[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IMPROVING PROGRAMS DESIGNED
TO PROTECT AT-RISK YOUTH
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 16, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-HR4
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
70-886 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky
ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington
RICK BERG, North Dakota JOHN LEWIS, Georgia
TOM PRICE, Georgia JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
DIANE BLACK, Tennessee
CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana
Jon Traub, Staff Director
Janice Mays, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Advisory of June 16, 2011, announcing the hearing................ 2
WITNESSES
PANEL 1:
The Honorable Dennis R. ``Denny'' Rehberg, a Representative
from the State of Montana.................................... 6
The Honorable Karen R. Bass, a Representative from the State of
California................................................... 8
______
PANEL 2:
The Honorable Bryan Samuels, Commissioner, Administration on
Children, Youth and Families, Administration for Children and
Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services....... 18
PANEL 3:
Patricia R. Wilson, Commissioner, Department for Community
Based Services, Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family
Services..................................................... 61
Lelia Baum Hopper, Director, Court Improvement Program, Supreme
Court of Virginia............................................ 69
Tracy Wareing, Executive Director, American Public Human
Services Association......................................... 79
John Sciamanna, Director, Policy and Government Affairs, Child
Welfare, American Humane Society............................. 88
Steve Yager, Deputy Director, Children's Services
Administration, Michigan Department of Human Services........ 101
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Adoptions Together............................................... 124
Child Welfare League of America.................................. 131
Conference of Chief Justices, Conferences of State Court
Administrators................................................. 140
Cook Inlet Tribal Council........................................ 148
Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption.............................. 151
Embrace Waiting Children, Inc.................................... 157
Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute............................. 158
Family Design Resource, Inc...................................... 163
Zero to Three, National Center for Infants, Toddlers, and
Families....................................................... 166
Generations United............................................... 175
National Association of Social Workers........................... 179
National Committee of Grandparents for Children's Rights......... 184
National Family Preservation Network............................. 194
North American Council on Adoptable Children..................... 197
Northwest Adoption Exchange and Oregon Post Adoption Resources
Center......................................................... 201
NYS Citizens' Coalition for Children............................. 205
Research on Vulnerable Families.................................. 207
Sacred Authority................................................. 210
Stephanie Trevitz................................................ 212
The Adoption Exchange............................................ 216
The National Mentoring Partnership............................... 220
Voice for Adoption............................................... 223
IMPROVING PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO
PROTECT AT-RISK YOUTH
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Subcommittee on Human Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:02 a.m. in
Room B-318, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Geoff
Davis [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[The advisory of the hearing follows:]
HEARING ADVISORY
FROM THE
COMMITTEE
ON WAYS
AND
MEANS
Chairman Davis Announces Hearing on Improving Programs Designed to
Protect At-Risk Youth
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Congressman Geoff Davis (R-KY), Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Human Resources, Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the
Subcommittee will hold a hearing on improving programs designed to
protect youth at risk of abuse and neglect. The hearing will take place
on Thursday, June 16, 2011, in Room B-318 of the Rayburn House Office
Building, beginning at 9:00 A.M.
In view of the limited time available to hear from witnesses, oral
testimony at this hearing will be from invited witnesses only.
Witnesses will include a representative from the Administration for
Children and Families, the Federal agency with oversight over child
welfare services programs, along with other experts on these issues.
However, any individual or organization not scheduled for an oral
appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the
Committee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing.
BACKGROUND:
The authorizations for two of the child welfare programs under the
Subcommittee's jurisdiction (the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare
Services program and the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program)
expire at the end of fiscal year 2011. The last reauthorization of
these programs, the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006
(P.L. 109-288), made significant changes such as requiring that foster
children be visited at least once per month, ensuring that states
consult with medical providers in assessing the health and wellbeing of
children in care, and helping States better address caretaker substance
abuse issues. This law also extended the authorization of the Mentoring
Children of Prisoners program as well as the Court Improvement Program.
The 2006 legislation also provided funds to support monthly
caseworker visits and to improve outcomes for children affected by a
parent's or caretaker's substance abuse. In addition to these changes,
the law also increased accountability by requiring States to report
expenditure data for the first time and by limiting the amount of child
welfare services program funds States could spend on administration.
In announcing the hearing, Chairman Davis stated, ``This hearing
provides an important opportunity to review how key aspects of our
nation's child welfare system are working. These two programs are
designed to play a significant role in protecting children from abuse
and neglect. We need to review recent changes to see if they are
working to improve the lives of kids in foster care and those at risk
of entering care. We also need to evaluate these programs to determine
whether other changes are needed to ensure children are protected from
abuse and neglect.''
FOCUS OF THE HEARING:
The purpose of this hearing is to review recent changes to the
Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services program and the Promoting
Safe and Stable Families program, as well as consider whether
additional changes should be made in legislation to reauthorize these
programs.
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
``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,
submit all requested information. Attach your submission as a Word
document, in compliance with the formatting requirements listed below,
by the close of business on Thursday, June 30, 2011. 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 or (202) 225-3625.
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 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 DAVIS. Good morning. Before we begin the opening
statement, I would like to note that our line-up on the
Republican side has changed a bit, due to Mr. Heller's move
over to the United States Senate, and his departure from the
People's House. Today I would like to welcome Tom Reed from New
York, both to the subcommittee and to the committee, for his
first hearing. Thanks for joining us; we look forward to your
perspective. He replaces Mr. Smith of Nebraska, who now becomes
a distinguished alumnus of our subcommittee.
In today's hearing we are going to review several programs
under our jurisdiction that are designed to help ensure the
safety and well-being of children at risk of abuse and neglect.
The majority of Federal child welfare spending is used to
reimburse states for supporting and overseeing children while
they are in foster care.
However, the two programs we will focus on today, the Child
Welfare Services program and the Promoting Safe and Stable
Families program, are designed to prevent the need for foster
care in the first place, as well as to help foster children
return home safely or be placed with adoptive parents as soon
as possible.
These two programs were last authorized in 2006, and both
expire at the end of the fiscal year. The 2006 reauthorization
made significant changes, such as requiring that foster
children be visited at least once per month, ensuring that
states consult with medical providers in assessing the health
of foster youth, and helping states better address caretaker
substance abuse issues.
The purpose of our hearing today is to review the effects
of those changes, and to consider other changes that may be
needed to promote the well-being of children at risk of abuse
and neglect. While we will primarily focus on these two
programs, we should also draw attention to the patchwork way in
which child welfare programs currently operate.
In our prior hearing on the program duplication, I noted
that this subcommittee has jurisdiction over nine different
child welfare programs, each with different purposes, spending
requirements, and funding mechanisms. We need to ensure that
these programs help and do not hinder states' efforts to serve
families in need. We also must make sure we understand how this
taxpayer money is used, and whether it is achieving its
intended purpose.
Amazingly, until 2006, there was no requirement that states
report how they actually spend child welfare service program
funds. In other words, for that program's first 70 years, the
public had no way of knowing how this money was spent, and this
is not a way to run a government.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses this morning
on what we have learned from the recent changes to these
programs, as well as what we can do to ensure more children
remain safely in their own homes. Joining us today will be a
mix of experts from Congress, the Administration, states, and
outside groups. We look forward to all of their testimony.
And I particularly want to single out one group that is not
represented here today, possibly in the room, but one that my
wife and I have long affiliation with, and that is CASA. I have
done a lot of work through the years--really, over the last 25
years--with families on the edge, and particularly our years of
affiliation with CASA have been a great blessing. And I
appreciate not only CASA's contribution, but all of the
advocates, and especially the front-line volunteers and folks
that are working directly with children, with the families,
trying to bring stability and order.
Without objection, each Member will have the opportunity to
submit a written statement and have it included in the record
at this point. And now I would like to recognize our
distinguished Ranking Member from Texas, my friend, Mr.
Doggett.
Mr. DOGGETT. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. We share a
similar interest in CASA. I have worked with several of the
groups in the central Texas area, and they do outstanding work
with able volunteers, as well as some of the other groups that
are represented here this morning. And I am hopeful that we
share not only that interest, but an interest in seeing that we
put every taxpayer dollar to the most effective and efficient
use possible to provide some of our most vulnerable children
the services that they need.
As you have noted, the funding for the Child Welfare
Services program and the Promoting Safe and Stable Families
program will expire--the authorization for it--at the end of
September, unless we take action to renew them. These programs
have been renewed, and have enjoyed bipartisan support in the
past. And I hope that we can work together to extend and
improve these services.
The Child Welfare Services and the Promoting Safe and
Stable Families initiatives provide about $700 million to the
states this year for early intervention and family services
designed to help our most at-risk families. These funds are a
critical part of the efforts to ensure that children are raised
safely in their homes. And when that is not possible, to find a
permanent home with a relative or an adoptive family.
In my home state of Texas, the Promoting Safe and Stable
Families program has provided funds to help children in my home
town in Travis County that are affected by substance abuse in
the home. This program has enabled our county to develop a
flexible, comprehensive continuum of services that is aimed at
promoting recovery, and ensuring that children have a safe home
free of drug addiction and abuse.
We know that an investment in front-end services not only
saves lives, but also can reduce the long-term cost of removing
a child from a family home and placing them in foster care. We
have seen in Texas how mindless budget cutting can hurt these
same children. In Texas there was a proposal in the State
Legislature that would have the effect of cutting services to
prevent child abuse and neglect by almost half in the current
legislature. And legislatures across the country, whether
through the pressures of budgets or indifference, are faced
with similar kind of cuts. That is why what we do here is
especially important this year.
I am troubled that the original Republican budget
resolution considered earlier this year in the House would have
cut the Social Services Block Grant program by $1.7 billion to
the states, eliminating grants that would jeopardize protective
services for almost 2 million at-risk children.
Mr. Chairman, our committee does have a history of working
together on these issues, and I look forward to cooperating and
working with you and other Members of the Committee. I am
pleased we have a couple of colleagues here to offer us
insight, along with the experts from the field on this today.
And I am sure it will be a productive hearing. Thank you.
Chairman DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Doggett. Before we
move on to our testimony, I would like to remind our witnesses
on both panels that oral statements are going to be limited to
five minutes. However, without objection, all of the written
testimony will be made part of the permanent record.
On our first panel we will be hearing from two of our
distinguished colleagues. First, the Honorable Denny Rehberg,
my friend from Montana since I have been in the Congress, and
the Honorable Karen Bass, who is joining us from California, a
long-time advocate on these issues.
Mr. Rehberg, please proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DENNIS R. ``DENNY'' REHBERG, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA
Mr. REHBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appear today
not only on my own behalf, and as the representative of the
State of Montana, as the chairman of the appropriations
subcommittee, called labor, health and human services, and
education.
I have got a long history of interest in these issues, and
have been in many of your states, both as a Shriner and as a
national vice president of the Montana and national Muscular
Dystrophy Association, as well as having co-founded and co-
chaired the Baby Caucus with Rosa DeLauro, for the specific
purposes of looking for areas of interest to keep families
together, and the struggles that are placed in their way for
doing that.
I also want to thank you for the opportunity to talk about
an issue that is of great importance to me in my home state of
Montana, that of addressing the methamphetamine crisis, and the
importance of family-based drug prevention treatment.
Much of my activity in Montana meth is as a result of an
individual by the name of Tom Sibel. He had owned Sibel
Systems, eventually sold to Oracle, and he personally has put,
at the last count that I was aware of, in the public-private
partnership $60 million of his own money to create meth
projects in states like Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii,
Idaho, Illinois, Montana, and Wyoming. And those of you who
represent those states would recognize the Georgia meth,
Montana meth, Arizona meth project.
All rural areas of our nation have struggled with the
devastation caused by rampant meth use, and Montana has been no
exception. I have long supported the efforts of organizations
that are in the forefront of drug prevention and treatment
efforts in our states. In Montana, we do have the Montana meth
project, an organization that does outstanding work conducting
research and running statewide multi-media public awareness
campaigns aimed at significantly reducing first-time meth use.
The meth project's campaign of preventing kids from using
meth, not even once, has led to a dramatic shift in the
perception of meth use, and led to a 33 percent decrease in
teen use of meth between 2007 and 2009. The meth project's
campaigns have also led to more frequent parent-child
communications about the dangers of meth, an important
component of educating kids on the dangers of this addictive
drug from a young age.
While I think we have come a long way in improving efforts
to combat drug use in the first place, I think we can still
improve in the way we provide treatment for those who are
struggling with substance abuse issues. I strongly advocated
for family-based meth treatment, an approach which dramatically
increases the effectiveness of long-term recovery, employment,
and educational enrollment. This kind of treatment yields
consistently positive outcomes in child well-being, family
stability, and lower recidivism rates. Family-based treatment
centers provide essential needs for the entire family,
including children, rather than just the parent.
I appreciate the fact that 2006 reauthorization of the
child welfare programs under this committee's jurisdiction
provided dedicated funds for states to work with parents and
caregivers with meth and other substance abuse issues. And I am
especially thankful that two of those grants went to Montana
organizations.
The bottom line? Families provide the best support systems,
so making family the center of addiction treatment whenever
possible just makes common sense.
The purpose of today's hearing is to evaluate how key
pieces of our nation's child welfare system are working. I hope
that, as you develop and delve into the specific programs under
your jurisdiction, like the Promoting Safe and Stable Families
program, that are designed to address child safety and
stability of families face substance abuse uses, you will focus
on opportunities for family-based prevention and treatment
whenever possible. My hope is that one day I will be able to
report that meth addiction is no longer an issue in rural
America.
Until then, I thank the committee for the opportunity to
share my perspective, and for--and its time on this incredibly
important issue for families and communities elsewhere. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Rehberg, for your testimony
on this critical issue, also a big issue in the Commonwealth of
Kentucky right now.
Ms. BASS. You could give your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rehberg follows:]
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KAREN R. BASS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. BASS. Yes. Good morning, Chairman Davis and Ranking
Member Doggett. Thank you for the opportunity to testify here
before the committee today. I appreciated hearing your
testimony about the meth problem.
Actually, I became involved in the child welfare issue
about 20 years ago. I started an organization in Los Angeles
that was addressing the crack cocaine crisis which, if we look
at both of those drug epidemics, it was certainly when we had a
spike in child welfare cases. And, frankly, it is one of the
key policy areas that I hope to work on while I am in Congress.
In California, we have made enormous strides with reforming
our child welfare system. In 1999, there were 140,000 children
and youth that were removed from homes in California and placed
in foster care. Today they are 57,000. In Los Angeles County
there were 55,000 children removed from their homes, and today
there are 15,000.
But the fact remains that there is certainly still enormous
work to do to improve our system to help at-risk children and
families prevent entry into foster care. By providing help to
families to prevent the spiral into abuse and neglect, we would
avoid the substantial cost of foster care, avoiding the trauma
of removal, and help families stay together.
To the contrary, the current child welfare system, the
primary focus is on families that have already been identified
with child abuse or neglect issues. This ends up with families
being separated, children in foster care, costly efforts at
reunification, and a system that has more failures than
successes. The fact that title IV-E funding cannot be used for
prevention or post-reunification services has created a
significant challenge to achieve better safety outcomes and
finding permanent homes for children.
However, in jurisdictions like Los Angeles County, some of
these challenges have been mitigated because of the
availability of Title IV-E flexibility. Funding waivers allows
the county to implement prevention strategies outside of
funding constraints and dollars chiefly tied to out-of-home
removal.
Given the limited number of IV-E waivers, the Promoting
Safe and Stable Families, PSSF, funding is essentially the only
resource currently available that can finance support services
to families. These funds can be used to provide a continuum of
services that support families that have entered the child
welfare system and are working towards reunification, as well
as expanding efforts to prevent families from entering the
system, or diverting them when they have been identified. But
we know that PSSF funding is not sufficient to provide the
amount of services necessary to truly affect change in existing
structure.
I wanted to mention a couple of promising practices that
the committee, I am sure, is aware of, but I think should be
highlighted at this point in time. We know that there is many
examples of programs that have been successful, and certainly
my colleague mentioned a couple.
One promising practice is the differential response
framework, which offers a broad set of strategies for working
with families at the first signs of trouble, based on their
level of need or risk that is identified. Differential response
is an evidence-based approach to prevent child abuse and
neglect by ensuring child safety through expanding the ability
of child welfare agencies to respond to reports of child
maltreatment.
Because of the effectiveness of the model, in California
there is an effort to expand this response to families that are
at risk of being involved in the system because of issues such
as substance abuse, mental health, and domestic violence.
Another one is up-front assessments. In 2004 Los Angeles
County Department of Children and Family Services implemented a
pilot program to address the high number of children in foster
care. Point of engagement is a process that attempts to engage
the family as soon as possible after the referral to the
department in order to assess the family and provide services
that allow the family to avoid child detainment all together.
I want to give an example. There is a program in Los
Angeles County called Shields for Families, and this is a
program that was started at the height of the crack cocaine
epidemic. I sat through one of the point of engagement
responses that was done where the family members sat around and
identified what the weaknesses, what the strengths were, and
how to intervene in this situation. And I think it is an
example of where they have been able to reduce the number of
children that are in the system, all together.
In conclusion, I would ask my colleagues to consider, of
course, that prevention--an ounce of prevention, we all know,
is certainly worth a pound of cure. As we work to reauthorize
the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Act, these tried and
proven community strategies are not only effective, but cost
effective. And I encourage you to use prevention and early
intervention models such as the ones adopted in LA County and
Shields to inform your decision-making.
Thank you for the opportunity to give testimony today.
Chairman DAVIS. Thank you very much. I would like to thank
both Mr. Rehberg and Ms. Bass for investing time to come in and
share their insights. Does anyone have any questions from our
colleagues?
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you on
getting the appropriator here, so that he can get an early buy-
in on our authorization.
[Laughter.]
Chairman DAVIS. I appreciate the gentleman's perspective.
It begs the fellowship----
Mr. REHBERG. It----
Chairman DAVIS [continuing]. Of the Appropriations and Ways
and Means Committee, since the ratifying of the Constitution.
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, in response, I knew I was
probably being set up by being here, so----
[Laughter.]
Mr. REHBERG [continuing]. Duly noted.
Chairman DAVIS. Great. Thank you both very much. And that
concludes our first panel.
[Pause.]
Chairman DAVIS. For our second panel, we will be hearing
from the Honorable Bryan Samuels, commissioner of the
administration on Children, Youth, and Families, Administration
for Children and Families, from the United States Department of
Health and Human Services.
Mr. Samuels, please proceed with your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bass follows:]
STATEMENT OF BRYAN SAMUELS, COMMISSIONER, ADMINISTRATION ON
CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES, ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND
FAMILIES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Mr. SAMUELS. Great, thank you. Good morning, everyone.
Chairman Davis, Ranking Member Doggett, Members of the
Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you
today.
Title IV-B is an essential program in the child welfare
system. The work of Congress over the last 14 years has made a
huge difference in the lives of children. Today there are 25
percent fewer children in foster care, 14.5 percent less are
entering care, and 7.5 percent more children are exiting care.
And over the last 14 years we have seen an increase of 57
percent in the number of adoptions achieved through foster
care.
I was the child welfare director in the State of Illinois
from 2003 to 2007. The children of Illinois benefitted greatly
from the reforms that Congress made. Today, Illinois has 65
percent fewer children in out-of-home care than they did just
14 years ago. However, my state struggled to meet the social
and emotional needs of children, both in out-of-home care and
in in-home care.
In order for us to meet the needs of children in the foster
care system, we need a strategy that is more trauma-informed
and developmentally focused. In my experience, the four
categories of Safe and Stable Families are the right ones.
Children and families are served well by family preservation,
family support, reunification, and adoption.
I have seen the value of consistent case worker visitation,
particularly the value it has for ensuring safety. In 2010
nearly 75 percent of children were visited by their case worker
each month. We expect these improvements to continue, and we
will monitor them through the child and family services review.
The Federal investment in meth also was a critical area of
focus as the earlier panel discussed. We have seen declines in
meth, overall, nationally. In Illinois we had a great fear that
meth would be the crack cocaine epidemic for the 1990s. I am
glad to report that, during my tenure, that did not occur, and
that the number of children entering foster care because of
meth declined. That said, not every community has benefitted
from a reduction in meth use.
More importantly, a recent study of children reared in
homes where meth was used showed that they had substantially
higher rates of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and were
exposed to multiple experiences of trauma and violence. Given
the impact that trauma has on children and their development,
we recommend, through the reauthorization of title IV-B, that
you focus resources on improving the social and emotional well-
being of children.
In Illinois, 25 percent of children entering care had an
elevated level of traumatic stress that warranted professional
intervention. Child welfare research clearly shows that
focusing on trauma could have a significant impact on the long-
term well-being of children. Children who are exposed to trauma
have learning and language difficulties, and they do poorer in
school. Trauma creates disturbed attachment, aggressive
behavior, loss of regulation in areas of sleep, food, and self-
care, feelings of self-hate, and chronic ineffectiveness.
The data for older children in foster care have a diagnosis
of mental illness shows that 14 percent of them are diagnosed
with PTSD, 20 percent with attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD), 27 percent with major depression, and 47
percent with conduct disorder or oppositional defiance at some
point in their life.
Moreover, children who are diagnosed with a mental illness
are prescribed psychotropic medications at substantially higher
rates than the general public. Child welfare directors are
gravely concerned about this issue. There is an emerging
consensus that non-medical-based interventions, such as
cognitive behavior therapy, behavioral management, and family
skills training are needed, sometimes in addition to
psychotropic medications.
As a child welfare director, meeting the social and
emotional needs of children in foster care was my biggest
challenge. Today I believe that that is still the biggest
challenge across the country in child welfare. I urge the
committee to take into consideration the social and emotional
needs of children as you make your decisions, going forward.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Samuels follows:]
Chairman DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Samuels. Now we
will turn to questions. First, I would like to ask you a
question related to streamlining administrative requirements.
In April 2011, your agency announced it was reviewing the
Child and Family Service Review process, which is how states
are held accountable for the operation of their child welfare
programs, including the two programs we are focusing on today.
This announcement noted that you would consult with various
stakeholders, consider changes to make sure that the reviews
make sense, and really help states to make kids safe.
Several states we have spoken with have told us--and I
think our expert panel later this morning will address this--
that the many different child welfare reviews, audits, and
plans have become a very large bureaucratic burden on the
states. Now, your own testimony on page 24 mentions your goal
to ``reduce costly and unnecessary administrative
requirements,'' and hopefully integrating and streamlining the
process to get same critical data.
What is your agency doing to make sure that Federal
oversight is useful, and that it holds states accountable for
things we care about, and that it doesn't divert state
resources from helping children at risk of abuse and neglect?
In addition, what else is the Agency doing to streamline
the way child welfare programs are managed? And I was wondering
if you can consolidate some of the many audits and other
administrative requirements.
Mr. SAMUELS. I will start with the child and family service
review (CFSR). As you know, that is a regulatory process, by
which we monitor the overall activities of child welfare
systems across the country. We are in the middle of soliciting
comment on that review process.
Without violating the basic communications around the
regulatory process, I can share that we are focused on three
areas in looking at how to improve the child and family service
review.
The first is around the methodology. It is both cumbersome
and at times inappropriately used. We are trying to make sure
that the strategies of reviewing data, reviewing case files,
and reviewing the performance of states, are methodologically
sound.
Second, we are concerned that the CFSR focuses on too many
issues. As a result, state agencies are not clear about the
most important issues. We would hope to reduce the focal points
for the CFSR so that states are comfortable in being held
accountable, and do the work required.
And third, we think it is important to be accountable.
Sanctions are one way of encouraging accountability. We think
there are probably others, and we are actively reviewing all
possible examples of oversight that move beyond just
sanctioning states.
We think by doing those three things, and doing those in
the context of very active public involvement, we can create a
system of review that is refined, targeted, and holds states
appropriately accountable for their obligation under Federal
law.
Chairman DAVIS. I appreciate you sharing that. We will look
forward to working with you more on that. One concern that I
have, having seen both in health care and a number of other
issues related to this, that every hour filling out paperwork
or redundant reports by front-line personnel is one less hour
they are actually spending doing their job, and it has a rather
constricting effect on capacity for service delivery.
Are there things that Congress can do to limit this
fragmentation, and the administrative complexity, while making
sure states achieve the performance goals that are laid out for
them by the Agency?
Mr. SAMUELS. I think there are a couple of things that
could be done. First, I think there is great value in
accountability. As you know, part of the President's proposal
for 2012 was an increase of $250 million, specifically
targeting improving the overall performance of states and,
secondly, making investments in three specific areas. I am
going to focus on the accountability issue.
Under the proposal, we would elevate the expectation around
performance, using a set of factors, outcome and quality
measures, that states would be held accountable for on an
annual basis.
As you know, the child and family service review occurs on
a three-year cycle, with about two years in between one round
and the next. So, in terms of accountability, the child and
family service review occurs in states once every five years.
We think that should be elevated. The measures ought to be
reviewed on a more regular basis. Our proposal would be to do a
targeted review of states on an annual basis, and then use the
CFSR to really drill down on the limited number of outcomes
where states aren't performing well.
We think continued quality improvement is absolutely
essential, and we that it should be an annual, and not every
five years.
Chairman DAVIS. Okay, thank you. Mr. Doggett?
Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you very much. Thank you for your
testimony and your important work.
There is something of a tension between our desire to give
maximum flexibility for innovation and creativity and adapting
these services, and our need to get accountability and ensure
that these monies are being spent in the way that the Federal
law intends. And I don't think--I know this is true in my
state--we can always assume that, left without any
accountability, that the state will get the job done correctly
and in the most effective way, any more than we would assume we
can do without accountability in other areas.
Let me focus in on promoting safe and stable families, and
the Administration's proposal to incorporate an incentive-based
structure there to address the social, emotion, and health-care
needs of children. Why is it necessary to create a separate
model to address these issues?
Mr. SAMUELS. When you look at the current use of title IV-
B, both subpart I and subpart II, there is a limited amount of
funding that actually goes into service interventions that
specifically address the social and emotional needs of children
in foster care.
Again, I think it is important to recognize that
maltreatment has a significant impact on a child's ability to
function. In many instances, the impact of maltreatment doesn't
rise to the level of a mental health diagnosis. Today, if you
don't have a mental health diagnosis, states have a limited
pool of funds to be able to address your needs.
Trauma is a great example. Traumatic stress in a child has
really significant impact. Child trauma is not, in and of
itself, a diagnosis. Therefore, most children who would be
served in a strategy to address their trauma would have to be
served through funding other than Medicaid. It is our belief
that there are insufficient funds to drive quality of service
improvements needed to achieve good outcomes.
I gave you the example of what we did in the state of
Illinois, when I was a child welfare director. I was concerned
about the developmental issues that children had in foster
care, and their trauma. So we introduced an integrated
assessment on the front end of every child within 45 days of
entering care. It was a comprehensive review. We were able to
know, from the very beginning, what they needed.
In addition, we trained our case workers and our foster
parents to recognize signs of trauma, and to address them. And
we expanded three evidence-based strategies across all age
groups, so that we could address those needs. I can tell you 6
years ago that cost me more than $30 million.
Mr. DOGGETT. You used somewhat clinical terms. But if I
understand what you are saying, if you have a child who has
been beat up, and beat up a number of times, but they are not
to the point that a psychiatrist or other health care worker
diagnoses their having a mental limitation or diagnosis, then
there is some services you cannot provide to them that would
prevent them from getting to that more critical level.
Mr. SAMUELS. I think that is right. I think what we know
from the literature and the science is that there are
interventions that make a huge difference. We introduced three
of them in the child welfare system while I was director in
Illinois.
I even had the opportunity to introduce two of them in the
Chicago public schools, when I was the chief of staff there. We
had a rash of student deaths. Over a two-year period of time we
had over 500 children who were shot, and 85 that were killed,
and there were lots of young people who were showing up to
school every day, clearly demonstrating signs of traumatic
distress.
We were able to introduce two group-based trauma
interventions that were evidence-based into schools throughout
the city, because we knew that that was going to be the most
effective way to reduce anxiety, to reduce stress, and to get
better performance from children who were extremely vulnerable.
Mr. DOGGETT. You mentioned a $250 million increase in your
proposal. It is difficult here these days to avoid a $250
million or more decrease. Why do you need the $250 million
increase? What will you do with it? What would be done with
that money?
Mr. SAMUELS. The President's $250 million performance-
incentive proposal has 2 components to it. The first one, which
is critical, is that states would actually have to perform
better than they perform today to receive any of the funds. So
this would be a performance-based distribution. So states would
have to, using historical data, improve on an annual basis
against themselves.
We are not comparing one state to another, we are comparing
states to their historical performance. And what we would be
saying is states that demonstrate better performance, receive
additional funds so that they can continue to invest in their
system. States that don't improve would not have access to
those funds. So it would be a performance-based strategy.
In addition to that, there are a range of services that
states currently cannot provide. We identify three areas. I
will name them very quickly.
Chairman DAVIS. If you could do that in one sentence, that
will be helpful.
Mr. SAMUELS. One, social and emotional well-being; two,
post-permanency services--children from adopted foster care
face a struggle long after they leave out of home care and
achieve permanency; and third, reducing the number of children
who age out of the system. We think if you can move upstream,
target those children earlier, we can reduce the sad and
troubling effects of a child aging out.
Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you so much.
Chairman DAVIS. Thank you. Mr. Paulsen?
Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Samuels. It is pleasant to hear your passion. Based on your
experience, that sounds like some very troubling and difficult
situations dealing with children that you are trying to protect
and give a good chance in the future.
I just have a question because, you know, the last
reauthorization was several years ago. And, as we learned in
the opening testimony, and as I am just learning as a new
Member of this subcommittee, some of the provisions of the law
required the visits of at least 90 percent of foster children
each month. And we have seen the data, that almost all the
states have certainly improved in this measure, and no doubt as
a result of this requirement and the money specifically
provided to help with these visits now.
But if you look across these states, it sounds like there
is a wide variation of how they are actually performing,
ranging from, like, a low of 18 percent all the way up to 96
percent of kids that are actually being visited each month.
What is your agency actually doing to help all the states
meet the goals for the targeted 90 percent standard? Is there a
penalty? You talked about sanctions earlier. Is there a penalty
if you don't hit the 90 percent standard? Are you recommending
one, specifically?
Mr. SAMUELS. Under the statute, there is a penalty. States
that don't meet their goals are subject to a penalty. Goals are
established on an annual basis.
However, states can invest their own dollars back into the
system in a way that allows them to forego the penalty. I know
of only one state that actually had to pay their penalty.
But let me make two quick points----
Mr. PAULSEN. And what is the penalty?
Mr. SAMUELS. The penalty is between one and five percent of
their allocation within the Safe and Stable Families allotment.
You see across the country dramatic changes. There are some
states that were in the single digits, in terms of the number
of children that they visited. And today, 4 years later, you
see them in the 70 and 80 percent.
My experience is that if you shine a light on an issue, and
you tell people that you are actually going to track them and
hold them accountable, most people step up. That is certainly
the case in child welfare. We think the child and family
service review is the appropriate place to monitor ongoing
improvement. States know we are watching them, and they have
demonstrated that they are going to put the resources in place.
I would welcome the opportunity to come back to Congress on
a regular basis and report to you the progress that is being
made. I think there is little doubt that states have figured
out how to do this, and as long as we hold their feet to the
fire, I think they will continue to do that.
Mr. PAULSEN. And let me ask you this, too, because you were
just testifying just a little bit ago about the increased
request for additional funds----
Mr. SAMUELS. That is right.
Mr. PAULSEN [continuing]. Of 200-some million dollars. And,
you know, in a tough budget environment, obviously----
Mr. SAMUELS. It is.
Mr. PAULSEN [continuing]. You have got to justify that. But
what about the thought of just with existing funds going to
that performance-based, you know, with level funding, or
changes in funding structure, going to the performance-based
model just in itself?
Mr. SAMUELS. I think part of that would require
congressional action.
The work that we have been doing around looking at
incentives, and particularly the indicators that we would
track, suggest that there are opportunities to introduce such a
system within the child and family service review. The downside
is simply that we do not have funding to support state
reinvestments. It is my experience that, to get better, you
have to invest in your infrastructure.
Today, if you get better with your infrastructure, you
produce greater rates of permanency. The results are that you
have fewer children in care, and therefore, you get less
support, federally. We need funding for states to invest in
their infrastructure, so that the quality progress that they
have already made, can be continued. And the services that they
have in place that are producing good results can remain in
place.
Mr. PAULSEN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I know, as we look at this
reauthorization, that is one of our challenges, obviously, is
that reform always costs money. And I think we are going to
have to look at ways of how we are going to bring forward
reform, knowing we are in tough budget situations to have those
resources available.
Chairman DAVIS. I agree. So much of this is going to be
addressing the process and the overhead that is driven by that.
The chair now recognizes Mr. Reed from New York.
Mr. REED. Thank you, Chairman. Appreciate it. Thank you,
Mr. Samuels, for your testimony today.
I want to follow up on your point that there would be a
need for an act of Congress to implement this performance-based
review. What act of Congress are you exactly looking for, or
could that--be recommending to us to pursue, if we want to
implement----
Mr. SAMUELS. In the context of the $250 million we proposed
in the Fiscal Year 2012 budget, funding would be available to
address state performance. They could earn the money if they
performed well. If they did not perform well, they earn no
money, but we do not take money from them.
Mr. REED. That is the additional $250 million?
Mr. SAMUELS. That is correct. If the suggestion is that we
ought to implement the performance-based standards by
themselves, we could do that. But we could not take any further
action against states than what Congress has already given us
the authority to do.
I think it would be difficult, in this context, to both say
we are going to elevate these new performance standards to
drive states, but without new authority and new money through
which you are able to do that.
I appreciate the need to hold them accountable. Congress
has given us authority to do that.
Chairman DAVIS. Would the gentleman suspend for a second?
Could we either ask the folks in the hallway to be quiet,
or close the door, one or the other?
Mr. SAMUELS. So, let me answer the question a different
way.
Mr. REED. Yes, please.
Mr. SAMUELS. As a former child welfare director, I felt
absolutely confident that the Federal Government was using all
of its authority to hold me accountable. And I think, today, we
are.
So, if you want to push states beyond where they are at
today, you either need additional resources, or you need
additional authority.
Mr. REED. Well, I guess what I am trying to say, Mr.
Samuels, is I associate myself with the comments from Mr.
Paulsen, in that the performance-based mechanism that you are
recommending with the additional $250 million of additional
authorization makes sense to me. And as my colleague indicated,
these are difficult fiscal times, and the likelihood of getting
that type of----
Mr. SAMUELS. Absolutely.
Mr. REED [continuing]. increased funding is probably going
to be slim to none, in my opinion. But taking the concept of
what you are recommending as a good performance-based strategy
to--the expenditure of these funds, I would encourage the
Administration to continue to pursue that. And if there is
anything you need from Congress in order to make sure you have
the authority to do that with the existing funding levels that
you have, please know that we would be very supportive or
interested in those efforts.
I would like also to ask--you had indicated there was a
penalty, a financial penalty to states, when they didn't meet
their 90 percent visitation levels for foster care. And then
you--in your testimony you had indicated something--you are
only aware of one state that actually paid the penalty, and
states have been able to avoid that penalty by engaging in some
sort of practice. Could you illustrate to me a little bit
further as to what you are referring to for those states that
avoid the penalty?
Mr. SAMUELS. Sure.
Mr. REED. What are they doing, and how are they doing it?
Mr. SAMUELS. Currently, the way a state could avoid paying
the penalty is simply by raising their level of match. Most
states match at a rate much higher than required. States are
spending more money than they are obligated to spend under
Federal law. As a result, states just demonstrate that they are
actually spending more money--and are able to avoid the
penalty.
So, it is simply a mechanism where states are putting out
more money than they are claiming. Because of that, when they
do run into trouble, they simply put up more money, and they
are able to avoid the penalty.
Mr. REED. Okay. So what they are essentially doing is
allocating more money from their own coffers to avoid paying
the Federal Government the penalty----
Mr. SAMUELS. That is correct.
Mr. REED [continuing]. That is being assessed by the
Federal Government.
Mr. SAMUELS. That is correct. So it is not that they are
avoiding the penalty, per se, they are simply raising the rate
at which they are demonstrating to the Federal Government that
they are meeting the need.
Mr. REED. Very good. I yield back. Thank you. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman DAVIS. Thank you, and the chair now recognizes Mr.
McDermott from Washington.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this
hearing. And, Mr. Samuels, I want to go to your experience
before you got in the Federal Government, when you were in
Illinois, and talk to you about the training of the workers,
the front-line workers, how long it takes, how much you spend,
what you try and teach them.
And the second part of that is many of these kids are--it
is suggested that they be put on pharmaceuticals for a variety
of behavioral problems. Who makes the decision about whether
the child is put on those pharmaceuticals? Is it the parent,
the foster parent, or is the worker who authorizes--in other
words, where is the----
Mr. SAMUELS. Sure.
Mr. MCDERMOTT [continuing]. Informed consent? If it is my
child, and I take my child to a physician, the physician says
the child needs pharmaceuticals, I authorize it and take the
responsibility. Where does the responsibility lie for the
putting of kids on pharmaceuticals?
Mr. SAMUELS. Sure. Currently, states are basically
responsible for determining who has the capacity and the
authority to consent.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. There is no national standard----
Mr. SAMUELS. There is no national standard on who has the
authority to sign off on psychotropics.
In Illinois, the case worker can sign off on a
psychotropic.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Can?
Mr. SAMUELS. Yes. However, every prescription is reviewed
by an independent contractor. So, a case worker could go into a
doctor and a determination could be made that a child needs a
psychotropic. They can sign off on that. But then they have to
submit both the diagnosis, as well as the prescription, to a
review process. Through that review process, if we determine
that there is an inappropriate use of psychotropics, we can
intervene, and we can intervene with a doctor who has the
authority and the clinical expertise to do so.
We are also, at least in Illinois, were able to monitor
children as long as they are on a psychotropic. So we have the
ability to know when they started and when they stopped. That
is important, because it is sometimes the case that a child
will go to one physician, and as a result, get a psychotropic
and go to a different physician at a different time and receive
a second prescription. Those may have interaction effects.
In Illinois, we were able to track every psychotropic that
the child is on to assure that there is no interaction effect.
We could monitor issues around the unintended consequences of
psychotropics. There are side effects to almost every drug. And
so, being able to monitor and make sure that the prescription
and the amount does not have a side effect that creates concern
was also part of the system.
And ultimately, what we had is a system where every child
had a guardian in Illinois. And that guardian can intervene if
they believe that psychotropics are inappropriate or
ineffective for the child that they are representing.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Now, how long does it take to train a front-
line worker? You take a young woman or man out of college, they
have had maybe a social work--at best a social work degree, or
maybe a history degree or something else, and they take a job
at the Department of Health and Human Services of the state of
Illinois. How long does it take you to bring them up to the
point where they can operate independently?
Mr. SAMUELS. In the state of Illinois, a worker would go
through about a two-month set of training. After that two
months they would then be paired with an experienced case
worker. Through that case worker, their progress would be
monitored over the next six months. And during that six months,
there are intermittent circumstances where we bring them in for
additional training.
The experience in Illinois is that if you load up all the
training up front in a classroom setting, and young people do
not have the chance to practice and figure out where their
strengths and weaknesses are, then you do not get the kinds of
impact that you want, in terms of clinical competency and
understanding of policies and programs.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. So, the case load starts at two months----
Mr. SAMUELS. That is right.
Mr. MCDERMOTT [continuing]. After that first sort of
educational block----
Mr. SAMUELS. That is right.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Then you put them with actual patients?
Mr. SAMUELS. That is right. It varies from state to state.
So each state has their own training program for front-line
workers. Now----
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Now you have moved up to this Federal level.
Do we need a national standard that emulates Illinois or
something similar? Or----
Mr. SAMUELS. So the position that I would take on that is
that what we need is a national standard around the
competencies that front line workers need to be effective in
child welfare, more than we need a standard that says, ``Every
state has to train every worker in the exact same way.'' But we
ought to have a standard, and every state ought to meet that
standard.
Chairman DAVIS. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time
has expired. Mr. Berg?
Mr. BERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Samuels, again, I
want to thank you for your passion, and also your experience,
really, from the ground up. I don't really care how big a
school district is, 85 deaths a year just astounds me.
But, you know, on the last reauthorization we required
states to report how they are spending this money for the first
time. And I am a big believer from learning from our past. What
have we learned from that reporting on the states since the
last reauthorization on how they spent their money? And what
are the--again, I look at the states as the laboratory. What
are the effective things that have come out of that?
Mr. SAMUELS. To be honest, as a part of the last
reauthorization, there was an increased effort to have states
report. So, prior to the reauthorization, the standard was
states had to submit a plan that said how they would spend the
money. Today they also have to submit a plan about how they
actually spent the money.
That is the progress. We don't just have this kind of
general understanding of what they said they would spend it on;
they come back and actually have to report what they did spend
the money on.
Mr. BERG. Well, just so I am clear, so have any of those
states given us that second part on how they spent the money?
Mr. SAMUELS. They have.
Mr. BERG. And then what have we done with that? I mean is
there a matrix or measurement? Are we----
Mr. SAMUELS. Primarily what happens with that information
is that it is reviewed to make sure that states are using funds
appropriately. We are looking at how they actually spend the
money in accordance with the authority, to make sure that
states aren't inappropriately moving money from one part of the
budget to the other, one service to the other.
Mr. BERG. So, really, it is a--is it appropriate, not
whether it is an effective----
Mr. SAMUELS. That is right, yes.
Mr. BERG. So I guess I am assuming that people are honest
with these expenditures, and I think we have to, obviously,
have accountability, I mean, if we are going to get this turned
around.
So, maybe that is my other question. Do we have measures
for each state? I mean I see some matrixes that you are using.
Do we have measures, so we can evaluate a state?
Mr. SAMUELS. We do have measures. Again, those measures and
requirements are part of the child and family service review.
And, as a result of that, we look at those measures every five
years.
Mr. BERG. Okay. What I would like to see is, if you would,
bring a chart that would show each state.
Mr. SAMUELS. Yes.
Mr. BERG. And on those things that you are measuring----
Mr. SAMUELS. Sure.
Mr. BERG [continuing]. So we can look at each state and
understand.
The other question--I appreciate what you are saying, in
terms of having accountability, asking states to improve from
the prior year, and only would receive money if they do
improve. You know, having said that, I think there is a certain
level that we ought to expect. And if we have one state that is
at the absolute bottom, making zero effort, and we have another
state that is really doing outstanding service, you know, I
would hate to see the state that is doing outstanding service
receive nothing, not any incentive, and the state at the bottom
just making a casual effort that gets them up one step and then
another step and another step.
And so, I just want to--you don't need to respond to that,
I would just like to make that noted, that, again, as you are
taking about that money, we cannot forget that people are out
there doing a great job, and we need to support those.
The final question I had really related to--we talked about
the penalty, the one five percent--again, it is--states are
smart. I am kind of disappointed that they are getting around
this. So my question to you is, how are we going to fix this? I
mean, truly, if we want them to do what we feel is going to
help kids, what is our stick, or how are we going to improve
that stick to hold them accountable?
Mr. SAMUELS. I am hesitant to make a proposal today. I
certainly would be willing to go back and consider that
question and give you a more complete answer. What I can say
today is simply that in a 4-year period of time, you have had
about 40 percent of them meeting their visitation requirements
to now close to 75 percent. Even though they are not actually
paying a penalty, states are making substantial progress
towards that 90 percent standard.
I would be glad to come back with you to make a proposal.
But the data clearly demonstrates that, even under the current
system, progress is being made, and I think it is reasonable to
assume that if we keep the light shining on this, states will
get to that 90 percent, and they will get to it in the near
term.
Mr. BERG. Thank you. I will yield back.
Chairman DAVIS. Thank you. The chair now recognizes Dr.
Price from Georgia.
Dr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Samuels,
for your work.
Serving four terms in the state legislature in Georgia, we
have had some significant challenges in our state. And everyone
hurts sincerely when kids fall through the cracks. And it seems
that, often times, kids do. So I commend you for the work that
you are doing.
As a physician, my gut tells me that often times in these
situations we are treating the symptoms and not the disease. So
I want to address two specific areas of maybe not getting at
the right area. One is the issue of waste within the system
itself. Have you identified--with all the programs that are
charged under your charge and elsewhere within the Federal
Government, have you identified any redundancies in charge or
in mission of specific programs that might be streamlined and
better utilized, the limited resources that we have?
Mr. SAMUELS. We are currently going through an internal
review process for that exact purpose. As you know, the
President put out a memo outlining the need to both look at
reducing unnecessary activities, at the same time making sure
that there are accountability standards. We are actually going
through a review process now, and the general public has also
been invited to identify areas where they think we could reduce
administrative burden or increase accountability. I would love
to be able to come back to you in a couple of months and share
what we have learned through that review, and additional steps
that we might take.
Dr. PRICE. So your time line is a couple months on that
report?
Mr. SAMUELS. I think that is correct, yes.
Dr. PRICE. And are you--you are pulling in the public. Are
you pulling in state individuals who are--have identified----
Mr. SAMUELS. That is correct. I mean the--a public notice
has been--a Federal notice has been put out. So folks are
actively engaged in reviewing those, and making
recommendations. We have also reached out to all of the
interest groups here, to make sure that they know that they can
submit ideas that they have about reducing the burden of
administrative cost.
And so, we are beginning to see that information come in.
But I haven't had an opportunity to review it, and would love
to be able to come back to you and tell you more, once we have
been able to analyze that information.
Dr. PRICE. I look forward to seeing that. The other issue I
want to touch on is--specifically, is the root cause of the
challenge that we have in this country. As I say, often times
we are treating the symptoms when we identify a kid at risk, a
child that has been abused. We come in and try as best we can
to help the child get through that situation.
What is your agency--what are you doing to work with other
areas of the Federal Government? Or are you working to identify
the root cause of the challenges that kids have out there? And
what are we doing to try to address that issue?
Mr. SAMUELS. I cannot say that we are currently engaged in
a process that is looking at root cause. What I can say that we
are engaged in is a process of looking at the intersections
between Federal policies across each department.
So, we have been working closely with the Department of
Education to see whether there are things that we can do
different in order to get better educational outcomes for
children in foster care. We have been working with SAMHSA and
others to see if there is science on mental health services
that we could learn from and integrate into the system.
What we have tried to do is to work closely with our sister
agencies to get smarter about the most effective strategies for
intervening appropriately, both to prevent as well as to deal
with maltreatment. But our focus is really on getting better
outcomes for kids and families, as opposed to drilling down on
root cause.
Dr. PRICE. Is there any entity within the Federal
Government that is looking at root cause, do you know?
Mr. SAMUELS. I would have no way of knowing.
Dr. PRICE. Wouldn't it be more wise for us, as a society,
to, instead of just--instead of concentrating on treatment of
the challenge when it arises, to try to prevent it from
happening in the first place?
Mr. SAMUELS. I think most would agree that prevention has a
critical role--it reduces the long-term burden that occurs with
the development of a mental illness, or a problem from a health
perspective.
While in theory, I can agree with you, I cannot, at this
point, tell you that there is a way of getting at the root
cause the way you describe it. I am not sure that there is a
process currently in place, specifically, to do that.
Dr. PRICE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman DAVIS. Thank you. The chair now recognizes Ms.
Black from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Samuels, for being here today. This is an area that is
certainly near and dear to my heart, serving in the Tennessee
state legislature. We have dealt with issues about helping our
at-risk children.
And so, I want to follow up--and almost a thread--with the
last three representatives asking questions about looking at
prevention, root cause, evidence base. And those are probably
words that those back in Tennessee were so sick of hearing me
say that, that they were fed up with my asking those questions.
But what I will say is that we finally, after 10 years, saw
some real results. And I am very proud to say that we are, in
your testimony, noted here about one of our programs.
I want to say that there are good programs out there. And I
would encourage the Department to look at those that do
prevention. And I am going to lift one up, a nurse family
partnership, where we know that if we take these children and
put them--or take these young mothers and put them with people
that can mentor them at the very beginning, that we see good
parenting skills, healthy children, and a lot of great
outcomes.
So, I would encourage us to take a look in that area, and
to start saying, ``What can we do on the prevention side, so
that we don't have to treat these children for many, many, many
years for things that are poor outcomes in their homes.'' So--
--
Mr. SAMUELS. Within the administration we can point out a
number of areas where prevention and evidence base has been
combined.
Certainly the home visiting initiative that is in its first
year--it is $100 million, next year it is almost $250 million--
specifically targeting the prevention of the kinds of problems
you have described. I think the home visiting is a good
example.
There is also considerable money invested in teen pregnancy
prevention. In the child welfare system we have been working
with agencies to introduce home visiting related to reducing
abuse and neglect, which I think moves in the right direction.
And we are currently spending some of our discretionary dollars
to introduce evidence based trauma informed practice as a means
of getting at some of those programs you described.
Mrs. BLACK. Okay, so let me go to--I know I have limited
time--let me go to my next piece on this, is that you do lift
up in your testimony, in the PSSF program, where there are a
number of states that you recognize for programs that they have
initiated. And I know that one here in North Dakota
specifically is an evidence-based program.
Mr. SAMUELS. Yes.
Mrs. BLACK. How are you using what is happening in
incubators back in these states to be able to help other states
to make sure that what we are using is evidence-based? Because
what I have found in our state is that we spent a lot of money
on programs that people said, ``Oh, they are nice and they are
good,'' but there was not a measurement tool.
And that may be where I think that we come in, from the
Federal level, in whatever the states are doing, to lead them
more toward evidence-based programs, as opposed to spending
money on things that maybe, oh, they feel good, or somebody
says they work, but we cannot measure them.
So, number one, is what are you doing to use what comes to
you from other states that is evidence-based and working to get
that out, nationwide?
And then, do you do anything to hold states accountable for
the money that is spent in saying how is it evidence-based, are
you measuring your programs--not directing them on what they
necessarily have to do, because they are incubators, I
understand that, but to at least say, ``Whatever you are doing,
you are spending the money on, you have to show that there are
results on the other side that are measurable.''
Mr. SAMUELS. I would respond in two ways. One is that we
certainly have integrated the evidence-based standard into much
of the discretionary grants that we are currently making. There
were evidence-based programs that were funded in the 2010
cycle. We would anticipate funding additional ones in the 2011
cycle.
To date, child welfare agencies have not been held
accountable for how they choose to spend money. They have been
held accountable for whether that money produced outcomes that
we care about in child welfare. So, I think it is hard to say
that today we are holding them accountable for using evidence-
based practices. What we are saying is you ought to be using
whatever strategies are most effective at getting to the
outcomes that you are being held accountable for.
So, it is a slightly nuanced answer. We are not requiring
evidence-based practices, but we are telling them that, ``We
are going to hold you accountable,'' and we are trying to drive
them in a direction of selecting and identifying evidence-based
programs.
We have also tried to elevate the presence of evidence-
based strategies in a number of initiatives we are engaged in.
Again, I point to trauma as one example, and the mental health
services as another example where we have been demonstrating to
states that evidence base can advance their cause.
Chairman DAVIS. Thank you very much. The gentlewoman's time
has expired. And last, but not least, the chair recognizes Ms.
Bass from California.
Ms. BASS. Thank you. Well, first of all, Mr. Chair, thank
you for allowing me to ask questions, given that I am not in
this committee.
But I just wanted to ask you briefly about what is going on
in states. Coming from California, a state that is in a
terrible economic crisis like so many others, you talked about
how states are meeting their targets, in terms of requirements,
that the Federal Government places. Do you find--are you seeing
anywhere, given the economic crisis in the individual states,
that they are going backwards?
And also, are states cutting back on their match?
Mr. SAMUELS. I am unaware of any instance in which the
states are cutting back on their match. We would be glad to go
back and take a closer look at that if you would like, but I am
not aware of any instances where that is occurring.
I think certainly we can read about all of the reductions
that are being made in state after state, and we have concerns
around particularly case work ratios. We are concerned that
with fewer workers doing those visits, meeting their
obligations are harder to achieve. But at this point we don't
have any evidence that we can specifically point at that says
that, as a result of cuts, states are unable to meet their
obligation.
But again, our responsibility is to monitor that on a
regular basis. We are trying to do that. And if we were to find
that states, as a result of cuts, aren't meeting expectations,
aren't meeting requirements, we would engage with those states
and make clear to them what their Federal obligation is, and
how we would hold them accountable if they fail to meet their
obligation.
Ms. BASS. Thank you.
Chairman DAVIS. Thank you very much for investing the time,
Mr. Samuels, coming here today to share with us. We are looking
forward to working with you in continuing this dialogue to
structure a reauthorization that addresses efficiency in
process, but most of all works to help get to the root causes
and protect kids out there on the front lines.
If Members have additional questions, they will submit them
to you in writing. And we would appreciate your responses back
to the committee also, for the record.
This concludes our second panel, and thank you very much,
again.
Mr. SAMUELS. Thank you.
[Pause.]
Chairman DAVIS. I appreciate everybody coming for the third
panel, and also your patience, and also grateful to the powers
that be that no votes have been called in the midst of this. I
think we are going to be able to complete this without
interruption on this critical subject.
We are going to have five distinguished panelists. For me,
in particular, it is very exciting to have our own long-serving
front-line leader, Patricia Wilson, the commissioner of the
Department of Community-Based Services from the Kentucky
Cabinet of Family and Human Services. And most important to me
in her extensive background is not the long list of accolades
or administrative leadership positions that she had, it was her
many, many years of front-line experience that brings a unique
perspective to the work that she is doing now in helping
children in the Commonwealth. I appreciate your being here very
much.
We also have: Lelia Baum Hopper, director of the Court
Improvement Program for the Supreme Court of Virginia--thank
you for being with us; Tracy Wareing, the executive director of
the American Public Human Services Association; John Sciamanna,
director of policy and government affairs, child welfare, at
the American Humane Association; and Steve Yager, director of
the Children's Services Administration from the Michigan
Department of Human Services.
Ms. Wilson, please proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF PATRICIA R. WILSON, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT FOR
COMMUNITY BASED SERVICES, KENTUCKY CABINET FOR HEALTH AND
FAMILY SERVICES
Ms. WILSON. Thank you, Chairman Davis, Ranking Member,
Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you so much for this
opportunity to talk to you this morning about programs that are
of supreme importance to our nation's children. I am honored to
speak with you about these two programs that are so critically
important to our nation's children: Child Welfare Services and
Promoting Safe and Stable Families. In Kentucky alone,
approximately 50,000 children are touched annually by these two
programs.
Most of my comments this morning are going to focus on the
three key aspects that were in the last reauthorization: the
monthly case worker visits, the regional partnership grants,
and working with parents with substance abuse issues.
First, the monthly case worker visits. As Chairman Davis
noted, I am a former front-line worker and supervisor,
something I am very, very proud of. I applaud Congress for
setting the benchmark that every child in foster care should be
seen every month. Nothing is more important to those children
to have that contact with the individuals who know their case,
who know their families, who know what is happening. It is also
essential, as we move those children toward permanency.
However, I would like to note that the method of
calculating that performance is of concern to just not only my
state, but to others. The current calculation is child-based,
meaning that any missed visit to a child within a 12-month
period negates all the visits that were made to that child. An
alternative that could be considered would be looking at every
visit counting as an event, in and of itself. And states would
be given credit for all the visits that are made to children.
States should be held accountable. Sanction is an acceptable
means of correcting poor performance. But we also believe that
states should be recognized for the performance that they do
make
Funding to support the case worker visits is much needed to
help off-set the rising cost of transportation. Again, in a
rural state such as ours, where children are sometimes placed a
distance from their home in order to receive the treatment they
need, the mileage that our staff incur traveling to and from
those visits is costly for the state, and we appreciate the
extra compensation to address that.
The second aspect, improving outcomes for children with
substance-abusing parents or caregivers. Last year in Kentucky,
60 percent of the children in substantiated reports of child
abuse or neglect were found to have families exhibiting
substance abuse issues. It is a tremendous problem in our
state.
I do want to highlight, though, the positive impact of one
of the regional partnership grants that Kentucky was fortunate
to receive. Martin County, in rural Appalachia, has just over
12,000 residents in the entire county. But it leads Kentucky in
the percent of the child population in substantiated reports of
child abuse and neglect. Approximately 6\1/2\ children out of
every 100 children in that county were found to have
substantiated reports. That compares to 1\1/2\ children per 100
in the rest of the state. Half of those children were ages six
or younger. Substance abuse by the parent was a driving force
in the majority of those cases.
Prior to the regional partnership grant, there was one
substance abuse counselor in the entire county who provided one
day of outpatient service per week. There was a four-month
waiting period to even receive one hour of service per week.
There were no support groups.
With the grant, we were able to replicate a--our START
program. This program pairs highly-trained parent mentors with
specially-trained child protective service workers to provide
intensive case work services to the families, partners with
substance abuse treatment professionals to ensure quick access
to treatment, and partners with the court to identify options
for child safety and permanency.
In the two-plus years of operation, the county has
developed intensive outpatient services that are available four
days and several nights per week. There are now 9 weekly 12-
step meetings and a Families Anonymous meeting. There is a
support group. And, very importantly, transportation is able to
be provided to those individuals who need help in either
accessing services, or--we have found through our evaluation
accompanying the individual to the first four appointments with
their substance abuse counselor is one of the most effective
means of keeping them in treatment.
To date, more than 40 percent of the parents served, most
of whom are young marrieds are in their 20s, and have among
them more than 100 children, have been able to become sober and
maintain their children safely at home. Over time, we believe
the success rate in Martin County will equal that of the 67
percent success rate that we have in the other 3 counties where
this program exists.
Finally, the coordination of health care needs with
children. We have entered into a cooperative agreement with our
commission on children for special health care needs to address
those needs of children in foster care by deploying registered
nurses across the state. A larger issue, though, as
Commissioner Samuels noted, is the use of psychotropic
medicines.
We have concerns that children who are taking multiple
psychotropic meds may not have regular psychiatric
consultation, that those medications may be prescribed by
someone other than a child psychiatrist, and that there are
children who are receiving benefit of that that could also
benefit from alternative methods of behavior management.
In closing, I would offer a general comment about the 20
percent distribution, the interpretation across the 4 broad
categories in Safe and Stable Families.
Chairman DAVIS. If you could, sum up quickly, please----
Ms. WILSON. Yes, sir.
Chairman DAVIS [continuing]. Your time has expired.
Ms. WILSON. With 15 years plus of experience, and data to
support the assertion, states are finding there is a need to
rebalance the funding within the service needs of families.
Allowing states more latitude in determining the distribution
of that allotment would provide increased opportunity to fully
actualize the goals of Safe and Stable Families.
Chairman Davis, Members of the Subcommittee, we appreciate
your support, we appreciate your concern for children and
families.
We urge reauthorization, and I thank you for the
opportunity to present the views.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wilson follows:]
Chairman DAVIS. Thank you very much.
Ms. Hopper.
STATEMENT OF LELIA BAUM HOPPER, DIRECTOR, COURT IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM, SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA
Ms. HOPPER. Good morning, Chairman Davis, Members of the
Committee. Thanks for the opportunity to discuss funding by the
Virginia Court System of court improvement program funding. My
name is Lelia Hopper, and I am director of the court
improvement program in the administrative office of the courts,
under the Supreme Court of Virginia. I have worked with the
court improvement program since it was first authorized by
Congress, and grants were made available in 1994.
The challenge for court improvement programs is to sustain
the considerable energy that it takes on the part of the
judiciary and professionals who carry out the reforms daily
that you all have instituted. Today, excellent court practice
requires that we go beyond the basics. Since 2006, when the new
CIP grants for training and data collection and analysis were
made available, we have been able to substantially improve upon
and energize early system reform efforts.
Training grant funds since 2006, including those planned
through the end of this grant year, have enabled Virginia's
court improvement program to support 123 local and state
training events, with more than 12,000 participants. We have
also provided funding for juvenile court judges, attorneys,
child dependency mediators, staff for CASA programs to attend
13 national educational events that have enhanced their skills.
The large majority of these individuals would not have
benefitted from these educational opportunities without CIP
funding support.
In Virginia, many juvenile court judges provide leadership
in their communities to provide--to improve child dependency
court processes on a multi-disciplinary basis. Their
involvement is supported by the best practice court program,
instituted by my office in 2002, and substantially supported in
the past 5 years with training grant funds.
Today there are 37 active court teams, which account for 60
percent of Virginia's foster care caseload. These teams have
committed--have contributed to a 27 percent decrease in the
number of children in foster care in Virginia over the past 3
years. This reduction has been accomplished as a part of a
transformation of Virginia's children's services system, of
which the courts have been an integral part.
The data grant. Our office produces 10 court performance
measurement reports, utilizing case information that is entered
by court staff into the juvenile case management system. In
2010 we began development of these reports into web-based
formats, making them more interactive and user friendly. We
will complete this project this September.
In 2008, we began making analyses of local juvenile court
performance measures available to the courts. This analysis
process is initiated by the presiding juvenile court judge,
includes a written report, a meeting, and recommendations to
improve court practice. To date, we have completed 15 of these
court analyses.
An interface between the courts and the state department of
social services is something we have been working on for quite
a while. Both of our agencies recognize that an interface would
improve the ability of the courts and social services to
process paperwork and make timely decisions for children in
foster care. And we are scheduled to begin implementation of
the first phase at the end of this year.
Finally, we also have available online to our judges--and
it is only to judges--something called the active foster care
children report. It is updated daily and provides a snapshot of
children in foster care identified by locality. It includes
demographic information, foster care placement information,
funding resources, and critical hearing dates. Prior to this
electronic transmission, we could only provide this information
twice a year in a hard copy to the courts.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, Virginia and
the other court improvement programs across the country are
effectively utilizing the court funds that you have provided to
improve court practice. And we believe we are making a
measurable difference for families and children who are under
the jurisdiction of the court system.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hopper follows:]
Chairman DAVIS. And thank you very much for your good work
in Virginia.
Ms. HOPPER. Thank you.
Chairman DAVIS. Ms. Wareing.
STATEMENT OF TRACY WAREING, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN PUBLIC
HUMAN SERVICES ASSOCIATION
Ms. WAREING. Good morning, Chairman Davis and Members of
the Subcommittee. I am Tracy Wareing, executive director of the
American Public Human Services Association. And thank you so
much for the opportunity to testify today regarding the
promoting Safe and Stable Family and Child Welfare Service
programs. And it is an honor to be sitting here with such a
distinguished panel, as well.
The American Public Human Services Association is a non-
profit organization whose membership includes the Nation's top
government human service executives from across each of the
states, the District of Columbia, as well as hundreds of human
service directors at the local--at the county level. We happen
to also house nine affiliate organizations, including the
National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators,
and I speak on their behalf today, as well. We are a bipartisan
organization whose ideas and direction come from the open
exchange and deliberation of the expertise of our members, two
of which are on this panel, as well.
This morning I would like to address the importance of
prevention of child maltreatment, and the support of front-end
services for children and families at risk, and then share two
recommendations with you for revisions, as you consider
reauthorization.
As you know, Promoting Safe and Stable Families is one of
the few Federal funding streams that supports services aimed at
preventing children from coming into out-of-home care. In 2009,
states reported PSSF funding as the single largest source of
funding for preventative services, covering nearly 30 percent
of children receiving preventative services, nationwide.
Over the past five years, states have successfully reduced
the number of children in foster care by more than 20 percent,
as you heard from Mr. Samuels. In that same time period, the
national repeat maltreatment rate also declined. By promoting
community-based family support, family preservation,
reunification services, and adoption support, PSSF has played a
critical role in helping states alleviate situations that might
otherwise lead to children being placed in foster care, due to
abuse or neglect, or staying in care too long.
We also appreciate the substance abuse and methamphetamine
grants that were made available to states. These grants have
been helping states to offer an array of services to address
the specific needs of these families, and use a range of
strategies too prevent and treat substance abuse. As you
consider reauthorization of these programs, we want to
acknowledge the importance of these to the states, and urge
that you continue them.
However, I think, as we have heard today, the bulk of
Federal funding for child welfare is directed toward out-of-
home care, and it comes from a patchwork of funding streams,
and it is not directed to prevention. The overall allocation of
title IV-E funds, compared with title IV-B funds, is about $10
of out-of-home care funding for each dollar of in-home funding.
We urge this committee to address comprehensive child welfare
finance reform, and recommend increasing support for
preventative and supportive services in directing Federal
resources toward the front end, to improve the outcomes of
children and families.
While our members support the need for flexibility to
deliver on an array of services that are responsive to the
special needs of their community, they also understand the role
of the Federal Government in ensuring Federal dollars are spent
wisely and correctly, and that the outcomes we all desire are
met. As our members continuously improve their internal
processes, they have also worked to develop practical
recommendations on streamlining Federal accountability measures
under IV-B and IV-E, and have offered ideas to the
Administration around that.
But the methodologies for monitoring and measuring must be
related to the outcomes we all desire to see. To that end, as
you consider reauthorization of Promoting Safe and Stable
Families, we recommend: one, relaxation of what is sometimes
referred to as the 20 percent rule, which essentially requires
equitable spending across the four categories of PSSF funding.
That spending restriction is too rigid.
Just to give you one example, California has shared with us
that many of their smaller counties, some of which may perform
no more than a few adoptions a month, struggle with utilizing
the 20 percent spending requirement on the adoption promotion
and support services. In those communities, the funds would be
better directed to community-based family support and
preservation.
Additionally, a colleague on the panel here mentioned the
methodology for calculating monthly case worker visits of a
child. Our members are deeply committed to the best practice of
timely, effective, and regular case worker visits, and the role
they place in ensuring safety and facilitating reunification
and permanency. But the fact is, the current methodology is
flawed. A case worker could, in fact, see a child 20 times a
year, but if 1 month was missed, that case and those visits are
not counted.
My written statement provides specific recommendations that
our members believe will result in a much more accurate picture
of the diligent efforts being made. And let me emphasize this
is about methodology, not intent. Our members fully support the
benchmarks set by the 2006 reauthorization.
With that, I thank you so much for the opportunity to be
here. We urge reauthorization of Promoting Safe and Stable
families and Child Welfare Services programs, and would welcome
questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wareing follows:]
Chairman DAVIS. Thank you.
Mr. Sciamanna.
STATEMENT OF JOHN SCIAMANNA, DIRECTOR, POLICY AND GOVERNMENT
AFFAIRS, CHILD WELFARE, AMERICAN HUMANE ASSOCIATION
Mr. SCIAMANNA. Thank you, Chairman Davis and Members of the
Subcommittee.
Since 1877, the American Humane Association has been a
national leader in developing cutting edge initiatives to
prevent and respond to child abuse and neglect. Our work in
research, family group decision-making, differential response,
and father engagement are a few examples of our efforts to
strengthen families, children, and communities.
Let me talk briefly about some of the important services
under PSSF. Reunification services. Once a child has been
reunified, access to after-care is limited, since Title E funds
provides for support only when a child is in foster care.
This week we co-hosted a briefing on Capitol Hill focusing
on reunification. The compelling stories of the families who
were there who were reunified with their children provided
strong evidence that we could do so much more in this area. In
2009, 276,000 children left foster care and 51 percent were
reunified with their parents, we feel we can do much more in
this area.
One of our recommendations is that if we can't enact a
comprehensive finance reform this year, then we should extend
title IV-E entitlement funds to services for reunification,
allowing dollars to address the only permanency option not
currently funded under IV-E.
We also recommend that the current 15-month restriction
under Promoting Safe and Stable Families be removed, since we
would like the dollars to follow the children home into the
family.
Adoption services. This subcommittee was key to enactment
of the Fostering Connections to Success, and Increasing
Adoptions Act. That started us towards a comprehensive reform
of the finance system by eliminating the link to AFDC for
adoption assistance.
We are increasing the number of adoptions annually, and
have made great success in the last decade. But for a small
percentage of these families, there is a need for post-adoption
services, as Commissioner Samuels mentioned today. Recently a
coalition led by Voice for Adoption held a Capitol Hill
briefing, with one of the recommendations being that there be
specific funding to address these post-adoption services, so
that states can establish an infrastructure.
We recommend that the definition of adoption services under
Promoting Safe and Stable Families be examined to see whether
or not we could direct more dollars toward post-adoption
services.
We also suggest that when Congress created the de-link,
that they directed states to reinvest dollars, maintenance of
effort into Child Welfare Services. Congress may want to look
at directing those dollars, as some adoption groups have
advocated, toward post-adoption services as a way to provide a
steady source of funding.
Family support and family preservation are two very
critical services. We certainly hope that they will continue to
be categories in this area. There has been some consideration
in the past about whether or not these categories should be
collapsed. But we think that they, the four services, address
four distinct families.
The big challenge for all of this funding is that in recent
years, when this committee has increased mandatory funding,
appropriators have sometimes used it as a rational to decrease
the discretionary piece of this program.
The need for substance abuse services. We would echo a lot
of the comments that have been heard here today. There is
growing evidence about the importance and the effectiveness of
comprehensive family treatment. We would suggest, however, that
the specification toward methamphetamine be broadened, since
there are a range of substance abuse issues and problems,
depending on the locality and the part of the country, and
grants should be based on the most effective strategies.
Workforce development you have also heard a great deal
about. Case load visits are important. But, as you have heard,
there are some problems with the data collection. We need to
work on that. What we don't want is a system where we are just
checking off visits. Instead, we will need to encourage quality
visits. We have done a number of workforce studies for states
to help them with that, to establish quality visits.
We think if the funding cannot be increased, we need to
design a workforce strategy. Perhaps Congress should look at
some sort of a race to the top that would allow some states to
invest and--provide strategies that could develop a child
welfare workforce development plan over several years.
Court improvement. I won't go into great detail here,
because you have heard about the effectiveness of that. So we
certainly hope that Congress will keep--and, if at all
possible--increase funding.
We also want to emphasize that recently we released a
report with several organizations about maltreated infants and
toddlers. They are the biggest population coming into contacted
with the child welfare system. We think there needs to be
greater focus on this population, not to the exclusion of other
populations, but perhaps we can, in the oversight or in the IV-
B-1 plan, outline what states are doing to address this
vulnerable population.
Finally, in my closing comments, let me just say that if
Congress cannot complete finance reform in this session, that
they look at different ways to extend current funding in IV-E,
whether it is to reunification services, or to doing some up-
front services, such as differential response, an approach
several of the states represented here today are implementing.
In closing, we appreciate the efforts of this subcommittee
and others to pursue these matters in what has always been a
bipartisan and bicameral way. As some of the Members of this
committee have pointed out in the past, children in foster care
and child protective services are, in fact, our responsibility.
And we need to make sure that we are their good parents until
they find permanent families.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sciamanna follows:]
Chairman DAVIS. Thank you very much.
Mr. Yager.
STATEMENT OF STEVE YAGER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CHILDREN'S SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
Mr. YAGER. Good morning, Chairman Davis and Members of the
Committee. Thank you for inviting me today to testify on child
welfare reauthorization, specifically the Child Welfare
Services program and the Promoting Safe and Stable Families.
Today I want to hit three areas, as my colleagues have
covered a couple of other areas. I want to touch on case worker
visits, data infrastructure, and audits.
Case worker visit funding is essential, and it has had
positive impact on the children in Michigan. Michigan has seen
a rate of case worker visits improved dramatically through the
use of funding. Our base line in 2007 showed 14 percent of case
workers actually achieving monthly visits with each child. In
2010 that rate increased to more than 70 percent.
We continue to aggressively pursue training for public and
private case workers, courts, in foster and resource families,
so not only will our rate of visitation improve to 90 percent
by the end of fiscal year 2011, but also our quality will
improve.
Reauthorization and extension of the case worker visit
funding will support our initiatives to continue improvement in
the rate and the quality of home visits. I would concur with
our colleagues regarding the method of determining compliance
for that. It is a concern that I would share with them.
As for substance abuse services, Michigan sees this as a
continued need, as has already been stated, and we strongly
support reauthorization of that funding.
Data-driven decision-making. Michigan's data-driven
decision-making initiative began out of necessity. Our goal has
been to provide central administration and local office
management and staff with the reports necessary to increase
positive outcomes for the children and families served in
children's protective services, foster care, adoption,
licensing, and juvenile justice programs. Our philosophy is to
provide the field with data reports so they have the knowledge
needed to manage the workforce proactively, and focus on key
areas of practice that have been shown to increase child safety
permanence and well-being.
In addition, the data reports provide central
administration executives with the ability to review county
performance, and the same areas of practice across the board.
Now, for a minute I would like to speak a little bit about
audited processes. Michigan recommends that all Federal
processes be streamlined and linked, so the frequent intrusions
and required corrective action plans resulting from the myriad
reporting and review requirements are eliminated.
For a state like ours that is also operating under Federal
court consent decree, writing the reports, measuring data in
subtle but different manners for each process and then
participating in Federal reviews, program enhancement
activities, leaves us with little time to work on implementing
meaningful change.
From 2008 to 2010, Michigan underwent a title IV-E review,
child and family services review, statewide assessment and on-
site review, the CFSR program improvement plan, the title IV-E
departmental appeals board litigation, the children's rights
lawsuit, and SACWIS on-site review, and other reviews of the
public assistance side of the department. We do not object to
oversight, but to the increasingly seemingly constant nature of
that oversight.
Michigan wants strong accountability in the operation of
child welfare programs, but these divergent reviews and
monitoring processes are too numerous to be value added,
particularly to the staff responsible to providing services to
families.
Michigan recommends that current Federal review and
planning processes for the child family services review and the
child family services plan be blended into integrated and
coordinated state planning processes. The proposal proffered by
the American Public Human Services Association and the National
Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators establishes
both the manner in which this could occur, and the rationale
for coordination. The proposal recommends a modified CFSR
target of no more than three key practice areas. The state
would be held accountable for its efforts to achieve
sustainable improvement in those targeted areas.
Assessment data and continuous quality improvement
activities form the basis of these activities. The proposal
would employ qualitative data from the state's case review
system, giving the review a real-time value, instead of the
historical data profiles employed in the current CFSR process.
Under a coordinated plan, the states could more readily
adapt to changes in funding, legislative focus, program
operation, and external influences, essentially becoming more
nimble in response to these changes. Currently, the two-year
PIP period is counterintuitive to how child welfare really
operates. Renegotiation is required for these modifications.
With respect to the commonality of data, we agree that
national data standards need to be established. However, the
child family services review data profile and measurement
processes confuse external stakeholders, case workers, other
agency partners, and the consumer community, including the
legislature and press. This confusion often unjustly
contributes to public disdain for our work, and impacts staff
morale.
States should have more control over their individual
processes. Michigan recommends using longitudinal data to
assess our performance. This data modeling has a higher degree
of reliability and we are able to move more quickly to assess
the impact of changes in our policies and processes.
Another key component is----
Chairman DAVIS. If you could, sum up quickly, Mr. Yager.
Mr. YAGER. We need an external review process, and we have
that in Michigan. Blending the external with our internal
processes will improve the review system.
We believe the children's bureau, through technical
assistance, can enable us to develop a more effective state-
based system and would satisfy Federal review.
Thank you for your time today. I appreciate this
opportunity. I want to encourage you to reauthorize the Safe
and Stable Families.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Yager follows:]
Chairman DAVIS. Thank you. Foster care is a shared system
between the Federal Government and the states. I would like to
start with Ms. Wareing. Given the 20 percent decline in the
foster care caseload in the last 5 years, are states spending
less, in terms of state dollars, on foster care and related
programs?
Ms. WAREING. Well, I actually don't--Mr. Chairman, I think
that they are spending less on foster care. I think that they
have tried to redirect some of their dollars to in-home
services, because there is not the Federal support at that
level. So, trying to work on things where you are promoting
children being safe, but before they come into the child
welfare system, and that requires a large amount of state
funding in order to do that because there are limited--only,
really, the title IV-B funds are available to support those
types of programs.
Chairman DAVIS. I noted a suggestion in your statement, as
well as by others on the panel today, that there should be more
flexibility in how Federal foster care and other funds are
spent, including for services. Are states leading by example
and devoting any state foster care dollars no longer needed
specifically for foster care to services to prevent foster
care, placements, and otherwise assist families?
Ms. WAREING. From my experience--and I would certainly
welcome colleagues who are closer to the ground--but yes, I
think that is where states have tried to put their resources
into programs that allow children to either not come into care
or get home quickly. But that--you know, that has required a
very concerted effort, and it does require resources around
those prevention programs in order to make that happen.
Chairman DAVIS. Ms. Wilson, would you like to comment, from
a Kentucky perspective?
Ms. WILSON. From a Kentucky perspective, we are actually
spending as much or more money on foster care, the difference
being that the total expenditure base may not be rising more,
but the Federal support is declining. So we are spending more
state dollars.
We are taking, though, both Safe and Stable Families
dollars and any other state-appropriated monies that we can
redirect into preventative services. We wholeheartedly would
like to see the number of children in foster care reduced by a
greater proportion than what it is.
Chairman DAVIS. Thank you. I would like to open a question
up for the panel overall, just in my limited time. Earlier in
the hearing we heard Mr. Samuels's ideas about streamlining. He
talked about oversight streamlining, limiting measures of
performance, the way the annual audits were approached. I would
like to open it up for the panel on your thoughts on the
proposal, on his ideas.
Ms. WAREING. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman DAVIS. And then we will go to Mr. Yager next.
Ms. WAREING. Thank you. I would echo--first I would say
that, on behalf of the American Public Human Services
Association, we would acknowledge that Mr. Samuels and his
staff have been very open to participation from the states.
They have asked and reached out directly to state
administrators and deeper to--for ideas about how to streamline
the process.
Our recommendations--and we have formal recommendations
that we would be happy to share with this committee--would
really bring together what are, in effect right now, planning,
and then a review process, and then a monitoring process, and
then a come back in and monitor again, into one seamless review
process that would exist under the CFSR.
Chairman DAVIS. Thank you. Mr. Yager?
Mr. YAGER. I would support what Mr. Samuels had said. I
think that's a great approach.
I think there needs to be a fundamental shift away from
multiple on-site reviews, often looking at the same cases at
different points in time, to looking at the state's quality
assurance system, encouraging a robust state quality assurance
system that possibly could be certified by the Federal
Government. They could then go into information out of the
state's own system, as opposed to duplicating reviews across
multiple counties.
Chairman DAVIS. Mr. Sciamanna?
Mr. SCIAMANNA. Yes, and we would agree that there is a need
to do some reform for some oversight.
One that especially is based more on outcomes for
children--actually, this committee was, I think, instrumental
in the Fostering Connections, in that you started to look at
some of those outcomes in other areas, in terms of health
planning, in terms of educational outcomes.
And so, being able to kind of track that, and obviously
also what is done at the front end, I think would be
important--what we would like to see is a partnership more
between the states and the Federal Government, so that that
oversight and plan improvements can be jointly developed and
implemented.
Chairman DAVIS. I appreciate that. One of the things that
we have started to work on in this subcommittee with an earlier
piece of legislation--hope to see follow through every one of
the entitlement reauthorizations--is data standardization and
data integration that would allow us to bring the Federal
Government into the 21st century, and move away from the old
Cobalt-based programs of the 1960s and 1970s, make it more like
the private sector, in terms of both data accuracy, but
significantly reduce improper payments and, frankly, pushing
redundant measurement programs out on you from the different
agencies, so we can drill down and get that data, and hopefully
have a more proactive partnership.
With that, I would like to recognize the gentleman from
Minnesota, Mr. Paulsen, for five minutes.
Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just ask a
question of Ms. Wareing. You mentioned--at the end of your
testimony you talked about one-fifth of the SSBG funding, about
340 million of it, was devoted to prevention. I just noticed at
the end of your testimony. Can you provide some additional
background on that program, just for the record?
I guess I am kind of interested in knowing what states
spend that $340 million specifically on that you said is
devoted to prevention. Like what type of prevention services,
with at least some description of what those services do, or
what they are.
Ms. WAREING. Mr. Chairman and Congressman Paulsen, let me
try to broad-brush, and if there are more specific information
that we could detail you, provide for you with how states
specifically spend that money, we are happy to do that
research.
But SSBG funding is the second-largest funding source for
prevention activities, next to Promoting Safe and Stable
Families for states. And they are able to leverage those
dollars and really direct them to community-based services that
are really designed much more on the prevention side of
supporting families and--in the hopes that we are able to keep
children safe and families well.
And so, they could be things like some of the same kind of
things that you might see in Promoting Safe and Stable
Families. It could be community supports, it could be home
visitation. It could be neighborhood parenting types of
classes, and those types of things. You know, many of them, I
think, are evidence-based--some of the questions that
Congresswoman Black had talked about, in terms of ensuring that
sort of--that the dollars are actually going to programs that
work.
But I would also say there are very few programs that have
the kind of flexibility where you can leverage other dollars.
And that is really what SSBG provides. It allows funds that may
not be sufficient for a particular community to really be--to
give you that extra push that you really need.
Mr. PAULSEN. Is there a way to identify, like, how many
families or people are actually served by this spending on
prevention services, to get down to that type of data? Can you
drive down to that?
Ms. WAREING. Mr. Paulsen, I don't know, off the top of my
head, but I would certainly be willing to look at that.
Mr. PAULSEN. Or even what the average amount, for instance,
per family or per person is, you know, allocated or is a part
of that, just to--that would be helpful data, I think, as we
are kind of looking at the--sort of the prioritization or the
benefits of some of these programs, because you did note that
in the testimony.
Ms. WAREING. Yes, absolutely. And it is incredibly helpful
funding. I would say it is designed to be flexible funding. And
so I am not sure, off the top of my head, how precise they can
go to the dollars spent per family, but we will certainly look
at that for you.
Mr. PAULSEN. Please, Mr.----
Mr. SCIAMANNA. Just in regard to the social services block
grant, there has been a series of surveys of states conducted
by Child Trends most recently, and Urban Institute every two
years, asking states what they spend on child welfare services.
And SSBG has pretty consistently been around--I think it's 20
percent of the Federal funding that states invest.
It varies by the 50 states. It will be about 300 million in
the child protective services, nationally, but may also
supplement what states do in terms of foster care, adoption
assistance and support, and for youth. So there is a range of
services that it does provide. But it has been a very critical
component of the child welfare funding system.
Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman DAVIS. Thank you. The chair recognizes Mr. Reed
for five minutes.
Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am hearing kind of a
consistent theme here from the panel and from testimony that is
coming across. Essentially, what I am hearing is that we need
less auditing, more streamline reporting requirements to the
Federal level.
But I would note that when I read the testimony I see some
successes. I see 27 percent less kids in foster care, I see 20
percent over the last 5 years kids in foster care. So, does it
not beg the question--I would be interested in the panel's
response to--we have to be doing something right. And that
has--we heard Mr. Samuels's testimony as to previously the
requirement on the states was to give us a plan, and now it is
give us a plan and then give us an accounting of how you spent
the money.
So, my gut tells me that that change in philosophy of
accountability, it seems to be--being implemented in this area.
It seems to be working. So, is there any disagreement with that
philosophy from anyone on the panel?
[No response.]
Mr. REED. Okay. So when we recommend less auditing, less
accountability, if you would, from the states to the Federal
Government, how do we maintain the successes by removing that
accountability provision? Mr. Sciamanna?
Mr. SCIAMANNA. I guess it is not less accountability, but
refining it. I think the child family service reviews were an
important act by Congress in 1994. And I think even some of the
states will say--they may have problems with what the current
process is, but it did engage a number of stakeholders. So I
think the question is more about a refinement of that process,
and what is the most efficient way to oversee the states.
So, I think that is more of the debate, because certainly a
number of advocacy groups and states will have different ideas,
but we do need to have that oversight, because we should be
doing a lot more for a lot of these families.
Mr. REED. Okay. Mr. Yager?
Mr. YAGER. And certainly we would agree with that. The
accountability is important. That is not something that we want
to shy away from. What we would suggest is that--is how they
hold states accountable is what makes a difference.
If they come in and do multiple reviews, looking at same
sets of cases, requiring a lot of our staff to focus a lot of
time, and then write independent corrective action plans for
each of those reviews, versus looking at the state's own data
system and encouraging a robust data system that can be relied
upon to prevent them from coming in at multiple points, they
could rely on our data, supplement that with some coordinated
efforts on site, and then produce their reports----
Mr. REED. Well, that is good to hear. So no one is really
objecting to the accountability.
Mr. YAGER. No, sir.
Mr. REED. It is just a matter of getting the information
streamlined.
Mr. YAGER. Yes, sir.
Mr. REED. And I am interested--and there is a lot of
testimony in here--about prevention, preventative action. And
that, in my gut, makes sense.
I note the court improvement program, Ms. Hopper. You
indicated that the court improvement program contributed to the
success in Virginia. Can you tell me exactly concrete examples
of what programs, what preventative measures you took to
accomplish that?
Ms. HOPPER. Well, the courts, of course, don't deliver
programs. But they monitor the cases as they come in. And I
think one of the critical components in the work that has been
done in Virginia is the collaboration across all of the child
serving agencies.
One of the mantras in Virginia is that it is not just
social services that is responsible for these children; they
are the community's children. And you need to bring together
the schools, mental health agency, the health department with
Medicaid. All of those agencies need to be at the table in
supporting local departments of social services who hold
custody of children in foster care, and are held--frankly, all
of them need to be held accountable for delivering whatever the
support is that the child and the family need to get them out
of foster care, or get them to some other permanent placement.
So, to some degree, prevention occurs when you are able to
engage all of those agencies right at the beginning of the
entry of the family into care. And one of the things that the
courts in Virginia have done--and I think is also a hallmark of
other court improvement programs across the country--is that
the court is sort of a disinterested party, has the ability to
provide the leadership to pull them all together and say,
``Yes, I may make the final decision, as the judge, but I need
to know that you all are all at the table supporting the
family, and ultimately the agency, if they have--if the court
has to put the child in care in resolving these problems.''
So, that kind of collaboration, which is supported by the
child and family services review--but it has got to be more
than a federally-directed effort. It has really got to be a
locally-supported effort to be effective.
Mr. REED. I know my time has expired. I appreciate the
testimony, Ms. Wareing. And I did note in your testimony there
was a study of the nurse initiative out of Elmira, New York,
which is in my district. I will be reaching out to them to find
out how that program is continuing to work. So I appreciate
that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman DAVIS. Thank you. Mr. McDermott?
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I received some
information from a project in the State of Washington. So I
want to put mine into the record. The Pierce County Alliance
got a regional partnership grant from HHS to administer a
promoting safe and family services programs like the one we are
discussing this morning. It is called the Amphetamine Family
Services Partnership. And it really is another example--and I
think all of these, it would be nice if we could get them all--
and I ask unanimous consent to put in the record a letter from
Dr. Terry Schmidt-Wayland along with the evaluation of the
program in the State of Washington.
Chairman DAVIS. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Chairman DAVIS. I think there are a number of very good
practices that are out there, and the question is whether we
have enough money to go further.
I would say both to Mr. Reed and Ms. Black that the
visiting nurse business was in the Accountable Care Act. Some
of us put this in as a part of the whole of the revamp of the
health care act.
I would say also, Mr. Chairman, one thing that I wish we
had up here--we have got these wonderful people who run these
programs, but I think this audience is filled with people who
have actually experienced it.
I happen to know one of them sitting here was taken out of
her home when she was 12 years old, when her mother was sent to
prison, and her mother was sent to prison and 8 kids were taken
into the system. They--when she came out of prison, she was
deported, although she had a green card. She was deported,
leaving eight kids here, in the United States. So this young
woman went through six or seven homes, and then aged out, and
managed to get herself through college at the University of--or
Washington State University, and is an intern in my office.
I would like to hear from you. those of you who are state
directors, particularly. What are the problems of the
interaction of the legal system of taking the parent away and
locking them up, and leaving the kid in a set of foster homes?
Because one of the issues that we had here on this sheet of
paper which I sent around to everybody, which is how much money
we are spending, you look down here, ``Mentoring children of
prisoners.'' There is nothing.
And I would like to hear from you what the problems are
that you see in that particular genre of case, where you have
taken the kid away and put the parent into prison. You said you
had lots of it in Kentucky. Here is your opening.
Ms. WILSON. Thank you. I think one of the greatest concerns
we have is, particularly with young children, breaking that
bond between a parent and a child, and how we facilitate trying
to do visits between children with their parents, when parents
are incarcerated. That is certainly something that we struggle
with.
The other issue, then too, is----
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Is that because the distance to the state
prison, or is it the reluctance of the foster parent to take
the child, or----
Ms. WILSON. It is a combination of factors. It is distance.
It is just the sheer logistics of getting children their
prescribed times for visits.
One of the avenues that we have taken to try to work with
this is we have an organization called Prevent Child Abuse
Kentucky that actually goes into one or two of our Federal
prisons and conducts classes with parents to prepare them for
changes in their children. Because the other problem that we
see is that when parents are released, their children are not
the children they were when they left. And to help that parent
be educated about effective parenting, but also about stages in
development of children, so that when they are reunited they
are better prepared to deal with the challenges before them
that their children will bring.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. What do you find in Virginia and Michigan?
Ms. HOPPER. With regard to incarcerated parents and their
children? I was just sitting here thinking one of--the only
authority in Virginia in the district courts for bringing
prisoner--we're talking district courts, where these cases are
handled--for bringing prisoners to court, as opposed to circuit
courts, is actually in the juvenile court with parents who are
incarcerated, and are before the court in child dependency
cases. And our legislature gave us that authority.
And so, we actually encourage the courts to bring parents
to court when they are having foster care review hearings or
permanency planning hearings about their children.
But the reality of it is, Congressman, that if you are
going to take a child to a prison to visit their parents, the
visitor situation is often not very good. It can be very
stressful for a child. It can be tough to be in that kind of an
environment. You need training for the people who take them, to
help them make judgements about what happened to the child
while they were there, and when they come back. And often these
parents are there for a very long time.
Chairman DAVIS. Thank you. The gentleman's time has
expired. I would echo your sentiments, having been a prison
volunteer for eight-and-a-half years in the Kentucky
Corrections cabinet. That is a fairly traumatic experience for
a child, especially if they have got some history that they are
carrying in there.
The chair recognizes Mr. Berg for 5 minutes.
Mr. BERG. Thank you. One of the most difficult things, I
think, in this whole process is the unintended consequences,
where you sit around and you--it is probably no more evident
than what you are dealing with, trying to figure out the best
way to help these kids, and yet at the end of the day, the
practicality of it, it sometimes has the opposite effect.
And so, I just kind of wanted to expand on this. You know,
I have--you know, the President has reduced the funding in half
for this prison program. Is anyone familiar with--you know, I
have heard it said that actually it is kind of detrimental to
some of these children, because you are establishing a short-
term relationship, and then you are kind of pulling that away.
Is there anyone on the panel familiar with that, and could
explain that position, if you will?
Mr. SCIAMANNA. I think--yes, what I read on one of the
mentoring programs--at least the HHS justification--was that
their evidence seemed to be that a lot of these mentoringships
were ending within six months, and I think a significant
percentage within three months. And the concern is that, when
that happens, then you reinforce the sense of abandonment.
So, I think it is--at least in one of the programs they
talked about better focusing some of the funding. So I--you
know, I don't' know. You would have to ask the department
exactly the details in this program. But I think that is one of
the concerns that sometimes exists in some of these efforts.
Mr. BERG. And from my perspective, I just really believe
that unless you measure things you can't manage them. And too
often we are putting money and putting new programs, and they
just continue on without anyone really saying, ``Hey, wait a
minute,'' you know, ``that king doesn't have any clothes on,''
or, ``It's not working, and how can we''--which kind of bring
up my other passion, and that is really people at the state
level, you know, giving them the flexibility to know what works
and what doesn't work, and allowing them to make those changes.
And so, I guess, Ms. Wareing, we talked a little bit about,
I guess what--I would like to ask you about the waivers, and
you know, how you see that as a--I think you support that, but
explain how you see that working. And we did pass a bill here
at the end of May to encourage the waivers, and I was wondering
if your organization was supportive of that, and maybe you can
explain how that will help.
Ms. WAREING. Sure. We are absolutely supportive of the
expansion, essentially, of what had been the title IV-E
waivers, as I think other folks have mentioned here, as my
colleague at the end of the table, Mr. Yager, mentioned, the--
you know, the ability to use the IV-E dollars in a way that is
beyond the just bringing kids into foster care. It is really
the idea of what child welfare finance reform, in a more
comprehensive way, is driving at.
It allows states to meet the goals we have said they need
to meet, and be accountable to those goals, but fit it to what
their community needs are, and communities are different, and
states are different. And, you know, the ability to do that and
take--in a very difficult fiscal time for all of us, be able to
be flexible with those dollars and use them as smartly as
possible, we fully support that.
We also fully support examining child welfare finance as a
whole. But a huge step would be to expand the ability of the
waivers to reach many more states for an extended period of
time.
Mr. BERG. I will yield back. Thank you.
Chairman DAVIS. I thank the gentleman. And now the chair
recognizes Ms. Black from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to follow up
on the questioning that Congressman Berg just completed, and
that is the sharing of the information, the good information,
because you all have--those of you at the state level, you have
very good stories about what has worked in your state. And
certainly that is something that should be shared with others.
At the same time, Ms. Wareing, I appreciate the fact that
each community, each state, may be different in its own
complexion, and why it is so important to give that flexibility
and allow something to incubate at a state that may really be
very successful.
I would like to hear from each of you, whether you are at
the state level or an organizational level, how that
information that may be a good piece from some place else that
is doing a good job--how do you get that information? How is
that shared?
And we will start with you, Ms. Wilson. I mean, I like a
number of the things that are in your testimony, and I am going
to be calling the people that I know back at our state, and
talking to them a little bit about that. But how would you both
share what you have done successfully, and then also hear what
other people are doing?
Ms. WILSON. Certainly. And I know some of the people in
your state, and we would be happy to talk with them.
We have two avenues, actually, of both receiving and giving
information. One of those is, both through HHS, through ACF,
and through organizations like APHSA, they are invaluable when
we have the opportunity to share, either via conference calls,
to share at conferences, make presentations about specific
programs. And so, in return, we both provide that information
and we get that information.
I think all of us--a common theme that has been expressed
this morning--I think if you were to look at each of the 50
states individually, what you would find is that one of the
things that the CFSRs did above all else was really push states
to be succinct in their data collection, to target that data,
and then to use that data. And I think that is the key, is
using the data to inform the practices.
So, we look to our national organizations to help us get
the word out. We look to those organizations also to make
states aware of practices, promising practices, as well as we
do ACF, and to share that information among the states.
Mrs. BLACK. Thank you. Ms. Hopper.
Ms. HOPPER. The court improvement programs, of course, are
significantly focused on court processes and relationships with
communities.
And the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court
Judges, through their permanency planning for children
department, is a terrific resource for us. And they cultivate
judges across the country with particular expertise--many of
them come from your states--that are available to us to use in
our states to call on as resources.
The National Center for State Courts is also a terrific
resource.
And then, the national resource centers that are funded
through HHS, the Center on Legal and Judicial Issues and the
Child Protection Center are two that we are currently using on
training on child safety.
So, the national resource technical assistance that is
available probably--I look at it a little bit differently than
the executive branch does, but they help to pull together best
practices, and people who are really on the cutting edge of
these issues. And we rely on them heavily to know what is going
on across the country.
Mrs. BLACK. Do you think other states are relying on them,
as well?
Ms. HOPPER. Oh, yes, ma'am. I do believe they are.
Mrs. BLACK. Okay. Great, great. Ms. Wareing?
Ms. WAREING. I would just add--and Pat so eloquently talked
about the way that the associations really play a role. But,
you know, there is a lot of people in this room, many people,
who come to work every day thinking about the ways in which we
can better serve, have better, healthier lives for our children
and families.
And part of what I think has happened in recent years that
is remarkable in a way that has allowed really good things to
happen--and if we didn't say this, I think other people on the
panel would agree--Promoting Safe and Stable Families, and
including some of the things that happened in the last
reauthorization were very helpful. So, you know, that, I think,
is an important thing to leave the panel with.
But there is a real shared governance and leadership that
exists across national organizations, at all levels of state
and local government. And those are the--the more we can make
that a dynamic relationship, as opposed to a linear
relationship, that is the way that things get shared.
Mrs. BLACK. Thank you.
Mr. SCIAMANNA. Yes. Actually, I hope American Humane
Association is part of the solution. We do have a research
department, based in our Denver office, and we either partner
with states or localities, as they implement these practices.
Or we do research around specific programs or practices,
differential response.
Something that actually the state of Tennessee is
implementing, it is the way you design your child protective
services system. But there was extensive work, and it is
ongoing work, in terms of the state of Minnesota and their
progress, where they have had control groups findings on the
results of differential response, how it has really helped
families.
So, in our case, what we have done is we have gone into
states like Ohio and now New York, and we help them implement
it on a county-by-county basis. But it is research-based, and
it is similar to what we are also doing, in terms of the
fatherhood outreach, through fathers with children in child
welfare. There is a research component.
Mr. YAGER. I would quickly add that the ACF hosts
conferences, and those conferences are very available to us.
They are often funded for us, and we are able to go and share
information. But I would also add that there is child welfare
list servs where we can get on in real time and talk with our
colleagues across the country and share information back and
forth about what works and what doesn't work.
Mrs. BLACK. Thank you very much.
Chairman DAVIS. I thank the gentlewoman, and I want to
personally thank each of our witnesses who have come in today,
taken the time to--some come from far away, knowing you have
got a day job waiting for you that is accumulating demands
while you are here with us.
We look forward to working with you closely in the future.
Any additional input that you would like to have, certainly we
are very open to that and want to craft the most efficient and
proactive reauthorization possible.
And if Members have additional questions, they will submit
them to you in writing. What we would ask is that you submit
your answers also the committee, just so we can insert them in
the official record, so everyone will have access.
And thank you all again. And, with that, the committee
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:12 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Submissions for the Record follow:]