best of Congress. It shows what can be achieved when
both sides come together to work in good faith to address a problem.''
The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act
will help hundreds of thousands of children and youth by promoting
permanent families for children in foster care; improving outcomes for
children and youth involved with the child welfare system; increasing
support for American Indian and Alaska Native children; and improving
the quality of staff working with children in the child welfare system.
Below, we will look at the provisions of the act in each of these
areas, highlighting some examples of implementation efforts that are
underway.
Promoting Permanent Families for Children in Foster Care
Identify and Provide Notice to Relatives
The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act
helps ensure that relatives are notified, allowing grandparents and
other relatives to get involved early in the child's case. The state
child welfare agency must exercise due diligence to identify and
provide notice to all adult grandparents and other relatives of each
child within 30 days of the child's removal from his or her parent(s)'
custody. Sometimes relatives can keep the child out of foster care. A
relative who cannot provide a placement for a child may be able to
participate in the child's care in other important ways, such as by
maintaining a relationship with the child or taking the child to
doctor's appointments, extracurricular activities or visits with birth
parents.
Prior to the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing
Adoptions Act, many states made, in practice, some attempt to locate
and notify adult relatives of children being removed from their
parent's custody, these attempts were often only cursory. We learned
that in addition to depriving the child of the stability and continuity
that placement with a relative could provide, bypassing the
notification of relatives could prove quite tragic should someone later
seek to adopt the child. All too often, a diligent search for relatives
occurred only at the time parental rights were terminated and adoption
was underway when the child had likely bonded with non-relative foster
parents. Additionally, the sad reality was that relatives sometimes did
not learn of a child's placement until after an adoption was finalized.
Recognizing these concerns, a number of states had enacted laws
prior to the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions
Act requiring that adult relatives be notified when a child is removed
from his or her parent's custody. Since the enactment of the act,
additional states have introduced or enacted similar legislation.
Family Connection Grants
Seven months after enactment, a Request for Proposals was issued
allowing states, tribes and non-profit organizations to apply for
Family Connection Grants.
Family Connection Grants are competitive grants that will allow
applicants to create or enhance programs that will connect children in
or at risk of entering foster care to their families. State, local, and
tribal child welfare agencies and non-profit agencies that have
experience serving children in foster or kinship care can apply for the
grants to establish or expand Kinship Navigators, Family Group Decision
Making, Intensive Family Finding, or Residential Family-Based Substance
Abuse Treatment programs. A portion of the funds are reserved each year
for funding Kinship Navigator programs.
A number of states and other entities have applied for grants for
different activities, some to take action in more than one category. It
is expected that the awards will be announced by the Department for
Health and Human Services (HHS) by the end of the week.
Kinship Guardianship Assistance
Consistent with a considerable body of research that indicates when
children can't be raised by their parents they often do best with
relatives, 37 states and the District of Columbia offer support to help
children leave foster care to live permanently with relative guardians.
The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act
provides federal support to build on existing programs and to encourage
additional states to implement similar programs.
Under the new Kinship Guardianship Assistance Program, states have
the option to use federal Title IV-E funds for kinship guardianship
payments for children who have a strong attachment to and are cared for
by prospective relative guardians who are committed to caring for these
children permanently when they leave foster care. To be eligible for
the kinship guardianship assistance payment, children must be eligible
for federal foster care maintenance payments while living in the home
of a relative for at least six consecutive months in foster care. There
must also have been a determination by the state agency that return
home and adoption are not appropriate permanency options for the child.
Children 14 and older must be consulted about the kinship guardianship
arrangement. Siblings may be placed in the same home and receive
support even if they do not meet other eligibility requirements.
Children eligible for these payments are also automatically eligible
for Medicaid, as are children in foster care and those who receive
adoption assistance payments.
CLASP is happy to see that a number of states have introduced or
enacted legislation that would allow them to operate a Kinship
Guardianship Assistance Program. While fewer states have submitted the
requisite state plan amendments that will allow them to draw down Title
IV-E funds to operate such programs (and, as we understand it, only
Rhode Island's plan amendment has been approved as of the date of the
hearing), we view the state legislative activity as a positive
indicator of states' interest in the option.
CLASP and the Children's Defense Fund in collaboration with 18
other national organizations developed a Question and Answer guide
intended to assist with implementation of the provisions impacting
children being raised by grandparents and other relatives. New Help for
Children Raised by Grandparents and Other Relatives: Questions and
Answers About the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing
Adoptions Act of 2008 is available on the CLASP website at: http://
www.clasp.org/issues/pages?type=child_welfare&id=0001.
Licensing Standards for Relatives
The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act
codifies existing U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
guidance stating that agencies may, on a case-by-case basis, waive non-
safety related licensing standards when licensing a relative's home.
For example, this may include waiving the requirement that each child
have a separate bedroom if the relative is taking in siblings or
waiving the requirement that a home have a certain amount of square
footage per person. The new law also requires HHS to report to Congress
within two years on how states are using the ability to waive non-
safety standards and make recommendations as to how additional barriers
to licensing relatives' homes can be eliminated. Guidance issued on
June 3, 2009 (ACYF-CB-PI-09-06) requires that states provide to HHS by
December 15, 2009 information related to licensing, to the extent
practicable, that will inform the report to Congress.
Information from this report may suggest additional opportunities
for allowing more children in foster care to be safely placed in foster
family homes with relatives and be eligible for federal support.
Adoption ``De-link''
As of October 1, 2009, states with federal adoption assistance
programs will be able to claim federal funds for more children with
special needs by ``de-linking'' a child's eligibility for federal
adoption assistance payments from outdated AFDC income requirements.
Next month, states must begin phasing in an expansion of the program to
reach more eligible children with special needs, beginning with older
children and children who already have been in care for five years and
their siblings, who often are the most difficult to place for adoption.
Other children will be phased in by age over the next nine years so
that all eligible children with special needs will be covered by
October 1, 2017. Guidance issued on August 26, 2009 (ACYF-CB-PI-09-10)
provides states and tribes with information pertaining to the changes
in the Title IV-E adoption assistance eligibility requirements
resulting from the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing
Adoptions Act.
Increased Incentives for Adoption
The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act
reauthorizes the Adoption Incentive Program for five years and enhances
the incentives available to promote the adoption of children from
foster care. The act updates to FY 2007 the adoption baseline above
which incentive payments are made, doubles the incentive payments for
adoptions of children with special needs and older children adoptions,
and gives states 24 months to use the adoption incentive payments. The
act also permits states to receive an additional payment if the state's
adoption rate exceeds its highest recorded foster child adoption rate
since 2002. On September 14, 2009 HHS announced that it had awarded $35
million in adoption incentive payments to 38 states and Puerto Rico for
the first year that the enhanced adoption incentives under the
Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act.
Sibling Connections
Vital to the advocacy efforts that helped move the Fostering
Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act through Congress
were the voices of youth who were in or had been a part of the child
welfare system. They shared their stories and poignantly made the case
for reforms. The request for support in maintaining connections with
their siblings was voiced by many of the youth. The act takes important
steps in response.
State agencies must make reasonable efforts to place siblings
together, whether in foster, kinship guardianship, or adoptive
placements, unless placing them together would be contrary to their
safety or well-being. If the siblings are not placed together, the
agency must make reasonable efforts to ensure that the siblings
maintain their connections to each other through frequent visitation or
other ongoing interaction. An exception to maintaining connections is
permissible only if such contact would be contrary to the safety or
well-being of one or more of the children. Sibling connections are
significant to a child in foster care's emotional and social
development since siblings often provide the connection and stability
that is no longer available from the child's parents.
We know that, prior to the Fostering Connections to Success and
Increasing Adoptions Act, many states had policies in place to help
facilitate sibling connections. In response to the act states may have
to update some of these policies to ensure that reasonable efforts are
made and to incorporate the documentation requirements. Since the
enactment of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing
Adoptions Act, a number of states have also introduced or enacted
legislation pertaining to sibling connections.
Improving Outcomes for Children and Youth Involved with the Child
Welfare System
Extension of Care Beyond Age 18
Few 18 year olds in the general population are prepared to support
themselves. Approximately half of all young people between the ages of
18-24 still live with their parents. This is not an option for youth
who are in foster care. A youth struggling with a history of
maltreatment and who has no family to turn to for support is expected
to make it on his own. Acknowledging this reality, the Fostering
Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act gives states the
option to claim federal funds for Title IV-E eligible young adults in
foster care, guardianship and adoptive homes beyond their 18th birthday
to the age of 19, 20, or 21 beginning on October 1, 2010. With limited
exceptions, states can currently only claim federal assistance for
children and youth up to their 18th birthday. States will only be
federally reimbursed for those young adults who are eligible for Title
IV-E assistance payments and who are completing secondary education or
in a program leading to an equivalent credential; enrolled in an
institution that provides post-secondary or vocational education;
participating in a program or activity designed to promote, or remove
barriers to, employment; employed for at least 80 hours per month; or,
if a child's medical condition makes him or her incapable of engaging
in these activities, updated information on their condition must be
maintained in the child's case plan.
The National Foster Care Coalition along with a number of other
organizations, including CLASP, developed a Frequently Asked Questions
guide intended to aide states in implementing the extension of care
beyond age 18 and other provisions that will most directly impact youth
in foster care. The guide, Fostering Connections to Success and
Increasing Adoptions Act: Frequently Asked Questions on the Provisions
Designed to Impact Youth and Young Adults, can be accessed on the CLASP
website at: http://www.clasp.org/issues/
pages?type=child_welfare&id=0001
A number of the groups that helped develop the FAQ continue to work
together to develop additional resources to assist with implementation
efforts. The regulations required by the Fostering Connections to
Success and Increasing Adoptions Act to define ``supervised setting in
which the individual is living independently'' have not yet been issued
but will be important for moving implementation efforts forward.
Helping Older Youth Successfully Transition from Care to Independence
Like all young adults, those youth who have spent time in foster
care, often need some assistance in preparing for adulthood. They may
need help deciding between various educational and employment
opportunities or setting up utilities in their first apartment. The
Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act helps
ensure that youth in foster care have the assistance they need in
planning for their futures. As part of the case review system, the act
requires that, in the 90-day period immediately prior to when a youth
turns 18 (or 19, 20 or 21 as the state may elect), a caseworker and any
other appropriate representatives work with the child to develop a
personalized transition plan that is as detailed as the child chooses.
The plan must include specifics on housing, health insurance,
education, local opportunities for mentors and continuing support
services, and workforce supports and employment services. This
transition plan is required for all youth for whom foster care
maintenance payments are being made. Youth who have returned home or
for whom kinship guardianship assistance or adoption assistance
payments are being made must also have a transition plan if they are
also receiving Chafee Program benefits or services.
The act also clarifies that children who leave foster care at age
16 or older for kinship guardianship are eligible under the John H.
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program independent living services for
educational and training vouchers (ETVs).
Educational Stability and Attendance
The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act
recognizes the importance of educational stability and continuity and
takes important steps toward improving educational outcomes for
children involved with the child welfare system. The law requires
states to coordinate with local education agencies to ensure that
children remain in the school they are enrolled in at the time of
placement into foster care, unless that would not be in the child's
best interests. If such placement is not in the child's best interests
then the state must ensure that the child is immediately enrolled in a
new school and that all of the child's educational records are
transferred promptly.
The act also requires that states provide assurances in their Title
IV-E state plans that every school--age child in foster care, and every
school--age child receiving an adoption assistance or subsidized
guardianship payment, is attending elementary or secondary school or
has completed secondary school. The Fostering Connections to Success
and Increasing Adoptions Act also gives states the option to include
school-related transportation costs as a cost related to the
maintenance of a child in foster care, rather than as an administrative
cost.
Joint guidance may be needed from the Department of Education and
HHS addressing how schools and child welfare agencies can best work
together to serve the children and youth involved with the child
welfare system.
Health Oversight and Coordination
The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act
requires each state work through its state child welfare agency and the
state agency that administers Medicaid and in consultation with
pediatricians, other health care experts, and experts in and recipients
of child welfare services to create a plan to ensure oversight and
coordination of health care for children in foster care. The plan must
include a strategy to identify and respond to the health care needs of
children in foster care, including mental and dental health needs.
States were required to submit their state plans with the health
oversight and coordination plan--unless they were permitted a delay for
required state legislation--by June 30, 2009.
Increasing Support for American Indian and Alaska Native Children
Direct Access to Title IV-E for Indian Tribes
As of October 1, 2009, Indian tribes and tribal consortia will be
able, for the first time, to directly access Title IV-E funds to
administer their own foster care, kinship guardianship and adoption
assistance programs. Prior to the Fostering Connections to Success and
Increasing Adoptions Act, Indian tribes could only access Title IV-E
funds through an agreement with a state government but fewer than half
of the federally recognized tribes had such an agreement. Direct access
will help extend important Title IV-E services and protections--many of
those provided by Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing
Adoptions Act--to more American Indian children.
73 tribal entities have indicated that they intend to directly
operate their own programs. 15 have already applied for development
grants in preparation for operating Title IV-E programs.
Improving the Quality of Staff Working with Children in the Child
Welfare System
Extending Federal Support for Training
The child welfare workforce faces a number of challenges including
excessive caseloads and high turnover. The Fostering Connections to
Success and Increasing Adoptions Act took important steps toward
enhancing the workforce by allowing states to claim, on a phased in
basis, federal funding for short-term training of several groups who
could not previously be trained with Title IV-E funds: relative
guardians, staff of private agencies and courts, and attorneys for
parents and children and guardians ad litem and court appointed special
advocates working with children in the child welfare system. Providing
federal support for the short-term training of these additional groups
is more consistent with the realities of child welfare practice yet
there is more that must be done to improve the child welfare workforce
to ensure that staff working with all children in child welfare will
have access to federally supported training.
Implementation Challenges Exist but There is Much to Build On
There is evidence that important strides have been made and are
being taken in implementing the provisions of the Fostering Connections
to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act to ensure that children truly
benefit from the new law. While some of the improvements made by the
act will take effect and become options over time, it is important to
note that the majority of the requirements and options created by the
act took effect immediately upon enactment. As highlighted above,
states have demonstrated that they are working to implement these
provisions. Advocates have also acted to help facilitate prompt,
effective implementation. Since the Fostering Connections to Success
and Increasing Adoptions Act became law a number of resources including
guides, fact sheets and power points have been developed. Several of
these resources can be accessed on the CLASP website at: http://
www.clasp.org/issues/pages?type=child_welfare&id=0001
States have reported experiencing some challenges in implementing
various aspects of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing
Adoptions Act. A number of these challenges are attributable to the
economic crisis and others result from the need for guidance. In spite
of these challenges, legislation to implement numerous provisions of
the act has been introduced or enacted in many states. It is important
to note that legislation may not be required in all states for all
provisions. Instead some states may have already had in place, prior to
enactment, laws that are in compliance with one or more of the
requirements in or that would allow them to take the options available
through the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions
Act. Some states may have been able to modify existing policies that to
ensure their full compliance with the act. It is hoped that HHS will
actively consult with states, tribes, advocates and other stakeholders
in order to continue moving implementation forward to help improve
outcomes for children and families.
There are important opportunities for Congress to help ensure that
the promises of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing
Adoptions Act are realized by children and families. First,
Congressional Members can provide leadership in their states and
encourage that implementation move swiftly and that options--
particularly the kinship guardianship assistance and extension of care
beyond age 18 options--are taken advantage of as Congress intended.
Equally important, this subcommittee should take the opportunity to
build on and complement the Fostering Connections to Success and
Increasing Adoptions Act by addressing additional changes needed at the
federal level to improve outcomes for children and families. As so many
of those who provided leadership for this legislation said as it was
being developed, the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing
Adoptions Act makes critical strides on behalf of children in foster
care, but there is more to be done to ensure the safety, permanence and
well-being of children.
The provisions in the Fostering Connections to Success and
Increasing Adoptions Act will help achieve better outcomes for children
who have spent time in foster care by helping to mitigate the trauma of
foster care and by helping children move safely into permanent
families. However, the Federal Government must do more to prevent child
abuse and neglect and to avoid placement in foster care in the first
place. Currently federal fiscal structures are not well-aligned with
prevention--most federal funding is focused on intervening only after a
child has been removed from his or her home not on providing sufficient
resources to develop the front-end of the continuum of services and
supports children and families need. We must build on the Fostering
Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act and create a child
welfare system that offers a continuum of services that prevents abuse
and neglect from occurring in the first place, as well as provide
treatment and support for those, who despite our best efforts,
experience maltreatment.
Federal investment and leadership in child welfare must do the
following:
Increase prevention and early intervention services
that help keep children and families out of crisis;
Increase specialized treatment services for those
children and families that do experience crisis;
Increase services to support families after a crisis
has stabilized (including birth families, as well as kinship
and adoptive families created when parents cannot care for
their children);
Enhance the quality of the workforce providing
services to children and families; and
Improve accountability both for dollars spent and
outcomes achieved.
The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act
makes a down payment on our children's future. CLASP thanks you for
your leadership and looks forward to continuing to work with you.
Together we can create a child welfare system that offers a continuum
of services that prevent abuse and neglect from occurring in the first
place, as well as provide treatment and support for those, who despite
our best efforts, experience maltreatment.
Statement of Children's Defense Fund
The Children's Defense Fund (CDF) appreciates the opportunity to
submit this written statement on implementation of the Fostering
Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2009. We ask
that it be added to the record of the September 15, 2009 Hearing on the
Implementation of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing
Adoptions Act held by the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Income
Security and Family Support.
The Children's Defense Fund's Leave No Child Behind mission is to
ensure every child a Healthy Start, a Head Start, a Fair Start, a Safe
Start and a Moral Start in life and successful passage to adulthood
with the help of caring families and communities. The Children's
Defense Fund provides a strong, effective and independent voice for all
children of America who cannot vote, lobby or speak for themselves. CDF
pays particular attention to the needs of poor and minority children
and those with disabilities. CDF is a private non-profit organization
and has never taken government funds.
CDF's advocacy for improved outcomes for children who are abused or
neglected or at risk of maltreatment predates the passage of the
Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980. Important steps have
been taken since that time to improve outcomes for these children and
their families, but enormous challenges remain. Therefore, it is
particularly exciting to be able to thank you for the important
improvements for children in foster care that you passed last fall in
the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act. They
represent the most significant reforms for children who are abused and
neglected and in foster care in more than a decade. These improvements,
when fully implemented, will promote the safety, permanence and well-
being of hundreds of thousands of children in foster care across the
country.
Improvements Made Through the Fostering Connections to Success and
Increasing Adoptions Act
When the Children's Defense Fund testified before this Subcommittee
in February 2008 on improving the child welfare system, at the time the
Invest in KIDS Act and other legislation was being considered, we
emphasized that improvements for children and families were needed in
five key areas: prevention, specialized treatment and attention to
basic needs, enhanced permanency options and post-permanency services,
improvements in the quality of the child welfare workforce, and
increased accountability for improved child outcomes and system
improvements. While the job is not done, the Fostering Connections to
Success and Increasing Adoptions Act holds promise for children to
truly benefit from improvements in most of these areas. States, with
support and sometimes prodding from private agencies, advocates,
relative caregivers and youths who have been in foster care, have begun
to issue guidance and proposed legislation to implement new programs,
practices and policies that will help to improve outcomes for children.
Groups of advocates and others have come together to develop guides
and pool resources in several areas to assist with implementation of
the Act's new provisions. See, for example, New Help for Children
Raised by Grandparents and Other Relatives: Questions and Answers About
the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of
2008, available at www.childrensdefense.org/FCSIAAguide and Frequently
Asked Questions on the Provisions Designed to Impact Youth and Young
Adults available at www.nationalfostercare.org/pdfs/NFCC-FAQ-
olderyouth-2009.pdf.
As Ms. Jacqueline Johnson Pata, Executive Director of the National
Congress of American Indians, testified at the Subcommittee's hearing
on September 15, there has also been close collaboration among
organizations representing Indian tribes, tribal consortia and other
national organizations that has helped to promote the opportunity
Indian tribes and tribal organizations and consortia have, effective
October 1, 2009, to obtain direct access to the federal support
provided by the Title IV-E Foster Care, Guardianship Assistance and
Adoption Assistance Programs. This is a long overdue reform. It is
encouraging that about 73 tribal entities from seven out of the ten
federal regions have expressed their intent to directly operate Title
IV-E programs and 15 actually have applied for development grants
provided under the act to help support their Title IV-E readiness
activities for two years. Many American Indian and Alaska Native
children stand to benefit from the protections, services and assistance
provided under the new Act and many of the initiatives we describe
below.
There also have been collaborative implementation efforts in the
states, encouraged and supported in some cases by national and local
foundations. Some have focused broadly on the Act and others on
specific provisions. For example, the Commissioner of the New York
State Office of Children and Family Services convened ``A Statewide
Roundtable on Subsidized Guardianship in New York State'' earlier in
the year, and similar forums have been held in other states. The new
Act also has prompted new collaborative efforts among child welfare and
other child-serving agencies that touch the lives of the children in
the child welfare system, most notably the education and health care
systems. In other states efforts are being made to get these
conversations started. The Act has stimulated excitement about the
opportunity for reform and helped to make the case, in these very tough
economic times, that these new reforms to benefit children and youths
cannot be ignored or postponed. These children and youths have waited
long enough. As Subcommittee Chairman McDermott said in his opening
statement at the hearing on September 15, ``Children in foster care
cannot wait for a time when reform is convenient.''
Below we highlight some of the changes in practice, program and
policy that are being pursued as a result of the Fostering Connections
to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act and that build on
recommendations CDF has shared with you in the past, as well as
references to some implementation activities that are underway.
Enhancing Prevention, Specialized Treatment and Supportive Services for
Children
Although many of the provisions in the Fostering Connections to
Success and Increasing Adoptions Act are focused on children and youth
already in foster care, there are some that will help to keep children
out of foster care and safely with their birth family or members of
their extended families.
Family Connection Grants
The Family Connection Grants, authorized under the Fostering
Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act, should be awarded
by the Children's Bureau in the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) by the end of September. They will give states, tribes and non-
profit organizations the opportunity to engage in activities to prevent
children from entering foster care and offer children and families some
of the basic supports and specialized treatment they need. Even the
prospect of applying for Family Connection grants has encouraged
collaboration on behalf of this group of vulnerable children. We are
familiar with several examples where university staff collaborated with
agencies in the development of the grant applications and others where
relative caregiver organizations joined with public agencies.
Grants for Kinship Navigator Programs will help link relatives with
support groups, respite care programs and other services. We have
learned about a number of states and caregiver groups that have applied
for such grants. Relative caregivers report that one of their greatest
challenges in raising children and keeping them out of foster care is
getting accurate information about the benefits and services that are
available to the children. In some cases the caregivers have been away
from parenting for a while and in others they have never had contact
with some of the service systems they need to approach for the
children, such as mental health and special education. The Kinship
Navigator Programs will help them get their children what they need.
Family Group Decision-Making meetings, which can also be supported
under the Family Connection Grants, will bring family members and
others familiar with the child and family together as decisions are
being made and help them work together to prevent the need for children
to enter foster care. These meetings also have been used effectively to
help ensure that children return home more promptly from care and, when
that is not possible, to help identify other permanency options for the
child.
Grants for comprehensive family-based substance abuse treatment
will help families get the treatment they need without requiring young
children to be separated from their families and can also be used
effectively to facilitate reunification. There are examples already
where these activities are being used to improve outcomes for children,
and it is so important that we will have an opportunity to learn more
about what works in these areas from the Family Connection Grants.
New Attention to Health and Education
The steps taken in the Fostering Connections to Success and
Increasing Adoptions Act to improve the basic health and education of
children in foster care will help ensure that special needs of children
in these areas will be identified. Improvements in children's health
and education also will improve children's opportunities for success
when they leave care.
Education Stability and Attendance. The Act requires state child
welfare agencies to improve educational stability for children in
foster care and ensure that they are attending school. It requires the
agencies to coordinate with local education agencies to ensure children
remain in the school in which they are enrolled at the time of
placement into foster care, unless that would not be in the child's
best interests. If it is not, the state must ensure the child's
immediate enrollment in a new school with all of the educational
records of the child provided to that new school in a timely fashion.
The Act provides some help with transportation costs to assist children
in remaining in their original schools. States also must provide
assurances in their Title IV-E state plans that every school-age child
in foster care or who is receiving an adoption assistance or subsidized
guardianship payment, with help from Title IV-E, is enrolled as a full-
time elementary or secondary school student or has completed secondary
school. Greta Anderson, a former foster youth from Wisconsin, testified
at the September 15 hearing that she attended nine different schools
during her high school career, six of them in different treatment
facilities, reminding us all of the importance of these provisions for
youths in foster care.
In Pennsylvania, education and child welfare advocacy organizations
are working together on implementation of the new provisions, and in
Connecticut, advocates and agency staff from both systems have come
together to plan for implementation of these important improvements.
Other states, including Iowa and Utah, have enacted implementing
legislation. CDF and other advocates are working to explore ways that
complementary federal obligations might be imposed on state and local
education agencies so there would be increased receptivity to these
improvements in the states. Just as children who are homeless have been
afforded basic educational rights under the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act, attention also must be given in education law to the
educational rights of children in foster care.
Health Oversight and Coordination. The State Health Oversight and
Coordination Plan required under the Act is intended to get child
welfare and Medicaid agencies working together with pediatricians and
other experts to look more carefully at the health and mental health
challenges facing children in foster care. It must address how initial
and follow-up health screenings will be provided, health needs
identified will be monitored and treated, and medical information will
be updated and appropriately shared with providers. The plan also must
detail the steps that are or will be taken to ensure continuity of
health care services, including the possibility of establishing a
medical home for every child in care, and what will be done to ensure
the oversight of prescription medications, including psychotropic
drugs. This requirement has pushed action forward in states that had
already begun such coordination work and has been used in other states
to bring child welfare and health to the table together. For example,
Florida child welfare, juvenile justice and health agencies have
entered an interagency agreement to develop a coordination plan. The
challenge in all the states will be to make this more than a plan that
sits on the shelf but, instead, a game plan for changing practices,
procedures and policies in states so that the health and mental health
care needs of children in foster care will be addressed. Too often now
children enter foster care after experiencing abuse and other trauma
and, rather than getting help, face new problems that make them worse
off instead of better off. Unfortunately, HHS has, to date, provided
states little guidance as to either the process for developing or the
contents of these plans. In late August, the President of the American
Academy of Pediatrics made specific recommendations to the Acting
Assistant Secretary for Children and Families for guidance in
evaluating states' Health Oversight and Coordination Plans. It would be
helpful for the Subcommittee to recommend to the Children's Bureau that
it issue a letter jointly with the Center for Medicaid and State
Operations in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services about the
importance of meaningful collaboration among child welfare and Medicaid
agencies in strengthening and implementing these plans.
Promoting New Permanency Options and Post-Permanency Services for
Children
The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act
pushed forward a renewed focus on the importance of permanence for
children in foster care and attention to what can be done to place
children safely in permanent homes with relatives and with adoptive
parents. Many of these are reforms that have been encouraged for years
and are now finally getting important attention in the states.
New Attention to Permanence for Children in Care with Relatives
The promoters of the Act took note of research that has found
children often do better in placements with relatives when in care away
from their parents and are often as safe, if not safer, than children
placed in non-relative foster homes. Children and youths placed with
relatives experience fewer placements than those in non-relative homes,
giving them greater stability both at home and in school. They also are
more likely to be placed with their siblings and more likely to say
that they feel they are part of the family they are living with. Recent
research also has found that children placed with relatives are less
likely to exhibit behavior problems. New requirements and options for
states in the Act can help support children being raised by
grandparents and other relatives.
Identification of and Notice to Relatives. The Fostering
Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act requires that
states identify and give notice to all adult relatives within 30 days
of a child being removed from his family and placed in foster care. CDF
staff often hear that relatives didn't know a grandchild or niece or
nephew had been removed from his or her home and placed in foster care.
Providing notice to relatives immediately will allow them early on to
decide whether and to what extent they can be involved in caring for
the child. They will be more aware of the options they have. If they
cannot provide a home for the child, their involvement still can help
to maintain an important family connection and ease the child's sense
of loss. These connections also can be helpful if it later turns out
that reunification is not a possible permanency option for the child.
Although a number of states already had notice requirements, many
states have taken a second look to check the frequency and nature of
the notice and who receives it. New York and Pennsylvania are two of
the states that early on reissued guidance on their notice requirements
with modifications. The National Conference of State Legislatures
reports that at least eight states have enacted new relative notice
requirements through legislation since the Act was passed (AR, CO, GA,
IA, MN, MO, ND, OK). Other states are waiting until the Children's
Bureau provides further details on the nature of the notice and
documentation required. We have heard questions from states such as:
What steps must be taken to identify relatives to fulfill due
diligence? Must the notice be in writing? What specific information
must the state give the relative?
Intensive Family Finding. Intensive Family Finding, another
activity allowed under the Family Connection Grants mentioned above,
can help identify relatives who may be a resource for children. It can
be used early on as a strategy for exercising due diligence in
identifying and notifying relatives, or it can be used to help children
already in care connect permanently with family members. Intensive
Family Finding uses search technology to find family members and, when
they are identified, works to establish and build on relationships to
promote permanency for the child. Encouraged by results in states that
have used Intensive Family Finding and documented its impact on
improved outcomes for children, Texas and Colorado have applied for a
Family Connection Grant to use this strategy.
Kinship Guardianship Assistance. The Fostering Connections to
Success and Increasing Adoptions Act also provides federal support for
the first time to states that opt to offer subsidized guardianship
payments on behalf of children in federally-supported foster homes with
relatives. These payments help enable children to leave foster care yet
remain permanently with their relatives who become their legal
guardians. In including the Kinship Guardianship Assistance Program in
the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act,
Congress recognized that 37 states and the District of Columbia already
were offering such assistance and wanted to help these programs reach
more children and encourage additional states to offer similar
assistance. There is a lot of interest in the program, especially among
states already supporting such assistance to children with only state
dollars. To date, at least six of these states (CT, ME, MO, OR, PA, TN)
and the District of Columbia have notified HHS of their plans to use
the new federal dollars for Kinship Guardianship Assistance, and
Director Erwin McEwen of the Illinois Department of Children and Family
Services testified on September 15 that Illinois will do so when its
Subsidized Guardianship waiver ends in October. Eight of the 13 states
not previously offering such assistance already have passed new kinship
guardianship assistance legislation (AR, CO, MI, TX, WA) or are working
toward such legislation (NY, VT, VA). Although the enormous fiscal
pressures on states make it challenging for them to make any new
investments, increasing numbers of states have realized that if they
don't take advantage of the new funding opportunity, they will continue
to pay for the care of many of these children in foster care anyway.
Before a child can receive Kinship Guardianship Assistance, both
reunification and adoption must be determined to be not appropriate
permanency options for the child, suggesting he or she will remain in
foster care. There also is evidence from research in Illinois and
Tennessee, two of the states that have used federal child welfare
demonstration waivers to implement statewide subsidized guardianship
programs, that these programs are cost-effective and can actually save
states money. The Act took another step as well to support kinship
families by offering independent living services and education and
training vouchers to youths who leave foster care at age 16 or older
and move in permanently with relatives or are adopted. Greta Anderson,
the young woman who testified before the Subcommittee, was placed with
a relative guardian at 16 and is a living example of how this provision
in the Act already has helped a youth who had been in a kinship
guardianship placement get additional assistance for college. As she
said, ``The college experience is one every foster youth deserves.''
Sibling Connections. The Act also gives special attention to the
importance of sibling connections for children in foster care. Research
has documented that the sibling bond is one of the most important and
long-lasting bonds created in our lives, and it is especially important
for children in foster care who often do not have connections to other
family members. The Act requires agencies to make reasonable efforts to
place siblings together in all placements unless it is contrary to the
children's safety or well-being. This will help to provide a sense of
stability for the children who are removed from the rest of their
family. If siblings cannot be placed together, the state must make
reasonable efforts to provide frequent visitation or other ongoing
interaction between the siblings, unless this interaction would also be
contrary to a sibling's safety or well-being. Although prior to the
enactment of the new law, a survey by the National Resource Center for
Family-Centered Practice and Permanency Planning found that more than
half the states had policies in place requiring agencies to make
efforts to ensure siblings are placed together and even more states
promoted sibling visitation, there was also evidence from some of the
larger states that more than half of the children with siblings in care
were not placed together. The Act's sibling provisions have required
agencies to update some of their policies and take steps to document
that they are making reasonable efforts to ensure their rules are being
implemented and that staff, caregivers and youths themselves actually
know about them.
Promoting the Adoption of Children with Special Needs
The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act
takes specific steps to make adoption a permanency option for more
children with special needs in foster care. Beginning this fall, on
October 1, 2009, states will be eligible for federal reimbursement for
more children with special needs who are adopted. The Children's Bureau
just issued new guidance for the Adoption Assistance changes on August
26, 2009 (ACYF-CB-PI-09-10). Over a nine-year period, children waiting
for adoptive families will be eligible for federal support without
regard to whether their birth family was eligible for Aid to Families
with Dependent Children. This is a change that had been sought for
decades. It makes no sense to tie a child's eligibility for adoption
assistance payments with a new family to the income of his or her birth
family whose parental rights have been terminated. This fall states
must extend the new adoption assistance payments to all eligible youths
16 and over with special needs who are waiting for adoption and to
children with special needs who have been in care for 60 or more
continuous months, as well as the siblings of both groups of children
and youths if they are adopted by the same family. Again, this is
another provision that will benefit individual children but has also
already encouraged state agencies to take a careful look at the large
number of children sitting in foster care waiting to be adopted. The
North American Council on Adoptable Children has been doing commendable
work with states to help them prepare for this new assistance and
commit to redirecting state dollars currently used for adoption
assistance payments to post-permanency and other services. The
redirection of these services can help ensure that children get
referred appropriately for adoption and, once placed with adoptive
families, get the supports and services they need to remain there.
Expanding the Adoption Incentive Program
The Act reauthorized the Adoption Incentive Program and expanded
the incentives available to states that increase the number of older
children and other children with special needs being adopted. The
additional incentive payments should help states reduce the number of
children waiting for permanent families. On September 14, 2009, HHS
announced incentive awards totaling $35 million for 38 states and
Puerto Rico, including eight of the states represented on the
Subcommittee (AL, CA, FL, GA, IL, MD, MI and NV). These were the first
awards made under the new rules in the Act. The awards are to be used
for child welfare services and activities, including post-adoption
services, authorized under Titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security
Act.
Support for Youths Aging Out of Care
The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act
also promises new federal support to states to help older youths who
are not adopted or returned home remain in care to age 19, 20 or 21 to
finish their education, find work, and explore new permanent family
connections. While federal support for youths in care beyond their 18th
birthday will not go into effect for another year, states, as you heard
from both Illinois and Maryland at the hearing, are working hard to
determine how youths can benefit from this increased support. States
like these that already are using state dollars to provide support may
be able to free up some state dollars to reach more children. For those
states that now end support for youths at age 18, there is strong
evidence to show that continued time in care to help with education and
work opportunities can improve outcomes for youths. Research by the
Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago has
documented increased benefits to young people who stay in care longer.
They are more likely to graduate from high school, pursue higher
education, graduate from college, have higher incomes and delay
pregnancy. Recognizing these benefits, at least three states have
already enacted legislation that would allow them to provide such
support to youths (IL, TX and WA). Others have legislation pending (AL,
CA, DE and MA). In order to assist older youths, states also are paying
attention to the Act's new requirement for transition plans for youths
before they leave care and exploring how to ensure that youths play a
major role in planning for the housing, health coverage, education,
workforce support, employment services and other help they will need.
Improving the Child Welfare Workforce
The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act
also took a first step to improve the child welfare workforce by
extending federal Title IV-E training funds to reach more agency and
court staff working with children in the system. Federal support for
training is also extended to attorneys representing parents and
children, guardians ad litem and other court appointed special
advocates. While much more needs to be done, states and advocates are
beginning to pay more attention to how Title IV-E training funds are
being used and can be expanded for the benefit of children. The fact
that the new funds are phased in over five years has been a
disincentive so far for states to use the new funding. At the same
time, however, states are eager to get Congress's attention about other
changes needed to improve the child welfare workforce.
Taking the Next Step and Finishing the Job
The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act
has provided new attention to problems facing children and families and
child welfare systems across the country, focused new energy on reforms
to improve outcomes for children, and promoted important new
collaborations that recognize children will only truly benefit if
agencies serving children work together and with the broader community
on their behalf. CDF looks forward to continuing to work with Members
of the Subcommittee and others to ensure that children truly benefit
from the new services and supports offered in the Fostering Connections
to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act. At the same time, we are eager
to build on the momentum that has been gained and ``finish the job'' as
Chairman McDermott said on the House floor last year. As we work to
improve outcomes for children in foster care, we must ratchet up
efforts to improve outcomes for all children by implementing
improvements in federal child welfare financing that will help:
Offer children and families the supports they need to
prevent child abuse and neglect, prevent crises from
intensifying, and prevent children from entering foster care
unnecessarily;
Improve the child protection response in states, as
it is often the child protection agency that controls the front
door to the child welfare system;
Promote improvements to establish permanency,
permanency incentives and post-permanency services for children
in foster care, including Kinship Guardianship Assistance for
all children in foster care with relatives, and special help to
relatives who are preventing children from entering foster
care;
Establish permanency for the tens of thousands of
children, often older children, who remain in expensive group
care settings and seem not to be helped by most efforts
underway in states to safely reduce foster care caseloads;
Make continuing improvements in the child welfare
workforce to help states address gaps in supports for the
workforce and extend training for all staff assisting children
in the child welfare system--not just those directly
responsible for IV-E eligible children--to promote safety,
permanence and well-being for children; and
Promote increased accountability in states for
improved outcomes for children by encouraging more frequent
tracking and reporting on child-specific outcomes and on the
movement of children in and out of care and agencies'
performance over time, assisting in the development of
evidence-based practices and programs and developing incentives
for continuous improvement on behalf of children and families.
There is growing consensus in the field about the need for
improvements in these areas. The remaining challenges relate to the
best ways to make progress in all of them.
Thank you for the hope you have given to hundreds of thousands of
children and youths across the country. The Children's Defense Fund
looks forward to continuing to work with the Subcommittee to ensure
that this hope is realized for these children and to take the next
steps so we can get the job done for children.
Statement of Donna M. Butts, Generations United
Generations United is the only national membership organization
focused solely on promoting intergenerational strategies, public
policies, and programs. Founded in 1986 by the National Council on the
Aging, Child Welfare League of America, AARP, and Children's Defense
Fund, GU has grown tremendously over the last twenty years and now
represents over 100 national, state, and local organizational members
that represent more than 70 million Americans. GU serves as a resource
for educating policymakers and the public about the economic, social,
and personal imperatives of intergenerational cooperation. One of GU's
core initiatives is its National Center on Grandfamilies, which
provides resources, materials, and information to groups serving
children being raised by grandparents and other relatives.
This testimony will focus on the implications of implementation of
the Fostering Connections and Increasing Adoption Act of 2008 (The
Fostering Connections Act) on ``grandfamilies,'' families in which
grandparents or other relatives are primarily responsible for caring
for children who live with them. These families are also referred to as
kinship families and exist both in and outside the formal foster care
system. Congress recognized the importance of relative caregivers in
helping to raise our country's children throughout the Fostering
Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008.
The Numbers
Children who enter the foster care system fare better when placed
with relatives. They experience fewer placements and less disruption
while staying connected to their familial roots and culture. They are
also more likely to report that they feel loved. Currently about
530,000 children in the U.S. are in foster care. Of these, more than
125,000 live with relatives. All told almost six million children
across the country are living in households headed by grandparents or
other relatives, according to the 2000 U.S. Census. About 4.4 million
of these children are in grandparent-headed households, and another 1.5
million live in households headed by other relatives, such as aunts,
uncles, or siblings. Almost 2.5 million of these children have no
parent present in the home.
Making Subsidized Guardianship Available for All Children Who Need It
For the first time, Congress guaranteed federal support for all
states (at their option) to provide permanent relative guardians a
subsidy. The Kinship Guardianship Assistance Program is an innovative
approach to expand permanency to children languishing in foster care
with relatives for whom adoption is not appropriate and return-to-home
is not an option. The Guardianship Assistance Program provides the
sense of ``forever'' that is so important to a child's future. While
providing the option for states to receive federal support for
subsidized guardianship for children who are eligible for Title IV-E
was a major step forward for children, however thousands of children
who have been abused or neglected still do not qualify for federal
support because they are not IV-E eligible.
Eliminating the Title IV-E eligibility link to the July 1996 Aid to
Families with Dependent Children income requirement would help make
subsidized guardianship available to all children who need it. By
making subsidized guardianships a reimbursable expense for IV-E
eligible children, the Fostering Connections Act took a monumental step
toward helping states move more children to permanent homes with
relatives. However, because federal reimbursement is limited to
children who are IV-E eligible, thousands of children for whom
subsidized guardianship is the best option will continue to have it
unavailable to them. A 2008 report from the Child Welfare League of
America on the decline of federal support for children in foster care
demonstrated a 23% decline from 1998 to 2006 in the number foster
children who are eligible for Title IV-E. As a result of these
eligibility rules, tens of thousands of children who have experienced
abuse and neglect do not qualify for federal assistance and thousands
of children are left without the full array of permanency options that
may be best for them.
Generations United urges Congress to address an additional
eligibility limitation presented in a U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services Program Instruction (CB-PI--08-007) issued on December
24, 2008 which incorrectly interpreted the new Fostering Connections
law and federal kinship guardianship assistance program reimbursement
as applying only to those children entering a new kinship guardianship
arrangements after exiting from a IV-E foster care placement. The
interpretation penalizes states such as California that took the
initiative to create their own programs. Generations United urges the
Subcommittee to work with the Administration on Children and Families
to urge them to rescind this provision in the December 24, 2008 Program
Instruction. Families they serve should be denied federal support based
solely on the timing of the guardianship placement.
Providing Guidance to States
States are taking steps to implement the required provisions of the
law, however many questions remain. Many states are seeking federal
guidance on certain provisions in order to most effectively serve the
needs of families. We urge Congress to encourage the Administration to
provide guidance to the states on a number of provisions that affect
children being raised by grandparents or other relatives. For example
several states have raised questions related to waiving non-safety
licensing requirements for relative families and would benefit from
guidance directing them to establish a written policy for the process
by which a non-safety licensing waiver can be requested. While the law
makes clear that such waivers may be granted on a case-by-case basis,
without a clear process for initiating a request for a waiver, an
overworked child welfare worker may opt not to pursue a waiver despite
indications that the particular home may be the best placement for a
child.
As states implement the requirement to notify adult relatives of a
child within 30 days of removal from the custody of his/her parents,
guidance could direct states to develop clear policies which would
define what type of notice should be given, detail which state agency
or department in the agency is responsible for providing notice, and
consider what type of documentation should go into the case file.
Investing in Prevention Supports for Children and Families at Risk
By the time a child enters the formal foster care system, they have
often already been the victim of abuse or neglect. Preventing child
abuse and neglect is always preferable to emergency intervention and
placement in foster care. However, the child welfare system focuses
very few resources on preventing child abuse and neglect. High-quality
home visiting has proven to be a cost-effective preventive program
model. Research has shown that home visiting can produce greater school
readiness, enhanced child health and development, improved parenting
practices, and reduction in child maltreatment and later criminality.
If Congress were to make a greater investment in preventative services,
our country's children will be more prepared to become productive and
healthy adults.
Children being raised by grandparents or other relatives are one of
the primary groups that can benefit substantially from preventative
resources. Grandparents and other relatives raising children save
taxpayers more than $6.5 billion each year by stepping forward to take
care of children and keep them out of the formal foster care system.\1\
Many take custody of children with little warning or planning. They
often find that raising children a second time presents new challenges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This figure was calculated based on the federal share of the
2000 average monthly foster care maintenance payment, which was
estimated at $545 in the Green Book, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S.
House of Representatives. Half the children are used for our
calculation, due to a conservative estimate that the other half already
received some type of governmental financial assistance, such as a
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) child-only grant.
Consequently, the cost of one million children entering the system
would represent all new financial outlays for taxpayers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The caregivers may be living on a fixed income and were not
planning financially to raise another child. The relative children they
are caring for who have been removed from the parents' home are more
likely to have behavioral and mental health issues than other children
and often need therapeutic treatment. Yet, because these caregivers
stepped forward to prevent the children from becoming involved with the
child welfare system, they often do not qualify for supportive services
that could help the children and family thrive. Helpful preventative
and supportive services may include: support groups, therapeutic
treatment, mental health services, housing supports, mobile health
services, home visiting, and respite care. According to a recent report
from Prevent Child Abuse America, preventatives services to address
some of the challenges these families face are critical: ``to minimize
the long-term effects of abuse, age-appropriate treatment services
should be available to all maltreated children.'' Congress should
support greater investment in preventative services including those
that would support children being raised by grandparents and other
relatives.
Post Permanency Services
The Fostering Connections Act includes a number of provisions that
build on the goals of the Adoption and Safe Families Act to help
children leave foster care for permanent homes. The meaning of
permanency suggests that our responsibility does not end with providing
a permanent plan for children. While the importance of post permanency
services has been emphasized in the area of adoption, additional
supports are needed especially for those families in other permanency
arrangements. In particular the Fostering Connections Act expands
access to the subsidized guardianship permanency option. Therefore, the
availability of post permanency services should be expanded to address
the needs of all families who take on permanent care for children
leaving foster care including relatives who assume permanent
responsibility for their relative children.
While adoption and subsidized guardianship disruption rates are
low, any disruption has devastating consequences for a child,
particularly one who has already experienced multiple placements. Post
permanency services promise greater stability for families guaranteeing
improved outcomes for children. In addition to providing subsidies and
health insurance through Medicaid which is now available to IV-E
eligible children in states that elect to provide subsidized
guardianship, examples of post-permanency services could include:
support and treatment services for families caring for children with
special needs, educational and information services, clinical and
treatment services, supportive networks and other forms of informal and
formal support for children and families. Furthermore, some families
who secure subsidized guardianship of the children in their care may,
at a later date, decide to seek adoption for the children and find that
the child welfare agency no longer offers support through the adoption
process. In addition to providing Adoption Assistance funds to
qualifying families, post-permanency services could include services to
help guide and assist relatives through the adoption process.
Conclusion:
We appreciate the work of this committee to review the
implementation of the Fostering Connections and Increasing Adoptions
Act of 2008 and your continued interest in providing permanent homes
for all children.
Statement of Frank J. Mecca,
County Welfare Directors Association of California
The County Welfare Directors Association of California (CWDA)
appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony for the record on the
Implementation of the Fostering Connections and Increasing Adoptions
Act (P.L. 110-351). CWDA and its members actively supported the
adoption of the legislation. The new law contains important provisions
to assist states and counties in serving at-risk children and youth. We
welcome the Subcommittee's continued interest in the subject through
holding this oversight hearing and will work with you to continue to
make other necessary child welfare financing reforms.
Each of California's 58 counties operates a child welfare program,
under state oversight and in accordance with federal and state rules
and regulations. Not only do those programs depend upon revenues
generated by each county, but a large share of child welfare financing
depends upon state and federal funding streams.
Our statement addresses concerns in two key areas: the ability of
states and counties to use their funds as match for the new federal
resources under the kinship guardianship assistance payments program
and implementation issues concerning youth between the ages of 18 and
21.
Financial Support for Kinship Guardianship
Our state's child welfare system is the largest in the nation, with
nearly 72,000 children in out of home foster care. In addition to that
group are approximately 15,000 children in our state- and county-funded
Kinship Guardianship Assistance Payment (Kin-GAP) program. California's
counties have partnered with the state to operate the program since
2000. This program enables children who would otherwise be in foster
care to be cared for by relatives. Kin-GAP has furthered the shared
federal and state goal of securing stable and permanent placements with
relatives who have assumed legal guardianship of an at-risk child. In
addition to providing permanent homes to children in foster care, the
Kin-GAP program has avoided millions of dollars in federal foster care
costs.
Unfortunately, a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Program Instruction (CB-PI-08-007) issued on December 24, 2008
interpreted the new Fostering Connections law and accompanying federal
kinship reimbursement as applying only to those children entering a new
kinship arrangement after exiting from a IV-E foster care placement.
The Instruction penalizes states such as California that took the
initiative to create their own programs. The current interpretation
that federal kinship guardian payments apply only prospectively places
the state and its counties in the untenable position of having to
disrupt stable guardianship families by converting them to federally
funded cases by creating a `new' kinship arrangement through the court
system--a system these families thought they had left behind in
entering Kin-GAP. Not only would such a process needlessly direct
resources away from serving families and cause potential distress for
guardians and the children in their care, retaining the current Program
Instruction violates a key tenet of new law--that states be given
incentives to establish subsidized guardianships for relatives so that
they have the financial means to provide stable, loving homes for their
relative children who would otherwise be placed in foster care.
CWDA urges the Subcommittee to work with the Administration on
Children and Families to convince them to rescind this provision in the
December 24, 2008 Program Instruction. Governmental agencies and the
families they serve should not be penalized based solely on the timing
of the guardianship placement.
The state legislature is considering a bill, AB 12, which would
implement a number of the Fostering Connections Act provisions. CWDA
has been very active in that legislative process. We support greater
flexibility in the use of federal IV-E funding so that more of it could
be used to maintain or reunify families when children are abused or at
risk of abuse and neglect. Our staff and human services directors await
further guidance from ACF and urge the Administration to provide ample
flexibility in that guidance so that we may address appropriately the
unique circumstances of the families we serve.
Support for Young Adults Reaching the Age of 18
CWDA supports the law's provision to extend IV-E payments to youth
up to the age to 21. California's pending AB 12 contains such a
provision. Given California's unprecedented budget problems, however,
it will not likely be able in the near future to provide the necessary
financial match to take advantage of the extension.
For youth who have attained the age of 18, CWDA believes that there
needs to be federal recognition that by extending the definition of
`foster child' to include a foster young adult up to age 21, additional
flexibility is needed in defining the purpose of the IV-E case plan for
a legal adult. Legal permanency that applies to a child no longer
applies to a person over age 18. The goals of the case plan may have to
be modified to focus on the youth's transitional plan, such as
education and employment goals.
Further, the new Act allows federal reimbursement for `a supervised
setting in which the individual lives independently.' CWDA would
support guidance on how to define supervised independent living in a
manner that allows a range of housing options for youth to ensure their
progress toward stable and productive lives. Since they are legally
adults, however, federal guidance and/or regulations on living
situations and court oversight must account for and respect that fact.
Consequently, a separate licensing standard for those over age 18 is
necessary, including, but not limited to: shared homes, individual
scatter-site apartments, collegiate housing and boarding homes.
CWDA believes that California's Transitional Housing Placement
Program (THP-Plus) for youth over 18 years of age is a model that fits
within the intent of the Fostering Connections Act. THP encourages
private nonprofits to provide case management to youth who live in
supervised independent living settings, either in apartments or with
host families (often former foster parents or relative caregivers).
Youth have an individualized case plan that requires participation in
either employment or education while gradually assuming more
responsibility for payment of living expenses. California and its
county human services agencies are working to develop IV-E licensing
standards that meet core health and safety concerns, while recognizing
the youths' status as legal adults. The program does not currently draw
down IV-E funds, but CWDA believes it can be readily adapted to the
`supervised independent living settings' envisioned in the Act.
Finally, establishing permanency (return to parent's home, adoption
or guardianship) for a legal adult over age 18 is different than
compared to a minor. As such, the federal requirement that government
agencies seek to terminate parental rights no longer applies to foster
youth who are legal adults. Under California law, an adult can consent
to be adopted, but it is not at all clear that such consent should fall
under the jurisdiction of the state dependency court. In addition,
legal guardianship over a minor terminates when the minor attains age
18, and parents no longer have custodial rights over children over age
18. Federal IV-E requirements for permanency need to be modified for
these legal adults still in care.
As Subcommittee Members have acknowledged, much more needs to be
done to reform the child welfare system. CWDA supports efforts to
provide greater flexibility in the use of federal funds to provide up-
front investments in the lives of families and children at risk. And,
as you prepare for the upcoming reauthorization of the Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program in 2010, we will work with
the Subcommittee to identify ways in which child welfare and TANF may
be better coordinated and leveraged when serving families who are
clients of our agencies' programs.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement for the
record. If you have any questions, please contact Tom Joseph, Director
of CWDA's Washington Office at [email protected].
Statement of Jane Burstain, Ph.D.
To be effective, any legislation must have consistent policies and
incentives. Before the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing
Adoptions Act, for children who could not return home, federal law
consistently preferred adoption. The Federal Government subsidized
financial support the state provided to adoptive parents and also
provided payments directly to the state for increasing adoptions over a
baseline level. The Federal Government did not provide any support or
incentive for other permanency options such as legal guardianship.
With Fostering Connections, however, federal policies and
incentives regarding permanency are no longer consistent. On the one
hand, the new law still encourages adoption over legal guardianship.
Federal law requires states to in essence rule out adoption before
considering legal guardianship, and incentive payments to states remain
solely based on increases in adoptions. On the other hand, as a
practical matter, the new law puts both adoption and legal guardianship
on an equal footing. It now subsidizes financial support for relatives
who either adopt or who take legal guardianship. This policy conflict
has practical consequences for states and more importantly for
children.
The Federal Government rewards states only when a relative chooses
adoption. But states opting into the federal kinship guardianship
assistance program effectively lose the ability to affect that choice.
States must inform relatives of the kinship guardianship assistance
program in the initial notice after the child has been
removed.i All relatives are told upfront that there is a
choice between adoption and guardianship. But states have no ``carrot''
to encourage relatives to pick adoption over guardianship because
relatives will get paid no matter what choice they make.ii
States have no ``stick'' either. While Fostering Connections does
require that the state find adoption not appropriate before a relative
becomes eligible for a kinship guardianship payment,iii if a
relative decides against adoption in favor of legal guardianship, the
state's only recourse is to remove the child from the relative's
otherwise appropriate home--hardly something child welfare
professionals would do or that would be in the child's best interest.
As a result, as a practical matter, whether relatives adopt or become
guardians is solely a matter of relative preference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\i\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 671(a).
\ii\ Although the law allows states to set a lower rate for legal
guardians, in practice, it does not work. Maryland and North Carolina
each had a guardianship assistance demonstration project that set a
lower rate for legal guardians. Experience in both states was that
doing so made it difficult, if not impossible, to attract anyone into
the program because of the attendant financial loss. Synthesis of
Findings from State Assisted Guardianship Title IV-E Demonstration
Projects (September 2005). Administration of Children and Families.
(Available at: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/programs_fund/
cwwaiver/agissue/evaluation.htm#process Accessed on September 28,
2009).
\iii\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 673(d)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research shows that providing relatives with legal guardianship as
a financially viable alternative can increase overall exits to
permanency.iv Relatives who are opposed to adoption now can
become a child's legal guardian, taking the child out of foster care.
But research also shows that with subsidized legal guardianship,
adoptions will decline. At least some and perhaps many relatives who
would have exited to adoption because it was the only financially
viable alternative will now choose to exit through legal guardianship
instead.v
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\iv\ Testa MF. Subsidized Guardianship: Testing the Effectiveness
of an Idea Whose Time Has Finally Come. Children and Family Research
Center. May 2008.
\v\ Testa MF. Subsidized Guardianship: Testing the Effectiveness of
an Idea Whose Time Has Finally Come. Children and Family Research
Center. May 2008. In Illinois, an evaluation of the legal guardianship
payment demonstration project found that two-thirds of completed
guardianships might have been adoptions in the absence of the legal
guardianship payment option. A similar substitution effect was found in
Tennessee. There was no substitution effect found in a similar program
adopted in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. But researchers attributed the lack of
an effect to Milwaukee's decision not to offer the guardianship program
to families who were already on the track to adoption, a strategy that
is not available under Fostering Connections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fewer adoptions mean reduced adoption incentive payments for
states.vi As a result, the sixteen states such as Texas, New
York and Ohio vii who do not currently provide financial
support to relative legal guardians face a conundrum. Opting into the
federal kinship guardianship assistance program may increase the number
children exiting foster care into a permanent home with a relative. But
in doing so, states may be sacrificing federal adoption incentive
funds, leaving less money overall for states to invest in improving
their child welfare system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\vi\ A relative legal guardian can later decide to adopt. But there
is no incentive to do so and there is no evidence of this happening in
the assisted guardianship demonstration projects in other states.
\vii\ Allen T, DeVooght K, Geen R. State Kinship Care Policies for
Children that Come to the Attention of Child Welfare Agencies; Finding
from the 2007 Casey Kinship Foster Care Policy Survey. Child Trends.
December 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In practice, Fostering Connections seems to evidence an intent to
promote a policy of permanency for relatives, regardless of its legal
form. If so, the Federal Government should change its incentive payment
structure to reflect this policy choice and reward states for an
increase in permanency not just adoption.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Burstain, Ph.D.
Senior Policy Analyst
Statement of Jodie Lee Klaassen
Changing the foster care system to increase adoptions is wrong. The
chaos and abuses in the current foster care system are well documented
in the state of Michigan. Having been involved in a terrible divorce in
the 44th Circuit court in Howell, Michigan, I have often said that my
minor sons' could be the poster children for what a court system and
the ignorance of attorneys can do to children. Those types of
statements do not win me must empathy in a system hell bent on making
this woman pay for any illegal activity that a family or system has
created. Often I have heard from the father of my sons' that if I don't
take medications, comply with some outrageous court order, pay him
child support, and work full time that our sons will just go into
foster care. That court has allowed case workers in the Friend of the
court to investigate me and the family history, allowed people related
only through marriage to provide information to the courts, favored
attorneys who clean up the paperwork or provide testimony about me and
my sons to create further legal issues, and report alleged
``delusional'' behavior from me or my sons which leads to further
monitoring and money paid to them for their inconveniences.
Before the divorce was initiated, by the father of my children in
2001, I was the primary caregiver of our sons, often being informed by
this man that they were my kids and I had to take care of them. I
participated in their day care and school activities, was an employee
at my son's parochial school, balanced a work schedule as an emergency
room nurse, and provided for our sons activities of daily living
without incident.
Then we moved to Howell and a divorce. In Howell there was more
immediate family and extended family present and my home was frequented
by neighbors' children and nephews with care giving/parenting
responsibilities extended to me by these people. When it was discovered
that the sister-in-law was using Tabasco sauce on her sons' tongues,
one of which has special needs, it was discussed at length, although
court documents and the guardian ad litem heavily relied on this woman
for her input on diagnosing my parenting abilities and
responsibilities. This woman's relation with my spouse is documented in
court records along with other issues which she participated in to
hinder my time with my sons.
It has been 2 years since I have spent any amount of time with my
sons. Lawsuits have been initiated by me, in pro per, against the state
of Michigan and the people who continue to provide the false and
misleading information about me and my sons without relief. If I was
the only ``Klaassen'' that the 44th Circuit court and the state of
Michigan had inflicted such outrageous demands on due to an alleged
``mental illness'' or ``substance abuse'' problem due to a divorce,
brought forth by an attorney or abusive spouse, then I would continue
to endure the pain and torment of not seeing or speaking to my sons in
silence, but I am not the only one.
I would hope that Mr. McDermott would afford us parents the
opportunity to defend ourselves and our children against the abuses
that even our own family members have and will continue to inflict upon
us and our children either to obtain money or to justify the abuses
which they were never held accountable for when we were children.
Breaking the cycle of abuse is difficult and when the courts are being
used by our abusers to further exploit those family issues which have
never been appropriately handled then our children get put into a
system which could possibly cause them more harm then being raised by a
biological parent with an alleged ``mental illness'' or ``substance
abuse'' history.
Please examine the abuses that already exist in the system and
don't allow our children to suffer needlessly. Thank you for your
consideration in matters which affect many families and children.
Jodie Lee Klaassen, PN, RN, BGS
Statement of John R. Vaughn, National Council on Disability (NCD)
I am pleased to write to you on behalf of the National Council on
Disability (NCD), an independent federal agency, to provide policy
recommendations regarding youth with disabilities who are involved in
the foster care system in order to be considered part of the record for
the September 15, 2009 hearing of the Subcommittee on Income Security
and Family Support regarding the implementation of the Fostering
Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act. Our comments are
based upon NCD's 2008 report entitled Youth with Disabilities in the
Foster Care System: Barriers to Success and Proposed Policy Solutions.
The findings in that report lend support to the goals of the Fostering
Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act--that additional
supports will assist youth with disabilities in the foster care system
in reaching a healthy adulthood.
The purpose of NCD is to promote policies, programs, practices, and
procedures that guarantee equal opportunity for all individuals with
disabilities, and that empower individuals with disabilities to achieve
economic self-sufficiency, independent living, and integration into all
aspects of society. To accomplish this, we gather stakeholder input,
review federal programs and legislation, and provide advice to the
President, Congress and government agencies. Much of this advice comes
in the form of timely reports and papers NCD releases throughout each
year. NCD is composed of 15 members, appointed by the President with
the consent of the U.S. Senate.
NCD undertook its ``Youth with Disabilities in the Foster Care
System'' report because foster care is clearly both a child welfare
issue as well as a disability issue, given the alarmingly high numbers
of foster youth with mental, developmental, emotional, learning, and
physical disabilities. NCD reported statistics that illustrate the
disproportional numbers of youth in foster care who have disabilities.
More than 50 percent of foster youth alumni had mental health issues
compared to 22 percent of the general population. Across educational
systems, an estimated 10 to 12 percent of the general population is
eligible for special education and related services compared to a 30 to
40 percent estimate for foster care youth.
Data also indicate that far too many children and youth with
disabilities in foster care are not transitioning into healthy
adulthood as productive members of society. These findings reflect the
insufficiencies of the temporal systems, programs, and in some cases
unprepared people tasked to provide the necessary, cross-cutting, and
interdependent health, education, and family services.
After supporting the Fostering Connections Act as legislation, NCD
was heartened to see the bill signed into law last year, and we believe
this law will provide additional assistance that will help many young
people with disabilities become contributing members of society. In
light of the focus of Tuesday's hearing, we respectfully submit the
following germane Congressional recommendations from our Youth with
Disabilities in the Foster Care System report for your ongoing
consideration:
Provide increased flexibility to states and
communities 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.
Increase federal support in 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.
Fund the Federal Youth Development Council,
authorized by the Federal Youth Coordination Act (FYCA), as
well as similar federal coordinating efforts. 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.
Strategically increase collaboration among the
education, juvenile justice, child welfare, labor, dependency
court, health, and mental health systems. Efforts should be
made to increase collaboration among all of these 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.
If you have any questions about this submission or any matter
related to disability policy, please contact NCD Executive Director
Michael Collins by email at [email protected]. On behalf of NCD, thank
you for your leadership in focusing attention on this important topic.
I also thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement for the
record.