[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]