[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                  HEARING ON MODERNIZING CHILD WELFARE
                     TO PROTECT VULNERABLE CHILDREN

=======================================================================

                                 HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                    SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORK AND WELFARE

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                           SEPTEMBER 28, 2023

                               __________

                          Serial No. 118-WW03

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means
         
 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
 
                              __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
54-910                    WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------   


                      COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

                    JASON SMITH, Missouri, Chairman
VERN BUCHANAN, Florida               RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska               LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania             MIKE THOMPSON, California
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona            JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
DARIN LaHOOD, Illinois               EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
BRAD WENSTRUP, Ohio                  BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
JODEY ARRINGTON, Texas               DANNY DAVIS, Illinois
DREW FERGUSON, Georgia               LINDA SANCHEZ, California
RON ESTES, Kansas                    BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania          TERRI SEWELL, Alabama
KEVIN HERN, Oklahoma                 SUZAN DelBENE, Washington
CAROL MILLER, West Virginia          JUDY CHU, California
GREG MURPHY, North Carolina          GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin
DAVID KUSTOFF, Tennessee             DAN KILDEE, Michigan
BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania      DON BEYER, Virginia
GREG STEUBE, Florida                 DWIGHT EVANS, Pennsylvania
CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York             BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota        JIMMY PANETTA, California
BLAKE MOORE, Utah
MICHELLE STEEL, California
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas
RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York
MIKE CAREY, Ohio
                       Mark Roman, Staff Director
                 Brandon Casey, Minority Chief Counsel
                                 ------                                

                    SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORK AND WELFARE

                    DARIN LaHOOD, Illinois, Chairman
BRAD WENSTRUP, Ohio                  DANNY DAVIS, Illinois
MIKE CAREY, Ohio                     JUDY CHU, California
BLAKE MOORE, Utah                    GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin
MICHELLE STEEL, California           DWIGHT EVANS, Pennsylvania
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania          TERRI SEWELL, Alabama
ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York
                         
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
Hon. Darin LaHood, Illinois, Chairman............................     1
Hon. Danny Davis, Illinois, Ranking Member.......................     2
Advisory of September 28, 2023 announcing the hearing............     V

                               WITNESSES

David Sanders, Ph.D., Executive Vice President of Systems 
  Improvement, Casey Family Programs.............................     4
Tracy Gruber, Executive Director, Utah Department of Health and 
  Human Services.................................................    18
Cherie Craft, Founding Executive Director, Smart from the Start..    29
Katherine Marquart, Recruitment Manager, FosterAdopt Connect.....    37
Prudence Beidler Carr, Center Director, American Bar Association, 
  Center on Children and Law.....................................    44

                    MEMBER QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

Member Questions for the Record and Responses from David Sanders, 
  Ph.D., Executive Vice President of Systems Improvement, Casey 
  Family Programs................................................   149
Member Questions for the Record and Responses from Tracy Gruber, 
  Executive Director, Utah Department of Health and Human 
  Services.......................................................   161
Member Questions for the Record and Responses from Cherie Craft, 
  Founding Executive Director, Smart from the Start..............   170
Member Questions for the Record and Responses from Katherine 
  Marquart, Recruitment Manager, FosterAdopt Connect.............   172
Member Questions for the Record and Responses from Prudence 
  Beidler Carr, Center Director, American Barr Association, 
  Center on Children and Law.....................................   176

                   PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Public Submissions...............................................   183
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


 
  HEARING ON MODERNIZING CHILD WELFARE TO PROTECT VULNERABLE CHILDREN

                              ----------                              


                      THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2023

                  House of Representatives,
                  Subcommittee on Work and Welfare,
                               Committee on Ways and Means,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in 
Room 2020, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Darin LaHood 
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
    Chairman LaHood. Good morning, everybody.
    I want to welcome everyone to our Work and Welfare 
Subcommittee hearing this morning.
    I want to welcome our witnesses here on our subcommittee 
hearing entitled, ``Modernizing Child Welfare to Protect 
Vulnerable Children.'' And so grateful to have the opportunity 
to have this hearing this morning.
    I am going to begin with an opening statement here and then 
turn it over to my colleague, Ranking Member Danny Davis. And 
then we will introduce our witnesses here today.
    So welcome, everybody. I want to, first of all, thank 
everyone for joining us today for this hearing. My name is 
Darren LaHood, a Congressman from the 16th congressional 
district, covering much of central Illinois and northwest parts 
of Illinois.
    This hearing begins our important work this Congress on 
evaluating challenges faced by Americans' most vulnerable 
children within our Nation's child welfare system.
    As chairman of the Work and Welfare Subcommittee, I have 
tremendous respect for the longstanding bipartisan work that 
has been done by this subcommittee to reform and fortify the 
safety net for children who have experienced the trauma and 
hardships of abuse and neglect.
    In 2018, this subcommittee paved the way for a significant 
bipartisan victory with the passage of the Family First 
Prevention Services Act. That legislation transformed Congress' 
approach to child welfare by moving away from the historic 
practice of providing funding solely after a child entered 
foster care in directing resource toward evidence-based 
prevention services to keep families together.
    In 2020, under the exemplary leadership of Ranking Member 
Davis and former Ranking Member Jackie Walorski, this 
subcommittee worked to provide critical resources and much 
needed support to foster youth during the pandemic. Child 
welfare policy has seen significant changes in recent years. 
But, with nearly 4,000 children in foster care, more needs to 
be done.
    The purpose of this hearing is to review a program within 
our subcommittee's jurisdiction called Title IV-B. Title IV-B 
is less than an endearing name, but the program needs to be 
reauthorized.
    As you will hear from our witnesses today, this program 
plays a pivotal role in family preservation and providing 
flexible funding to States and Tribes, to promote the safety, 
permanence, and well-being of children in foster care.
    The program was first created in 1935 with the original 
passage of the Social Security Act and expanded in 1993 to 
include a new subpart called Promoting Safe and Stable 
Families. Title IV-B as a whole has not had any significant 
reform since 2008.
    I strongly believe it is our responsibility and obligation 
to ensure government programs are meeting today's needs and 
that they are maximizing the impact of taxpayer dollars. Too 
often, Congress creates a program and then fails to circle back 
and ask what has come of our investment, how company this 
funding complement other Federal programs that serve similar 
populations.
    This perpetuates a social safety net that is siloed and 
disconnected. We have a unique opportunity to modernize and 
reimagine the function and structure of Title IV-B, building on 
the success of the Family First Act while maintaining the 
flexibility that States rely on.
    Earlier this month, I sat down with Commissioner Rebecca 
Jones Gaston of the Administration of Children, Youth, and 
Families at the Department of HHS. Our conversation was very 
productive and revealed a number of areas where Title IV-B 
could be improved.
    In addition, stakeholders from both sides of the aisle have 
highlighted persistent challenges. Title IV-B could be--where 
it could be reformed to address--including some of our 
witnesses that will speak today. These include improving 
outcomes for the 19,000 youth aging out of foster care each 
year, supporting the grandparents and family members caring for 
the 2.5 million children who might otherwise enter foster care, 
strengthening the capacity of family courts, and ensuring legal 
representation and transparency for parents, fulfilling the 
promise of family resource centers to provide upstream 
interventions that catch families before they fail, and 
addressing the nationwide shortage of caseworkers.
    Families form the bedrock of a strong society, and it is 
crucial to have a child welfare system in place that supports 
children in moments of crisis and keeps families intact 
whenever possible.
    I look forward to the insights and valuable testimony of 
our witnesses that will--that they will provide today as they 
shed light on various components and programs funded through 
Title IV-B. Together, we can find lasting, bipartisan solutions 
to address the challenges facing vulnerable children and 
families.
    I want to thank our witnesses and our guests for being here 
today and look forward to your testimony.
    With that, I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from 
Illinois, the ranking member, Mr. Danny Davis.
    Mr. DAVIS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I also want to thank each one of our witnesses for 
being here with us today. And I thank all of those who have 
come.
    Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be a part of the long tradition 
in the Ways and Means Committee of enacting important 
bipartisan legislation to improve foster care and better 
prevent child abuse and neglect. I want to continue this 
tradition in partnership with you, and I appreciate your 
thoughtful assembly of our panel of experts today.
    I would be remiss if I did not note that in just 2 days the 
Republican leadership's inability to govern our Chamber will 
likely mean that the authorization and funding for the programs 
we are discussing today will expire. Many parents will lose 
their childcare, and the Federal Government will shut down, 
cutting off lifelines for many needy families.
    I hope we can work together to persuade your colleagues to 
prevent a shutdown and continue the foster care-related 
programs under Title IV-B, while we work on a bipartisan 
reauthorization law that puts children first.
    I was disappointed that recent Republican proposals did not 
include a IV-B extension. Like other States, our home State of 
Illinois struggles to meet our goal of permanent homes within 
18 months for the 21,000 Illinois children in foster care.
    Although children from all races and ethnicities suffer 
from abuse and neglect at similar rates, Black children are 
overrepresented at each decision point in the child welfare 
system. Further, Black, American Indian, Alaska Native youth 
are more likely than their peers to be placed in foster care 
and remain in care. Clearly, we have work to do.
    Youth who have experienced foster care advise me that the 
best way to fix the foster care system is to help families from 
the start. IV-B programs to assist families while youth are in 
foster care are a key part of that continuum. So are the 
central services that prevent youth from entering foster care 
and subsidies guardianship programs that help them exit.
    IV-B programs fund other key tools to help children in 
foster care including the Court Improvement Program that 
supports family courts, the regional partnership grants that 
successfully coordinate services for families struggling with 
substance abuse, caseworker visits and family stabilization 
that make it safe for children to go home, a wide range of 
assistance to adoptive families, and kinship guardians that 
gives a helping hand to go with the boundless love.
    I believe we must do even more to strengthen families, 
reduce time in care, and address racial disparities, for 
example, by providing legal services to parents and children to 
represent their interests, by preserving the bonds between 
children and their incarcerated parents, and by providing 
mentors with lived experience to youth and parents.
    The reality is that stabilizing families and keeping 
children safe requires additional investments. Yet IV-B funding 
has staggered since 2006.
    I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel of 
witnesses today and from my colleagues about their priorities 
for these important programs so that we can work together to 
make smart, practical investments to protect vulnerable youth 
and strengthen families.
    Again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this 
important hearing and yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman LaHood. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
    We will now move to introduce our witnesses here today.
    Our first witness, Mr. David Sanders, is the Executive Vice 
President of Systems Improvement at Casey Family Programs.
    Our next witness after that will be Ms. Tracy Gruber, who 
is the Executive Director of the Utah Department of Health and 
Human Services.
    We will next hear from Cherie Craft, who is the founding 
CEO and Executive Director of the Smart From the Start program 
in Washington, D.C.
    We will next hear from Katherine Marquart, who is the 
recruitment manager for the FosterAdopt Connect program in 
Missouri.
    And then, lastly, we will hear from Ms. Prudence Beidler 
Carr, who is the Center Director for the American Bar 
Association's Center on Children and Law.
    With that, Dr. Sanders, we will begin with you. And you are 
recognized for 5 minutes to deliver your opening statement.

STATEMENT OF DAVID SANDERS, PH.D., EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF 
           SYSTEMS IMPROVEMENT, CASEY FAMILY PROGRAMS

    Mr. SANDERS. Good morning, Chairman LaHood, Ranking Member 
Davis, and members of the subcommittee.
    My name is David Sanders, and I am the Executive Vice 
President of Systems Improvement for Casey Family Programs. 
Casey Family Programs is the Nation's largest operating 
foundation focused on reducing the need for foster care in the 
United States.
    Thank you for inviting me here today. I want to thank this 
subcommittee for its vision and commitment to conversations and 
policy development whose goal is to improve the lives of 
vulnerable families.
    I am going to focus on two issues during my brief 
presentation, and you have my written testimony which is more 
comprehensive. First, I will give some highlights on the 
history of Title IV-B. Second, I will provide some 
recommendations on the reauthorization of IV-B to continue the 
child welfare momentum this Congress has created.
    Federal child-protection policy has always prioritized the 
safety of children as paramount in any decision. We know from 
research that the most effective way to keep children safe is 
to strengthen families and to seek to mitigate any risk to the 
safety of the child. This means the goal is to keep children 
safe with their families, not safe from their families.
    This subcommittee over the past decades has advanced many 
significant pieces of legislation to fund State, territory, and 
Tribal efforts for children to remain safely with their 
families, most recently with the historic passage of Family 
First.
    Alongside Family First, the funding and priorities 
supported through Title IV-B programs provide critical 
dedicated child welfare funding to strengthen families and 
ensure children do not stay in foster care one day longer than 
necessary.
    IV-B--the Mary Lee Allen Promoting Safe and Stable Families 
Program was created in the nineties. The creation of this 
program brought new additional funding for family support and 
family preservation services to families with children 
including foster care, adoptive, and extended families.
    As part of the Adoption and Safety Families Act in 1997, 
the allowable use of PSSF funds were expanded to include time-
limited family reunification and adoption promotion and support 
services.
    Thanks to the leadership and vision of this subcommittee, 
Families First became law in 2018. The landmark legislation 
fundamentally shifted how the Federal Government partners with 
States, territories, and Tribes in the protection of children 
and strengthening of families.
    I would note the two programs are different. Family First 
focuses on children right at the doorstep of foster care, and 
Title IV-B provides more flexibility for States to address 
issues at an earlier point and strengthen families who might be 
at risk.
    However, the most important question is: Has congressional 
action impacted outcomes for vulnerable children in a positive 
way? If the goal is to have more children safely with their 
families, the answer is yes. From 2005 to 2021, the number of 
children in foster care has declined by 23 percent. The number 
of Black children in care has declined by 47 percent. And while 
the percent--and this has been accomplished without 
compromising safety as measured by recurrence of maltreatment 
and reentry into foster care.
    Things are far from perfect, and I don't intend to present 
an overly Pollyanna view. But the key point is that this 
subcommittee has identified issues and used IV-B and IV-E to 
improve outcomes for children.
    I am going close on the two issues that based on data call 
for addressing by this subcommittee.
    First, while several safety measures have shown improvement 
in the Nation's child protection system, child abuse and 
neglect fatalities continue to rise nationally. Given the 
priority on safety, this is a glaring issue that requires this 
subcommittee's leadership to address. And this is an issue that 
can be addressed. Industries including aviation and healthcare 
have dealt with low incidence of high-impact occurrences using 
safety science, and we believe child protection can do the 
same. IV-B with the focus of supporting families can be a key 
tool in addressing this issue.
    Second, the over 300,000 kids, almost 400,000 in foster 
care are in care for an average of 21.7 months. Think about 
that for a second. You might first picture a 17-year-old and 
might feel somewhat mollified, but now picture a 2-year-old. We 
have tens of thousands of children in this country in foster 
care who have only briefly, if ever, experienced the support, 
comfort, and caring of a permanent family.
    Foster parents do an incredible job, but foster care is--by 
definition is short-term. We have allowed an intervention 
designed as temporary to be the primary tool to keep children 
safe, and we are harming thousands of children a day by not 
providing them the security they need. IV-B again can be a tool 
in strengthening families to accomplish this goal.
    Thank you for your leadership.
    [The statement of Mr. Sanders follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman LaHOOD. Thank you, Dr. Sanders.
    We will now recognize Director Gruber.

STATEMENT OF TRACY GRUBER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UTAH DEPARTMENT 
                  OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

    Ms. GRUBER. Good morning, Subcommittee Chair LaHood, 
Ranking Member Davis, and members of the subcommittee.
    I am Tracy Gruber, the Executive Director at the Utah 
Department of Health and Human Services, which includes our 
State's Child Welfare Agency, our Division of Child and Family 
Services, or DCFS.
    Thank you for the invitation to highlight Utah's 
experiences leveraging Federal funding to strengthen families 
and protect children from abuse and neglect. Your efforts to 
modernize our Nation's child welfare system will help families.
    Today, I will talk about how modernization means 
streamlining requirements and giving States flexibility to 
administer Federal dollars according to shared outcomes that 
are informed by data. Title IV-B reauthorization is the perfect 
time to do this. But, first, I want to share a success story.
    Recently DCFS became involved with a family of five. During 
a DCFS in-home visit, we learned the family was struggling to 
make ends meet and was at risk of removing--of losing their 
homes. They relied on food from a local food bank, and their 
three children were on the brink of needing foster care 
services.
    DCFS connected the family to short-term resources to pay 
rent and access to medical care for one of their children. 
These services were funded with Title IV-B and allowed three 
children to stay safely in their home, saving significant State 
and Federal dollars.
    In other cases, we connect families to parenting skills 
classes. The Family First Prevention Services Act is truly an 
investment in prevention.
    So here is our Nation's opportunity. How can these critical 
prevention activities expanded in Family First become the 
centerpiece of child welfare? Though funding--IV-B funding is a 
mere 2.5 percent of our State's overall child welfare budget, 
it carries important flexibility which States need to 
strengthen families and keep children safer from abuse and 
neglect.
    We are proud of Utah's successes in using this funding, but 
here are just two of our challenges. Federal requirements such 
as set-asides and funding thresholds in IV-B hamper our ability 
to provide the services and interventions needed within our 
unique communities, and Title IV-E prevention requires programs 
to meet time-intensive and costly rigorous evaluation 
thresholds on the prevention clearinghouse. This hampers 
innovation.
    Now, despite this, we leveraged IV-E funding for a uniquely 
Utah service, Families First, a parenting skills program 
recently placed on the clearinghouse. When approved, we 
expanded the service to families who are IV-E and IV-B 
eligible. This shift to IV-E freed up additional IV-B funds 
which we used to establish another new parenting skills program 
for adults who are lower functioning.
    The current funding scheme is also challenging to 
administer. Title IV-B reauthorization is the perfect 
opportunity to reduce these burdens. In doing so, States will 
have more capacity to serve families. A reduction in 
administrative burdens could include focusing on outcomes by 
allowing States to combine multiple funding streams to pilot 
comprehensive approaches for people in our services.
    And about the people who serve? Ensuring the best outcomes 
for kids requires a stable and skilled workforce. We can't 
ignore their needs. The funding must afford States 
opportunities to support the well-being of our workforce so 
they are professionally and emotionally equipped to meet the 
needs of the children they serve.
    To truly modernize the child welfare system to protect 
America's most vulnerable children, we must find ways to expand 
flexibility, eliminate set-asides, reduce administrative 
burdens, and focus on outcomes.
    This hearing is a great starting point to highlight the 
opportunities to modernize this complex system.
    My written statement provides a deeper look into the Utah 
child welfare system, supports the case for added flexibility, 
and highlights our challenges including 37 percent staff 
turnover and how Utah has innovated through these challenges.
    Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.
    [The statement of Ms. Gruber follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman LaHOOD. Thank you, Director Gruber.
    We will next turn to Cherie Craft, Executive Director of 
Smart From the Start program.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF CHERIE CRAFT, FOUNDING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SMART 
                         FROM THE START

    Ms. CRAFT. Good morning.
    I would like to begin by thanking Chairman LaHood and 
Ranking Member Davis for giving me this opportunity to testify 
before the committee this morning.
    I am the founder, CEO, and Executive Director of Smart from 
the Start, which is a trauma-informed, family support, and 
community engagement organization that has as its mission to 
promote the healthy development of young children, youth, and 
families living in underserved communities by providing them 
the tools, resources, and supports they need to thrive.
    Smart's multigenerational, evidence-based programming is 
embedded in communities where other social service agencies and 
providers do not go and where some of the highest rates of 
child welfare involvement exist.
    Smart works with families to identify and build upon 
positive attributes and protective factors, employing a 
strength-based approach to mitigate the effects of trauma, 
economic hardship, and negative social determinates of health 
to promote wellness.
    I grew up between the cities of Boston and D.C. and have 
spent my childhood living in a low-income housing community 
that closely resembles those of Smart's neighborhoods. I know 
firsthand the incredible strengths, gifts, and resilience of 
our families and have a broad understanding of the challenges 
and their origin.
    I hire my team from the community we serve. Those roots 
ensure that our staff have the skills, deep understanding, and 
empathy necessary to provide and build and grow impactful 
relationships. Having walked the walk in the same tiny shoes as 
the young children and families we now fight for, we bring a 
unique perspective and unrivaled passion to this work.
    I also share the experience of being a foster, kinship, and 
adoptive parent and have raised five children. I have witnessed 
firsthand the staggering dysfunction of our child welfare 
system and will tell you from my extensive personal and 
professional experience that the best way to prevent children 
from being traumatized by the system is to invest heavily in 
programs to strengthen families, increase the number of family 
resource centers across the country, particularly in 
underresourced communities, to prevent children from entering 
the system in the first place.
    That is the mission of the Family First D.C. initiative 
funded by IV-B in the Bowser administration.
    What we know unequivocally is we cannot serve a child in 
isolation from their family, and we cannot serve a family in 
isolation from their community. If our children are going to 
thrive, we must ensure that we are helping families to create 
environments that are conducive to healthy development, as well 
as safe and supportive communities.
    It is vital to stand up community-based family resource 
centers like those funded by IV-B that serve as a one-stop 
shopping center where families can simultaneously engage in 
early education, adult and parenting education, mental health 
counseling and advocacy and where occasion givers can learn 
about budgeting and banking, pursue professional development 
and career opportunities, get help with their resume, a bag of 
diapers, grocery, and even winter coats for their children.
    When families have one place in the community that serves 
as a beacon of support and provides voluntary, nonstigmatizing, 
strength-based, and empowering programs and services, they 
enthusiastically and actively participate and are eager to make 
change.
    We must invest in upstream holistic, evidence-based family 
wellness programming that ensures that children and family 
never end up in circumstances that result in involvement with 
the welfare--child welfare system in the first place.
    When families do have open cases and children removed, easy 
access to support, advocacy, and resource--resources is 
essential in ensuring that service plans created for families 
are fair, that they are able to easily access the services 
mandated, and that they have safe, local visitation centers, 
when necessary, to continue to engage with their children until 
they reunified.
    To do all of that, collaborative public-private 
partnerships like Family First D.C., funded through D.C.'s 
Child and Family Services Agency under Title IV-B, must be 
available to children and families in every community.
    This funding must continue, and it must be expanded. This 
unprecedented partnership that is the cornerstone of our 
initiative gives vetted community-based organizations with 
proven track records of successfully serving families the 
infrastructure and long-term funding stability to offer the 
most comprehensive one-stop shopping motto of family support 
that I know of.
    At the same time, D.C. gives us the autonomy through Title 
IV-B to create programs and services that meet the unique needs 
of each of our communities. This neighborhood-based model for 
prevention and support is what will keep our families strong 
and unified and children at home and out of the system. This 
initiative is a national model of best practice.
    In conclusion, I ask you to imagine a country where every 
child in every city has the opportunity benefit from a 
neighborhood family success center. Imagine an America where 
every child can enjoy fun, enriching, educational experiences, 
where their families have their basic needs and supports met, 
as well as counseling and a path to self-sufficiency to the 
middle class and beyond. Imagine a country where we are able to 
keep all families together and thriving and where entire 
communities change.
    Thank you for your time and for your support of the 
essential life-changing work that makes this possible in our 
communities.
    [The statement of Ms. Craft follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
   
    Chairman LaHOOD. Thank you, Ms. Craft.
    We will now recognize Ms. Marquart for your 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF KATHERINE MARQUART, RECRUITMENT MANAGER, 
                      FOSTERADOPT CONNECT

    Ms. MARQUART. Thank you.
    And good morning, Chairman LaHood, Ranking Member Davis, 
and the other members of this committee.
    My name is Katherine Marquart, and I was previously 
employed in child welfare with the State of Missouri for 5 
years, 3 of which were frontline case management.
    When my position as an adoption specialist was eliminated 
due to budget restrictions, I found my way to a nonprofit 
organization called FosterAdopt Connect, where I am currently 
employed. The agency works to place children with their 
relatives and kin via a few programs, but the one I am going to 
focus on today is 30 Days to Family. I currently oversee this 
program at our agency.
    While I was at Children's Division for the State of 
Missouri, I had upwards of 30 cases on my caseload. And when I 
was leaving Children's Division, many workers had more than 50. 
In an ideal world, you would have between 15 to 20 cases so 
that you can truly focus your time and energy onto making 
positive change for those families. 50 cases per work is just 
an unrealistic number to manage and really puts workers at a 
higher risk of burnout and compassion fatigue, in addition to 
their already higher likelihood of developing secondary trauma 
due to the sole nature of this job.
    This is one of the many reasons why added mental health 
services for frontline workers is vital. If an agency is able 
to retain their workers, they have a better chance of sending 
children home with their parents. With this in mind, added 
mental health services for the case managers leads to better 
outcomes for the children and their families.
    Many agencies, the State of Missouri included, did not have 
the time, resources, or energy to devote to the children and 
their families, much less to devote to additional tasks such as 
relative and kinship location and placement. That is where 30 
Days to Family comes in.
    Kinship care is when the child is placed in the home of a 
relative or a family friend to which the child has some sort of 
existing relationship. 30 Days to Family is a program designed 
to come in at the very start of a case and provide intensive, 
short-term services to increase the number of children placed 
in relative and kinship homes within the first 30 days of 
entering foster care.
    30 Days to Family is a highly beneficial program that 
really supports the current legislation in Missouri regarding 
diligent search for relatives. This legislation requires 
Missouri Children's Division to complete multiple tasks to 
provide diligent efforts to show location of family. 30 Days to 
Family does every single one of these tasks within the allotted 
timeframe as part of their program.
    Before this act, the Families First Prevention Services Act 
was put in place in 2018. This opened many doors for many 
programs including 30 Days to Family and hammered home the need 
for children to be in the least restrictive setting so long as 
it is safe and appropriate.
    This act put in place many prevention services to keep 
children safely in their homes. In addition to this, it also 
highlighted the need for children to be with family, i.e., the 
least restrictive setting.
    Families First provided the opportunity for reimbursement 
of State funds from the Federal dollars to provide access to 
many things such as mental health services and substance use 
treatment.
    This also heavily influenced the government agencies to 
look harder at their nonprofit family resource center 
counterparts such as FosterAdopt Connect, which had many 
prevention programs including family location services via 30 
Days to Family.
    30 Days to Family has proven that the children served in 
this program are likely to have fewer moves between placements, 
fewer behavioral challenges, higher satisfaction with their 
living situation, better relationships with their families, 
faster reunification with parents, and a lower chance of 
reentering foster care.
    In addition to these outcomes, the children are also less 
likely to require services such as Extreme Family Finding later 
in the family's case.
    Additionally, 70 percent of children served in this program 
are placed with a relative or kin, and 80 percent of those 
served remain with that family at their most recent update. And 
children who participated in the 30 Days to Family program are 
on average in care 91 days less than those who are not.
    All this to say, it has been proven time and time again 
that by and large relatives and kin placements are the best 
practice for when children must enter foster care. Entering 
foster care always means some sort of major change in the lives 
of children. But kin can help ease that discomfort, especially 
when the home and the kin in the home are already familiar to 
that child.
    Locating relatives and kinship is an arduous process, one 
that many agencies don't have the time or resources to devote. 
But we do. 30 Days to Family is an amazing program that really 
takes tasks off the plates of our State counterparts and puts 
relatives and kinship as plan A for those children in care who 
cannot safely remain with their parents.
    Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to provide 
testimony on this issue.
    [The statement of Ms. Marquart follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman LaHOOD. Thank you, Ms. Marquart.
    We will now recognize Ms. Beidler Carr, the Center Director 
for the American Bar Association's Center on Children and Law.
    Thank--you are welcome. 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF PRUDENCE BEIDLER CARR, CENTER DIRECTOR, AMERICAN 
          BAR ASSOCIATION, CENTER ON CHILDREN AND LAW

    Ms. BEIDLER CARR. Chairman LaHood, Ranking Member Davis, 
and members of the subcommittee, thank you so much for having 
me here today and the opportunity to provide testimony.
    I am here on behalf of the ABA Center on Children and Law, 
which was established in 1978 and works collaboratively with 
attorneys, judges, and the courts across the country to promote 
access to justice for children, parents, and families.
    In addition to serving as the center director, I am a 
lawyer by training and have worked on wide-ranging issues of 
constitutional law, which I will explain shortly. This brief 
statement will cover the following points.
    First, I will explain wild child welfare is both a social 
services and a legal sector.
    Second, I will demonstrate that child welfare law has an 
extremely large reach in our country.
    Third, I will give examples of why child welfare law is 
especially complex.
    And, finally, I will highlight how Congress' Title IV-B 
investment in the Court Improvement Program has provided 
invaluable support to this legal sector for the past three 
decades.
    As you have heard from the other witnesses, child welfare 
work is comprised of a system of services. It is also comprised 
of a system of laws. Last term, the Supreme Court explained in 
Brackeen v. Haaland, a case concerning the Indian Child Welfare 
Act, that child welfare is governed by both Federal and State 
law. These laws are primarily designed to protect parents' 
rights and children's rights. They also address government 
responsibilities to protect its community members.
    In child welfare work, the relationship between individual 
rights and Government responsibility begins most concretely at 
the time of a Child Protective Services investigation.
    More than 37 percent of all children in this country will 
experience a CPS investigation before they turn 18. I want you 
to focus on that number, 37 percent of all children in America.
    Most parents do not think about this at the time of 
bringing a child into the world, that we have a one in three 
chance of experiencing a government investigation into our 
families and our homes before raising that child from infancy 
to adulthood. I suspect even in this room most of us know 
someone in our own family networks and communities who has 
experienced an investigation.
    Traditionally, parents have not had attorneys during that 
investigation. That is beginning to change. If a CBCF 
investigation leads to a child's removal from their family, the 
case transitions into a more formal court process. State courts 
oversee the cases of roughly 610,000 children in foster care 
each year. As a comparison, State courts hear about 75,000 real 
property cases. In other words, the child welfare docket is 
approximately eight times larger than property law.
    In addition to its massive reach, child welfare law 
includes structural elements that make it especially complex. 
For example, in the majority of civil and criminal cases, 
judges are required to apply the law to a set of facts that 
happened in the past. In child welfare cases, judges must 
examine three different time periods. They must look backward 
at government allegations supporting removal. They must look at 
current facts related to a parent's implementation of case plan 
services and requirements. And they must make future 
predictions about what will be in the child's best interest. 
None of that is easy.
    As I mentioned, I have a background in constitutional law. 
I have worked on First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and Tenth 
Amendment cases that have gone to the U.S. Supreme Court, 
addressing complicated national security, immigration, and 
maritime law topics. There is no area of law I have ever worked 
on that is more complex than child welfare.
    In recognition of the high stakes for children and families 
and the connection between services and law, Congress 
established the Court Improvement Program in 1993 through 
bipartisan legislation. CIP grants enhance collaboration 
between the courts and child welfare agencies.
    The program is budgeted at $30 million a year, distributed 
across all 50 states, U.S. territories, and recognized Tribes. 
The funds go to the Supreme Court in each jurisdiction with a 
base amount and additional funding according to child 
population. For example, the Alaska CIP receives $290,000, 
while Texas CIP receives $1.8 million annually.
    These CIP grants are the only Federal funds that State 
courts receive for child welfare work.
    In 2020, again acting through bipartisan legislation, 
Congress authorized $10 million in emergency CIP funding to 
facilitate time sensitive investments in things like Zoom 
licenses and trainings on how to hold remote hearings. That 
investment was invaluable in mitigating the risk of case delays 
when courts initially had to shut down.
    In recognition of the value of this program and because 
annual funding has not changed since 2006, the President's 
budget in both the current and prior administrations have 
proposed an additional $30 million in CIP funding through Title 
IV-B. Recent legislative proposals including by those in this 
room have also supported CIP expansion.
    We commend Congress for focusing on the importance of this 
program from 1993 to today and for recognizing that child 
welfare is a large and complex legal sector.
    Thank you again for holding this hearing and for providing 
me an opportunity to testify.
    [The statement of Ms. Beidler Carr follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman LaHOOD. Thank you.
    I want to acknowledge and thank all of you for your very 
substantive statements here this morning, and we will now turn 
to the question-and-answer portion of the hearing. And I will 
begin by recognizing myself.
    In government, we often add to programs over time in our 
quest for improvement. Regrettably this approach often results 
in fragmented and complex systems that burden administrators 
and hinder families from receiving the support they need, and I 
think we heard a little bit about that from all of you today.
    Title IV-B represents 4 percent of Federal funding for 
child welfare. Yet it is entangled in a multitude of 
subprograms, many with their own unique requirements and 
funding structures.
    This chart that I put up over my left shoulder and on the 
monitors here behind me looks at--is a visual representation of 
the two subparts of Title IV-B. As you can see, these parts 
were established at separate points in time and over the years 
have grown into a number of offshoots. There is no cohesive 
structure or set of singular outcomes that this funding is 
designed to achieve.
    The agency responsible for administrating Title IV-B aptly 
likens its funding structure to a game of, quote, Chutes and 
Ladders, a comparison that resonates with many of us and I know 
you here today.
    Obviously, I think we can do better to modernize the 
program--that is part of why we are here today--while keeping 
with the flexibility to address critical needs we just heard 
from all of you.
    I am going to start with Director Gruber. As the 
administrator of the program in the State of Utah, I am 
wondering if you could comment on the structure of Title IV-B, 
how we can improve it, update it, make it more efficient, 
effective, and accountable and maybe some of the challenges you 
face.
    Ms. GRUBER. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question.
    And the system is both legally and administratively complex 
for the reasons that you describe.
    In Utah, like so many other States--and it is truthfully 
not completely unique to this funding--Federal funding is very 
complex. And I think that the flexibility that Title B affords 
warrants recognition.
    I do think that there are more opportunities to provide 
that flexibility and shift to a more outcome-focused framework 
for child welfare. Identify as the policymakers the outcomes 
you want States to achieve for families and children in the 
child welfare system and allow States the flexibility to 
address those challenges and achieve those outcomes, meeting 
the needs of their communities which are also completely 
unique.
    In terms of Title IV-B funding, I think an elimination of 
the set-asides would be one thing that we would really 
recommend. All of our States are not the same. All of our 
communities are not the same. And that would be one place where 
we would recommend starting, and the percentages of those funds 
that need to be spent is another area that we would recommend 
looking into.
    Chairman LaHOOD. Thank you for that.
    I will now switch to Ms. Cherie Craft.
    Obviously, you talked about your program and experience. I 
am very impressed by the focus you put on data and tracking 
outcomes of the families you serve. Currently we don't have 
much visibility into the outcomes from Title IV-B.
    What are the right outcomes we should be focused on at the 
Federal level to help us better understand the impact of the 
program?
    Ms. CRAFT. Thank you, Chairman LaHood, and thank you for 
question as well.
    We need to be tracking outcomes as they relate to family, 
child, youth, and community well-being. Those outcomes should 
be related specifically to indicators such as economic self-
sufficiency and mobility, social supports, educational 
achievement for kids, families, and adults.
    We should be looking at family functioning as a whole in 
terms of outcomes with co-parenting, you know, drilling down to 
things as specific as parenting methods and, you know, spanking 
and, you know, positive parenting redirection.
    Our outcomes related to child well-being are social, 
emotional. They are physical, developmental. Outcomes for 
youth, in terms of their academic achievement, what their 
social supports are, all of these things are indicators of 
overall well-being that are precursors or protective factors 
for children, youth, and families entering the child welfare 
system.
    So, we look at a whole variety of long-term and short-term 
outcomes as they relate to all facets of child, youth, and 
family well-being, including those that are economic, including 
those that are physical health, mental health, social supports, 
and community supports as well.
    Chairman LaHOOD. Thank you for that.
    Those are my questions.
    I will turn to the ranking member, Mr. Davis.
    Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, Dr. Sanders, first, let me thank the Casey Family 
Programs for the excellent work it has done and continues to 
do.
    When we look at Title IV funding and recognize that it has 
been stagnant since 2006, what strategic investments should we 
consider to strengthen Title IV-B to prevent maltreatment, the 
unnecessary separation of children from their families, and 
promote reunification with families?
    Mr. SANDERS. Thank you for the question.
    I would emphasize the importance of IV-E and IV-B combining 
to support families, that the--and I--and providing that 
support as early as possible, which IV-B allows.
    The challenge with even with Family First is that often 
children have to be identified as being at risk and that--that 
presents challenges in and of itself. It is critical for 
families to be able to access the supports they need to care 
for their children. And the--there are two areas that I would 
emphasize.
    One is the--what--what I mentioned earlier and that is 
the--the length of time that children spend in care. The--some 
of the support that has been provided for kin, kin navigator 
programs, for example, as part of--as part of IV-B are vital. 
But we should--and as a country we should--be looking at kin 
being used much more than they are right now in the child 
protection system.
    One of the reasons that we have many of the challenges that 
we do with having enough placements for children is because we 
aren't utilizing kin. We aren't finding them, we aren't 
utilizing them, and we aren't supporting them. And so I think 
that is one strategic area that IV-B could be--could be focused 
on.
    I think a second is, if we look at what happens with Tribal 
children and American Indian children, they have struggled in 
the child protection system. And the resources that are 
provided to Tribes are very limited under IV-B right now. And I 
think that is a second area that I would emphasize as a 
strategic area to focus on.
    Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Craft, could you elaborate a bit on how programs in IV-
B really can go from the start, from the beginning to assist 
families?
    Ms. CRAFT. Thank you for the question, Ranking Member 
Davis.
    Yes, we believe that by providing families in their 
communities where they live with easy access to supports 
including prenatal classes, including parenting education, 
including access to crisis intervention, programming, and 
advocacy right in the communities where they live, we give them 
an opportunity before they get into situations where they are 
unable to dial things back. We give them access to resources to 
help them to deal with challenges that, you know, most families 
face.
    We provide for our communities access within walking 
distance. We are embedded in many public housing developments 
here in Washington, D.C. where families can walk over and get a 
winter coat, a bag of food, access to support if they are in a 
domestic violence situation.
    If they need help with a child who is having challenges at 
school, we have advocates. We have early childhood 
professionals. We have mental health professionals. We have 
education and employment opportunities right in their community 
where they can walk right over that are run by people who 
represent the diversity of their community and who have roots 
in their community.
    One great example of this is our LEAP Program for young men 
between the ages of 16 and 24. Many of these young men are 
fathers and a number of them come to us. They have had some 
challenges in their past and need some support. They come to 
us. We enroll them in the LEAP Program which provides them with 
professional development enrichment. It provides them with, 
those of them who are parents, parenting skills. Everyone gets 
a therapeutic mentor, and they set short- and long-term goals 
for their stability, self-sufficiency, parenting, and long-term 
success.
    In that program, that demographic has gone from almost a 90 
percent recidivism rate for those who have been involved in the 
criminal justice system to an under 8 percent recidivism rate 
at our success center.
    And that is because we provide them with programs and 
services that are run by folks who understand what they have 
been through but also have the skills and the professionalism 
to give them what they need to set and achieve goals that they 
actually can--can accomplish and keeps them out of the system, 
in the community.
    One example is a young man who came to us, had been 
incarcerated at 17, young father. As soon as he came home at 
21, his community directed him to Smart from the Start. He came 
to us. We enrolled him in our professional development and 
enrichment program. Goat his first job at the D.C. Housing 
Authority, and he is still there.
    Mr. DAVIS. Thank you.
    Ms. CRAFT. 86 percent of these young men are still employed 
after 2 years.
    Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much.
    And I yield back.
    Chairman LaHOOD. Thank you.
    Recognize Dr. Wenstrup.
    Mr. WENSTRUP. Thank you all for being here today.
    And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This is just a critical issue in my mind, caring for 
vulnerable children, one of the most important things I think 
that we can do.
    And I appreciate all the--what each and every one of you 
do, especially supporting children before they may enter the 
foster care system or may be preventing them from even needing 
to go into foster care because of improvements that can be made 
in their lives. I think that intervening early in a child's 
life and intervening early in a family with a very young child 
is extremely important.
    I have been involved for years with a program in Cincinnati 
called Boys Hope Girls Hope. And the earlier you have these 
kids enter the program, usually the better the results.
    And these are situations where parents decide that we don't 
have the right environment for our child and our home. And 
maybe it is a single parent, but maybe it is, you know, a 
mother and a father in the home. And it could be for a lot of 
reasons: drugs, domestic violence. But they want the best for 
their child.
    So they enter in this program. They live at this home. They 
have mentors. They are safe. They are fed. They go to good 
schools. And the parents are not separated. They are still part 
of this whole process.
    And so there is a variety of ways that we can do this. But 
I think the younger the child is in that safe environment, the 
better off things can be.
    There is a young man. He--a lot of these kids, they come 
into the program, kicking and screaming. But he went to my high 
school, St. Xavier High School his senior year. He had never 
played football. Coach says come out for football. He starts at 
defensive end. He makes First Team All-State. They win the 
State. He is going to any college he wants. He plays for 
Louisville. He goes to the NFL, wins two Superbowl rings, 
coaches then at the University of Cincinnati. Now he is a 
defensive coach for the New York Jets.
    That opportunity would never have happened if he didn't 
have this opportunity and he wasn't separated from his family. 
When he was 17 years old, he stood up at an event, a fundraiser 
for the program. And he said, I do the announcements at school 
every day. Let me finish by what I say every day. Do your 
homework. Say your prayers at night. Tell your parents you love 
them.
    There are lots of ways we can do these wonderful things and 
I--and I just appreciate hearing from all of you today.
    Ms. Craft, with your programs, you are so focused on 
outcomes and that, to me, is important and the path to 
independence, not only for the child but for their entire 
family.
    So how valuable are outcomes you see when you are able to 
provide these community-based support to foster youth?
    Ms. CRAFT. Thank you, Member Wenstrup.
    The foster youth that we work with, starting from those who 
are very young, whether they are in foster care, kinship care, 
or their family, is under the care of Child Protective 
Services. We provide a continuum of programs and supports.
    When children get to be between the ages of 12 and 17, they 
are provided with a therapeutic mentor. We call this person a 
special mentor who helps them with a variety of supports. Their 
academics, their social supports, their, you know, any 
mediation that they need in school, they advocate for them.
    We have a special program for our youth that we partner 
with Chase Bank, and we provide them with a great deal of 
financial literacy and economic development. They get to open 
bank accounts. We put money in there. They learn about, you 
know, how their career opportunities are related to their 
economic self-sufficiency and development.
    And as they work through these--this continuum of programs 
and services, we help them to plan for their future. So those 
who are interested in postsecondary education, we help to 
prepare them on that track. For those who are interested in 
other careers, we take them out to visit folks at the stadium. 
We take them out to visit folks at Chase Bank. We take them to 
the welding academy if they are interested in working with 
their hands.
    We have mentors from many different professional 
backgrounds that work with our kids. And each of them have a--
an action plan that they set for themselves, and we provide 
programs and services to make sure that they are able to 
transition successfully into adulthood. And we stay with them 
as long as they need us. So it is voluntarily.
    Mr. WENSTRUP. I think that is huge because early on they 
are getting a vision of opportunity in their lives, and it is a 
great motivator.
    I am an adoptive parent, Ms. Marquart. And it is a 
beautiful thing. I have also--you talk about alternative 
thing--options for people. Young mothers, never expected to be 
pregnant, my wife has volunteered at a pregnancy center. And, 
you know, so we see young mothers who go on, have their child 
put up for adoption. Just not in a position to be a mother at 
that time. There is no father and later get married, have their 
own kids, and then adopt themselves.
    Could you comment on those opportunities and some of the 
blessings you see through this?
    Ms. MARQUART. Absolutely.
    I think working in social welfare is really just an 
opportunity to see all of the good and the bad in the world. 
You really kind of see best of both worlds.
    And some fabulous things that I have seen are foster 
parents or kinship or adoptive families that have really come 
back and have helped support other adoptive families in doing 
sort of, like, support groups.
    And I feel like that has been one of the most positive 
things that I have seen is that, you know, really building that 
community around those families and providing support because, 
you know, kiddos from foster care have trauma. So there is 
going to be some sort of possible behavior that comes with that 
and being able to support them so that it's not a disruption 
later on.
    Mr. WENSTRUP. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Chairman LaHOOD. We are going to implement the two-to-one 
rule. We will next go to Mr. Carey from Ohio and then to Ms. 
Chu from California.
    Mr. CAREY. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for hosting this 
hearing to discuss ways we can modernize the child welfare 
system.
    And thank you to the panel.
    I am going to--I will try to get through all this.
    You know, child--child welfare policy has seen significant 
changes in recent years, but it's clear from our witnesses' 
testimony--and I assure you that we get these testimonies. And 
while I wasn't able to be here to listen to most of them, it is 
tough to read some of the stories, especially from you.
    Through the passing of the Family First Prevention Services 
Act, Congress has moved away from the historical practice of 
providing Federal funding solely after a child entered foster 
care, and it moved towards evidence-based prevention services.
    These services support upstream interventions that prevent 
child abuse and neglect like the 30 Day program to the family 
programs. These open-ended prevention dollars mean that the 
States like Ohio can implement evidence-based programs such as 
the 30 Days to Family protection Ohio that provide services and 
supports to families caring for children at risk of entering 
foster care.
    In Ohio, our governor, Mike DeWine, has made significant 
investments in kinship care, and the State has an impressive 
structure for recruiting and retaining kinship providers. 
Family First invests in family welfare has provided an 
opportunity to reevaluate State spending for child welfare and 
align fundings like Title IV-B to complement the success of 
Family First.
    Ms. Marquart, I am going to just--I was going to ask you 
some questions on some of the--some of the examples that you 
gave. Can't do it. So I am going to do--stay on my prepared 
script.
    30 Days to Family is an impressive evidence-based program 
and highlights how Federal dollars should be further invested 
in programs that produce outcomes. Can you share more about the 
families you are able to serve under this program and are 
unique for other kinship programs?
    Ms. MARQUART. Absolutely. Thank you.
    So there are kind of two different options that we have. So 
we have informal kinship care, and we have formal kinship care 
which is when they come into the foster care system. And that 
is generally when 30 Days to Family gets involved is at that 
initial meeting.
    So we are there, and we are touching base with the family, 
and we are making sure that they feel supported, that they know 
that they have somebody on their side. And we want to do 
nothing but locate a family member or a kinship resource that 
ideally the family is open to, sometimes not, depending on the 
relationship. And we just provide support to the family.
    We do have other programs similar to this that are Extreme 
Family Finding and then Kinship Navigator that also helps 
support those families. But primarily that is what we are doing 
at the very, very beginning of a case is just supporting the 
family and trying to locate any and all options with a minimum 
of locating 80 family members.
    Mr. CAREY. Okay. Ms. Craft, how does Smart from the Start 
help grow the capacity of individuals to make sure families are 
resilient? Do you--do you offer job training to help link 
parents with future employers?
    Ms. CRAFT. Absolutely. So, upon voluntary intake into the 
Smart from the Start program, each family starts short-term and 
long-term goals. Their short-term goals are really to stabilize 
the family, so if they need food security, if they [sic.] 
housing security, that sort of thing.
    And then they set their long-term goals, so, if they are 
interested in a GED or a HISET, they are interested in certain 
careers. And then we enroll them in our place-based career 
programs. So everyone gets professional development and 
enrichment which are basic job skills. We go through 
interviewing, timeliness, all of those basic skills. And then 
they get to self-select. So we have a number of programs. We 
have CDL programs. We have early childhood, food handlers 
programs. We have management programs. We have coding and 
computer science programs where folks can get a certification, 
green cleaning.
    And then we have job developers who help to line folks up 
with jobs. And we have contracts with Enterprise and, you know, 
Rent-a-Car. And the D.C. government also offers our families 
jobs.
    And we connect our families. Once they don't--we don't just 
give them a certification and send them out. We help our 
families to get into job situations. And then we provide them 
with economic development support, banking, budgeting, credit, 
first-time home buyers.
    So we literally guide them through each facet of entering 
professional development or adult education, all the way 
through obtaining a job and then working towards economic self-
sufficiency and hopefully a path to the middle class.
    Mr. CAREY. What about transportation?
    Ms. CRAFT. So we offer stipends for everything from lunch 
to transportation. We help with childcare. So we build a bridge 
if they need help with childcare until we are able to get them 
a subsidized childcare slot. We provide them with that. Just 
like the young man who, one of our young men that went to the 
Southeast Welding Academy, he needed a helmet and gear. And so 
we paid for those things. So we pay--we make sure they have 
everything they need to eliminate any barriers.
    Mr. CAREY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your indulgence.
    My time has expired. I want to thank you all and for your 
testimonies.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Chairman LaHOOD. Thank you.
    Recognize Ms. Chu.
    Ms. CHU. Dr. Sanders, the Indian Child Welfare Act is a 
Federal law that protects Native children entering foster care 
by prioritizing placements with the child's family and Tribal 
communities, which is an essential component of promoting 
kinship placements and preserving cultural identity.
    In 1994, Congress added a Title IV-B plan requirement, 
directing States to develop an Indian Child Welfare Act, or 
ICWA, implementation plan in consultation with the Tribes. But 
30 years later, Native children continue to be 
disproportionately represented in the foster care system with 
higher rates of entry and longer lengths of stay.
    In California, they are 4.5 times more likely to enter care 
than their counterparts, despite being such a smaller portion 
of the population. That is because, despite the requirement 
under Title IV-B, Federal oversight of States' compliance with 
their requirement is unclear and not always exercised.
    That is why I introduced a bipartisan bill, along with 
Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska, H.R. 3461, the 
Strengthening Tribal Families Act, to assist State child 
welfare agencies in implementing Federal protections for Tribal 
children by strengthening the reporting requirements for ICWA 
in Title IV-B.
    This bill does not create a new mandate but merely carries 
out the original intent of the law by bringing ICWA into the 
larger child welfare system within the Department of Health and 
Human Services.
    So, can you talk about how clarifying HHS's role in 
oversight of current Title IV-B plan requirements related to 
ICWA implementation could help States and improve outcomes for 
Tribal children and families?
    Mr. SANDERS. Thank you, Representative Chu, for the 
question.
    And I would just mention a couple of things. The--I 
mentioned earlier the reduction that has occurred in out-of-
home care across the general population from 2005 to 2001--or 
to 2021.
    While there has been a reduction in American Indian 
children, it is much smaller than the general population. And 
it is not a perfect example of how well the Indian Child 
Welfare Act is carried out, but I think it reflects the 
concerns that you have raised.
    The--one of the issues has been historically the question 
of who has oversight authority at the Federal level. Is it 
Health and Human Services? Is it Interior? Is it anyone? And, 
at this point, really there has not been a consistent action 
demonstrating that oversight by anybody at the Federal level. 
And so I do believe that--that clarifying whose responsibility 
it is would be critical.
    The--my experience, prior to coming to Casey, I was child 
welfare director in both Los Angeles and Minnesota and the 
Indian Child Welfare Act takes effort on the part of a State to 
fully implement. And so, without the kind of oversight that the 
Federal Government is providing, it is going to be very 
difficult for States, even the most motivated, to provide the 
necessary services that are part of Indian child welfare.
    Ms. CHU. Thank you for that.
    Ms. Marquart, you provide many striking and traumatic 
examples of what you weren't prepared for as a case worker for 
these children, including saying that you weren't prepared to 
have a child on your caseload who was having surgery without 
any parent at all, and you took it upon yourself to sleep with 
that child because you didn't want him to be alone, and yet 
many examples of where you went above and beyond. But then you 
also as a caseworker remember having nightmares about various 
parents wanting to hurt you, threaten you, or sue you.
    And so you remind me of the child welfare professionals in 
my area of Los Angels County who describe similar burnout. And, 
in fact, L.A. County we have one of the largest county-governed 
agencies in the country and we are responsible for the welfare 
of over 2 million children.
    How would an increase in Title IV-B funds for recruitment, 
training, and retention of staff help? How would it help to 
improve mental health support and self-care resources for these 
professionals and reduce burnout and improve retention?
    Ms. MARQUART. Absolutely. I think specifically, if you can 
get to a manageable number on your caseload, you are retaining 
staff, they are able to have a manageable caseload of 15 to 20, 
then they are able to appropriately supervise and care for the 
children on their caseload. They are the legal guardian. In 
fact, they are the parent of that child at that time. I mean, I 
don't--I couldn't parent 30 children.
    So, I think if you are able to really focus on the 
retention and really dig in a little bit more on appropriate 
training at the beginning of when you are hiring new staff, I 
think that would really be beneficial.
    Ms. CHU. Would mental health resources help?
    Ms. MARQUART. Absolutely. I think if you can provide some 
additional, mainly focusing on secondary trauma, because that 
is what is happening, then really being able to provide the 
mental health services would retain the staff and would create 
better outcomes for the children.
    Ms. CHU. Thank you.
    Chairman LaHOOD. I recognize Mr. Moore of Utah.
    Mr. MOORE of Utah. Thank you, Chairman.
    I appreciate all the witnesses being here today. This is--
this is tough work, and it is incredibly important. Thank you 
for your tireless work on this issue.
    Director Tracy Gruber, a personal thank you for being here 
with your exceptional team from Utah.
    It will come as no surprise to my colleagues that I 
oftentimes mention all the ways that Utah leads the Nation in 
all of the--all the categories. This one really matters, 
though, that Utah has shown that we have an exceptional 
approach, strong leadership in placing--with timely placements 
and safe and proper family reunification.
    I can't think of a better area to lead doing that. I know 
that the team here that you have is passionate about this, and 
just thank you for the involvement.
    So we--you focus on results. You focus on reunification. 
You focus on kinship. You have talked to me about all of this. 
I want to just foc [sic.]--I want to ask a question. Just there 
have been challenges, though. You are doing a lot of great 
things in Utah, but there are obviously key challenges. 
Highlight some of those for us and just share for us how you 
are overcoming those.
    Ms. GRUBER. Thank you so much, Representative Moore, and 
just a personal thanks to you as well for being so interested 
and really a leader in our State on this issue.
    There are challenges, and I think they--they are worth 
highlighting. Of course, there are challenges with what is 
going on with families in general right now. We know our 
system, and I think nationally it is a challenge, as well, that 
we are seeing increasingly youth with behavioral--behaviorally 
complex conditions. The causes of that I think are we are all 
still trying to grapple with.
    That creates a challenge for finding foster care placements 
and recruiting families that have the skills. It also creates 
challenges for our workforce who may need different training to 
address the needs of those youth.
    We also have extremely high turnover, and I don't think 
Utah is unique with that. Our caseworker turnover rate is 51 
percent. Our frontline staff turnover rate is 37 percent. We 
know how important the caseworker is to get the outcomes that 
we all want.
    Then, of course, there are the administrative challenges 
that I briefly touched on at the very beginning. You have got a 
very complex funding system. Just in Title IV-B you have got 
funding that was from the 19--a line from the 1930s and then 
one from 1993, different definitions, different reports.
    How do we overcome all of this? Well, proper training for 
our staff using Title IV-B funds has been critical. And more 
can be done there.
    We have an extensive administrative infrastructure just to 
handle our Federal grants. We have about 20 full-time staff 
just to handle that piece. That is how we are overcoming the 
administrative challenge, quite honestly. You have got to have 
the staff in order to ensure we are accountable to all of you 
for our funding.
    And then we are braiding and blending funding. These are 
individuals and families with very complex needs. They are not 
just needs within the child welfare system. And we as a State 
are very focused, with the leadership of Governor Cox, to come 
together across the executive branch and braid funding and 
certainly doing it within Title IV-B and IV-E primarily.
    Mr. MOORE of Utah. As you focus on measuring outcomes for 
Title IV-B, are there one or two specific things that we need 
to be focused on at a Federal level?
    Ms. GRUBER. I think keeping families stable and safe 
children is paramount. I mean, we are all talking about child 
well-being here. So keeping children safely in their homes I 
think is the most--the most critical outcome and, when they 
can't be, making sure that they are stabilized in their 
placement and ideally getting those families back to the point 
that the child could be reunified.
    And those are the outcomes that we really are focused on in 
Utah.
    Mr. MOORE of Utah. Thank you so much.
    Final question for Ms. Beidler Carr. Last Congress, I 
introduced the Connecting Forever Families Acts to expedite the 
process for placing those in foster care systems to--for 
support of forever homes. This Congress, our work is going to 
continue on that.
    Any specific improvements or innovations do you--that you 
believe could be enhance the court improvement and its impact 
on these cases?
    Ms. BEIDLER CARR. Thank you, Congressman, both for the 
question and for supporting the Court Improvement Program 
through the legislation that you have introduced previously.
    I think one of the things that you had highlighted in that 
legislation was greater investment in technology to build on 
what we have learned from the past several years.
    There is a lot of takeaways for our legal system at large 
but especially for child welfare cases related to times when 
the use of technology can really expedite a case and make sure 
that we don't have delays that are unnecessary.
    In terms of party participation, we have also seen a lot of 
opportunities for engaging both the children and youth who are 
a part of these cases and parents, as well as other 
participants in these hearings, if they choose to do so, by 
remote technology. So that is one area.
    And then I think another really pivotal topic that has come 
up a couple of times today is about access to counsel and 
especially when sort of instead of looking at different types 
of access to counsel both before there is a removal decision 
that occurs.
    There is a number of CIPs around the country that have been 
investing in small-scale models right now of what we call 
prepetition or preventive legal advocacy.
    And building up on some of those models I think would be a 
terrific area to develop more resources and more contributions 
from the CIPs going forward.
    Mr. MOORE of Utah. Thank you. We will keep going down that 
path.
    Thank you, witnesses.
    Chairman LaHOOD. Mr. Smucker of Pennsylvania.
    Mr. Smucker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding.
    Thank you for scheduling this hearing, and thank you to 
each of the witnesses for the work that you do and for taking 
your time to hold this discussion.
    I think it is important we hear from you, as we look at 
reauthorization, to understand how we can improve the program 
to ensure that care is delivered as effectively and efficiently 
as possible.
    I talked recently or heard recently from the Lancaster 
County--I represent the 11th District in Pennsylvania--the 
Lancaster County Children and Youth, which is the child welfare 
agency there. And, similar to some of your testimony, they 
described sort of the complications, the difficulties that they 
face with accessing Federal funding from many different 
programs. And each one has their own requirements, own 
reporting mechanisms.
    And, in fact, this agency said that they actually employ a 
fiscal staff, seven people, just to track which pot money they 
are accessing, where the money is coming from, what 
requirements it entails, and other details.
    There is another program in my district, Thrive to Five. 
They said they have a finance team of ten individuals, again, 
just to manage the Federal funding requirements.
    So let's streamline this things because, if we can do that, 
both of those organizations and probably yours as well could 
spend more time meeting the needs of each family rather than 
spending all the time on administrative work.
    So does that--I see a lot of heads nodding. Does that sound 
family to each of you?
    So I do think it is really important as we--as we look at 
this, you know, how we can help you better deliver your 
services.
    I think, Ms. Gruber, I will ask you. You know, we are 
looking at several different subparts here, Title--Title IV-B 
and other subparts. How do we--do you think they can be 
combined? Do you think that would help streamline it? What 
should we be looking at? What suggestions do you have?
    Ms. GRUBER. Thank you.
    And, yes, all of the above. I think if you--if you are just 
looking at Title IV-B is one funding stream that through 
authorization you have the ability to actually address, I think 
combining parts A--subparts A and B, establishing clear 
outcomes, combining definitions, making sure that those 
definitions are the same, and reporting requirements.
    And--and your example is spot on. We have over 20 staff 
just administering Federal funds. We are a small State. And the 
administrative burden is significant, and it takes away from 
the frontline workers. For one of our funding streams, not this 
one but IV=E Foster Care, our staff are tracking 196 different 
data indicators. It might be time to evaluate whether or not 
those indicators are actually necessary to ensure the health 
and safety of the children that are in the child welfare 
system.
    Mr. SMUCKER. I mean, I think it is certainly worth--I mean, 
I am sure you agree with all of us that we do need 
accountability. We want to ensure that the programs are working 
well, that, you know, there is accountability for the Federal 
dollars.
    I don't know if you have any thoughts about that. Like how 
can we streamline things? How can we reduce the requirements, 
the regulations, but still ensure that there is accountability 
in the program?
    Ms. GRUBER. Absolutely, there has to be accountability, and 
all the States would understand that there needs to be 
accountability. And the accountability is--is--has to be 
balanced with making sure that the health and safety of the 
kids are met, which is all of our objectives, and keeping them 
in safe and stable families. And evaluating the various 
reporting requirements is one way to streamline.
    With Title IV-B--Title IV-B specifically, just reorganizing 
the structure, given that they were two subparts at very 
different times in our country, 1935 and I think 1993, now is a 
great opportunity for reauthorization to revise that framework 
and maybe even consider, as I provided in my written testimony, 
an opportunity for us to pilot some comprehensive approaches 
that allow us with outcomes defined by policymakers to maybe 
think creatively and allow States to innovate to meet the needs 
of their populations.
    Mr. SMUCKER. I am out of time. I had some additional 
questions.
    But I think this is really important, as we consider 
reauthorization, that we have this good discussion. So I think 
your input is going to be really, really important going 
forward.
    And, again, I thank each of you for being here.
    Chairman LaHOOD. Thank you.
    Ms. Moore of Wisconsin.
    Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Thank you so very much, Mr. 
Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member and all of the committee 
members who really see this as an extremely important part of 
our jobs and policy.
    Let me just thank all of the witnesses. I wish I had more 
than 5 minutes because I have questions for each and every one 
of you. I just want to point out, Ms. Craft, Ms. Gruber, I want 
to especially thank you, Ms. Craft, Ms. Marquart, as well, 
because you guys are kind of the frontline workers.
    And I was just noting your testimony, Ms. Marquart. We need 
to support the staff more, too. You said you just weren't 
prepared to attend the trial of a rapist of a 12-year-old child 
on your caseload and, you know, have her describe the attack. 
You weren't prepared for some young man to say he had three 
pairs of underwear and turned it inside out and you rushed out 
with your own money to buy him some underwear.
    Just thank you all for really your stewardship.
    And I hear that the Utah program is something we ought to 
all go visit to see how you do it, despite your, you know, your 
acknowledgment that it is legally and administratively complex.
    And I want to thank you, too, Ms. Gruber.
    And so, Mr. Chairman, before I start, I would like to ask 
unanimous consent to submit for the record a document entitled, 
``Focus IV on Families.'' It is a consensus recommendation 
regarding IV-B reauthorization from dozens of nonpartisan and 
bipartisan child welfare advocacy organizations like the 
American Academy of Pediatrics, the Children's Defense Fund, 
ZERO TO THREE, blah, blah, blah.
    Chairman LaHOOD. Without objection.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4910A.037
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4910A.038
    
    Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Okay. And it really sort of 
summarizes what some of our guests have said here today.
    Let me just start out with you. It is going to be kind of 
Dr. Sanders and Ms. Beidler Carr.
    I am not as good at organizing my 5 minutes as other people 
are.
    But, Dr. Sanders, you said something in your written 
testimony about child protective agencies can learn much from 
other safety-critical industries such as aviation, healthcare, 
and nuclear power that have applied the principles of safety 
science to change organizational structure, improve practice, 
and reduce the incidents of tragic outcomes.
    I am going to tell you why I am asking this question. You 
talked about reducing foster care. We talk about how African 
Americans and Native Americans are overrepresented in the 
system and how we need to do kinship care better.
    But someone on the ground might have a difficult time sort 
of trying to discern who is really in danger and needs to be 
removed and who needs to stay in there.
    Just briefly, if you can, share with us and example of how 
a safety person from other occupations has informed you all 
about how to do this.
    Mr. SANDERS. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Moore, 
for the question.
    And I would just reference some of the things that Ms. 
Marquart, I believe, talked about, that what happens in most 
agencies is that workers are far overburdened. And they have a 
number of children to attend to. With each of those children, 
they have a number of actions to attend to and end up caught 
day to day, dealing with crises on an ongoing basis.
    They have little ability and time to step back and say who 
is really at risk here, who needs the services that we have to 
offer, and who doesn't.
    And, oftentimes--and there have been several questions 
about mental health--oftentimes other agencies haven't been 
prepared to provide the support necessary. So it falls on the 
child protection work. And, because of that, they miss things.
    Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Yeah.
    Mr. SANDERS. They miss some things they could have picked 
up had they had the time, and that is the same that happens in 
many other industries. Unfortunately, in child protection, if 
workers miss things, they are fired. So it really----
    Ms. MOORE. I got you. I want to thank you for that, Dr. 
Sanders.
    I want to ask Ms. Beidler Carr. We have heard a lot about 
how the definition of neglect should be changed, like willful 
neglect to sort of prevent some of these removals from home.
    I will give you an example, with your indulgence, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Just say, for example, you are a mom. And you are doing 
happy hour or something. You are a barmaid, and you are working 
5:00 to 9:00. You have got an 11-year-old who is 11 and 9 
months old and a 2-year-old.
    And, in order to run around the corner, you leave, you 
willfully leave your 11 and 9-month-old at home with the 2-
year-old. They are perfectly safe. This 11-year-old, almost 12, 
has been kind of adultified.
    And say some, you know, ex-husband, ex-boyfriend or 
somebody, they get mad and call and tell on her, that she is 
leaving these two together.
    That is an example legally of willful neglect and, you 
know, how this definition forces somebody on the ground to take 
action because it actually statutorily is a problem.
    Should we change and look toward what willful neglect 
really is? Because, you know, here it would be a lot more 
damage to take one or both of those kids away probably. You 
need to find some childcare for this woman. This is--this is 
not a case of childhood abuse or neglect.
    Probably--let me let you answer before the chairman gavels 
me to death.
    Ms. BEIDLER CARR. Sure. I will be very brief. Thank you for 
the question, Congresswoman.
    The short answer is we very much support reexamination of 
these definitions. There are a lot of states right now 
including several represented here that are re-examining these 
definitions, but I want to underscore especially on this panel, 
with these colleagues how so much of it comes down not just to 
the definition under law but to the training and to the support 
that frontline providers, judges, and attorneys all have, and 
what those definitions mean and how to interpret them.
    Thank you.
    Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. So that would be somebody's 
assessment.
    You know, Dr. Sanders, somebody might say, girl, you just 
need to figure out how to get a babysitter. But we are not 
going to take your kids from you just because Mr. Bugaboo was 
mad and found a way to retaliate.
    Ms. BEIDLER CARR. Right. There is lot of variation in the 
subjectivity.
    Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Right.
    Ms. CRAFT. And that is where I think it is a--such an 
important component of training that there is legal training in 
addition to the social services training.
    Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. I wish I could go on.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you.
    Chairman LaHOOD. Thank you, Ms. Moore.
    I will recognize Ms. Tenney of New York.
    Ms. TENNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member.
    And thank you to the witnesses.
    Before I get started, I just would like to ask permission 
of the chair to enter into the record a report prepared by the 
Congressional Research Service entitled, ``Side-By-Side 
Comparison of Title IV-B Formula Grant Programs for Child and 
Family Services.''
    This 34-page report I have here provides a comprehensive 
comparison of the two subparts in Title IV-B called, ``The 
Child Welfare Services and the Promoting Safe and Stable 
Families.''
    Chairman LaHOOD. Without objection.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. TENNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I just want to thank all of the witnesses for what you do 
today.
    I--in my first life as an attorney, I did a lot of pro bono 
work for what was the Legal Aid Society in New York and spent a 
lot of time in family court. Most of my--I started initially 
with paid clients, and then I did the pro bono work for family 
court. So I want to thank you for all of you for what you do in 
every aspect of this very, very important work.
    This isn't about people showing up for a job. Once you get 
into this field, it is a calling. It is about saving families 
and children. And it is--I can't think of anymore important 
work that is happening in our communities and that it is so 
important that some of these--the reauthorization, the funding 
that we put forth is consistent and severance and meets the 
needs of the people like you all that are serving.
    And I am--I was going to jump to a question. First, I want 
to--I would love to ask you all a question.
    Ms. Moore, I know how you feel. This is just a lot here, 
and it is so important.
    But I wanted to go to Ms. Gruber first, and you alluded to 
this just a few minutes ago about this overlap and the 
confusion.
    And if we do a reauthorization, how can we better--and I 
know you kind of touched on it. But can you give me some 
specifics of how we can repurpose in a reauthorization these, 
you know, these two sources of funding that some are mandatory, 
some are discretionary?
    Can we do that in a streamlined way for efficiencies and 
also to provide more--more resources for you on the front 
lines?
    Ms. GRUBER. Thank you. Yeah, I mean, in terms of specifics 
on streamlining, it is very complicated, and I have mentioned 
this, to have just in that funding stream that is, again, only 
2.5 percent of Utah's child welfare budget to handle those 
issues. Common definitions, one pool of funding with 
specifically defined outcomes that the States can leverage, and 
then reporting to those outcomes would be the primary way to 
streamline, to afford States the most flexibility that Congress 
is allowing to be afforded so that we can meet the needs of our 
population, which are all going to be different.
    Ms. TENNEY. Can you just comment on the interaction--Utah 
is very different. I come from the State of New York--the 
interaction between the State and the Federal funding and how 
these localities can better access the funding, including some 
of the matches that come through on other programs?
    Ms. GRUBER. Yeah. I think that being able to match the 
Federal dollars and putting up that match is one of the 
complexities, and it is different. The allocations are 
different even in subparts A and B. And being able to manage 
that, having one allocation formula with financing related to 
that is one streamline that can absolutely take place.
    And they are all different across all the Federal funds. 
And these are complex families. We are leveraging dollars not 
just from child welfare, but through TANF and childcare 
development block grants, and a whole multitude of funding 
streams in order to meet the needs of these families.
    Ms. TENNEY. Can you cite the one thing that you think, if 
you had to pick one thing, that we could fix and make this 
program better in terms of consolidating and streamlining?
    Ms. GRUBER. Eliminate the set-asides.
    Ms. TENNEY. Thank you. I appreciate that.
    One last question. So, for Ms. Beidler Carr, I appreciate 
you being in court. I know how difficult this is. Can you just 
give us--and I don't have much time left--but just a quick 
overview of what is happening with the interactions with 
families as they go through the court system, the discretion of 
judges? I know my colleague, Ms. Moore, referred to discretion 
of judges.
    I mean, these issues are really complex. They are--every 
family is different. I mean, it is--you can do, you know, an 
encyclopedia on what happens in family court and happens in 
these really sensitive issues. But if you could give us some--
what are we seeing, and is there any discretionary guidelines 
we can give to the judicial system to this easier as well, 
including redefining some of the key terms?
    Ms. BEIDLER CARR. Sure. Thank you for the question. And 
thank you for your own background having been in family court.
    So I think the best way to answer this question is to just 
frame sort of what the sequence of events is for a family and 
when the court is most likely to become involved. So you have--
a mandated report typically initiates, you know, the Child 
Protective Services' involvement. That can come from a school. 
It can come from a medical professional. It can come from 
social services or law enforcement. Then Child Protective 
Services decides whether to do an investigation. Through that 
investigation, they decide whether to provide preventative 
services or initiate a petition for removal. All of that 
happens before the court is even involved.
    Typically, a court isn't going to actually be involved and 
see that child, see that family until after a removal has 
already occurred. And, in many instances, that happens well 
after the removal has occurred. So, under law, there is a lot 
of variation across the States where some courts will oversee 
the removal and confirm whether the removal needed to happen 
within 24 hours. Other jurisdictions, it is 48. Others, it is 
up to 3 weeks by law before they have to have a judicial order 
sort of confirming that that removal should have happened.
    So there are a lot of things after that that then the judge 
has responsibility under both State and Federal law for 
overseeing implementation of placement. It depends, again, on 
State law. But there is a lot of sort of variation in the way 
that it all happens.
    I think going to your sort of second part of that question 
about ways to implement change, one of the things that we would 
like to see is greater guidance and clarity around court 
oversight over that initial removal decision. I think there are 
a lot of circumstances----
    Ms. TENNEY. Let me ask you--I know my time has expired--
isn't that something that would be a State issue, that would be 
each State would be enacting--is there a model legislation on 
this that is something we can look to--that we could look to to 
at least provide a guidance to the States? And then I have to 
yield my time. I apologize. Thank you.
    Ms. BEIDLER CARR. Yes. And it is an excellent question 
coming from New York, because New York does have some models, 
especially New York City, on that that would be great to look 
to.
    Ms. TENNEY. Thank you, again. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman LaHOOD. Mr. Evans from Pennsylvania.
    Mr. EVANS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Sanders, in your testimony, you suggest that we should 
engage individuals with lived experience at all levels of the 
family first approach. You can also say that peer mentors are 
important to helping navigate this system. Can you describe how 
mentoring services for youth or parents interact with Title IV-
B help those generally supported reunification of family 
preservation? How can you better incorporate peer mentoring and 
partners with implementing the policies that we are discussing 
today?
    Mr. SANDERS. Thank you very much, Representative Evans. 
There are examples in jurisdictions across the country where 
the parents who have been through the child protection system 
or youth who have been through are assigned as mentors or peers 
to those who are going through the system today. And many of 
those--those examples have found that the experience is much 
better for the youth or the parent who is going through when 
they have a mentor, because they are able to talk to somebody 
who has had a similar experience, they are able to understand 
what is happening to them, and understand more directly from 
those who have experienced it.
    And so the--we have seen in some jurisdictions the length 
of time that children spend in care is shortened, and so that 
the use of peers and/or mentors is with--for those with lived 
experience is something that we have supported quite strongly.
    Mr. EVANS. Dr. Sanders, funding for Title IV-B has remained 
at its current level since 2006, barring occasionally a modest, 
modest annual probation increase. How have levels of funding 
impacted mentoring programs around the country? Have you 
noticed any significant impacts, specifically, communities of 
color?
    Mr. SANDERS. The use of mentors at this point is funded 
through vehicles like IV-B or through State or local funding, 
and so there isn't a required funding. And so many States would 
say--and many jurisdictions would say that that is one of the 
challenges in the development of mentoring programs is a lack 
of resources that are really dedicated specifically for that 
purpose. So it, in my view, has had an impact on the initiation 
of those programs and expansion across the country.
    Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Chairman LaHOOD. Thank you.
    I recognize Mrs. Miller of West Virginia.
    Mrs. MILLER. Thank you, Chairman LaHood, and thank you, 
Ranking Member Davis, for letting me be here as part of this 
committee today. And thank you to all of you all for what you 
do and the time that you have spent coming here to talk about 
this important issue.
    As a mother and a grandmother, I understand that children 
need to grow up in a safe and stable household. And because of 
one of the many hats I have worn throughout my life, I was able 
to stay at home with my children and still work out of the 
house. And so I became that mother that walked the halls in the 
middle school or picked up the kids and took them places. So I 
was exposed from the time my children were little to many 
different households. And there were children who knew that 
they could come play in my basement and be safe. And I still 
have wonderful relationships with those children today, and 
they are in their forties; because it is so important for 
children to understand love and understand security and know 
that they are okay where they are.
    Ms. Craft, I want to thank you for sharing your lifetime of 
work serving children and communities. Because we all know that 
the child welfare workforce is struggling to meet all the needs 
of the children and their families. The caseloads and the job 
duties that are expected of these caseworkers are such a heavy 
burden that they carry with them at all times. And many of the 
examples that Ms. Marquart shared from her time as a caseworker 
also highlight the need for innovation in child welfare 
services.
    Caseworkers' capacity is absolutely stretched to the 
limits, and many cannot connect families to the necessary 
wraparound services and support that they need to prevent entry 
into child welfare. We should leverage technology to support 
families in real time and to prevent entry into child welfare.
    Earlier this year, I introduced a Helping HANDS for Family 
Act. And my bill would permit States to use already allocated 
money to access online portals that connect families in need 
with resources. And this tool is designed to connect families 
with community-based providers, such as pregnancy centers, 
childcare programs, food pantries, churches, and nonprofits, as 
well as provide the one-on-one interactions to support families 
who are facing difficulties.
    In your experience--I guess this is for Ms. Gruber, sorry. 
In your experience serving at-risk communities, how important 
is one-on-one interaction and case management in helping 
individuals and ensuring children are safe? And how do you 
think online platforms can help connect families to resources 
much like that you offer at your center? And would it alleviate 
the child workforce crisis?
    Ms. GRUBER. Thank you for that question. I think the one-
on-one case management is incredibly important, and leveraging 
the voice of the families in that one-on-one case management, 
as has been previously described, is really important. In terms 
of online applications, the State government level, we welcome 
the opport [sic.]--the ability to innovate and try to figure 
out what is going to get the best outcomes for the families 
that we serve.
    Mrs. MILLER. Thank you for that answer.
    Now I am going to talk about court improvement programs. 
The courts play a huge role, as we know from other people's 
experience, in overseeing the success of foster care 
placements. Last Congress, I introduced the Strengthening 
Courts for Kids and Families Act. And my bill would reauthorize 
the Court Improvement Program through 2027. And it provides 
courts with the ability to implement training for judges, 
attorneys, and other legal personnel, as well as improve 
parent, family, and youth engagement in child welfare 
proceedings. And I am really excited to work with Congressman 
Blake Moore on introducing this bill.
    So, Ms. Carr--there you are--thank you. Could you share an 
example of how the Court Improvement Program has been 
particularly effective in improving child welfare cases in a 
specific State or context?
    Ms. BEIDLER CARR. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman 
Miller, and thank you for having introduced that legislation 
previously and continuing to work on reauthorization.
    I do have several examples. One of the beauties of the 
Court Improvement Program is that every State has a Court 
Improvement Program director, and those directors are 
extraordinary individuals who do a lot of work and who 
responded very quickly when I reached out to all of them and 
asked them to give me some talking points.
    So I can give you some data from West Virginia in 
particular. West Virginia has been doing a lot of work 
consistent, again, with one of the things that we have heard 
about around workforce development issues and issues, in 
particular, of recruitment and retention of legal professionals 
to go into this space. There has been a really big challenge as 
in many other States around that issue. And so they have been 
holding a number collaborative engagements with law schools and 
other legal services providers throughout the State in order to 
try to fill some gaps. And having an entity like the Court 
Improvement Program--excuse me--already established as a part 
of the supreme court in the State has just made a huge 
difference in being able to address that issue.
    Mrs. MILLER. Well, thank you. I actually live right on the 
Ohio River, and so being in a tristate, we are directly 
affected by Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia, and share the 
children and the issues. And it is so interesting to see what 
might go on in Ohio that doesn't happen yet in West Virginia or 
vice versa in so many ways.
    But thank you all for letting me be in here today, and I 
yield back my time.
    Chairman LaHOOD. I now recognize Mr. Steube.
    Mr. Steube, I think you were the first one here today, and 
thank you and Mrs. Miller for waiving on to the committee today 
to be a part of it. You are not part of the subcommittee, but 
it says a lot that both of you wanted to be here.
    So thanks for your patience, Greg, in being here and for 
sticking around.
    Mr. STEUBE. Yeah, of course. And thank you for allowing me 
to waive on to talk about a bill that I have worked on that is 
important to the State of Florida and homes that we have. And I 
will talk briefly about the Florida Sheriffs Youth Ranch. But I 
want to thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of 
H.R. 3852, offered by myself and Mr. Dunn of Florida.
    This bipartisan bill, H.R. 3852, the Creating Accountable 
Respectful Environments for Children Act, addresses the 
shortage of foster home options for children by allowing 
cottage homes to be eligible for Federal funds that other 
programs already have access to.
    This bill is simple, straightforward, and direct. The bill 
simply adds cottage family homes to the options of federally 
supported housing for foster children.
    Make no mistake, our country is facing a foster care 
crisis.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the record a 
recent news article entitled, Inside America's critical 
shortage of foster homes, which reads: There is a critical 
shortage of foster homes. More than half of all States saw 
significant decline in licensed foster homes last year. Some 
States saw cuts as high as 61 percent.
    Chairman LaHOOD. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. STEUBE. I would also like to enter into the record an 
NPR article titled, ``Kids housed in casino hotels?'' It is a 
workaround as U.S. sees decline in foster homes.
    Chairman LaHOOD. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. STEUBE. Casino hotel rooms, is that really the best 
option for our children? Cottage family homes offer a family-
like living environment in a single-family residence with no 
more than two children per bedroom, unless it is in the 
children's best interest. For example, in the case of keeping 
biological siblings together, the cottage parents can supervise 
and nurture around the clock, creating a healthier stable 
environment.
    Critics of this bill tempt to tent the good deeds of this 
model by incorrectly asserting cottage homes are not safe. Make 
no mistake, the safety, health, and general well-being of 
children is critically important.
    My bill stipulates requiring the implementation of a 
trauma-informed approach to care; prohibiting the use of 
seclusion, mechanical, or chemical restraints; requiring 
providers to have a system in place for children to alert a 
staff person if they have concerns or feel they have been 
unfairly denied their rights; requiring continuous quality 
improvement methodology that regularly solicits information 
from children concerning their perceptions of the quality of 
care.
    I have the honor, in the State of Florida, we have Florida 
Sheriffs Youth Ranches, and I have seen firsthand--my family's 
in law enforcement. My brother's a deputy. My father's a former 
sheriff. And seeing the impact that it has had on kids that 
have been a part of these group homes, these cottage homes 
where there is a parent, family, familiar unit that has taken 
care of multiple different kids. And the kids tend to be a 
little older. Not your younger kids; your kids that have 
trouble in middle school or high school. And it is just a great 
environment.
    It lowers recidivism rates. It has great outcomes. And to 
not include them in Federal funding, I think, is a mistake, and 
an opportunity to be able to close this gap on the 61 percent 
of the need in foster homes.
    The time is now to solve this crisis. I look forward to 
working with the subcommittee to pass this bill and protect our 
children. I appreciate your time.
    And, since I have 2 minutes left, quickly I will ask Ms. 
Marquart--thank you for sharing your experience as a 
caseworker. We know caseworkers have a challenging job and 
often receive little recognition. What do you think some of the 
common misconceptions or challenges are that caseworkers 
specifically face, and how can Congress better support them in 
the child welfare system?
    Ms. MARQUART. Thank you for your question. I think the best 
way to support the caseworkers is by, one, trying to retain 
staff, and the best way to do that is to be able to provide 
better training so that people are more prepared when they are 
coming into that position. And then, additionally, providing 
mental health services, so that when they are feeling burnout 
and they are on the verge of that, they are able to get that 
appropriate care so that they do have the ability to continue 
to provide appropriate services for the children.
    Mr. STEUBE. Thank you.
    And, in the minute I have left, Mrs. Carr, I will yield to 
you since I am the last person to speak on the dais. If there 
is anything you would like to add to the conversation in 52 
seconds, you have got the floor.
    Ms. BEIDLER CARR. Well, how fun. I wish I was at my family 
dinner table and got that.
    No, I just want to say an enormous thank you to all of you 
for your engagement in this issue. And, Chairman, to you and 
your team for pulling this together. Ranking Member Davis, for 
your longstanding commitment to this work. It really means a 
lot that you have held this hearing today. So thank you.
    Mr. STEUBE. I yield back.
    Chairman LaHOOD. Thank you, Mr. Steube. And we look forward 
to working with you on your bill that you mentioned today.
    That concludes our questions and answers today.
    Let me just thank all of you for the valuable conversation 
today, the dialogue, the discussion, you answering the 
questions, giving us feedback so that we can look at how we 
make positive changes when it comes to IV-B. And so we are 
grateful for your perspective today.
    And so I look forward, obviously, to working with Ranking 
Member Davis and my colleagues across the aisle to reauthorize 
and strengthen IV-B.
    Just remind members, please be advised that members have 2 
weeks to submit written questions to be answered later in 
writing. Those questions and your answers will be made part of 
the formal record.
    With that, the committee stands adjourned. Thank you all.
    [Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
      

                    MEMBER QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

      
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
      

                   PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

      
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
   
                              [all]