[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
STRENGTHENING CHILD WELFARE
AND PROTECTING AMERICA'S CHILDREN
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 26, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-FC29
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
57-158 WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 TERRI SEWELL, Alabama
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania SUZAN DelBENE, Washington
KEVIN HERN, Oklahoma JUDY CHU, California
CAROL MILLER, West Virginia GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin
GREG MURPHY, North Carolina DAN KILDEE, Michigan
DAVID KUSTOFF, Tennessee DON BEYER, Virginia
BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania DWIGHT EVANS, Pennsylvania
GREG STEUBE, Florida BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York JIMMY PANETTA, California
MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota JIMMY GOMEZ, 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
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Hon. Jason Smith, Missouri, Chairman............................. 1
Hon. Richard Neal, Massachusetts, Ranking Member................. 2
Advisory of June 26, 2024 announcing the hearing................. V
WITNESSES
Paris Hilton, Lived-Experience Advocate and CEO, 11:11 Media..... 4
Rob Geen, Bipartisan Policy Center Fellow, Chair of Board of
Trustees, Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption.................. 9
Tori Hope Petersen, Author, Speaker and Advocate................. 15
Alexis Mansfield, Senior Advisor, Children & Families &
Relationship Safety, Women's Justice Institute................. 21
MEMBER QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
Member Questions for the Record to and Responses from Alexis
Mansfield, Senior Advisor, Children & Families and Relationship
Safety, Women's Justice Institute.............................. 99
PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Public Submissions............................................... 101
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
STRENGTHENING CHILD WELFARE
AND PROTECTING AMERICA'S CHILDREN
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 2024
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in Room
1100, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jason T. Smith
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Chairman SMITH. The committee will come to order.
Families form the bedrock of a strong society, and it is
crucial to have systems in place that support children in
moments of crisis and keep families intact whenever possible.
The Ways and Means Committee has jurisdiction over several
child welfare programs, including Title IV-B of the Social
Security Act. This program provides critical resources to
states with the mission of preventing child abuse and neglect,
supporting family reunification, and promoting adoption for
children in foster care. The last time Congress reformed these
programs in any significant way was in 2008, and the
authorization lapsed in the fiscal year 2021.
Over the past year this committee has proactively conducted
a top-to-bottom review. We have held more hearings on the
subject than the last eight congressional sessions combined. We
have heard from people engaged in the child welfare system day
in and day out, including caseworkers, state administrators,
and former foster youth.
From our review, it is clear that the child welfare system
faces a number of challenges, including relatives that take
care of children, also known as kinship care. They need more
help and support. Almost one in three social workers leaves
every year, leading to a severe case worker shortage.
Bureaucratic red tape from Washington gets in the way of
caseworkers caring for children. Families have slow hearings
with family courts and lack access to lawyers. Unfair barriers
facing Native American tribes trying to keep their families
together. And trauma and mental health issues experienced by
older foster youth. In addition, too many families experiencing
poverty are wrongly accused of child neglect, when what they
really need is community support.
Poverty should not be the sole reason a child is removed
from their home. One particular case from Washington County,
Missouri sticks with me. A mom and four kids were living in a
shed with no central heat, no refrigeration, no running water,
no beds, and little food. Those children went into custody
because of these concerning conditions and hygiene difficulties
that would obviously accompany problems of this type. Three
years passed between the time the children were removed from
their home and the time the court deemed mom's living
arrangements insufficient. Even though she had made substantive
improvements to both her housing and transportation situation,
the court deemed a one-bedroom apartment ``too small,'' and a
three-bedroom house with her boyfriend's children ``too
cramped.'' This resulted in termination of her parental rights.
In Missouri, the state estimates it costs $30,000 per year
to have a child in foster care. This particular case cost the
taxpayers $360,000. Spending even a fraction of those funds at
the front end could have provided this family with adequate
housing, laundry, and bathroom facilities, and assistance in
obtaining and maintaining employment. It also would have kept
the children with their mother and spared them the trauma
caused by separation.
I am committed to addressing this issue, and appreciate the
support and collaboration of my friend, Representative Gwen
Moore.
In some cases we know living with one's family is not
possible, and we should work to ensure services provided to
foster children meet their unique needs and protect them from
abuse and neglect.
For the 19,000 children who age out of foster care each
year, we must pursue solutions that support these older youth
in successfully transitioning into adulthood. A bipartisan
coalition of Republican and Democrat members on this committee
have introduced 16 bills aimed at enhancing and strengthening
IV-B and supporting community-based organizations dedicated to
improving outcomes for American children and families.
We also look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. A
few months ago, I had the great pleasure of meeting with one of
our witnesses, Ms. Paris Hilton. She shared an incredible story
of suffering physical and psychological abuse at a congregate
care facility as a teenager. What happened to her should never
happen to any child in America. Since that difficult experience
Paris has used her platform to shine a spotlight on abuse in
the child welfare system. Standing with her are many foster
youth who have also experienced abuse and trauma at a moment
when they needed love and support most.
I am grateful to each and every one of our witnesses for
joining us today. I eagerly anticipate working with members of
this committee on both sides of the aisle on Title IV-B. This
reauthorization is crucial to strengthening child welfare and
protecting America's children.
I am pleased to recognize the ranking member, Mr. Neal, for
his opening statement.
Mr. NEAL. Thank you. Chairman, and I want to thank you for
calling today's hearing. And as I look out at the audience
today, I think it is safe to say that this is the first time in
my congressional experience that it would look as though the
average age of Congress was about 25. [Laughter.]
As we look ahead to the reauthorization of Title IV-B, we
must work together on comprehensive action to help our nation's
young people in times of turbulence. All youth deserve a safe,
stable environment that will allow them to learn and fully
experience life. We hope and believe that most youth can find
that within their own families, sometimes with a little extra
help. For those where foster care is the only option, we have a
special responsibility to protect them from abuse and further
turmoil, and also to deliver supports that will let them set
out on a path to success and limit the time they spend in the
care of others.
I want to thank all of those who have shared their lived
experiences with us today, including our panelists, and
particularly say thanks to you for being with us today, knowing
your own schedules. Learning directly from the source allows us
to better safeguard our nation's youth, keep them safe, and
strengthen their families.
I am thrilled that many consensus bills have recently been
introduced in this space. Our Worker and Family Support
Subcommittee ranking member, Danny Davis, is working with his
counterpart, Chairman LaHood, to lead legislation to deepen the
relationships between foster children and their incarcerated
parents. We know how important strong parent-child
relationships are to success, and strengthening these
relationships will help to sow the seeds of unity for tomorrow.
Social Security Subcommittee ranking member Mr. Larson
wants to expand the use of child welfare funds for family
resources, along with Congressman Carey.
Let me say to our panelists and others today, I know
something about Social Security survivor benefits. But for
those benefits, I don't know what my sisters and I would have
done with the goodwill and graciousness of an aunt and a
grandmother who took us in.
Vice Ranking Member Chu is spearheading an effort today to
protect Native American children, keeping them with their
tribes whenever possible, and ensuring states are following the
requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act.
Congressmen Kildee and Feenstra are working to expand the
availability of evidence-based interventions to keep children
out of foster care, which is complemented by legislation that
is led by Congresswoman Moore and Congressman Adrian Smith to
ensure child welfare agencies are guided by lived experiences.
Centering our work around these most affected is so
critical, and it is how we create meaningful policy.
Congresswoman Moore worked with our chairman on legislation to
prevent separation of families when they find themselves in a
crisis largely due to poverty.
Congressman Panetta and Steube teamed up to better
understand what is happening at youth residential programs and
safeguard them from abuse.
Finally, Congresswoman Chu and Congressman Blake Moore are
leading a bill to invest in court improvement programs,
allowing family courts to better work with the foster care
system, and easing that burden on all.
I know there are other bipartisan collaborations still in
progress, and I look forward to those further strengthening our
work. I thank all of the members of our leadership and their
commitment to our nation's future. Our children are just that.
And by investing in this success, we are building a collective
opportunity that we owe to our most vulnerable citizens not
only to help them to survive, but we want them to thrive.
Mr. NEAL. With that, let me yield back the balance of my
time.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you. I will now introduce each of our
witnesses.
The first witness will be Ms. Paris Hilton, a lived-
experience advocate and CEO of 11:11 Media.
We have Mr. Rob Geen, who is a Bipartisan Policy Center
fellow and the chair of the Board of Trustees for the Dave
Thomas Foundation for Adoption.
We have Tori Hope Petersen, who is an author, speaker, and
advocate.
And we have Alexis Mansfield, a senior advisor for children
and families and relationship safety at the Women's Justice
Institute.
Thank you all for joining us today. Your written statements
will be made part of the hearing record, and you each have five
minutes to deliver remarks.
We will start with you, Ms. Hilton.
STATEMENT OF PARIS HILTON, LIVED-EXPERIENCE ADVOCATE AND CEO,
11:11 MEDIA
Ms. HILTON. Thank you. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Neal,
and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to
be here today to discuss how to improve care for the nearly
400,000 children that are living in the foster care system as
we speak.
While my experience was not through the foster care system,
I know from personal experience the harm that is caused by
being placed in youth residential treatment facilities. When I
was 16 years old I was ripped from my bed in the middle of the
night and transported across state lines to the first of four
youth residential treatment facilities. These programs promised
healing, growth, and support, but instead did not allow me to
speak or move freely or even look out a window for two years. I
was force-fed medications and sexually abused by the staff. I
was violently restrained and dragged down hallways, stripped
naked, and thrown into solitary confinement.
My parents were completely deceived, lied to, and
manipulated by this for-profit industry about the inhumane
treatment I was experiencing. So can you only imagine the
experience for youth who are placed by the state and don't have
people regularly checking in on them.
I attended facilities with foster and adopted youth, and I
heard their testimony that they feel like they were forgotten,
being shipped from facility to facility their whole childhoods.
Today residential facilities are continuing to warehouse
over 50,000 foster youth and an unknown number of adopted youth
in lock-down facilities, innocent kids who have not committed
crimes, kids whose parents didn't have resources to support
them, kids whose parents passed away, kids who have already
experienced trauma. This $23 billion-a-year industry sees this
population as dollar signs, and operates without meaningful
oversight.
It costs approximately $800 to $1,000 per day to place a
foster youth in a facility, significantly more expensive than
serving them in their own communities. What is more important,
protecting business profits or protecting foster youth lives?
Sixteen-year-old Cornelius Fredericks was placed in a
facility because his mom tragically died and his dad was in
prison. His life ended after being tackled and violently
restrained by eight staff members for nearly ten minutes after
innocently throwing a sandwich in the cafeteria. They killed
him on the floor of the lunchroom in front of dozens of other
children. Emergency services had been called 300 times in the
year leading up to his death, with 56 violations substantiated
by the state. The state could have prevented this.
Ja'Ceon Terry's life ended at just seven years old. In his
final hours he was publicly shamed, verbally abused, left in
his room alone for nearly six hours, and physically restrained
by staff members until he lost consciousness. When first
responders arrived there was vomit in his mouth and throat,
running down his cheeks and onto the floor.
Why can't we as a society see that these kids are hurting?
They need love and kindness, not beatings and restraints.
As a mom, these stories break my heart. When your child is
born, your heart is full of love, of all hopes and dreams you
have for them. I assure you that these were not the dreams that
were envisioned for Cornelius, Ja'Ceon, and thousands more who
have suffered immensely.
I am here to be the voice for the children whose voices
can't be heard. While this committee has responsibility to move
bipartisan solutions forward to protect them, I strongly
advocate for the reauthorization of Title IV-B. Families need
resources and support so they don't need to come into the child
welfare system in the first place.
For children who do end up in foster care, we cannot allow
them to grow up in facilities. The treatment these kids have
had to endure is criminal. These kids deserve to grow up in
safe, family-centered environments.
I will not stop until America's youth is safe. I have
helped pass nine state laws on this issue. I am strongly
advocating for the Federal bipartisan Stop Institutional Child
Abuse Act. I supported the Senate Finance Committee Report,
``Warehouses of Neglect,'' that validates everything those with
lived experience have been saying.
And I recently went to Jamaica to support and find
appropriate placements for American adopted youth who had been
raped, waterboarded with a hose, and held in solitary
confinement in a facility internationally. Their parents had
adopted them when they were young, promised them a better life,
and then shipped them off to an international facility to be
warehoused there until they turned 18. How could we let this
happen to them?
Progress isn't an option anymore. It is a life or death
responsibility. If you are a child in the system, hear my
words: I see you, I believe you. I know what you are going
through, and I won't give up on you. You are important. Your
future is important. And you deserve every opportunity to be
safe and supported.
Congress, please join me in creating a world where all
children have a right to family, love, education, and the
support they need.
Thank you for your time, and I am happy to answer any of
your questions.
[The statement of Ms. Hilton follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Hilton.
Mr. Geen, you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF ROB GEEN, BIPARTISAN POLICY CENTER FELLOW, CHAIR
OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES, DAVE THOMAS FOUNDATION FOR ADOPTION
Mr. GEEN. Thank you. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Neal,
and distinguished members of the committee, as has been
mentioned, I am currently a fellow at the Bipartisan Policy
Center and chair of the board of trustees at the Dave Thomas
Foundation for Adoption.
Over the past 35 years I have worked in research,
philanthropy, and advocacy to advance data-driven reforms to
improve our nation's child welfare system. During this entire
period, bipartisanship has been a defining feature of Federal
child welfare legislation.
In 1993 Congress created Title IV-B, subpart 2, now known
as the MaryLee Allen Promoting Safe and Stable Families
programs. While it is a relatively small program compared to
the Title IV-E entitlement that supports foster care and
adoption, IV-B has been a critical source of flexible funding
available to states and tribes, enabling them to craft
innovations that address the specific circumstances in their
own communities. Compared to Title IV-E, states and tribes can
use IV-B funds to serve a broader range of children, youth, and
families with a wider variety of services. In this way, IV-B
serves as a critical complement to Title IV-E funding. Title
IV-B also includes dedicated funding for key functions of the
child welfare system, including the Court Improvement Program.
However, two decades of steady erosion to the program's
funding has limited the impact that Title IV-B can now have.
With my time I would like to share several findings from an
intensive, 50-state landscape analysis conducted by the
Bipartisan Policy Center's Child Welfare Initiative.
An overarching finding from our research is that, while
polarizing rhetoric often overshadows discussions of common
ground, there are, in fact, many areas of agreement. For
example, there is overwhelming support for the vision of the
Family First Prevention Services Act. There is recognition that
high-quality, short-term therapeutic residential interventions
are needed for a small number of children.
There is also strong support for redoubling efforts to
prevent child abuse and neglect and invest in family
preservation services.
At the same time, there are frustrations in the field over
the implementation of Family First. Many states are struggling
to increase capacity of alternatives to residential settings as
they seek to eliminate the use of non-therapeutic group homes.
There is insufficient community-based service capacity to meet
the high needs of youth in the system, especially effective
mental health services.
States and tribes are running into barriers in taking full
advantage of the prevention funding available as a result of
Family First. This includes concerns about the Prevention
Services Clearinghouse and how funding can be used to meet the
concrete needs of families.
There is widespread concern that child welfare is becoming
a catch-all system, being asked to make up for the failures of
other systems, resulting in children and families being
inappropriately involved with child welfare authorities. States
are starting to address this by clarifying their definitions of
neglect, making improvements in mandatory reporting and
investigations, and enhancing legal representation for both
children and parents.
There is widespread recognition of the challenges states
and tribes face in maintaining a qualified workforce. There is
considerable appreciation for the positive progress achieved in
supporting kinship families, and yet recognition that there is
far more work we need to do to make sure that all kin can
adequately care for children.
There is a strong desire to improve the outcomes for older
youth involved in the system, and frustration with the
persistent challenges we face in meeting the basic needs of
youth aging out of foster care at age 18.
Other topics that garnered significant interest and
widespread support include strengthening the Indian Child
Welfare Act; reducing the administrative burden that
accompanies Federal funding, especially for tribes, while also
improving system oversight and accountability; creating more
flexible funding options that allow states and tribes to meet
unique community needs; and finally, continuing to expand the
evidence base for child welfare interventions.
I will end by recognizing the numerous bills introduced by
members of this committee that seek to address many of the
challenges I have just listed. I want to thank you for your
continued commitment to keeping children safe and supporting
families, and I will be happy to answer any questions you might
have.
[The statement of Mr. Geen follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman SMITH. Thank you, sir.
Mrs. Petersen, you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF TORI HOPE PETERSEN, AUTHOR, SPEAKER, AND ADVOCATE
Ms. PETERSEN. Good morning. I am grateful to be here, and I
am thankful to Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Neal, and the
members of the committee for convening this hearing on
reauthorizing Title IV-B.
I went into the foster care system twice in my life due to
the physical and emotional abuse I endured. I hoped that going
into the foster care system would allow me to escape the chaos
of my first family, but instead I entered into a different form
of chaos when I entered the system, and I moved through 12
different homes during my time in care.
Eventually, I moved in with a foster mom who took me to
church regularly, and I was reunited with a woman named Tanya,
who, when I lived with my mom, would come and pick me up when
situations would become volatile. Tanya worked for a non-profit
that mentored kids coming from hard places, and she became a
mentor to me. The leadership of my church allowed me
opportunities and encouraged me to share my story. By
witnessing their love for me and other kids in the foster care
system, I began to believe that Jesus might love me, too, and I
gained a confidence that I didn't have before.
At the same time, I was running track in high school, and
my track coach became my father figure. After I aged out of the
foster care system, he invited me into his home, and under his
training I became a five-time state champion in track, which
allowed me to go to college on a full scholarship and become a
part of the three percent of former foster youth to obtain a
bachelor's degree when I graduated from Hillsdale College in
2018.
Now I am an author and public speaker. I share my story to
help organizations raise funds to serve vulnerable children. I
help communities and churches become equipped to fulfill the
call of James 1:27, which is to care for the orphan and the
widow. And my greatest honor is that I am a wife and a mom. I
have two biological children, an adopted adult son. My husband
and I are kinship providers for my biological sibling, and we
are also foster parents.
As I look back on my experience, I see the crucial role my
community, non-profits, and church played to bring me to where
I am today. And I believe that I wouldn't be where I am without
them. It has been over 10 years since I aged out of the foster
care system, and there was not as much government assistance as
there is today for youth coming out of care. Outside of being
on food stamps for about six months, I received no financial
support or government assistance after I aged out.
This experience taught me the value of hard work. I earned
and saved money by working in a factory, in a diner as a
waitress, and through various internships from organizations in
my church. Handouts in the form of checks made me feel more
like a charity case, but having a community of people believing
in me enough to empower me, give me purposeful jobs, and mentor
me to gain the skills needed to live a prosperous life is what
has helped me break generational cycles of poverty, abuse,
neglect, homelessness, and so on.
Over the past couple of years my husband and I have
mentored a handful of former foster youth by volunteering for a
local non-profit. We witnessed them live off of free housing
and stipends given to them while not maintaining work. We see
these young adults continually fall out of these programs and
into homelessness because these resources are not long-term
solutions to the problems these youth face. Real relationships,
connectedness, and love are.
As the famous quote states, ``Give a man a fish and you
feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a
lifetime.'' More plainly, we could offer youth housing or we
could invest in them being taught the skills to acquire housing
themselves, which could result in them having an investment to
offer future generations, in turn breaking generational cycles
of poverty.
When I was in foster care I remember receiving a duffel bag
of hair products I couldn't use, a teddy bear I was too old
for, and many other products that went untouched. Now, when a
foster child moves into our home, we receive two duffel bags
full of useless products. While the emphasis of this movement
started with a pure intention of not letting any foster child
carry their belongings around in a garbage bag, I feel it is
now an over-saturated movement to make the giver feel like they
have done their part.
We are here because our part is not done. I point to this
illustration because it is a perfect example of how society
treats foster youth as a whole: throw money at kids rather than
invest time to nurture relationships with them; isolate young
adults in free housing, rather than welcoming them in, or at
least showing them how to obtain housing with roommate, like
most young adults do, so they are not so alone.
These kids are all of our kids, and we justify treating
them like they are not by handing them bags, clothes, products,
and not our presence. While it is Title IV-E that offers youth
and foster care these tangible resources and addresses these
issues, it is crucial that we address Title IV-E alongside
Title IV-B because right now it seems that the system is giving
young adults basic necessities that they need to survive, but
when we invest in them to have strong and authentic
relationships in their communities, we give them what they need
to thrive.
I was fortunate enough to form relationships with community
members like my track coach, Tanya, and others from my church.
And over time, they became the people who filled the role of my
family. What they have given me, taught me, and how they have
guided me has been invaluable. If we want young adults to learn
self-governance, they need to be taught skills for their
adulthood, and they also need caring adults to continue to
guide them into adulthood.
It is important that Federal funding streams like Title IV-
B are updated to meet the current challenges in the child
welfare system. A special emphasis should be placed on
community relationships and the role they play in helping youth
gain the valuable skills they need for adulthood.
If you are a child or youth coming from a hard place, I
hope you hear that you are deserving of love, and there is a
beautiful purpose and plan for your life.
I want to especially express gratitude to Chairman Smith
for offering me the opportunity to advocate for youth in this
way, in finding value in my lived experience as a former foster
youth but, more importantly, as a child of God. Thank you.
[The statement of Mrs. Petersen follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman SMITH. Thank you so much.
Ms. Mansfield, you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF ALEXIS MANSFIELD, SENIOR ADVISOR, CHILDREN AND
FAMILIES AND RELATIONSHIP SAFETY, WOMEN'S JUSTICE INSTITUTE
Ms. MANSFIELD. Thank you. My name is Alexis Mansfield, and
I am the senior advisor at the Women's Justice Institute on
issues related to children and families. I would like to thank
Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Neal, and the members of the
committee for the opportunity to testify about how to
strengthen the child welfare system and protect America's
children.
I would also like to thank Representatives Davis and LaHood
for introducing H.R. 8799, the PARENT Act.
The Women's Justice Institute, or WJI, is a national think-
and-do tank based in Chicago that works to address women's mass
incarceration.
In addition, I am the director of the Incarcerated
Survivors Program at Ascend Justice, a civil legal aid
organization focused on survivors of domestic violence and
parents impacted by the child welfare system. I also sit on the
Commission on Children of Incarcerated Parents and the Illinois
Department of Corrections Adult Advisory Board.
Before I was a lawyer, I was a teacher in the Chicago
public school system for eight years. One time, about halfway
through the school year, the principal came into my classroom
with a little six-year-old boy, and told me that he was my
student now because he had been kicked out of the other two
classrooms. That first day I met with him privately and I
asked, ``What do you need?''
He replied, ``I want to write my mom.'' He explained that
his mom was in prison, and that his last teacher had told him
that he couldn't send letters to her because she was a bad
person. I told him he could write. He could draw whatever he
wanted to send to her. From that moment on, he changed
completely. Knowing what I know now, I would not have just let
him write her, I would have found a way to engage her in his
education. But the fact remains, what he truly needed was his
mom, and this is a pattern I see again and again with children.
In 2016 I co-founded the Reunification Ride with several
other organizations. This monthly program, which is now housed
at the WJI, brings children of incarcerated mothers to visit
them in child-friendly settings to bond as families and to be
together with other children sharing the same experiences. We
sometimes have to skip a month, as we rely on private funding
and crowd sourcing, and we don't always have enough money to
go. But usually, once a month, approximately 40 children and
caregivers make the journey three hours each way from Chicago,
and sometimes even Indiana or Michigan. Hundreds of families
have participated. We work with the Department of Corrections
to create child-friendly processes and environments. This year
we also assisted in creating a Father's Day program at the
neighboring men's prison for over 60 children.
When we arrive and walk from the prison gatehouse to the
gym, the kids start to walk a little bit faster and faster. And
by the time we get to the gym, several of the children are in
all-out runs. They jump and leap onto their mothers, holding
them tight in their arms. I remember the time that one 10-year-
old girl, who had not seen her mother in person in several
years, came with us. Within five minutes of seeing each other
she had whispered to her mom that she was being abused. We were
able to get her moved to a safe home within days.
In Illinois we have several model programs that promote
critical bonds between children and their incarcerated parents.
Unfortunately, children in foster care are excluded from almost
all programs. For example, with the Reunification Ride,
caseworkers from the Department of Children and Family Services
will contact us, explaining they have no way of transporting
children or staff to bring them, and will ask us if we will
instead. We have to say no, because we have been unable to find
a single private insurance company that will allow us to have
foster youth participate.
We also have two rare important programs at Decatur
Correctional Center. One is called the Moms and Babies Program,
where newer pregnant mothers can live with their babies, and
the other is a housing unit called the Reunification Wing,
where children are able to spend full days with their mothers.
Children in the foster care system are not allowed to
participate in either program, despite the fact that foster
youth are more likely to not live with relatives and to not
have not be able to visit without support.
Ensuring visits between foster youth and their incarcerated
parents supports individual court decisions that in-person
visitation for the child and their parent is appropriate and
beneficial for the child. The majority of parents are in jail
or prison because of charges completely unrelated to their
children, and their children need and deserve a chance for
healthy bonding. Certainly, we do not want foster youth to feel
punished by being denied these opportunities.
There are many ways for systems to collaborate, including
improved supplemental visitation options, ensuring incarcerated
parents can access abuse hotlines, aligning service plans with
available programing, and increasing access to legal services.
Funding and incentives for collaboration between corrections
systems, child welfare systems, and private organizations is
vital for children to bond for family reunification and to
ensure that children are protected from harm.
Studies have shown that nurturing these bonds also reduces
recidivism and represents a critical opportunity to prevent
intergenerational incarceration.
This bill is an excellent way to demonstrate how we can
give foster youth and their incarcerated parents meaningful
opportunities to bond and promote healthy relationships. Thank
you all for supporting families.
[The statement of Ms. Mansfield follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman SMITH. Thank each of you for your testimony. We
will start with the question-and-answer session.
Ms. Hilton, you have personal experience with congregate
care facilities, and you have been a champion for individuals
impacted by their experiences in those care environments,
especially teenagers. As you know, this committee is currently
working on reauthorizing the child welfare programs and looking
at how we can ensure additional resources are available to
foster youth and children in need, with a focus on keeping them
in their homes and united with their families.
Based on your experiences, is that a priority you believe
we should be focused on?
And what reforms do you think we should be considering to
achieve these goals?
Ms. HILTON. Thank you for the question, Chairman Smith, and
thank you so much for visiting the facilities.
I want to applaud the committee for taking the time to
consider how to improve the foster care system. These youth
don't have a voice and anyone checking in on them, on their
well-being.
Locking kids in facilities is harmful and, from my own
experience, has caused me severe post-traumatic stress disorder
and trauma that I will have for the rest of my life. We need to
reauthorize Title IV-B and invest in kinship care placement
with a relative, as youth should be with family or adults who
know and love them.
I would also like to see the Stop Institutional Child Abuse
Act passed, as we need more transparency of what is happening
in treatment facilities serving foster youth. The cost of
treatment is five times more in a facility than community-based
services. It is a completely ineffective use of funds, and it
hurts the kids and the--costs the taxpayers more.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you.
Mr. Geen, I think we can all agree that no child should be
left in a home where they are suffering through neglect or
abuse. At the same time, I hope that we all can agree that
keeping children in their homes with their parents is the best
course of action, so long as the child's well-being is not
threatened.
Unfortunately, in Missouri and other states, a large
percentage of cases where children are being removed from homes
due to neglect are situations where the primary factor is
poverty, not actual neglect or abuse on the part of the
parents. Rather than resorting to removing children from their
homes and their parents, what changes might we make to Title
IV-B to address this situation?
And how might we go about collecting better data to help
those potential reforms?
Mr. GEEN. I very much appreciate the question, particularly
about data, because I do think we need to be data-driven in our
decisions about how to use concrete needs--funding for concrete
needs to support families.
As I mentioned in my testimony, states are looking at their
definitions of child neglect. And yet policy is only so far in
addressing the problem. When a caseworker or a mandated
reporter or a judge has a family in front of them, they have a
difficult determination in is this family just suffering from
material deprivation, or do they need child welfare
intervention? So figuring out how Title IV-B can be a resource
for concrete services is key.
I will mention outside of Title IV-B, looking at the IV-E
prevention clearinghouse, there are many folks who will suggest
that concrete needs need to be supported when they are
delivered as part of a larger, evidence-based program, and that
is something to consider, as well.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you.
Mrs. Petersen, yours is an inspiring story, and one that
speaks to the important role community-based organizations play
in our child welfare system. Based on your experience as a
foster youth and now as an advocate for foster care reform,
what changes do you see as needed to make sure that government
is a helpful partner and not a harmful hindrance to the many
private organizations working throughout our communities today
to support those in need in foster care, including faith-based
organizations?
Ms. PETERSEN. I believe we must have youth advisory boards
and include those with lived experience to speak in policy if
we want to see the child welfare system be improved.
As a foster child and as a foster mom, I have felt unheard
by local caseworkers who have a lot of power locally because,
really, the rules you make here are oftentimes not followed by
caseworkers there. An example of this would be in 2014 the
Normalcy Act passed, saying that youth in foster care can have
the same privileges as youth who do not live in foster care.
Yet I am still advocating and fighting for my teen foster
daughter the same way I had to advocate for myself to have
normalcy when I was in care 10 years ago.
As a youth I did once have a representative advocate for me
at a local level, and it was very effective. The county saw
that they didn't have--hold all the power, and they had to be
held accountable for their actions. While I know
representatives have so many issues that they have to balance,
holding local meetings with counties where foster youth and
foster parents speak about their experience and what they need
help changing in their counties would make a world of
difference. What we are doing here needs to be grassroots, and
we need representatives present for effective change.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you. I want to thank all our
witnesses.
There are two votes that have been called on the floor. The
committee will recess immediately following the ranking
member's questions, so I would encourage any members--they will
be closing the board, they said, within 20 minutes. So I would
encourage you to get there and then get back as soon as
possible after two votes, and we will continue.
The ranking member.
Mr. NEAL. Thank you.
And Ms. Hilton, one of the things that we have learned from
the committee is that, when we listen to people telling us
about their own experiences, it can be very helpful and
certainly enhance better policies for people like them. So I
was honored recently to receive the Fostering Visionary Change
Award from the National Foster Youth Initiative. They were
really surprised when I told my own story. And I pointed out in
reference to the testimony that has been so capably offered
this morning that no social service agency ever checked on us.
We just moved in with an aunt and a grandmother.
But I want to reiterate the genius Mr. Roosevelt's survivor
benefits initiative from Social Security, because that helped
keep us together.
And in reference to Mrs. Petersen's comments, both the
people that I have just talked about with great reverence were
very religious, and they just saw this not as an opportunity to
do this or do that, as much as it was you are just supposed to
do it, and they accepted that responsibility. So the value of
your experience and Ms. Hilton's experience this morning--I
want to give you a couple of minutes each, if you could, to
talk about that as you have enhanced and advocated for those
who fall outside the protection sometimes of the system.
Ms. Hilton or Mrs. Petersen.
Ms. MANSFIELD. Thank you for that question. I think, for
children of incarcerated parents, that is especially an
important question to consider.
Parental incarceration is an adverse childhood experience,
or an ACE, just by having a parent who is incarcerated. And it
is often necessary for family members to step in through
informal kinship care, not through any system.
And you are correct, one of the big challenges that
children of incarcerated parents face is that there is nobody
tracking them, there is no hub to consider their needs. They
are very siloed in different systems.
And one of the unique factors between incarceration of men
and women is what happens to their children when they are
incarcerated. It is an ACE, no matter who is incarcerated of
the parents. But when a father is incarcerated, approximately
90 percent of the time their children go to the children's
mother, and they remain in the family. And when a mother is
incarcerated, the children go to the father about 25 percent of
the time, and 75 percent of the time they are with somebody who
is not one of their parents. About 10 to 15 percent of the time
for mothers, that is foster care, and about 3 percent of the
time for fathers that is foster care.
But what happens to that other 60 percent of children? You
are correct that a huge number of them are in informal care,
and the services just do not exist. Even basic legal services
like creating guardianships so whoever is caring for the child
can take them to the doctor, so that they can access benefits,
so that they can know what they are entitled to. And so that is
a really important factor, and I appreciate you bringing that
up.
Ms. PETERSEN. One of the reasons I think it is so crucial
that we lean on the church for this is because the value of
Christian faith is hospitality. After I emancipated, people did
not just give me clothes or come and furnish my apartment and
peace out. They let me live with them so I wasn't homeless, so
I wasn't alone, so I had a family. And so I had an example of
how to build a life for my family.
When we grow up in dysfunction, it can be easy to know that
we don't want that, but we often don't know how to get what we
do want for our own family because we haven't had it modeled
for us. I had people who let me into their home who I could
learn from firsthand, who modeled to me what a good family was
so I could have it myself.
Above all else, I believe that we need radical hospitality.
Mr. GEEN. Ranking Member Neal, your story is so instructive
because the vast majority of children who are living with
relatives are doing so outside of the child welfare system. And
our entire safety net, including all the programs under your
jurisdiction, were designed with nuclear families in mind. And
so kinship caregivers often struggle to get basic assistance
that they need to care for children.
I will also note that we tend to think of kinship care just
as a placement resource, versus an opportunity to prevent
placement in the first place. Relatives can be wrapped around
birth parents when they are struggling to prevent placement.
Ms. HILTON. I think it is so important to listen to youth
voices about foster care. It is so crucial because the ones who
have experienced it are the ones who have a seat--who should
have a seat at the table. They know the best, and I hope that
everyone here prioritizes people with lived experience, as they
are the true experts.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you. The committee will recess until
immediately following the last vote of the series. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Chairman SMITH. The Committee will come to order.
I now recognize Mr. Buchanan from Florida.
Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity, and I want to also thank our witnesses. I know Ms.
Hilton has been in my office, a lot of other offices up here on
the Hill.
So you are relentless, and I always--I am a grandfather of
10 children age nine and under. And so--but I read 20--the
country is made up of--25 percent are kids, but they make up
100 percent of the future. So exactly. Your work and the
committee's work is huge. I thought I would just ask you, what
are the things you said you have been involved with?
Nine different states. Are the biggest potential impacts
that we can help you and others to get the best return for the
taxpayer, but have the biggest impact in terms of our kids in
the country--I know there are a lot of needs, and it is very
easy to get pushed in one direction or another. But what would
be your couple of big things that we can make a big difference
in and weigh in on?
Ms. HILTON. Thank you so much. I appreciate your kind
words, and I appreciate your question.
And I am working at both the Federal and state level to
enact change. At the Federal level I want to see Title IV-B
reauthorized, and I want to see the Stop Institutional Child
Abuse Act passed to provide transparency and data collection.
At the state level I have helped to outlaw abusive
practices like restraint and seclusion, increased licensing
requirements with unannounced site visits, required proper
reporting and increased private communication with families and
their child so they can report abuse if it is occurring.
All of this helps to reform these facilities, and I will
not stop until all youth are safe.
Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you.
Mr. Geen, let me ask you. Obviously, you have been involved
for a lot of years. As you look out there, what more can we--
you know, weigh in again, as I mentioned with her, on the
biggest takeaways for us today in terms of policies or
practices or things that have made a difference in various
states or here in Washington.
Mr. GEEN. So I think the biggest thing that we can do is
invest in the alternatives to what we know is not good for
children, which is residential treatment when it is
unnecessary. So we need to start by investing in keeping
families together.
And then, for the relatively small number of children who
do need to be removed, we need to invest in family, which
includes kinship caregivers and non-kin family foster care.
Mr. BUCHANAN. Mrs. Petersen, you have an incredible story.
All of you do. And you said you had a mentor, but you must have
had other people that were supportive that made a difference in
your life along the way. And then I was going to ask you is,
how does your faith make a difference in terms of you getting
through this process?
Ms. PETERSEN. I think that my faith gives me purpose to
continue. You know, so many youth in foster care struggle with
mental health issues, and faith is not this Band-Aid that slaps
on and heals all, but I do believe that faith gives me a
purpose to continue and to persevere when my mental health has
been hard, when the trauma comes back, and when the effects of
foster care play out in adulthood.
Yes, I think a continuous purpose is what my faith offers
me.
Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Mr. Doggett.
Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Certainly, the stories that you have told today are
compelling, and they focus new attention on this problem. And
the work you are doing as advocates, the work you are doing,
Ms. Mansfield, very touching, the impact that you are having.
Unfortunately, the stories you are telling may be unique,
but they are not new to this committee. We have heard about
these problems for years, and the question is what we will do
about them and what kind of resources we will devote to solving
problems that the committee has left unsolved in the past.
So much of the abuse, I believe, results primarily from the
failure of states like my home state of Texas to provide either
adequate funding or appropriate oversight and enforcement of
the foster care system, residential treatment facilities, and
other youth-based settings. Texas has a truly disgraceful
distinction of one of the highest rates of child abuse and
neglect fatalities in the country. Children die because the
state is negligent and indifferent to their needs.
What little oversight we have in Texas today is mostly the
result of the work of United States District Judge Janis Jack,
who has sought reform over the determined obstruction of the
Abbott Administration and, before that, the Perry
Administration. For over a decade, Judge Jack has penalized
Texas for violating the constitutional rights of foster
children to be free from unreasonable risk of harm. Thanks to
continued interference by the Fifth Circuit, who is responsible
for so many other wrong decisions, Judge Jack's work has been
more limited than she would have liked it to be to hold Texas
accountable for weakened time restrictions again and again.
Appointed court monitors have reported little improvement
in the foster care system, despite 13 years of ongoing
litigation and supervision. Earlier this year she ordered a
$100,000-per-day fine against the State of Texas for routinely
neglecting to adequately investigate and respond to allegations
of abuse and neglect. In one outrageous example identified
during a compliance hearing just this past December, the State
of Texas failed to remove and prosecute a staff member accused
of raping a young girl under his care at a residential
facility. The girl had remained exposed to the worker for over
a year until she was dumped into an emergency room alone, with
her jaw broken in two places.
So the saddest part of your stories, I believe, is that
they keep reoccurring, these kind of incidents, when states
fail to do the job. And while the principal responsibility
rests with the states, this committee could do much more. When
I personally served about a decade ago as the ranking member of
what was then called the Human Resources Subcommittee, I
strongly advocated for much stronger Federal funding to ensure
the safety of these children. Foster parents need more support,
particularly when caring for the special needs of children, and
we must strengthen our caseworker workforce to increase the
visits and the counseling.
Ultimately, robust investments were never approved in the
committee, following a long Republican tradition on the
committee to insist that any improvements in the investments in
the foster care system must be at the expense of other children
under the jurisdiction of what was then the Human Resources
Subcommittee. Even a proposal that I advanced that wouldn't
have raised taxes but would simply have required the filing of
a tax form for alimony payments and generated $2 billion to
protect our children was rejected. And the State of Texas
ultimately obstructed even the Republican approach that was
later advanced.
We know that in more recent times states, because of
pandemic funding that we provided, have done some creative
things. In Saint Petersburg, Florida, the Youth Opportunity
Grants for youth that are aging out, in Madison, Wisconsin,
more housing for foster children.
I would just like to ask Mr. Geen: With limited resources,
with the battle we will have over them again, of the many
things that you and the other witnesses have identified, where
can we do the most good with the limited amount of money that
is likely to be available?
Mr. GEEN. Thank you for the question, Congressman. You are
asking an essential question for this committee, which is, how
do you turn around a system in decline or not functioning
without investing in the alternatives to what you are doing
now? It is impossible to dismantle one part of the system
without at the same time increasing the supply of alternatives.
You mentioned two areas of incredible need for investment.
One, the workforce. Nothing can be done without a quality
workforce. Every reform that you want to see requires that we
have a strong workforce, and part of that strong workforce must
include foster parents, kin and non-kin foster parents. One of
the outcomes that is most critical for children is stability
and care. It is not good to remove a child, we should be doing
much more to prevent it. But when a child is placed in a foster
home and they have stability, all of the outcomes we care about
are better. So how do we support kin and non-kin foster parents
to give kids that stability?
Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you. Thanks to all the witnesses.
I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and,
certainly, thank you to our entire panel here for compelling
perspectives and the experience and insights that you bring.
This could very well be one of the most important hearings we
have for a long time.
I was honored to chair the Human Resources Subcommittee
that was just mentioned, and we were able to complete the work
on the bipartisan Family First Prevention Services Act of 2018.
It has been a while ago already, but even though we did that, I
think it is important to note that when it comes to child
welfare, we haven't done enough. I would argue we haven't even
done anything, in many respects, since many of the children
currently in foster care were even born. So there is much that
we need to do.
I certainly appreciate the perspective that in pointing out
the need to listen to those with lived experience, and I am
very happy to introduce with my colleague, Representative Gwen
Moore, the Youth and Family Engagement and Child Welfare Act.
We just introduced that this week. This is something that I
think is part of the solution moving forward, and I certainly
appreciate, I think, a bipartisan approach on that, and
bipartisan hearings such as we are having right now.
Ms. Petersen--Mrs. Petersen, excuse me--I really appreciate
you sharing your perspective, and certainly your reflection on
your faith-based perspective as it is, and that you can speak
from your lived experience. And so, you know, we want to
empower more youth to give us their perspective. I think it is
important that we at the Federal level of government do not
become overly prescriptive for state governments and end up
tying their hands, rather than having an expectation of states
doing positive things, and then replicating that perhaps one
state to another.
But I am just wondering if you could reflect a little bit
on how we have foster care and kids in foster care, adolescents
who then age out. And given the fact that I believe our country
has more opportunity than any other country in the world, it is
inexcusable that we have foster care youth aging out and not
linking with that opportunity that we know exists across
America, but for some reason we are not linking up here.
What do you think we can do to have a--have better results,
shall we say?
Ms. PETERSEN. Yes, thank you for your work and on this
policy.
One of the things that I do in my work is that I take
former foster youth and youth who have just come from hard
places on trips with me. I am a public speaker, as I mentioned,
and I bring them to speaking engagements with me, because I
believe that they need to see other people who have had
backgrounds like them be successful. Foster care is so
isolating, so these kids need more opportunities, they need
more exposure. They need to see other people who have grown up
like them do what they could possibly do. They need to see what
is possible beyond their experience and care, and if they could
have relationships in the process, form those relationships in
the process, that is what is going to change their lives.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Okay, thank you.
Mr. GEEN. I am wondering if you could perhaps add some
perspective here, as well, of how--you know, what is most
appropriate for the Federal level to not go too far, as way too
often happens, and yet have the expectation that states produce
positive results?
So let me make two comments about the aging out question
that you asked.
The first is the majority of young people who age out of
care come in as teenagers. We have this feeling that they come
in as babies and they spend long periods of time in care, but
that is not actually true. And so we have adolescents coming
into care, and many of them are not coming in for abuse and
neglect, they are coming because of conflicts with parents,
they are coming in because parents are desperate to find
services and supports to meet that young person's needs. And so
the best way to prevent children from ever aging out is to
prevent them from ever coming into care. And that is central to
what Title IV-B is trying to do.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, many states have
extended foster care beyond the age of 18, and have that option
in Federal law. Unfortunately, many states have not taken up
that option. And even in states that have, a small percentage
of young people decide to stay in care. And that is because
foster care doesn't sound all that good. So how do we create a
post-18 option for young people that is still in foster care,
but treats them like adults rather than children?
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Just briefly, is there a state that
stands out to you as best practices in that state?
Mr. GEEN. I will look at that and get back to you.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you.
Mr. Thompson.
Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's
hearing, and thank you to all the witnesses from--for being
here.
You know, this might be the best example of all of the
wonderful people throughout all of our districts that are doing
great work that is incredibly beneficial. This panel of
witnesses is absolutely fantastic. So thank you all for what
you are doing.
Title IV-B of the Social Security Act provides significant
federal funding to target the root causes of the mistreatment
of children, and provide critical services to help kids and
families in need. These funds help states provide a lifeline to
kids and to families who have experienced or are in imminent
risk of experiencing foster care problems, and to help support
community-based services for struggling families. From hiring
and training caseworkers, contracting with non-profits to
provide prevention services, and improving family court
services, this funding makes a real difference in the lives of
children.
According to the--my home state, California--which is the
answer, Mr. Geen, to your question--according to the
legislative analysts in California, the average monthly
caseload for our state's child welfare system is overwhelming.
Everything from in-person investigations, maintenance support,
reunification services, and permanent placement.
In my district there are over 1,200 children currently
living in foster care, and 800 families involved in dependency
court cases, and many counties are struggling to find beds and
services for transition-aged youth. So I look forward to this
reauthorization in a bipartisan way so we can provide the
critical resources for our most at-risk constituents.
And Ms. Hilton, I want to thank you for your compelling and
courageous testimony today, and the work that you have been
doing not only to highlight the problems that you face, but the
problems that many others face on a day-to-day basis. It is
terribly troubling, and we need to do everything we can to
change that.
And what do you think that this committee can do in our
reauthorization legislation that would best help not only
making these facilities more transparent, but ensuring that, if
children are at these facilities, they receive the proper care
and services that they need?
Ms. HILTON. Well, thank you so much. I really appreciate
what you just said, and I think it is just important for there
to be oversight and regulation. People need to know that they
are being watched.
What I experienced in these places was inhumane, and it is
something that will affect me for the rest of my life. And
after speaking to thousands of survivors who have been through
the same experiences, I think it is just important to listen to
survivors because we have the lived experience.
And I just want to say again I am so grateful to be sitting
here in front of all of you who could help make a difference in
so many children's lives. And I think it is just continuing to
do that and to pass this.
Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you.
Ms. HILTON. Thank you.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Geen, you mentioned the capacity issue,
and this is an issue--I can't imagine it being satisfactory in
anybody else's district. It is certainly not in mine. What do
we need to do to increase that capacity?
It seems--and we just lost a great facility in my district,
and we--and that was not enough. We needed four or five more
just in that one community.
Mr. GEEN. So let's be clear. If the testimony of those with
lived experience doesn't move you, the research is clear:
children do best in families, clearly.
There will always be a need for children to have different
forms of care, and we have to invest in them. That means that
there will be children going into foster care. It also means
that, for a very small number of children, they will require a
short-term intervention that may be residential-based. It is
not a placement, it is not a place for a child to stay for a
long time. But we need those very limited facilities to be
exceptionally high-quality, to be therapeutic, to be involving
family in those children. The purpose of that intervention is
for the child to go home and succeed in a family, so we need to
cover the landscape of the continuum that is needed.
Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, and I think that--you said it
best. This is about success for these kids. Mr. Buchanan was
spot on when he said this is our future, and we can do a lot to
help.
So thank you all very much, and I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you.
Mr. Kelly.
Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
the hearing.
First of all, Ms. Hilton, I first read about your story in
Vanity Fair. I don't usually read that magazine, my wife does.
And she says, ``You have got to read this story, and you won't
believe what happened to her.'' Your very presence here--
believe me, we have a lot of briefings here, but we don't get
this type of a crowd, and we certainly don't get that many
people who come in and--from the media and want to get
pictures. You telling what happened to you in your life and
what happened is absolutely incredible, and opens up a whole
new vision for the rest of us to say, you know, if she has the
courage to stand up and talk about this and relate what she
went through, certainly we should look at our own lives and our
own communities and say, why can't we also look at that and
make sure? So I can't tell you how much I appreciate what you
were able to do and why you did it. And I know it was selfless,
but I know it has had a great impact. So thank you so much.
Ms. HILTON. Thank you so much. I have tears in my eyes. And
tell your wife thank you so much, as well. And it is an honor
and a pleasure to be able to do this for the children who have
no voice, and be the hero that I needed when I was a little
girl, terrified in these places. And it is just so
heartbreaking to know that there is hundreds of thousands of
children that are in these places right now. And for so many
years, nobody has been believed or listened to, so I feel that
maybe God put me through this and gave me this special gift so
one day I could use it to help others not go through what I
did, and really turn my pain into a purpose.
And thank you all for coming today, and everyone, because
this is so important for the world to know what is happening,
and the children in there to know that we are all here today to
help make a difference in their lives.
Mr. KELLY. Well, you are making a difference in a lot of
people's lives.
Ms. HILTON. Thank you.
Mr. KELLY. So I got to tell you now, my wife is one of
nine, I am one of five. We have been blessed with four children
and 10 grandchildren. And there is nothing in the world more
valuable to us than those kids.
Ms. HILTON. Yes.
Mr. KELLY. So thank you for what you are advocating for.
Now, just real quickly, Mrs. Petersen, I think your story
is absolutely incredible. In a place that talks about all the
time in God We Trust, as long as you don't keep saying that
because God is not allowed to be discussed anymore in the
public forum, which I think is absolutely the worst thing that
could happen to America, we have been so blessed for so long,
and sometimes just take it for granted that we are always going
to be that way.
Your story is absolutely incredible. What I never will
understand is why faith-based organizations are held in a
different manner than other ones, saying no, no, no, you cannot
talk about the church, you cannot talk about Christianity, you
cannot talk about faith-based issues, you cannot, you cannot,
you cannot, and every night we pray that our kids and our
grandkids will have a future. So your story, I thought, was
really incredible. Why, with the story that you have, and
coming out of the college that you have--had come from, why do
you think people don't want to hear your story because you are
talking about the force of faith in your life that absolutely
transformed it?
I think your story is incredible, and I want to thank you
for being here, all of you. Thank you for being here. I don't
understand why it has taken this long to get to this point,
because there is nothing in our lives more important than our
kids. So if you could, I was just fascinated by what you said.
Ms. PETERSEN. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Glory to God for
what He has done in my life. And I do--I have felt at times
that I have--my voice has not been welcomed because of my
faith. I have felt at times that I have been pushed out of
spaces that look a lot like this because I love Jesus, and I
want to tell people about him.
James 1:27 calls Christians to care for the orphan and the
widow. Then the next scripture is James 2:1, and it urges us to
not show favoritism when a poor man comes to our home. So we
are given the command, right, to care for the orphan and the
widow, and then we are given the instruction to not show
favoritism. And it says that we must put them in the same place
that we would the rich man, and this is what we are supposed to
do.
So if a child ages out without a family to call their own,
like I did, communities, they need to step up like mine did.
And I would just urge anyone listening to this, community-based
organizations, people of faith, if there is a kid that you know
in foster care, no matter what they have been through, believe
in them as much as you would your own child. Fill the roles
they are missing out in their life.
My community is not perfect. They didn't fill every aspect
that a mother and father should and could. They will never be
able to make up for what I did not have as a child, but they
have given me people I know I can lean on. They have shown me a
God that I know that I can lean on. And we need more
communities and churches who will open their doors and their
living rooms and go out of their ways for kids in care.
Mr. KELLY. Well, thank you so much for being here today.
And my colleague, Mr. Schweikert, he should be on this panel. I
got to tell you, I have been with him, I have been with his
family, I have been with his kids. It is absolutely the
difference in their lives going--and thank you so much for
never walking away from your faith and never being able to say
I am not going to practice it.
I was in Normandy a couple of weeks ago, you know, with all
of those guys--98, 99, 100. There are no atheists in foxholes.
Thank you so much for being here.
Chairman SMITH. Mr. Larson.
Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
especially thank the panelists, as well, for your insights
today.
I want to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Neal,
and focus a little bit on Social Security first. There are 2.7
million children who are Social Security recipients. And Mr.
Geen, you remarked that most of the children receiving care are
not infants. They come because of a deceased parent. Yet here
we are, talking about what we need to do.
How about the fact that Congress hasn't voted to enhance
Social Security in more than 53 years? Is there anyone on this
panel who doesn't think that enhancing Social Security so it
doesn't reflect what it was providing in terms of benefits in
1971 shouldn't be enhanced to take care of the very children
you are talking about in terms of making sure they have the
adequate resources?
Ms. Hilton, I will start with you.
Ms. HILTON. Thank you, Mr. Larson. Yes, I think it is
extremely important, the point that you are making, and the
fact that it has not been changed in over 50 years is
ridiculous, especially with everything that is--inflation,
everything that has been happening. It is a whole different
world now. So these need to be addressed and changed, I one
hundred percent agree with that.
Mr. LARSON. Thank you.
Mr. Geen.
Mr. GEEN. So I recognize the hearing today is about Title
IV-B----
Mr. LARSON. Yes.
Mr. GEEN [continuing]. And Title IV-B is a relatively small
program. It is a critical resource because of its flexibility
and the ability to test and pilot programs that can then be
funded with other programs.
But your question raises the key concern that I have of
understanding IV-B within the larger infrastructure of Federal
funding. So we can't look at any individual program without
understanding how does it interact with Title IV-E, TANF funds,
the Social Services Block Grant, and other supports.
Mr. LARSON. Thank you. I couldn't agree with you more.
Mrs. Petersen.
Ms. PETERSEN. I feel like I don't understand the way that
this works enough to answer it. And one of the things that I
have really admired about people in my life is when they say,
``I don't know'', so I am going to say I don't know. Thank you.
Mr. LARSON. Ms. Mansfield.
Ms. MANSFIELD. Yes, I would absolutely support
enhancements. I believe it is really critical for some of the
reasons that we mentioned before, as well, that the majority of
children are in kinship care, and for children of incarcerated
parents in particular, they are in informal kinship care, where
they are not getting payments as foster care givers.
And we already know that kinship care payments, even for
children in foster care, are often under what somebody might
receive for a non-relative placement. And so it is really
important to support those families, but also to support
families before they get involved in the foster care system.
And having those access to resources is just critical.
I know we mentioned other services like TANF. Well, TANF
child-only grants can support caregivers of children of
incarcerated parents who are not involved in the foster care
system, but they are incredibly hard to access. And it is
typically about $115 a month, which, for anyone who has cared
for a child, does not go very far. And we are also talking
about the majority of these caregivers being grandparents who
are already stretched financially and are now caring for their
grandchildren, which can be a real challenge.
An additional thing to look at would be child care, both
for the caregivers----
Mr. LARSON. I am glad you mentioned that----
Ms. MANSFIELD. Thank you.
Mr. LARSON [continuing]. Because that was my next question
for everyone: Are you familiar with family resource centers?
The chairman will be happy to know that a native of
Missouri, Dr. Edward Zigler, God rest his soul, the father of
Head Start, said, ``Look, we ought to wake up and utilize what
we have in abundance: schools.'' And so he authored family
resource centers as a source for families, and also a physical
place, too, that exists already that could be expanded upon and
utilized and further professionalized.
What is your sense? Do you think Ed Zigler was on the right
track with family resource centers?
We will start----
Ms. MANSFIELD. Absolutely. I mean, I was going to say we
need child care and family resource centers not just for
children who are with caregivers, but we also need it for
families, and particularly for my clients during reentry
periods, where they have all of these different things upon
them but also need to have access to those resources.
Mr. LARSON. Train parents, as well.
Ms. MANSFIELD. Yes, and providing the resources that they
need so we can have healthy families.
Mr. GEEN. Yes to family resource centers. They are funded
in part by Title IV-B dollars. And also other similar types of
mechanisms that are designed specifically for the communities,
which gets to, again, the flexibility of this program.
Missouri, Indiana, California can design their own types of
interventions in their community. Many of them look like family
resource centers.
Mr. LARSON. Anyone else?
Thank you.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you.
Mr. Schweikert.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Two years ago this week, all of a sudden I
am getting these text messages that--from my office, saying
there is a social worker who needs me to call her. Okay, I
immediately assume I have a family member that needs bail
money. I call the social worker and the first words out of the
mouth was, ``Are you going to come pick it up?''
Pick up what? Apparently, the birth mother of the little
girl we had adopted six years earlier had walked into the
hospital, no prenatal care, substance abuse, and had a little
boy. The little boy was very small, and going through
withdrawals. So this is him exactly two years ago, and one of
the greatest things that is ever happened in our lives.
But before we were able to walk out of that hospital with
him, it turns out an adoption agency worker had gotten the
birth mother to sign a piece of paper. Now, remember, the birth
mother just said, ``Hey, the Schweickerts had adopted my little
girl. You know, this is the brother. Wouldn't that be nice if
they could be together?'' We were told we had to sign a piece
of paper for $40,000 before we were allowed to walk out the
door with the baby, because the baby belonged to the adoption
services. How does a middle class family ever adopt with these
types of costs?
Ms. Hilton actually said something that was brilliant. It
is about the money. How many others here have gone through the
certification to be a foster parent? My wife and I spent years
and years and years trying to adopt, and it is stunning. It is
maybe a combination of fertility rates have collapsed, but we
spent years and a couple heartbreaking--I mean just almost
devastating--failed adoptions.
As you start to look at IV-B, I know there is flexibility
in it, but I would encourage the policymakers here--Mr. Geen,
you are going to have some of the expertise in this--something
that is actually much more unified, and then here is my point
of heresy.
Thirty years ago there was a national movement to fixate on
family reunification. Having gone through the foster classes,
having actually looked at the numbers, maybe our priority needs
also to be the child and the child's welfare and the child's
future.
When you have people like my wife and I, we have done okay
in life. I have really bad choices in career paths, but--and
yet----
[Laughter.]
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. But my point is, if you are really trying
to find a unified theory of everything from the adoption side
to the foster care side to those who have parents who--
incarceration--stop doing it in silos. And the priority,
number-one priority of our society needs to be those kids. We
don't have a lot of them. We have schools closing all over the
country because there are not enough children.
I love the Dave Thomas organization. They do incredibly
moral work. I am adopted, all my siblings are adopted. My
little boy is third-generation adopted, so is my little girl.
Am I off my rocker thinking two things? Unified approach, so it
is more than just IV-B, but it is also maybe we need to step up
the prioritization of protecting the child and its future from
even some of the others? And I know that is heresy in the
common folklore.
Mr. GEEN. So I say this representing the Dave Thomas
Foundation for Adoption. When we consider what is best for
children, for the vast majority of children reunification is
what is best.
We also need to invest in high-quality adoption. The
Wendy's Wonderful Kids program, which is a signature initiative
of the Dave Thomas Foundation, has led to 14,000--more than
14,000 children achieving permanency that would not have done
so without. Seven hundred of those kids--this was their last
chance of finding a home--were reunified. They were never
actually given a chance of reunification sufficient so that
when they were ready to be adopted there was still the
opportunity to reunify them.
So I think we don't want to play adoption against
reunification. And you are right, we do need a unifying
framework. What is in the best interest of children?
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. We are up against time. How often--how
common is our family's experience of you are not allowed to
take the child home unless you have the cash?
Mr. GEEN. So what you are talking about is largely private
adoption, rather than----
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Yes, it was a private adoption service.
Mr. GEEN [continuing]. Public adoption. What I am referring
to is----
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. My understanding is they had people
stalking the maternity wards in the different hospitals,
getting people to sign that piece of paper. So they technically
had the----
Mr. GEEN. I will follow Tori's lead and say I am not an
expert on international adoption or private adoption.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. No, this was in Phoenix, in Phoenix,
Arizona.
Mr. GEEN. Yes, private adoption and public adoption of
children that are in the foster care system are managed under
very different policy structures and the like. So your
experience I don't have anything to add to.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your tolerance
on the time. I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Schweikert.
Mr. Blumenauer.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find this
hearing very meaningful.
I have 190 days left in Congress, so I have been spending
time on issues that bring people together rather than divide
them. And I am struck that that is the majority of things
before us. They may not make the headlines, it may not be MSNBC
and Fox News and talk shows. But these are things that affect
real people. They don't cost money.
One of the themes that you have made is investing up front
actually saves so much that it pays for itself. We spend a lot
of time around here--and you will see it today on the floor,
and you will see it later in the week--beating each other up on
things to get a--you know, to get a moment's headline, get a
zinger in. These things aren't going to get enacted into law,
they are not going to make a difference to the American people.
It is a distraction, it is a sideshow. What you are talking
about here is not a distraction. It is not a sideshow. And it
is presented in a compelling way that even a Member of Congress
ought to be able to understand the wisdom of what you are
saying.
Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful in the next 190 days that you
will join me on kind of a little tour. Congressman Wenstrup
understands what I am talking about. We are looking, in a
sense--it is legacy for all of us. And what you have presented
today is part of what can be a legacy for any Member of
Congress, regardless of party, regardless of where they live,
regardless of what committee they are on.
I would love to think what would happen if we spent the
month of July just talking about the things that we actually
agree on, talking about things that are common sense and tug at
the heartstrings, as you have presented. That if we spent
morning caucus and conference meetings instead of maneuvering
and thinking about scoring points and the presidential
elections, it is--that is beyond, I think, the ken of most
people. These are things that will mobilize support for the
political process. They will bring people together. It won't
cost money, it will save massive amounts of money.
I work with an organization in Oregon called Friends of
Children that was started by a friend of mine who had a tough
upbringing, and he has willed 30 programs around the country,
and they pick kids who are going to fail, that have no chance
of going forward. They take the worst of the worst. They bring
them together. They give them a full-time mentor that stays
with them until they graduate from high school, starting at age
four.
I have got another friend who is working on the focus of
the first 1,000 days of life. If we do a better job of focusing
on those first 1,000 days before people are damaged and we are
playing catch up.
And these are the things that I hope that you will inspire
us to think about, and each in our own way focus on things that
bring people together, that don't cost money, that aren't part
of a game that doesn't get anybody anywhere and change any
lives. These do.
Now, it may not have as much political zing as some of the
stuff that occupies our time, but these are real people. This
is real progress. And I think, in the long run, people who
focus on that--actually, it might even be better politics.
So I deeply appreciate your coming together and focusing
this in a way that I think anybody can appreciate, and that we
all have an opportunity in our own way to be able to work in
advancing these things you have challenged us to think about.
We know what to do. We know it will not cost anything. It will
save money, and it will bring people together, rather than
divide them. I think that ought to be our mission, and I hope
you inspire us to do that.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska [presiding]. Thank you.
Mr. LaHood.
Mr. LaHOOD. Oh, sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me thank
the witnesses today for your valuable testimony and your
compelling examples here today.
Mrs. Petersen, I want to particularly thank you for sharing
your life journey. You are really a shining example of success
and perseverance, and I appreciate your passion and courage.
We are having this hearing today as we consider reforms to
Title IV-B, which, of course, is an important child welfare
program that provides flexibility funding to states and tribes.
As the chairman of the Work and Welfare Subcommittee, I take
very seriously our responsibility to ensure we have a strong
safety net for nearly 370,000 children in foster care who have
experienced the trauma and hardships of abuse and neglect.
This Congress, the Work and Welfare Subcommittee has taken
a deep dive into current challenges facing child welfare,
continuing the decades-long tradition of doing so in a
bipartisan basis. Last week I was proud to co-lead the
introduction of the PARENTS Act with my fellow Illinoisan,
Ranking Member Congressman Danny Davis, a bill aimed at finding
ways to better nurture the relationship between foster children
and their incarcerated parents.
Our subcommittee has held two child welfare hearings this
particular Congress. In September of last year, we heard from
witnesses about ways to modernize Title IV-B, and in January
this subcommittee held a hearing on improving support for the
19,000 youth aging out of foster care each year. Witnesses at
these hearings included state officials, leaders from
community-based organizations, and former foster youth who
shared recommendations on ways to improve the system moving
forward. And this full committee hearing today signals
important progress in our ability to work together to
reauthorize Title IV-B of this Congress.
Mrs. Petersen, one of the policies that I focused on on our
subcommittee is embracing the stories of those that have
experienced transformational change from the power of
employment brought to their lives by a job. The focus has been
not just about the job, but the dignity of work. I appreciate
your perspective on how we can encourage and promote this
dignity for all vulnerable populations, including foster youth.
As you know, only about 55 percent of foster youth are in
full-time employment past the age of 18.
In your opinion, why is the percentage so low, and how can
we improve barriers to full-time employment for foster youth?
Ms. PETERSEN. Thank you for your kind words, and thank you
for your work. It sounds very powerful.
I think this percentage is so low for two reasons. The
first is that foster youth usually do not receive as many
opportunities as their peers who are not foster children. That
can be because foster youth tend to be stigmatized as troubled
children, which makes it harder for them to gain employment as
young people, or because foster youth usually move from home to
home unexpectedly. This causes this to--causes them to miss out
on opportunities like sports tryouts, or makes them have to
leave jobs unexpectedly, which then makes them less hirable
when they go to get another job.
There is also the piece that I briefly mentioned in my
statement. One of the young men my husband and I were mentoring
as a part of this non-profit, he was a former foster youth, and
he was living off of free housing and getting a weekly stipend
from Chafee funds. And those offering him these resources told
him he would continue to receive the resources as long as he
worked 20 hours a week, and he wasn't doing any higher
education outside of--he wasn't--no higher education, just
work. So what programs like this teach young people is that
part-time work is sustainable for life, and they can live off
of government resources.
The young man did get removed from the program because he
wasn't meeting the requirements of working 20 hours a week, and
he then fell into homelessness. But just a couple of months
later he gained full-time employment. He is now paying for his
own housing. His mental health is doing much better because he
can't sleep all day because he has to go to work.
And my husband and I see this pattern in young people again
and again and again. And the point is not that we shouldn't
help, but that there is a point when helping hurts. And it is
our responsibility, as the helper, to figure out where that
point is.
When resources are excessive, they can become enabling to
young adults and communities, because communities are then
given permission to not invest their time and energy and love
into these youth. So we need to find that fine line of giving
young adults what they need to survive in an empowering way,
rather than an enabling way.
Mr. LaHOOD. Well, Mrs. Petersen, that is a great example of
what we are focused on, on the importance of employment and the
dignity of work. And we are grateful to have you here today.
Thank you.
And I yield back.
Ms. PETERSEN. Thank you.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Thank you. I now recognize Mr.
Pascrell.
Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, you have all been first-class witnesses, and
I thank you for your courage. It takes courage to say what you
said. You hear a lot of stuff around here which passes for
courage. To me, courage means not only say it, but you do it.
That is a tough transition, isn't it, at times?
Our job--I thought our job was to protect the least of
these among us, our seniors and our children. We didn't do a
very good job on the first thing. I mean, you saw what happened
during the pandemic in those nursing homes. We don't know half
the story. We never got it.
In New Jersey I personally listen to the advocates for
Children of New Jersey, which has advocated for kids and
families since--for 177 years. This is not a partisan issue.
This is a humanitarian cause for all of us. If we agree with
that, we are halfway home.
Each of our witnesses can offer testimony on children who
navigate the foster care issue and then thrive. Thrive.
Of course, we must always be concerned about fraud and
guard against Wall Street vultures snatching public funds to
line their pockets to do what we are talking about today.
Private equity is definitely not hot, and already has a
troubling track record in new services. We cannot allow the
private equity octopus to reach its tentacles in child
services.
So Ms. Hilton, thank you for your comment that this $23
billion industry sees children as dollar signs. You wrote that
and said it. We are sending youth a signal that profit is more
important than their lives. Very well stated. Just unpack
briefly for us why the for-profit industry is so dangerous here
in what we are talking about.
Ms. HILTON. Thank you so much for that. And it is so
dangerous because they are caring more about profit than the
safety of children, and that means that they are trying to
spend as little money as possible, and the type of employees
that they are hiring are people that are not being checked
through. They are people that should be nowhere near children.
And just the entire situation, there is no education in these
places. The food quality, the living conditions, there is mold
and blood on the walls. It is horrifying, just what these
places are like. They are worse than some dog kennels that are
out there. It is just--it is terrifying.
And all of these private equity companies are seeing that
this is such a profitable industry, so they are caring more
about the bottom line than children's lives.
Mr. PASCRELL. So what you are saying, really, is there is a
vacuum here of service. We are trying to fill that vacuum, yet
other people are vacuuming up the money when they say that will
be helpful here.
Ms. HILTON. Yes.
Mr. PASCRELL. This is dangerous to me.
Ms. HILTON. Extremely.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Geen, can you expand on how we can
strengthen the pipeline for a qualified workforce? Another big
problem with senior housing and nursing homes: qualified
workers. You can't get them. Who is going to protect our
children?
Mr. GEEN. So as I said earlier, I do think that workforce
is such a critical issue because any reform you want to do is
dependent on having a qualified workforce.
I will say I believe the problem is less a recruitment than
a retention problem. Our workers take two years to learn their
jobs, from their mouths. And many of them quit within those
first two years.
Mr. PASCRELL. Why?
Mr. GEEN. They quit for many reasons. One--and we will get
into this--is the administrative burden. It is the paperwork
that they are asked to fill out when they went to school to
learn how to take care of families and to engage families and
children. And instead they are working on paperwork.
There are lots of opportunities to get workers past the
period where they are just new and learning their jobs. One of
the challenges is the loan forgiveness program that currently
exists for social workers. You have to be in your job for 10
years. Very few actually last that long. If we changed the
duration of time that that was available, we would get people
sticking it out past a year-and-a-half, two years, to the point
that they now know how to do their jobs. They can become
effective supervisors. And once they are at that point, they
are much more likely to make that job a career.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, it is a practical
recommendation. Could we put it under review for the committee?
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. You will want to talk to the full
committee chairman about that, but----
Mr. PASCRELL. You are the chairman right now. [Laughter.]
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Well, I appreciate this hearing, and
I think it is very productive, and we will get a lot of work
done as a result.
Mr. PASCRELL. Okay, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Dr. Wenstrup, you are now recognized
for five minutes.
Mr. WENSTRUP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is something
that is very passionate to me, and I think it is vital that we
learn from programs that have found some success.
You know, but what is success? You just mentioned it is not
paperwork. It is not getting paperwork done. That is not
success. And often we vote for bills that sound real good, they
have a really nice-sounding title, but they don't really bring
the success that we should be looking at and what we are
talking about today.
You talked about succeeding in a family, and I want to add
to that. Succeeding in a family, even if you never had one
growing up, that is where success comes in, in my opinion.
You know, and there is a difference between government
oversight and a non-profit oversight, because the things I have
been involved in, you know, when you are a donor to that non-
profit, you take a role in oversight because you care, and
there is volunteer oversight that is involved. And those are
the right motives for what we are trying to do, you know, we
visit, we get to know the children. We look for evidence-based
solutions and, again, with a different definition of success,
rather than it just being paperwork. And the idea that--moving
from one chaos to another is just so heart wrenching.
You know, I have been a lot of things. I have been a big
brother. Gosh, I have always been looking for opportunities for
people that would not normally have them. And what we are
talking about is an opportunity for a loving, caring,
developing, and stable environment, especially for those that
rarely get that opportunity. And my wife and I, we have a 10-
year-old son and a six-year-old adopted daughter. It is one of
the most beautiful things we have been able to do.
But I want to talk about the agency we used. So the woman
who runs it, she is an attorney. She is an adopted mother of
two. And she decided to become an adoption professional. And I
have a letter from her that I will like to submit for the for
the record here today.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7158A.021
Mr. WENSTRUP. They talk about voluntary surrenders of
children from their biological parents and making the best
connection. In every situation they say we place the best
interest of the child at the center of our decisions. And we
see our role as a lifelong commitment to the children we have
placed and the adoptive families that we have served. There is
no aging out. There is no aging out. And we have a relationship
with the birth mother. What child doesn't want more people
loving them?
So there are a lot of different situations that exist. We
have to have flexibility. You have to gear it towards the
child, the child's needs, and what is going to work best for
everyone involved.
I am involved with something in Cincinnati, I have for 30
years or so, Boys Hope Girls Hope. And this is a program that--
it is a combination of what we talk about. You still have the
family involved, and yet we get a better environment. And so
parents say, I want my child in this program, and basically we
call it a scholarship.
And as early as fourth grade, because the home situation is
not good, the child lives in a home where they are mentored,
where they are safe, where they are stable, where they are
developed, and they go to good schools. And this is all
private. And we see them through high school, college, and they
come back. It is part of a family, and their families are
involved. There is the Thanksgiving party, the Christmas party.
They go home on the weekends. But we have turned this into a
scholarship, and these kids are proud. There are opportunities
all over the place. And yes, it is faith-based, but we don't
proselytize. You don't make someone join your religion or
anything like that. But it is those Christian values, Judeo-
Christian values that are in place that make the difference.
I see you nodding. First of all, I am so proud you are from
Ohio. Thanks for being my neighbor. But I just want to say,
what are some of the things you would recommend to states, if
they have flexibility with the dollars they get, to enhance
successful programs, and maybe specifically through Title IV-B?
Ms. PETERSEN. I would love to see organizations do more job
shadowing for youth, bringing them along. Like I said earlier,
foster youth need more opportunities. They need to be shown
what they are capable of. And so I would love to see more job
shadowing from organizations.
And something that my church did was they invested in me
before I aged out of the system. So I think that we talk about
the foster care system and how to support youth a lot, like,
once they age out. And that is actually a very reactive
solution. These children deserve us to be proactive for them.
And so we need to be serving them and reaching them before they
age out of the system.
And so one of the things that my church did was they
actually covered for me--they paid for me to go through this
financial budgeting program. They prepared me. So by the time
that I was aged out, I had had money saved up. By the time that
I was aged out, I knew what a budget was, I knew what
investment was, and I knew how to manage my life as an adult
because of the work that was done before I was an adult.
Mr. WENSTRUP. Well, I would like just to finish with a
quote I heard from a caregiver 100 years ago or more: ``There
are no bad children, only bad environments, bad training, bad
example, bad thinking.''
With that I yield back.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Thank you. I now recognize Mr.
Davis.
Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I certainly thank
Chairman Smith for holding this hearing, and all of the
witnesses for sharing your experiences as well as your
expertise.
Ms. Hilton, let me especially thank you for sharing your
experiences and raising the issues in residential care
settings. And I would certainly like to work with you to try
and help reduce and alleviate them.
I also want to thank you, Mr. Geen and Mrs. Petersen.
Ms. Mansfield, let me thank you for being here and for the
amazing work that you do for our children in Illinois. You and
I have both experienced how it feels to bring children to visit
their incarcerated parents, and it is amazing to watch those
families be reunited. As a matter of fact, I and a coalition of
community agencies just returned on Saturday from visiting the
Sheridan facility as part of Fatherhood Week and Fatherhood
Day, and it was off the charts.
But as you know, Chairman LaHood and I have introduced
legislation to authorize new demonstration projects to identify
and implement best practices in helping foster youth develop
and maintain meaningful relationships with their incarcerated
parents. Can you tell us more about why connecting with their
parents who are incarcerated is especially important for foster
youth, even though they are not going to be able to live with
them for a while?
Ms. MANSFIELD. Thank you for that question, Congressman
Davis, and thank you in particular for your continuous support
of families impacted by parental incarceration.
For many years, I was, as I said, a teacher in your
district for eight years, and I know the amazing work that you
have done for families.
You know, as we talked about before, parental incarceration
is an adverse childhood experience, as is being in foster care.
And so for any child having that separation from a parent can
be traumatic, and can have very long-lasting impact, but
particularly for children who are not with a biological family
member. And that is where foster care and incarceration can
really intersect, that when a parent is incarcerated, typically
children are with family members, but it is far less likely
when that child then is in foster care. And so it is really
important for children in foster care to have someone connected
to them that they can feel like they can rely on. And they are
even more in need of those connections.
There is often an element of self-blame that goes along
with children who are experiencing either parental
incarceration or who are in foster care. They often feel like
maybe this is part of their fault, in particular for children
of incarcerated mothers who are involved in the foster care
system because we know that foster care cases--that indications
of parents about 30 percent of the time also indicate a parent
who is experiencing abuse, that a lot of times it is because
the parent is themself the victim of domestic violence that the
children are then taken away, and then the children can blame
themselves for what happened.
And so leading children to these experiences and giving
them the reassurances that their parents are okay, that they
might have been being harmed but now they are okay, or their
parent doesn't blame them, that they are not abandoned, that
they are still loved is really important, and it can predict
success long term, not just for the children but for the
parents, as well.
Mr. DAVIS. Let me ask you, given your knowledge of these
programs and your history of engagement, should this grant
program be developed? What kind of activities would you like to
see take place?
Ms. MANSFIELD. I could give you a very long list of the
activities that we would like to do, from small things to big
things.
I can share that I just--we just did a Father's Day program
recently, where face painting was the number-one thing that
kids wanted to do. It was very exciting. But what I really want
to see are some of the activities that we already do, but with
increased frequency and span. What we do right now, if we are
just looking at this one program, we do it monthly when we can.
But even then, there is a wait list, and that is just from
coming from one region of one state and going to a state
facility, not even looking at the Federal facility.
We need to expand these programs to everywhere. We need to
make them available, especially as we look at the benefits of
having community-based, smaller facilities closer to
communities. We need to be able to provide those opportunities
for everyone.
I would like to see opportunities for older children. We
have been talking a lot about youth aging out of care. Children
don't stop being children when they hit 18, and a lot of the
programs that exist right now, they are for a very limited age
range. Some of these summer camps, for example, for children in
foster care or children of incarcerated parents, they might be,
like, 8 to 12 years old. We need to expand that. Our program
does not have an age limit. We have 27-year-olds who go to see
their parents sometimes, and they will cry more than a small
child because they still need their parents.
So I would like to see those types of activities, and I
would also like to see supportive activities like parenting
classes, therapy, and groups for children and for parents to be
able to experience things together and to be able to talk
through their feelings and what they are experiencing.
Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much. Our time has expired.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Thank you, Mr. Davis. I now
recognize Mr. Arrington for five minutes.
Mr. ARRINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to our witnesses for your passion and your
commitment to being a voice for America's most vulnerable,
probably the true forgotten people in this country. Thanks for
giving them voice. Thanks for remembering them and helping us
to remember that we need to put our very best forward to
improve this system. Government can't do everything, but what
we do ought to be effective, and people ought to be
accountable, and we ought to have the highest standards, and
that is what I am hearing from each and every one of you. And
so thank you again. God bless you. Paris may be known more than
any of you, but you are all stars, every one of you, okay?
Now, Ms. Hilton, you talked about the several pieces of
legislation that you have worked on throughout the country in
various states. And so--and you mentioned that you had some
folks checking on you that saved you from further abuse in the
system. And you said, ``Can you imagine what it would be like
if you didn't have parents and family who were checking on
you?'' So let's talk about how we check on these vulnerable
people in this system at the state level, and then I will get
to the role of the federal government.
What is your experience in terms of the best practices
around checking, oversight, and accountability? Just give me a
few ideas that we could consider as best practices throughout
the many states in this great country.
Ms. HILTON. Well, for me, all of my outside contact was
completely controlled, and they would always have a staff
member sitting right next to me. So if I said even one negative
thing about the facility, they immediately would hang up the
phone, and then I would be punished and either physically
beaten or thrown into solitary confinement, and then they would
take away my phone privileges and not let me speak to my
parents, so they had no idea what was happening because they
were continually being lied and manipulated by the staff that
were trained to do that.
And there were other children in there, there were foster
children, and they had nobody to call, no one to talk to. So
all of the kids in these places, they are not able to speak to
their families without someone sitting right next to them, so
it is really difficult to be able to tell anyone what is
happening in the outside world. And then a lot of these kids
are not believed because these places tell the parents, oh,
they are going to be lying, they are manipulating you, they
want to go home.
So it is--I think it is really important that children are
able to speak to their families without someone sitting
directly next to them, or they can have unmonitored phone calls
with their family. And if they don't have a family member, that
they should have someone on the outside world that they could
talk to. Because otherwise, these children are in there and
they have no voice, no one believes them, and it is extremely
isolating. And it is extremely traumatic, and that is why I
want to continue advocating for the Stop Institutional Child
Abuse Act, as well, because children need to have the right to
speak to someone to tell them what is happening.
Mr. ARRINGTON. Thank you.
Ms. HILTON. Thank you.
Mr. ARRINGTON. And thanks for sharing your story today.
Ms. HILTON. Thank you.
Mr. ARRINGTON. Mrs. Petersen, I am very encouraged and
inspired by your boldness, your unabashed pride and joy for the
love of your life which is Jesus, our Savior. And I just love
when I hear somebody sharing how their Heavenly Father
intervened. Not the system, not a program, but the God of all
creation who knows your name and touched your heart and changed
your life.
Ms. PETERSEN. Yes.
Mr. ARRINGTON. And by the way, that is the story of every
Christian sinner saved by grace. Amen?
Ms. PETERSEN. Yes, amen.
Mr. ARRINGTON. Okay, I will get off my--that is a--I got
that Baptist boy still trapped.
Ms. PETERSEN. You do, yes.
Mr. ARRINGTON. I let him out every now and then at these
hearings. But you brought him out today.
But I want to--this is maybe a little bit of a tangent, but
I want you to speak to this because you mentioned the verse in
James. And when I think about that verse, pure religion, a
religion that is pure and undefiled, is----
Ms. PETERSEN. Care for the orphans and the widows.
Mr. ARRINGTON. Those that care for the orphan and widow. I
always took that as the mission of the church, and I find
that--or I observe that over time the church has ceded to the
state, that instead of the tithe that goes to the church, and
the church that has that connectivity that you mentioned, that
relationship, meeting those deeper needs--that is how it used
to be. And I feel like the church has moved away from that, and
now we pay taxes to the state, and now the state is doing all
this work, and I am not sure they can ever do it quite like the
church used to do it. And is that a philosophy that you could--
that you share, or that you could at least just opine on
briefly?
And then I will yield, I am--my time has expired. But Mr.
Chairman, if you will let her just answer that question.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Proceed.
Ms. PETERSEN. Yes, I think--as I look back on my
experience, I know that I--my experience in my community and at
my church was unique. They lived out what they preached. They
lived out what Christians are meant to live out. And I don't
think, unfortunately, that we always see that.
But I remember, you know, looking at my congregation and
seeing all the adopted children. I remember on--we didn't
call--we don't call Orphan Sunday Orphan Sunday, we call it the
Long Sunday, because that is what it should be. And we had this
language in our church specifically for kids in foster care
because we cared about them. My church did trainings around
trauma because when the kids came in, they wanted to be able to
care for them. And so I know that this experience is very
unique, but I hope that what people hear today is that more
churches need to pick up the mantle and carry this out.
And I would just love to also echo Paris for a bit when she
was talking about those visits. I just think it is a really
important point because us, as foster parents, when our
caseworkers come to visit our teen daughter, they don't ask to
talk to her by herself. When I was in foster care there was so
little accountability. I saw abuse in foster care, I was abused
in foster care, and no one asked me, ``Can I talk to you by
yourself?'' You know, they asked the questions to the foster
parent, and it is very easy to say all of the right things. It
is a lot harder if--I think that it would--we would benefit a
lot--abuse would be minimal, limited, few if homes were
actually observed, rather than just visits were, ``Let's sit
down and talk,'' because we can make up a lot of things. We can
say what is--what they want to hear. But it is a lot harder to
show them that you are not living and caring for kids with
integrity if you are not.
Mr. ARRINGTON. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Thank you. I now recognize Ms.
Sewell for five minutes.
Ms. SEWELL. Thank you so much. I want to thank all of our
witnesses today, especially those who gave such heartfelt
testimonials of your own personal experience.
Before I came to Congress, I didn't know much about the
foster care system, but I have to tell you my classmate and a
former colleague of ours, Karen Bass, took it on as her cause
celebre, and she started the Congressional Foster Care Caucus,
of which I am a member. And every year for the last seven years
we have a shadow day, where we have a foster youth shadow us.
And I have learned so much from my foster youth that have
shadowed me for that day. It is a day long, and it is on the
Senate side and the House side. For those members who are not
signed up to have a shadow, a foster youth to shadow, I would
recommend the program, and I would recommend the Caucus.
I know that Title IV-B is not perfect, and we know that it
is up for reauthorization. So I wanted to ask both Mrs.
Petersen as well as Ms. Hilton, what one big reform would you
like to see?
And yes, that is my question. If you had to just sum it up
to one thing that you would like to reform in section IV-B.
Now, I know, Mrs. Petersen, you also talked about IV-E.
Ms. PETERSEN. Yes.
Ms. SEWELL. So I will just say section 4.
Ms. PETERSEN. Yes, I would love to see more--other--outside
of what I have already spoken about, to add to that is that I
would just love to see more services in terms of mental health
because, when I was in the foster care system, one of the--as a
child, one of the things that I found really difficult was to
attach to my foster parents.
And now, as a foster parent, I know what is considered to
be attachment theory. And so it is about the different ways
that parents attach to their children and children attach to
parents. And as a foster parent what I have learned, and what
is kind of taboo to say, is that when you are a foster parent
this attachment doesn't always happen instantaneously. You have
to really work at it, and it is for the child and for the
parent.
And so what happens is that children receive this big gap
in connectedness, this big gap in attachment. But that
attachment--someone referred the first 1,000 days, right, like
of life. The attachment in those first 1,000 days is
absolutely----
Ms. SEWELL. Critical.
Ms. PETERSEN. Crucial.
Ms. SEWELL. Yes.
Ms. PETERSEN. Critical to the development of children, no
matter what age they are.
Ms. SEWELL. Right.
Ms. PETERSEN. And so I would love to see----
Ms. SEWELL. That is a good point.
Ms. PETERSEN [continuing]. Just more education on
attachment theory. How do we do it well? How do we continue to
work at it when it doesn't come naturally? And how do we
reverse, you know, that trauma that comes from the
disconnectedness?
Ms. SEWELL. Thanks. If you had a magic wand and could do
one reform for Title IV, what would it be?
Ms. HILTON. My wish would be that children would not be put
into facilities in the first place. I think it should be about
community-based care, and children shouldn't be put in places
and be more traumatized than when they came out, so I think
that that is just crucial. And having family-based care and
just not having them even get into the system in the first
place.
Ms. SEWELL. Thank you.
Ms. HILTON. It is so important.
Ms. SEWELL. Ms. Mansfield, can you talk a--I know you know
about the government programs for incarcerated persons with
children in the foster care system. Can you talk about some of
the private--public-private partnerships that you know about
that also help?
Ms. MANSFIELD. Yes, thank you, Congresswoman.
There are some programs, but they are few and far between.
There just are not very many. But I have seen the benefit of
public-private partnerships, certainly. Like at the Women's
Justice Institute, we have a grant through Cook County Health
that is funded by SAMHSA.
Ms. SEWELL. Yes.
Ms. MANSFIELD. And that grant allows us to provide client
care coordination for women leaving jail or prison with
substance use disorders. And the program is led by a formerly
incarcerated woman, and all of our client care coordinators are
also formerly incarcerated, and this wouldn't be possible
without those public-private partnerships. And it allows us to
move really quickly in response to needs, but also to make use
of Cook County Health's--like, their expertise and their
resources. And I think that that is possible when we are
speaking about these types of partnerships, as well.
I mentioned that the Reunification Ride is one example of a
program. I cannot have foster children participate because we
cannot find private insurance that allows foster children to
take part. And if we could leverage the public resources, we
could use that insurance that is available. We could be under
that auspice, and then foster children would be able to
participate.
And I think that we also can meet some of those staffing
shortages that are occurring in the Department of Corrections
and departments of Children and Family Services or other child
welfare agencies, where there are staff shortages and also that
turnover that was mentioned before. And so, as a private
organization, we can help to have these programs in those non-
profits. In addition, we can have the expertise that is needed
for things like child welfare to have the child development
angle, all of those things.
And also, just the last thing is these programs often don't
exist or they exist in very limited ways because we don't have
the funding, and we don't have the assurance that it is going
to continue. And one of the most damaging things to children is
when they have one visit and they don't know when the next is
going to be. And we don't want to have where we scrape together
enough money to get there one time, and then we can't come back
like we see with so many different programs.
And so those are some of the powers that could happen with
this.
Ms. SEWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing us to exceed
our time. Thank you.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Thank you. I now recognize Dr.
Ferguson for five minutes.
Mr. FERGUSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to echo a chorus of thank yous to each of you for
coming today. I know sometimes witnesses may wonder if their
presence here matters. And whether it is in this hearing room
or whether you are coming to our congressional offices, you
being able to tell that story to us matters. So thank you for
doing that. Thank you for helping us do the right thing on
behalf of this country.
Yes, your stories, in which--particularly Mrs. Petersen and
Ms. Hilton--in which the way you tell them, the grace with
which you present them, probably belies a lot of the pain and
the hurt that preceded you being here today. So thank you for
having the courage to do it, and thank you for being so candid
with us. I want to start with a couple of questions here.
And Mrs. Petersen, I will start with you. You have talked a
lot today in your testimony and also in response to questions
about this cliff that so many people hit when they turn 18, and
then there is an expectation of work and productivity and
leading life. And you have spoken very eloquently about how
important it is to have that work and those steps going
forward.
I was particularly interested in the piece that you talked
about with your own experience of understanding a budget and
understanding, you know, how to move forward. I think that is
really important when you look at trying to break the cycles of
poverty. But I would--tell me your thoughts on not only
teaching that to our foster children but, in many cases, to the
parent, to the foster parents that are there, as well. Because
all too often, many of our foster families, you know, suffer
from lack of financial knowledge and financial resources, as
well. I would be happy if you could comment on not only the
need to--financial literacy with foster youth, but the families
that are taking care of them.
Ms. PETERSEN. Yes, well, first I want to say thank you for
acknowledging that telling our stories is hard. But I also want
to say that, you know, being able to do this is so healing.
When you see that the worst parts of your life, and the worst
things that you have been through, and all your pain might be
able to be used for some kind of good, it is a very healing
experience. So thank you.
Yes, in terms of foster parents needing financial literacy,
I haven't seen that or necessarily experienced that, so that is
something that is needed. But what I--you know, we know that 30
to 50 percent of foster parents quit within the first year. It
is so hard to retain foster parents, and that is because of all
of the things that are required of us.
I love being a foster parent, but it is actually the--
probably the most frustrating thing that I have ever done, and
it has actually completely changed my perspective of my foster
parents. I think I used to be a lot harder on them, and now I
realize that I think they did actually quite well with what
they had, considering everything that they--all the red tape
and all the requirements that they had to meet. And I know
those things are for liability and accountability, and they
very much are needed, but I say all this because I think when
we are talking about what do we need to support youth as they
age out of care, we need to meet them, again, before they are
aging out, and we need more foster parents. My husband and I
have to say no to a foster placement every week----
Mr. FERGUSON. Thank you, Mrs. Petersen.
Ms. PETERSEN. And it is devastating, but we can't do it
all.
Mr. FERGUSON. Thank you. I am going to--if I could, because
I have got a--I want to move on to another question.
Ms. Hilton, I have--you know, it is--something that
concerns me greatly is the mental health of our youth in
general, but it is also very challenging in the foster care
program. And there seems to be a major problem with just over-
prescribing psychotropic drugs, and just saying, here is a
handful of pills. Can you share with the committee your
experience with that?
And do you think that that is a problem in our system
today, and what you think you should do to correct that, or
what we should do to correct that?
Ms. HILTON. I think it is a huge problem. Before I went to
Provo Canyon School, the only medication I had ever taken was a
Tylenol or an Advil for a headache. I had never been on any
medications that they prescribed, which weren't even prescribed
by a doctor.
And every morning, every lunch, every afternoon they would
give us all a cup full of pills. I had no idea what they were.
All I know is that I would feel dizzy, I would feel--my memory
would be gone. It was almost like they were just trying to make
everyone like zombies. It was just very concerning. And I think
that they are definitely abusing that power, where they are
just giving children medication that they don't need. And I
think that is something that really needs to be looked into
because I think----
Mr. FERGUSON. Well, one answer--and Mr. Chairman, if I--if
you could indulge me here for just a few seconds, we have a--
one of our colleagues, Mrs. Steel, has a bill that addresses
this on foster youth mental health support, and it really does
try to address some of these standards. So I would like to
commend my colleague from California for taking up--taking this
up, and we need to be supportive of her bill.
Again, thank you all for being here. Thank you for telling
the stories and helping us be better at what we do up here.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. PETERSEN. Thank you.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Thank you, Dr. Ferguson. And
pursuant to committee practice, we will now move to two to one
questioning. So I will recognize Mr. Smucker, followed by Ms.
Chu.
Mr. SMUCKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
chairman holding this hearing today.
And I would like to, as others have mentioned, thank the
witnesses for traveling here to share your stories and share
your experiences with the child welfare system. And I will say
again what others have said. We can all agree that one of the
most meaningful aspects of our work in this committee is the
opportunity to work on legislation to help more kids in the
child welfare system.
The changes that we are talking about today won't just
impact those who have been directly involved with Child
Protective Services, but also any child, family, or individual
that is in danger of entering the child welfare system. Over
the years we have reformed our programs to engage with families
before children need to be removed from their homes, and we all
know that leads to much better outcomes all around.
Certainly, every child deserves a safe and loving home, and
here on this committee we have an opportunity to advance
legislation that can help make this a reality for more
children.
Mrs. Petersen, I want to talk briefly about a bill that I
have introduced. We know that kinship care providers play an
essential role in caring for children, and they do so many
times without access to resources that they wish they had. The
bill that I have introduced that hopefully gets included in a
package we do here, the Empowering Kinship Caregivers and Youth
Act, clarifies that kinship caregivers are eligible for
services under Title IV-B, and I just wonder if you could talk
a little bit about that.
I know you have had access to services and supports and
maybe supports that you didn't receive, and just talk about the
importance of kinship care being eligible for coverage.
Ms. PETERSEN. Yes, that bill sounds like a very important
one. Thank you for working on that.
Our family has never received any resources or assistance
from the government for the kinship care that we provide. When
my sibling started living with us, we tried to reach out to
human services to officially become kinship caregivers and get
access to those resources. But we weren't considered a priority
because they knew my sibling was safe and already living with
us. We never received a response, a court date, not a paper to
sign, and our other options would be to hire a lawyer to serve
papers to get their attention. But I wasn't willing to give
human services any more of my time because I gave them enough
of that as a youth.
My husband and I were in our mid-twenties when we took in
my sibling, still very much establishing our lives, and it
wasn't easy, especially in the beginning, but we knew we would
make it work, like many kinship care providers do, no matter
what. My sibling did graduate high school this year, and will
be headed to college in the fall.
And the greatest injustice to us not receiving those
services from the county and being ignored is that--it was
actually to my sibling because, though she has lived with us
for years now, if the county would have documented her in our
care the way they should have, she would be receiving financial
assistance with college. But because we were ignored, my
sibling does not qualify for the financial help that she should
be receiving for college, and we didn't realize that would be a
consequence that she would face when we didn't put up a fight.
Mr. SMUCKER. Thank you. I am going to go to one additional
question for Mr. Geen.
I have heard--and I want to get your thoughts on this--
certainly, we want accountability for child welfare agencies in
our communities and states. But I have also heard the
paperwork, the federal reporting requirements are burdensome,
they are tedious. And I have introduced another bill which
would call for an evaluation of the requirements and reporting
for the Title IV-B dollars with a goal of reducing that burden
by at least 15 percent.
If we were successful--first, do you agree that that is an
issue?
And then, if we were successful in reducing paperwork by
that amount, how could they use that time to better support the
individuals in our communities?
Mr. GEEN. So the administrative burden you talk about is a
theme that we heard a lot of during our landscape assessment.
And that burden not only affects workers' ability to spend time
with families, it affects their morale and the likelihood of
them turning over.
But the biggest complaint we heard about the administrative
burden is that it is largely unrelated to accountability. So
much of what we collect are process measures that feel like
checking boxes, rather than truly holding agencies accountable
for outcomes. So there certainly seems like there is an
opportunity to both reduce administrative burden and focus on
accountability more, recognizing that our data systems right
now don't do a good job of always tracking the outcomes that we
experience.
Mr. SMUCKER. Thank you for that answer. I hope we can take
this opportunity to streamline that, and ensure that the
accountability still exists but we can eliminate some of those
tedious requirements. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SMITH [presiding]. Thank you.
Ms. Chu.
Ms. CHU. Ms. Hilton, I want to thank you for using your
high visibility to give voice to the voiceless. By doing that
you are going to help so many thousands of youth that would
otherwise be forgotten. And I was very moved by your testimony.
I could not believe the horrific conditions that you faced in
those facilities.
And I want to thank you for saying that you believe that
Title IV-B should be reauthorized. There is a debate in this
committee on whether the funding should just remain the same,
or whether it should be increased. It has remained flat since
2006. So people who are using Title IV-B have to really scrape
by. So what do you think about the funding of Title IV-B?
Should it be increased so that we can make a difference in
preventing children and families from coming into contact with
the child welfare system?
Ms. HILTON. Thank you so much. And yes, I do believe that
they should be increased, and I think that community-based
supports and resources are vitally needed, which is why we
should support the Title IV-B reauthorization.
And we know that community-based prevention support helps
families before they even come in contact with the child
welfare system, and that will keep children out of facilities.
So yes.
Ms. CHU. Thank you for that.
Ms. HILTON. Thank you.
Ms. CHU. Mr. Geen, I wanted to have you make some comments
about the Indian Child Welfare Act, or what we call ICWA. This
requires Native American children to be placed first with
extended family and then with tribes so that they don't lose
their cultural identity. And that was passed in 1973. In 1994
Congress added a Title IV-B plan requirement, directing states
to develop an 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 injury and longer lengths of stay. In fact, in
California they are 4.5 times more likely to enter care than
their counterparts, despite being a smaller portion of the
population. And that is because, despite the requirement under
Title IV-B, federal oversight of states' compliance with this
requirement is unclear and not always exercised. And that is
why I have introduced a bipartisan bill, the Strengthening
Tribal Families Act, along with Representative Don Bacon, to
direct HHS to assess how state child welfare agencies are
implementing federal protections for tribal children, as laid
out in Title IV-B.
Can you talk about how this would help states and improve
outcomes for tribal children and families?
Mr. GEEN. So I don't claim to be a tribal expert, but I
will say over the past year and a half we looked at legislation
in all 50 states and what was introduced, and it was striking
to see how many states have introduced legislation protecting
and strengthening the Indian Child Welfare Act bills on both
Republican and Democratic dockets.
There is no doubt that, if you talk to tribes, they will
talk about the need to strengthen ICWA. The field generally
looks at ICWA as best practice not just for Indian children,
but for all children. And so it is certainly something that is
needed.
Ms. CHU. And I would like to go back to Title IV-B, Mr.
Geen. There are improvements that could be made in this
reauthorization. In fact, I have got a couple of bills, the
Helping Hands for Families Act, which I am sponsoring with
Congressmember Carol Miller, which would allow states to use
Title IV-B to access online portals that connect families with
local resources, as well as the Court Improvement Program
Enhancement Act, which I am co-leading with Congressmember
Blake Moore, which would provide additional resources to allow
court proceedings to take place virtually.
And there are also problems with workers and burnout. There
is, in fact, a tremendous burnout problem with workers, which
also could be addressed with Title IV-B. Could you address
these issues?
Mr. GEEN. Let me tackle the court improvement first, and
that is that I see the court improvement program as one of the
real successes of the Title IV-B program. IV-B provides both
the flexibility that states need, but also it provides the
opportunity for Congress to have set-asides for key issues that
have been under-invested in. And if you take a look at the
success of the court improvement program, you see how it is
impacting the quality of hearings every day in the United
States.
The courts certainly learned during the COVID crisis about
remote hearings, and yet they are also not a panacea. We do
need to make sure that, if we use those type of remote
hearings, they are done in a quality way, and it requires the
training of judges and other court personnel to make sure that
children and parents' rights are protected.
Ms. CHU. Thank you, I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Mr. Estes is recognized.
Mr. ESTES. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
all our witnesses for being here today and for all the work
that you do to help youth and their opportunity that they have.
And thank you, Ms. Hilton, for all of your work with the
Stop Institutional Child Abuse Act.
And it is great for us in this hearing today to be able to
talk about the committee's continuing effort to build a society
and a culture that values life. These hearings--and through
legislation we are uncovering ways we, as a society, can better
support children, parents, and families.
I want to start by sharing a little bit of a story about a
family in my 4th congressional district in Kansas. My
constituent, Bruce, is a loving grandfather who happens to be
blind. When Bruce's son lost custody of his children, Bruce
stepped in to care for his grandchild--or grandchildren. These
children became some of the more than 2.5 million children
across the country who are cared for by family members and
grandparents, which is a great advantage. Placing children in
kinship care reduces trauma, and provides a higher chance of
reunification with parents.
As Bruce sought custody with his grandchildren, however, he
encountered significant difficulties, one due to his age and--
but also his blindness, even though he was well equipped to
lovingly care for his grandchildren. These unnecessary hurdles
to kinship care--that the kinship care process added to the
uncertainty of Bruce grandchildren--Bruce's grandchildren were
already dealing with. Thankfully, in the end, Bruce was able to
gain custody of his children.
I am glad Bruce and his family reached this positive
outcome, but I know about other grandparents or aunts and
uncles or siblings in similar situation for whom things have
turned out differently, those who didn't know how to advocate
for themselves and their young, vulnerable family members in
order to help keep them and help care for their family. Bruce's
story underscores the burdens to kinship care that we should
examine and correct, and that is why we are here today with our
panel of witnesses to discuss how we can improve the kinship
care process.
When a child is no longer able to be in the care of his or
her parents, every effort should be made to keep the child
within the family, assuming those relatives are well disposed
to care for the children. Mrs. Petersen, I know you have direct
experience with the foster care children, and you have covered
a lot of things today, as well as dealing with the kinship care
process. Can you describe the challenges you faced in going
through the kinship care process?
Ms. PETERSEN. Yes. As I stated before, just being ignored,
not having access to resources, not being made a priority
because they knew my sister was safe. It definitely has been an
uphill battle to advocate for our family but, more importantly,
to advocate for her. I do think that kinship families are
often--kinship providers are looked at as lower priority than
foster parents and adoptive parents, and that can be really
challenging.
Mr. ESTES. Well, and thank you for sharing your personal
story with us today and all the details.
And it is an issue that in my home state of Kansas we have
run into a lot over the last several years in terms of how do
we make sure that we do the best job that we can for the
children in our care.
I mean, I know at times different barriers come from a good
place, wanting to make sure that we protect and ensure the
well-being of children, but too often they end up causing more
problems and lead to adverse outcomes. Mr. Geen, how do we
strike that balance between ensuring the safety and well-being
of children without putting in place unnecessary barriers for
things like kinship care when this is the best option for the
children?
Mr. GEEN. It is the best option, and I do think research
clearly shows that children are safer in kinship care, and
their well-being is better in kinship care.
The question is the licensing process. Fortunately, HHS has
new regulations out that give states flexibility in designing
kin-specific licensing standards, and hopefully states will
take advantage of that.
When there is a concern that a kin can't care for a child,
as in your example, what can be put into the home to make it
safe? Rather than just say it is not acceptable, work with the
kinship caregiver. If they don't have the right space or don't
have the right equipment, then provide that, rather than cancel
them out as an option.
Mr. ESTES. Yes, and thank you. And thank you for all the
panelists.
Ms. Mansfield, did you want to add to that?
Ms. MANSFIELD. Would you mind if I added something to that?
Mr. ESTES. Yes, please. Go ahead.
Ms. MANSFIELD. I just wanted to add that one of the
challenges that I often see is--for the families that we work
with and for our own staff, which is at the Women's Justice
Institute, mainly formerly incarcerated--that criminal records
can be a huge issue, that somebody--a grandparent might have
had a conviction 20, 30 years ago, and now they are not allowed
to be a kinship placement for their grandchildren, or somebody
for their sibling, something completely unrelated to the
children. We put these barriers in the way, and then the
kinship caregivers don't seek to get assistance because they
are scared the children will be removed from them because of
these unnecessary barriers, looking at somebody's record
instead of their ability to care for a child.
Mr. ESTES. Yes, and thank you all for what you have
covered. You covered a wide variety of issues that deal with
how do we best care for children.
And with that I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you.
Mrs. Miller.
Mrs. MILLER. Thank you, Chairman Smith.
And I want to thank all four of you, as we say at home, all
y'all. Your stories, your information, and your feedback is so
important to us to help--I am not sure we are solving this as
cracking open such a huge, huge issue.
I am a wife, a mother, and a grandmother, which is really
cool. But my boys were in lots and lots of sports, and I never
knew how many feet would be underneath my table at dinner.
Many, many nights there were a lot of extra feet. I had a
couple rules. One was no hat on your head, you had to wear a
shirt, and you had to say grace. And so I have always had an
empathy for children who may have just been hungry, but the
social welfare that we have for our kids, the system, is so
important to me, and I am encouraged that our committee is
willing to take the necessary steps to discuss what needs to
happen.
Many children entering the child welfare system have an
urgent material need that can be addressed without direct
government intervention. In West Virginia, where I am from, 53
percent of our foster children are cared for by relatives,
often older grandparents like me, who are retired, and they
struggle to afford unexpected expenses, things like car seats,
you know, formula, things that haven't been in their venue for
a while. And given the rural nature of my state, accessing so
many of these much-needed resources can be very challenging.
I introduced H.R. 476, the Helping Hands Family Act, with
Representative Chu, as she mentioned earlier, to be able to use
the electronic services and tools that connect families to the
essential services that support them online. Mr. Geen, do you
believe that providing more flexibility in how Title IV-B
services are delivered could better serve the families,
particularly in rural areas like West Virginia?
Mr. GEEN. So there is no doubt in my mind that the type of
coordination and navigation you are talking about is essential,
essential for the birth parents, essential for the kinship
caregivers.
My understanding or my read of Title IV-B would say that it
is already something that is allowable. So clarifying that with
HHS might be a first step.
Mrs. MILLER. Thank you for that. I think flexibility within
Title IV-B is hugely important.
Another policy that I have worked on with my colleagues
would be providing additional flexibility within the Court
Improvement Program. The Court Improvement Program helps courts
conduct hearings on child abuse and neglect in a timely manner,
and provides training to judges with trauma-informed care. This
will ensure that children who enter these courts have the
support that they so desperately need.
Along with Representatives Blake and Chu, I introduced the
Court Improvement Program Enhancement Act, and it will allow
CIP funds to be used towards improving technology support for
remote hearings, and allow state courts to use the CIP funds to
improve parent, family, and youth engagement in their child
welfare proceedings.
Once again, Mr. Geen, can you speak to the importance of
ensuring that everyone involved, like in child welfare
proceedings, is appropriately trained, and how more remote
hearing flexibilities would allow for a better overall outcome?
Mr. GEEN. Yes, I think that child welfare system as a whole
learned a lot during COVID. The courts, absolutely. And many
courts experimented with remote hearings. And my reading of the
experience is that it was mixed. They definitely appreciated
the opportunity, and it is a vital component moving forward,
but it is not a catch-all. It is not a silver bullet. Just
because we have a remote hearing doesn't make it a high-quality
hearing.
And so we need to keep a close eye on what those hearings
look like, and make sure that everyone involved is trained to
use the technology in a way that we are treating families
fairly. But as an option, absolutely.
Mrs. MILLER. Thank you so much.
I would like to turn to you, Ms. Hilton, now. First and
foremost, thank you for using your platform and personal story
to bring attention to such troubling experiences that so many
youth are actually facing in our foster and residential
treatment homes. It is critical that we keep the well-being of
children at the forefront of all these discussions, and you
have been tireless in turning your personal trauma into
advocacy on the behalf of troubled youth.
And we hear a lot about the increase in mental health
disorders in youth, including disorders like ADHD, depression,
anxiety, suicide. In my home state of West Virginia, we also
struggle with high rates of substance disorder children, and
have been fighting the opioid epidemic for years and years and
years. And far too many young children are struggling with
mental health and unable to get the support they need. Parents
are often at a loss as to how to help their children, and they
don't really know how to access.
How do you think we can improve the support we give to
teens and youth to help them cope, and to have a healthy
transition into adulthood, especially when you are talking
about foster youth who have already had so much trauma?
Ms. HILTON. Well, thank you so much, and I am grateful that
we are having this discussion to figure out what kids need.
I think that the first step is asking the youth. We should
prioritize lived experience voices to ensure that we truly
understand what could help them, and then figure out how to do
that.
I believe youth need access to mental health in their
communities, mentorship, and community. We do have a mental
health crisis for our kids, and it scares me for my own
children. I am confident that we can bolster support for
children and their parents in the community, and will prevent
trauma by removing children and placing them in facilities, as
no child should spend their childhood in a facility.
Mrs. MILLER. Thank you so much for your testimony.
Ms. HILTON. Thank you.
Mrs. MILLER. I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you.
Ms. Moore.
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Well, you all look a lot different
down here than you did up there. [Laughter.]
Thank you so very, very much.
Let me start out by just thanking all of the people who are
foster parents, including Ms. Hope Petersen here, all the
people who make sacrifices to try to prevent abuse and neglect
of our children, and just to be grateful that we have a safety
net of some type.
That being said, I just also want to just introduce myself
further. I am the chair of the Congressional Caucus on Foster
Youth, and I am so happy to learn that there are numbers of
Members who want to join and participate and want to get the
education from foster youth. It was a real epiphany for me when
I had my first foster youth, and they did turn us on to the
notion that we have to dig into mental health, that we need
navigators as people age out. So I think that has really been
impactful.
And they, you know, they come on the Hill. And while they
are foster kids, for one day they become the teachers and
professors.
That being said, I have really appreciated all four of you
for your testimony today, and we have talked a whole lot about
prevention, about focusing on family unification, avoiding
congregate care. I guess the thing that concerns me the most is
that, as I sort of look at--you know, I am just sort of
figuring out how much we spend on this, maybe something between
the states and the federal government, over $40 billion on
foster care and foster programs. And still, that turns out to
not be enough in certain categories.
And one of the things that I am observing--and maybe Mr.
Geen and Ms. Mansfield, you can help me walk through it--I
will--just as an example of the federal child welfare funding
by purpose, you know, I am looking at $11 billion that the
Congressional Research Service prepared this memo, and that is
not the state match, this is the federal funding, you know,
almost $5 billion spent on foster care free money, another
almost $5 billion on adoption and guardianship assistance. And
so when we--I can't see that well--so when we start talking
about prevention services, we are talking about $182 million,
or Chafee services for older and former foster youth to help
them walk through, help them transition, we are still only
talking about $187 million.
So my question to the two of you is, if we are aspirational
about wanting to prevent congregate care, to prevent kids from
getting in foster care in the first place, how do we dismantle,
as it were, the huge amounts of money that is being spent to
have this system which involves taking kids away from parents?
Mr. Geen, yes.
Mr. GEEN. So I think this is an issue that our field has
been struggling with for years. There is a recognition that we
are spending far too much money after the fact, and not enough
before. I will provide example of Wendy's Wonderful Kids, which
I have mentioned before.
By providing some upfront investment to increase the
capacity of a public agency, the foundation dollars allows the
state to move from the status quo to best practice. And then
over time, the state then takes up that responsibility
themselves without the private dollars. There needs to be a way
for states to have the flexibility to turn their system around.
If so much money is focused on the foster care and adoption
side and very little on prevention, where are the resources for
them to make that shift?
I will note that the Bipartisan Policy Center has formed a
work group focused on financing and accountability to tackle
problems exactly like this.
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Ms. Mansfield.
Ms. MANSFIELD. Yes, I would echo that, but I would also
just say if we spent the same amount that we spent in stipends
and support for foster care families, especially for non-
relative families to invest in families before involvement or
in intact family services, we would prevent so much. And
instead, there is this judgment given that we can't fund
families to keep them together. But that really would be a way
to prevent so much.
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Amen belongs right there. Just let
me say something to Mrs. Hope Petersen and to Ms. Hilton.
Ms. Hilton, I met you before in Katherine Clark's office,
and I have had an epiphany about congregate care for people who
are not poor. We are talking basically today about poor, poor,
poor children, and you were not poor. But, you know, when there
is a fracture or a break in the family, predators are easily--
easy to get in when there is a breakdown, because they have the
authority. And I am so sorry that this has happened to you, and
I empathize with you. And, you know, I am just delighted that
you are using your voice.
Ms. Tori, you were in 12 foster homes. I mean, it is a
miracle, a sociological miracle you are. And I just don't think
you should have depended on good luck, somebody just happened
to come by and help you. Thank God that they were. But, I mean,
that is part of the breakdown of our system, that we just have
to--excuse me for using your name--we just have to hope that
somebody is going to find you and take care of you. We can't--
our kids deserve something better than hope, you know.
And so with that, Mr. Chairman, I almost made it to ranking
member today. But that being said, I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. You spoke the length of a ranking member,
so thank you, Ms. Moore.
Mr. Kustoff.
Mr. KUSTOFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
witnesses for appearing today.
Ms. Hilton, if I could to you, could you talk more about
your bill, the Stop Institutional Child Abuse Act, and maybe
specifically why you think it will make meaningful reforms to
congregate care?
Ms. HILTON. The most important thing about the Stop
Institutional Child Abuse Act is about transparency and
accountability, and people need to know what is happening
behind closed doors.
Mr. KUSTOFF. And you believe, if it passes, if the bill
passes, that it will achieve that means to an end?
Ms. HILTON. I think it is the first steps to it. I just
think it is so important for people to know that--people to be
held accountable for what they are doing, and for there to be
transparency. These are our children. This is our future. And
there needs to be checks and balances on what is happening to
these, the most vulnerable people in the world.
Mr. KUSTOFF. Thank you. Thank you for sharing your story
today.
Ms. HILTON. Thank you.
Mr. KUSTOFF. Mrs. Petersen, thank you also for sharing your
story.
Mr. Geen, if I could with you, we know in the past few
years that the rate of congregate care has declined. Some of
this is due to the Family First Act. Now, despite declines,
there is a national shortage of foster homes. In your opinion,
how do we balance the two?
Mr. GEEN. There has been a steady decline in the number of
children in group settings, which is a good thing. We know that
far too many children are placed in residential settings, not
because that is the type of therapeutic intervention they need,
but it is the only place to place a child.
And so it is not a question of balancing, it is a question
of doing right by children. Children need to be in families. If
they need an intervention to allow them to be successful in a
family, then residential treatment that is high-quality, that
is therapeutic, that involves the family is an option.
We are facing right now, as you note, a crisis in finding
enough places. I think that is twofold. One is we don't invest
in enough with kinship care, as we have mentioned. And two, we
have a foster parent retention problem. I don't call it a
recruitment problem because the data clearly show there are
lots of people interested in becoming foster parents.
One person has talked about the sacrifice of foster
parents. They don't see it as a foster parent--as a sacrifice.
They see it as a joy. They get frustrated during their time as
foster parents, and tend to quit. And it is not about money.
Frankly, it is largely about the support they get. And I have
listened to foster parents talk to me about how they gave up on
themselves, not the children, that they would see children and
they thought, ``I should be doing a better job because so and
so isn't doing well,'' and what they really needed was a
dedicated worker to listen to them on a Friday night cry
because their child that they were caring for wasn't doing as
well as they wanted that child to do. They didn't want to give
up on foster parenting. And so we do need to do a much better
job on retaining the foster parents we have.
Mr. KUSTOFF. Thank you very much. Thank you for everybody's
testimony.
And Mr. Chairman, I will yield back my time.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you.
Mr. Fitzpatrick.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Thank you, Chairman Smith.
We all know our children represent roughly 22 percent of
our population, but 100 percent of our future. I thank you all
for being here today to be a voice for them.
It is no mystery that our nation is facing critical
shortages of foster homes. This has led to children, as we have
heard today, in dangerous situations, often sleeping in unsafe
places, including hotel rooms and caseworker offices. And as we
have discussed at this hearing, any youth treatment facility
and congregate care program receiving Federal child welfare
funds must be meeting the standards of a qualified residential
treatment program.
In addition to concerns of shortages of care options, we
must grapple with findings and finding safe and secure
placements for children with severe trauma and behavioral
issues. No child should fear sleeping in a hotel room or in an
office space. We have a role to play in ensuring that our kids
are not missing crucial components of their development.
I want to start with Mrs. Petersen.
In your testimony you mentioned that programs like Title
IV-B provide crucial support to both children and their
families. You have experienced this, both as a foster child
yourself in the foster care system, and now caring for children
in the foster care system. How can programs like Title IV-B be
improved to provide the services to help families avoid the
foster care system?
Ms. PETERSEN. What we have witnessed, especially--we are
from a rural area--is that not every caseworker and county
believes and understands that children remaining with their
biological family, if safe and if possible, is the best option.
It can be really easy to villainize biological parents.
And so, even when it is possible, they will remove the
child. My mom, as an adult, despite what she did to me, I
believe deserved compassion because, as--I believe you said
this, but often times it is the parents that have experienced
abuse or that are being abused. And so if we can treat them
with the same care that we would treat the child, and give them
the same resources that we would a child in terms of therapy
and help and care, children could often remain with their
biological families.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. And Ms. Hilton, I want to talk about
community-based organizations. Oftentimes, unfortunately, the
federal government, the state government misses these signs and
signals that they should be catching. And oftentimes, at the
community level, groups are able to address specific issues
that otherwise are missed by our government agencies.
As a leading advocate in this space, as you have been--and
thank you for talking to our Problem Solvers Caucus last year,
by the way, on your bill--how can community organizations and
stakeholders be emboldened to be larger voices in addressing
problems in the child welfare system and work with the federal
government to implement change?
Ms. HILTON. I just want to first thank you for being a
sponsor of the Stop Institutional Child Abuse Act. I really
appreciate you.
And the community organizations that are on the ground
working with impacted individuals, they are so important, and
we should work with them to ensure that we get the policies
right.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Thank you, Ms. Hilton.
Lastly, Mr. Geen, we are currently facing a shortage of
foster homes and youth treatment facilities not meeting
appropriate Federal standards. Can you speak to the issue of
the shortage itself, and the impact on our foster youth and
children, specifically those kids with behavioral issues?
Mr. GEEN. So clearly, children sleeping in hospitals,
hotels, or emergency rooms for weeks on end is not right. It is
not right. And yet, let me be very clear. The answer is not
more residential beds. We need to meet the needs of children in
family-based settings. That may include therapeutic foster
homes, it may include additional training for foster parents in
meeting the mental health needs of children, but it cannot mean
placing a child who doesn't need that level of restriction in
that type of facility.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Thank you, Mr. Geen, and thank you, all of
you, for being a voice for the voiceless. I do appreciate it.
And----
Ms. MANSFIELD. Could I just add one thing?
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Sure.
Ms. MANSFIELD. I just wanted to add that I have worked with
many families where the parents had to make the choice--because
they could not afford the appropriate level of care for their
child--to reach out and access the child welfare system to say,
``We can no longer care for our child. We can't afford the
treatment that they need.''
And so there have been some states which have taken the
action of making it that you do not have to place a child in
foster care for a family to use the resources of foster care,
and that then allows for more children to stay while they are
accessing those resources in their biological home.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Thank you for adding that, Ms. Mansfield.
We appreciate it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Ms. VAN DUYNE [presiding]. The chair now recognizes the
gentlelady from California, Representative Sanchez, for five
minutes.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you. And I want to, first and foremost,
thank all of our panelists for your testimony today.
And Ms. Hilton, when I met you last year I was impressed by
your courage in speaking out in the face of the horrific
circumstances that you experienced, and the fact that you are
using your platform to be a voice for those--for some of those
who are the most vulnerable in our society.
As the mom to a teenager, I am horrified to hear of the
abuse that many children go through in the name of ``protecting
them,'' so I do appreciate you taking the time today in
emphasizing, in particular, the importance of reauthorizing the
Title IV-B program, which, I have to say, has not seen an
increase in funding since 2006. So reauthorizing Title IV-B is
a bipartisan effort. You have heard there is plenty of support
on this dais for that. But even modest improvements to this
program can make a huge difference for at-risk youth, and
surely we can all agree here that we need to do better by the
children who are put in our care.
But doing better by these kids isn't free. We need to
increase the funding towards safe and quality programs that
ensure children's safety, and we need to be funding programs
that stop children from entering foster care in the first
place. So things like investing in community-based prevention
and protection services, and ways in which we can help keep
kids with their parents or their extended family members or
even just within their own communities, I think, is really
critical.
I just want to know--Ms. Hilton, I will start with you--
would you agree that providing increased funding for programs
that help keep kids out of foster care and ensure that they can
remain with their families would be a better benefit to these
kids?
Ms. HILTON. Yes, I do agree with that. I believe that we
need to keep children safe in their own homes and with their
families as much as possible, and I believe that we should
reauthorize Title IV-B to provide necessary funding to help
bolster community resources and to help keep families together.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Is there anybody on the dais that doesn't
think that an increase in funding would be helpful?
Mr. GEEN. I will just note that you were being kind in
saying that the funding level has remained the same, because
after inflation, as I think I mentioned in my written
testimony, it has a 14 percent less buying power than it did
back then.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Correct, you are correct. So I think you are
all in agreement that, not only is it critical to renew the
program, but to really put our money where our mouth is when it
comes to child well-being.
Ms. Mansfield, I want to come to you because you mentioned
the huge role that poverty plays in the removal of children
from their families, and I think you stated that 75 percent of
the children who are in the foster care system, due to a
finding of neglect, very highly correlates to poverty. Is that
right?
Ms. MANSFIELD. Yes, to poverty as well as to substance use
disorders and drug dependencies.
Ms. SANCHEZ. So, you know, would increasing funding to
things like, you know, SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program, or WIC, the Women, Infants, and Children
nutritional assistance programs, or even programs like Head
Start, would those go--you know, do anything in terms of
reducing the numbers of kids from poor backgrounds that end up
in the system?
Ms. MANSFIELD. Absolutely, as well as increasing funds for
child care so that people can actually work and have safe care
for their children, and especially when something happens and
they might have to miss work and not to have to rely on people
who then might put them in danger of the child welfare system
becoming involved, as well as programs like TANF.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Amen, sister. As a working mom, I totally feel
that.
It is just interesting to me that we can all agree that
keeping kids out of the foster system is the better result, and
yet we are not willing to make the investments in the programs
that are going to keep those kids out of the foster care
system.
And before I--my time is expired, I would be remiss in
failing to mention the huge disparities that face children in
the foster care system, because we see Black and Latino
children heavily over-represented in the foster care system.
And in fact, in--over the past five years, the rate of Latino
children in foster care in this country has risen by more than
five percent. So, you know, we need to look at the fact that
these issues don't happen in a vacuum. The racial disparities
in our justice system, our foster care system, and our economy,
they are all interconnected, and they sort of create this
perfect storm, which causes parents who can't economically
support their kids to have to surrender them into the system.
I really believe in early interventions, again, to try to
keep kids from ending up in the foster care system in the first
place.
And I want to thank the chairman for her indulgence, and I
yield back.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Thank you. The chair now recognizes the
gentleman from Florida, Greg Steube.
Mr. STEUBE. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Hilton, thank you for sharing your experience with us
today. Your testimony is extremely powerful and moving. What
happened to you and countless other children is unacceptable,
and is a moral failing in our country. And we must do better.
The Ways and Means Committee has jurisdiction over child
welfare programs, and it is our responsibility to ensure that
all children in care receive the highest quality care, and that
taxpayer dollars do not support abusive practices. The 2022 GAO
report on residential facilities highlighted the need for
improved information sharing, data collection, and best
practices between states and residential treatment facilities.
We have heard horrific accounts from survivors about their
time in congregate care facilities across the country. At the
same time, we know that there are many facilities in many of
our districts that do crucial work that provide necessary
services. I hope that we can work together to both root out
abuse and better enhance youth facilities that do good work.
However, it is clear better federal guidance and
information sharing is needed to root out abuse and keep
America's youth safe. Congress has the power to act, and we
must exercise our authority to ensure better oversight and
accountability of residential youth programs receiving Federal
funding.
Your advocacy has brought these issues to the forefront,
and that is why I have introduced a bipartisan bill with Mr.
Panetta of California. Our bill, H.R. 8817, aims to increase
transparency for residential treatment facilities by developing
guidance on best practices for Federal agencies and states. The
guidance will focus on collecting data and sharing information
related to youth well-being and residential treatment
facilities, improving data on maltreatment, and enhancing
oversight of youth residential programs that receive federal
funding.
My first question, Ms. Hilton, is, do you think it is
important that federal agencies work with each other to address
these issues?
Ms. HILTON. Thank you. It is so great to see you again, and
thank you for your dedication on this issue by introducing that
bill. All the survivors and I are so grateful to you for taking
action on this issue.
And I believe that interagency collaboration is very
important. These facilities treat foster youth, kids in the
juvenile justice system, youth with disabilities, and youth
with mental health issues. I think all the agencies must work
together to address the abuse and neglect that is happening,
and we can't fix the issue if we don't look at it as a whole.
Mr. STEUBE. I know you have worked with state legislatures
to pass legislation for enhanced oversight of youth residential
facilities. Can you share any examples of states that have
implemented particularly effective reforms?
Ms. HILTON. I know, with Utah, that we have made a lot of
progress with children being able to speak to their families
without someone sitting right next to them. Also with medical
restraints, that is another issue that we have been--resolved
almost.
And yes, I think it is just important that we continue
using our voices so that we can pass this bill.
Mr. STEUBE. Mrs. Petersen, would you like to add to that,
other states where you have seen reforms that have made
effective changes?
Ms. PETERSEN. I am not familiar with any necessary
policies, but I do believe that it is crucial that children are
able to talk to parents, able to talk to caseworkers about the
situation in their homes, what their foster parents are doing,
what is happening in the residential facility that they are
living in, confidentiality, and alone so that they can tell
them if anything is happening that is dangerous.
Mr. STEUBE. In the time I have remaining, Mr. Geen, is
there anything you would like to add?
Mr. GEEN. So when you talk about accountability, I would
like to point out the data that we tend to lack on the children
who experience group settings. One is, who are these children?
What are the conditions that led them to these facilities in
the first place? We have this assumption that these children
have severe mental health needs, and yet research shows that a
large percent of them have no diagnosis whatsoever. We tend to
think of kids going into group settings after bouncing around
from foster home to foster home. Most children who spend time
in a group setting do so their first night in foster care. They
were never given the chance to succeed in a family.
We know that high-quality residential care can usually be
delivered within 90 days. Within 90 days is generally the
intervention that needs to take place, and yet the average
length of stay in many places is 9 months or more. So we need
to understand what is actually happening, in addition to the
horrific abuse that you have heard about from things. So it is
all of that.
Mr. STEUBE. Thank you for all the witnesses that are here
today. I yield back.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
New York, Claudia Tenney.
Ms. TENNEY. Thank you, chairman, and also thank you to the
ranking member.
And thank you to the witnesses for your really heartfelt
testimony and your compassionate view of this really important
issue. And it is long overdue that we update Title IV-B in
order to combat the many problems our nation's child welfare
system faces today, and you have highlighted a lot of those. I
really appreciate that. You know, reauthorizing this program
will allow us to prevent future abuse and neglect, ultimately
mitigating the substantial long-term abuse that you have all
outlined today, and the costs of current child welfare
programs.
So I come from the state of New York, where there are over
25,000 children in foster care. Our child care system is
plagued with all the problems this committee and all of you
have outlined and aim to address in trying to fix this with
this reauthorization. High costs, homelessness, challenges
entering the workforce when they completed foster care, and a
lack of legal representation, which is something that really
hits home to me.
When I was a full-time practicing lawyer, I did a lot of
pro bono work for the Legal Aid Society in upstate New York,
and I worked with families for free on child custody,
visitation, abuse and neglect, adoption cases. It is very
complex. I had an issue--a district and a region that was big
cities, medium-sized cities, rural areas, suburban areas, and
it was all the same issue coming up. And I really appreciate
that.
And I wanted to first ask Mr. Geen, because I know this is
what--I know it is a huge issue. The Administration of the
Children and Families Division within HHS has recently
finalized a rule allowing states to use their Title IV-E funds
to cover legal fees for children and parents involved in these
child welfare cases. In response to this rule I introduced H.R.
8810, the Ensuring Legal Representation for Child Welfare Act,
which calls on the states to outline their approaches to
providing legal representation and supporting families. The
legislation aims to bolster state planning and encourage
strategies that enhance family support.
Could you tell us how legal representation for children and
parents, typically those with legal representation, tend to
have better outcomes within the child welfare system and
compare those to without?
And I know there are a lot of--I love the Legal Aid Society
and our ability to give pro bono work, but sometimes it really
just helps that we have people that are assigned to these
cases.
Mr. GEEN. So I appreciate you raising the issue of legal
representation.
In my opening remarks I talked a little bit about the
polarizing rhetoric that sometimes gets in the way of
bipartisan solutions. And this is an area where I hear some
folks talking about parents' rights and other people talking
about children's rights as if they are somehow in conflict. Yet
people in the field know that both are required to move a case
forward. And the earlier in the process that families are
engaged with legal representation, the more likely it is that
they are going to have successful outcomes and that the cases
will move forward expeditiously.
Ms. TENNEY. Well, great. Thank you so much for that.
And I wanted to say thank you to Ms. Hilton for doing--
being such a leader on this issue. And it was really a, you
know, a unique opportunity for me to see you and how well you
have done. And albeit it was a Zoom call, but with your
adorable son, he was--you are just a loving mother. I have to
say that this experience for you must have impacted you so
greatly, as you have described.
But I want to--you talked a little bit with my colleague
about how, you know, the bill provides transparency, and you
mentioned that Utah is providing some reforms. But what
specifically do you think we could do to add mental health and
counseling support?
And how do we--how can we incorporate that in the bill,
along with trying to meet the goals that are already in this
reauthorization?
Ms. HILTON. Well, thank you. I enjoyed our Zoom call, and I
love your jacket. The sparkles are amazing. [Laughter.]
Ms. TENNEY. I had a little bling here for today.
Ms. HILTON. Yes. I want to find out who made it later.
But I think the most important thing is they need access to
therapy counseling, mentorship, and other community-based
programs. And I think it is also important to not label these
kids as troubled or bad. I think it makes these children feel
like they aren't believed, and that is something that is
important for them to not feel that way.
And yes, I think it is just about showing kindness and love
and compassion and support, and giving these kids life skills
that they can use in life because otherwise we are just setting
them up to fail.
Ms. TENNEY. Did you have access to any of this therapy or
anything when you were in your situation?
Ms. HILTON. No. And, you know, I was only sent there
because I was getting bad grades, I was just ditching classes,
I had--I have ADHD, and that was something that they weren't
really talking about back then. So somebody recommended that I
go to these schools. My parents had no idea. They just thought
it was going to be a normal boarding school. And when I got
there, there was no therapy. We would just constantly be torn
down, abused, screamed at, yelled at, no education whatsoever.
I learned nothing there except trauma.
Ms. TENNEY. I think my time has run out, but I want to say
thank you to you and everyone. You all were terrific. I wish I
could have answered--asked you all a question, but this is a
great hearing, and I thank you to the chairman and I yield
back.
Ms. HILTON. Thank you.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. The chairman now recognizes the gentlelady
from Washington, Representative DelBene, for five minutes.
Ms. DelBENE. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to all of
our witnesses. Thank you for taking the time to join us.
In 2021 Democrats expanded the Child Tax Credit through the
American Rescue Plan. And not only did this historic piece of
legislation slash the U.S. poverty rate nearly in half in just
six months, but it also enabled parents to pay for essentials
like housing, groceries, daycare. And as a result, parents no
longer had to fear losing their kids to the foster system due
to economic adversity.
Ms. Hilton, I was--during your time advocating for children
and families, I assume you have met former foster youth who
have expressed that they would have been helped by economic
support, or that that would have helped them avoid being in
foster care. Is that true?
And if so, do you have any stories to share?
Ms. HILTON. Yes, definitely. I have talked to so many
survivors, and that is what they needed. They needed to have
that support, and they didn't. And it is just so heartbreaking
to know that these kids didn't belong in these type of places
just because they lost--maybe their parents did something
that--they weren't able to take care of them, or one of their
family members died and it just was--it was really
heartbreaking just to always hear these stories of them not
getting any support whatsoever, and then being these innocent
kids who were then sent to these places and just being exposed
to so many things that no child should ever have to witness.
And if they would have just had that support, maybe things
could have been different for them.
Ms. DelBENE. Thank you. Mr. Geen, from your experience with
the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption--and I know
Congresswoman Sanchez brought this up, too--how important is
securing financial stability for the well-being of families who
are at risk of entering the foster care system?
Mr. GEEN. So there is a growing body--and I would call it
probably a robust body now--of research that clearly shows that
additional financial assistance reduces the risk of child
maltreatment, and that is on the front end of the spectrum.
Once children are involved in the child welfare system,
financial resources are needed to keep kids out of the system
and also to make sure that they are cared for while they are in
the system.
Ms. DelBENE. And what role do you think financial support
measures like the Child Tax Credit play in preventing kids from
entering foster care?
And what are the consequences when these kinds of benefits
expire?
Mr. GEEN. So as I said, I think the research is now pretty
clear that giving families additional financial assistance
reduces maltreatment. If children aren't maltreated, they are
much less likely to end up in the foster care system. So there
is a direct link there.
Ms. DelBENE. Yes, we have lots of data on the expanded
Child Tax Credit and the benefit.
And again, to kind of follow up to something Congresswoman
Sanchez was saying, if we invest now and prevent kids from
being in these situations, not only do we have better outcomes
for our kids, we save a lot of money along the way, too. So we
can make smart investments, help families, help kids have great
outcomes, and be fiscally responsible at the same time.
You know, I am from the state of Washington, and the
Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families
relies on IV-B funding to provide critical community services,
including family preservation, family reunification, family
support, and adoption promotion support. Unfortunately, the
allocated IV-B grant amounts are often exceeded by the need.
Mr. Geen, again, knowing that the intent of IV-B is to
support more upfront and family-focused efforts, how can
Congress ensure that states are receiving the necessary IV-B
grants in the amounts that they require to be successful?
Mr. GEEN. So I think that we have to understand how Title
IV-B interacts with other funding streams. IV-B is a very small
amount of overall investment from the Federal Government.
I think part of the question is how can IV-B be a pipeline
for the development of programs that then can be funded through
the prevention side of Title IV-E. So we think--we need to
think about these programs together.
Ms. DelBENE. Thank you. And as Congress looks to
reauthorize IV-B, what barriers must Congress remove to help
states and tribes take advantage of the preventative funding
made available by the Family First Prevention Services Act?
Mr. GEEN. Yes. So as I mentioned, there is tremendous
support for the concept, the vision of Family First. People
want to believe in prevention, and they are running into real
challenges.
The clearinghouse, for one. The definitions in the
clearinghouse of what it means to be supported, well supported,
promising, are not consistent with other rigorous databases. So
we can't just take programs that have already been proven to be
successful in other databases, and then bring them into the
clearinghouse.
You mentioned the tribes. A lot of the evaluation criteria
within the IV-E prevention program are really not aligned with
the way that tribes operate. So there is work to be done.
And then I have also mentioned the idea of how to provide
concrete supports, getting to your financial assistance
question. How can we provide that as part of IV-E? There is a
concern among some that we don't want child welfare to become a
parallel financial assistance system. We don't want there to be
an incentive to come into child welfare. We are already
concerned that too many families are being referred.
At the same time, there are some opportunities with
limited--time-limited funds to keep families together and out
of child welfare that doesn't serve as a magnet. So how can we
use the IV-E prevention program for that?
Ms. DelBENE. Thank you.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. I will remind the members that there is a
five minute time limit.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma,
Representative Hern.
Mr. HERN. I thank the chair, I thank the witnesses for
being here today, and I really appreciate it very much.
I have spoken many times on this committee about the
circumstances in my early life which led me to run for
Congress. Growing up in the environment that I did, it took
hard work, education, and the right opportunities for me to
make it to this point in my life. I am not confident today,
where we stand now, that a child growing up today in a similar
or other uncertain circumstances would have the same
opportunity or ability to achieve the American dream.
In 2021 in Oklahoma, over 7,000 children were in foster
care, and over 13,000 children were the victims of
maltreatment. The vast majority of these cases were neglect.
Child welfare programs funded through Title IV-B give states
the flexibility they need to help their vulnerable children,
ideally before they have to enter the foster care system.
I appreciate the witnesses being here today to testify so
that we can make the necessary changes to ensure we are ready
and reaching as many children as possible.
One way to do this is by reducing the regulatory burden so
that Title IV-B funding recipients can spend more time helping
children and families, and less time waiting through the red
tape. Right now, child welfare payments are made to tribes
through two different funding allocations. One of these goes
through states, rather than directly to the tribal grantees, an
outdated and fragmented system that needs to be updated. In
Oklahoma, the larger tribes are already paid directly, while
the state must contract with each smaller tribe individually.
This process involves determining which tribes are eligible,
creating contracts with eligible tribes based on the scope of
their child welfare work, facilitating tribes' claims, and
issuing reimbursement.
The current process is slow and burdensome for both
parties, while impacted children are waiting on much-needed
help. This is why I am working on legislation to modernize this
funding structure by allowing Indian tribes to be paid directly
without decreasing funds to the states.
Mr. Geen, you mentioned in your testimony that there is a
widespread support for reducing the administrative burden
associated with Federal funding, particularly for tribes. Can
you give us a little more information on that, and what you
think about the administrative burden as it is impacting
states' and tribes' ability to provide aid to impacted
children?
Mr. GEEN. Absolutely. I have heard tribes tell me that they
have declined federal resources because the amount of work it
takes to get it is more than the value of the grants. If the
administrative burden was related to ensuring that we
understood how funds were being spent and holding states
accountable, it would be one thing. But as I have mentioned
before, to a large extent, many of the reporting requirements
we have are nothing more than an exercise of checking a box.
And so we do need to talk about accountability. We do need
to make sure that children are doing well, and that federal
resources are being spent effectively. But the burden that we
are placing on states is not achieving that, and it is coming
at a cost of taking time away from doing the work that we have
to do with children and families.
Mr. HERN. I appreciate that response. What do you see as
the policy solution to alleviate the burden?
And do you think allowing direct funding to tribes would
help mitigate this problem?
Mr. GEEN. I have certainly heard from tribal experts that
that is something they are seeking, so I will defer to their
knowledge and suggest that that seems to be in line with what
they want.
Mr. HERN. So you don't have any direct solutions at this
moment to share.
Mr. GEEN. Again, I would take a look at all of the
reporting requirements and say, what is this getting us? Is
this really assuring us that we are doing well by these
children, or is it making us feel good that we are getting a
report or something signed that suggests something is being
done?
Mr. HERN. I appreciate your response. It makes me think of
a particular Member of Congress that often asks us about the
work we do here. Are we doing good or are we just feeling good?
So I really appreciate it.
I yield back, thank you.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Utah, Representative Moore, for five minutes.
Mr. MOORE of Utah. Thank you. Thank you to Chairman Smith
and Ranking Member Neal for holding this important hearing
today. Being able to come together to discuss Title IV-B
funding is not always the most, you know, headline-capturing
work that we do here, but it is crucial. This funding
provides--it is an essential component providing funding to
state courts to enhance their connection with child welfare
systems, for effective case management, and supporting timely
hearings for children in foster care.
Alongside Representative Miller and Representative Chu, I
introduced the Bipartisan Court Improvement Program Enhancement
Act to promote modernization efforts, including the utilization
of technology for remote hearings and best practices.
Mr. Geen, I appreciate the work that you do and your
connection to the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption. I got a
chance to meet him my senior year in high school. My life was
never the same after that. So thank you for working on such an
important thing. And I assume, with your celebrity status and
social media presence, that is why we are experiencing such a
high volume of participation and audience today. [Laughter.]
Mr. MOORE of Utah. Can you elaborate--back to this court
improvement program--why it is such a critical element for
Title IV-B reauthorization, and how modernization and
technological advancements can further improve outcomes for
children in foster care?
Mr. GEEN. Yes, and I will reiterate a couple of the things
I said earlier.
We focused on the flexibility of IV-B, and it is absolutely
essential. And yet there are some set-asides. And Congress has
made some really intelligent choices about areas that have
suffered from under-investment and lack of attention, and the
court improvement program is one of them. It is a relatively
small amount of money, but it is a critical resource to improve
the quality of the hearings that take place every single day.
When you talk about the technological innovations--I have
mentioned this before--the states learned a lot during COVID.
They were forced into a different situation, and they had to
figure out how to continue to hold hearings in an environment
of COVID and safety procedures, and so they experimented a lot.
And I think that there is a lot to be learned from that period
of time.
Court organizations that have looked at those remote
hearings have suggested there are some very, very good
positives coming out of it, but it is not a universal positive.
You still need to hold those hearings in a quality fashion. And
so investing in the training and understanding of how to use
the technology in an effective way seems like a good
investment.
Mr. MOORE of Utah. Thank you. The work that the Dave Thomas
Foundation for Adoption and other folks that are trying to find
your forever families--Mrs. Petersen, part of your testimony
was really touching, just to hear your struggle and to be able
to find that stability in your life. I mean, the negative
impacts that take place from timing out of foster care are
catastrophic for our communities and for the individual,
obviously. So just thank you for your work on that.
Ms. Hilton, great to see you again. Thank you for the work
that you do, the advocacy work that you do not only in my state
of Utah, but here at the Federal level, as well. We have had a
few chances to meet. From your perspective and interactions
with former foster youth, how can Federal and state governments
better collaborate with community organizations and other
stakeholders in our communities to improve outcomes for
children and families in the system?
Ms. HILTON. Thank you. So good to see you again, as well.
And I think it is important for people to work together and
figure out ways where they can make the biggest difference. And
I think it is important for there to be transparency so that
people know what is happening in both places.
Mr. MOORE of Utah. Excellent. And as I was mentioning
earlier, this isn't the most headline-grabbing topic, Title IV-
B funding, but your presence and advocacy also does lend a hand
to helping us, you know, get this out there more. So thank you
for your voice in this.
And lastly, Mrs. Petersen, as I mentioned your story
earlier, is there anything you would like to add with the
involvement?
As I talk about state and federal government and local
community, religious organizations also play a big role. And is
there anything that we need to do to make sure that they have a
place and a voice in this--the outcomes here, as well?
Ms. PETERSEN. Yes. I would just like to mention the small
percentage of youth who are like me, who couldn't go back with
their biological parents. I endured years and years of abuse
and years of trying reunification in which it didn't work. And
I was labeled unadoptable. And I just believe that no child
should be labeled that, that every child is adoptable. And it
is why it is so crucial that communities, churches, and
organizations come together so that children can be in
families.
Mr. MOORE of Utah. Thank you so much.
I yield back.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. The chair now recognizes the gentleman,
Representative Kildee, for five minutes.
Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the
chairman and ranking member for holding this really important
hearing. It is really important to me, personally.
A long time ago, my first job, my first real job, was
working in the child welfare system and working in an agency
that, Donald M. Whaley Children's Center in my hometown of
Flint, which for 98 years now has been doing an extraordinary
job of treating and dealing with the challenges for our most
at-risk kids in our society.
And I think one of the things that I take away from this
hearing, despite the fact there was, I think, really important
critique of some of the residential settings--and certainly the
life experience of Ms. Hilton points to that--it is important
that we recognize that the entirety of the system should be
pointed at bringing kids back to a permanent, loving, stable
home. Often that means reforming our foster system. Often that
does mean also ensuring that, when residential treatment is
required--and we have to acknowledge that there are conditions
where it is required--that it is done so at the highest
possible level, with the greatest possible scrutiny, with ample
funding to make sure that that care is delivered in a way that
as soon as possible puts that child in a position to be in a
safe and loving home.
The entire system needs that attention. I have been happy
to work with my friend, Congressman Feenstra, on legislation to
deal with some of that. Our Strengthening Evidence Based
Prevention Services Act, which is legislation that would
support families, reduce the number of kids that are in foster
care, is a really important step.
Back in 2018 also, this committee spearheaded efforts, the
Family First Prevention Services Act signed into law. That
fundamentally reoriented our child welfare system to keep more
kids safely in their homes whenever that is possible. It did
that by providing Federal funds to states to offer those
prevention services that we have been talking about. Our bill
would expand access to those services across the country by
creating a new grant program to help fill the gaps--and Mr.
Geen, you mentioned this in your opening testimony--to help
fill the gaps in the research, in the data that we need to see
what really does work.
So I wonder, Mr. Geen, if you might, in your--in the few
minutes, talk a little bit about how investing in that
additional research and evaluation would help us overcome some
of the barriers to the utilization, the effective utilization,
of these funds.
Mr. GEEN. There is a frustration amongst the states at the
slow progress of programs being approved for Title IV-E
prevention funding. There is a need to figure out, how can we
speed that process up? How do we invest in the research
necessary to turn promising approaches, practice-based evidence
into research? And there are opportunities to look at other
databases of effective programs and figure out how can we make
them available for child welfare.
If I might, I do want to comment on your conversation about
residential treatment, because I have said this, and I believe
high-quality residential treatment is lifesaving for the
children who need it. It is a twofold problem. One is we need
to make sure it is only being used when it is absolutely
necessary, but when it is used it does need to be of
exceptional high quality.
There are people who will grimace related to the QRTP, or
Qualified Residential Treatment Program standards, but I will
tell you that I feel like they are below the minimum level of
what I would consider if I had to place one of my children. So
as we look at those standards, consider what those actually do.
It is really a very, very low bar.
Mr. KILDEE. I really appreciate you making that point. My
work experience told me that, is that meeting the minimum
standards is not good enough for our kids. We have to have
organizations, agencies that have as their aspiration, as their
sole goal to try to lift these kids out of the circumstance
they may be in and get them into a permanent, loving family
home and not see it--again, as Ms. Hilton referenced in her
testimony--not see it as a business to churn these kids as if
they are a product in a material system. These are human
beings. Their aspirations are the same as everyone else. Their
potential is enormous.
I meet kids--of course, they are not kids anymore--
occasionally I will meet someone who I think is older than I
am, and suddenly I realize it was a child that I may have
worked with decades ago, and they recall the smallest acts of
kindness that some of us just take for granted as something
that we do every day out of hand. The smallest acts of kindness
are remembered.
Unfortunately, the other side of the coin is also true.
They can be hurt by some of the most callous acts of people who
don't see them in their basic humanity. So I appreciate this
panel, I really appreciate the work you are doing.
I am sorry for going a few seconds over, and I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you.
Mrs. Steel.
Mrs. STEEL. Finally, it is my turn. And thank you very
much, Chairman Smith, for hosting this hearing. And thank you
very much for all witnesses staying how many hours here. So I
really appreciate it.
But this is a really important issue that--I have worked
with foster and other at-risk youth in California, and I have
been seeing these kids.
And thank you, Mrs. Petersen, that you were talking about
that. You know, we really have to do the work before, you know,
age out of the system, because I saw a lot of kids when they
hit 18, and a lot of kids joining gang members, or they become
homeless people in California. So I saw that.
And thank you, Mr. Geen, that, you know, family setting is
much better than group homes because when I was serving one--
the commissioner on Children and Family Center, you know, I saw
a 12-year-old was having her second baby. So, you know what? It
was really shocking to me that, you know, how we are going to
really solve this problem.
So thank you for all coming today. We really have to fix
this system.
And as Congressman Ferguson mentioned, I recently
introduced the Foster Youth Mental Health Support Act. And my
bill would create more consistent access to crucial mental
health services for children and teenagers in foster system.
Many children who have experienced time in foster care system
have complex trauma from their removals and changing placements
and, sadly, many children do not get access to mental health
resources.
So Mrs. Petersen, from your experience in foster care and
as a mother caring for children with complex trauma, what kind
of mental health challenges do children in foster care
experience?
Ms. PETERSEN. In my first foster home there was abuse that
happened, and I reported it and I was placed in a residential
facility. And I see now--I always look back on that experience
and I think, wow, I really needed the therapy that was offered
to me. But when I look back on that, I also realized that I
could have used that therapy in a family setting. It was when I
was in a family setting that all of the things that were taught
to me and that were spoken over me in therapy, that I was
loved, that I was important, that I was chosen, like, those
things were spoken over me, but I didn't believe them until a
family showed them to me.
And so I think that is why it is so important. We have to
have the mental health services, but we also have to have the
family setting that proves to children who they truly are.
Mrs. STEEL. Thank you. And Mr. Geen, you highlighted in
your testimony that bipartisanship has long been a hallmark of
federal child welfare legislation. Could you discuss how
maintaining bipartisan support is critical for the success of
child welfare initiatives and ensuring that children have safe,
stable families, and to improve our nation's child welfare
system, especially if we want effective mental health services?
Mr. GEEN. I am going to answer that, I just want to add on
to what Tori said about mental health, which is when we talk
about mental health, we often talk about--and I hate to use
these words because I don't like it--but ``fixing children,
rather than giving them what they need, and giving their
caregivers what they need. So we need to help parents care for
kids. So that is also a part of it.
To your question about bipartisanship, first I will say
that this very committee has demonstrated that, both
historically with legislation through Family First and through
the series of hearings that you have had over a year, the
importance of bipartisanship.
I was very much struck during the landscape assessment we
did as part of the Bipartisan Policy Center project, how often
there was commonality in a diagnosis of what was wrong with the
system and the solutions. And yet it was the language that
people were using that made discussions hard.
I will also note the wide variation that we have in states
and communities. You are going to pass legislation which will
then have to be implemented. It will have to be implemented in
a host of different environments. It is absolutely essential
that you get all of those different perspectives as part of the
legislative process to ensure that when it goes out into the
field to be implemented, that it will meet the local needs.
Mrs. STEEL. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Ms. Van Duyne.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Today's hearing has given us the opportunity to highlight
the important work that this committee is doing to ensure child
welfare agencies and those in the foster care system have the
resources and the tools that are needed to provide care to
those most vulnerable. The reauthorization of Title IV-B
provides an opportunity to discuss ways in which we can
introduce program efficiency and modernize child support
programs.
During our hearing last November on strengthening child
support enforcement, one of our witnesses, Ms. Turetsky, cited
the State Department's passport denial program, which prohibits
passport renewal or replacement for parents who owe more than
$2,500 in child support, as one of the most effective
mechanisms that the federal government has to enforce past-due
support obligations. That is why I introduced the Ensuring
Children Receive Support Act to expand this effective program
by not only prohibiting renewal of a passport, but by requiring
that the passport also be revoked.
We need outside-the-box ideas to ensure our children have
the resources they need and deserve, and this serves as a prime
example of the type of effective child welfare program that we
should aim to advance as we move forward with reauthorization.
We need to be elevating policies and programs like the passport
denial program that are proven to work effectively.
Mr. Geen, given your experience, what are some key
strategies or policies that you believe could help improve the
overall quality of child welfare services?
We have heard from some of our members on the other side of
the aisle that it is about money, that we need more funds. I
can't tell you how often I am in office, and everybody who
comes into my office, We need more money. I would remind the
panelists and the members here that a lot of times, when we
throw more money at a problem, it increases the cost while
decreasing the care and decreasing the quality. I can give you
examples in health care. I can give you examples in education
where that is the case. It is not always about the money.
Tell me how we can more effectively help the industry, and
how we can be more supportive without just throwing more money
at it.
Mr. GEEN. So I will start with I agree with you that it is
not just about the money, it is how that money is spent. And so
one of the questions is--we talked earlier about the
disproportionate amount of Federal funds that are allocated for
foster care and adoption. And you are reauthorizing a program
that is four percent of Federal funds for child welfare. How do
we figure out more--a way to be able to incentivize the
performance of states to achieve the outcomes we want for kids,
and still be able to maintain the level of Federal investment?
Today, if you prevent a child from going into foster care,
you actually lose the Federal investment on the foster care
side by spending prevention money. So that is not how
caseworkers think. They don't, like, make a decision based on
whether they are getting Federal reimbursement. But the ability
to keep a child out of foster care is based on what else is out
there. And part of the challenge is, as we try to reduce
something we have to increase something else.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Yes, I appreciate----
Mr. GEEN. That is where the new money is actually needed.
It is not a permanent increase. It is an ability to shift what
you are doing from the status quo to best practice.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. All right, thank you.
Earlier this year, an alarming article highlighted Texas's
expenditure of over $250 million on housing foster children in
unsafe, unregulated facilities following the termination of
parental rights. Federal court documents and testimonies
revealed that these facilities often lacked essential services,
including basic necessities such as readily available food and
consistent supervision, crucial for the state's most vulnerable
foster children. Astonishingly, the budget documented allocated
no funds for mental health treatment, despite extensive
documentation these youths have high mental health needs and
exhibit aggression.
This situation highlights a challenge that states across
the country are grappling with the shortage of placements for
foster care with mental health needs. Texas ranks among the top
states for kids in foster care, with more than 31,000 children
in the system, most of whom suffer neglect, drug abuse by a
parent, and physical abuse. The further mistreatment and lack
of proper care for these kids is inexcusable.
Ms. Hilton, from your experience, what are the outcomes for
youth placed in these kinds of facilities?
Ms. HILTON. Thank you for highlighting that article, and it
is so concerning, what foster youth have experienced. The
outcomes for this youth are horrible, and children are being
abused and dying in these kind of facilities, and just
surviving is the best-case scenario.
I feel grateful where I am in life after my experience, but
most don't end up having access to education and they end up
homeless, having trauma, and a high percentage commit suicide
because they don't know how to deal with the experience. The
government is paying for this abuse, and we must stop it.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Thank you very much, Ms. Hilton.
And I yield back.
Ms. HILTON. Thank you.
Chairman SMITH. Mr. Beyer.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
And I thank all of you for hanging in for four hours
already. You are patient and brave.
And I also want to comment that I have been really thrilled
to listen to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle with the
compassion, the concern that they have expressed for this
issue.
Also, Mrs. Petersen, I heartily approve of your faith-based
approach to this. I know this is Christianity, but it is also
Judaism, and Islam, and others. I see tons of faith-based non-
profits in the areas I represent committed to trying to lift up
everyone. The challenge, of course, for us, as leaders in
government, is that the faith-based things are not enough in
our current society. You also have to figure out how do we use
government to address this constructively.
Ms. Hilton, thank you, too, for your bravery to mention
your own traumatic experiences with seclusion and restraint
when you were in those facilities.
The horrible truth is that so many families are left in the
dark about this. When I got here 10 years ago I inherited a
bill called the Keeping All Families Safe Act, and we have been
working on it for 10 years unsuccessfully. But it is
recognizing that there are at least 22 states that have
absolutely no guidelines, laws, rules about seclusion and
restraint in schools or in other facilities. Many states that
do have it, they are insufficient.
Can you--in terms of your own experience, how harmful was
it to you, or how harmful do you see it for other children to
be inappropriately secluded and restrained, and the long-term
consequences?
Ms. HILTON. From personal experience, it was extremely
traumatic. And just experiencing that on a daily basis, seeing
my other peers being restrained and just for no reason, it was
just--the power was abused all the time by the staff members.
And restraint and seclusion are extremely dangerous, and they
create life-long trauma.
Restraints and seclusion have also led to numerous child
deaths in these facilities. Cornelius Fredericks, he was
restrained until he couldn't breathe, and died at 16 years old.
A 12-year-old in a North Carolina facility just yesterday, his
death was confirmed a homicide for staff locking him in a
restraint and seclusion tent overnight until he couldn't
breathe.
And restraint and seclusion are not therapeutic. Ask anyone
who has experienced it. And I believe that Congress should do
more to protect youth from these practices.
Mr. BEYER. It is very helpful to have you say that and to
speak up firmly.
You know, the office--the U.S. Department of Education's
Office of Civil Rights is responsible for collecting all the
data, and they suggest 2,300 times per school day, on average,
upwards of 102,000 students per academic year are subject to
the seclusion and restraint. Sadly, we tend to underfund that
agency, so we are pushing hard to make sure that it has the
resources it needs to do that.
How important do you think it is to be able to measure
this, to have the federal government have those statistics on
the states and schools?
Ms. HILTON. It is extremely important. We need to know what
is happening inside the walls of these facilities, as the
industry is not transparent. Staff are often taking the easy
route of restraining or secluding a child instead of actually
helping them, and this causes the child to have trauma, and we
must provide them with treatment and not subject them to harm.
Mr. BEYER. Yes. Mr. Geen and Ms. Mansfield, I am not sure
who is the best answer to this. Years ago I was a Big Brother
for a young man named Clifford, who was a foster child living
in a home that was desperately poor. It was very clear that
they took him in because of the cash that came with him. Not
that it was a lot of cash, but it was enough to help feed the
other three children in the household. And yet we hear from
Mrs. Petersen today--and I have heard scores of times--that the
typical foster child experience is to move from home to home to
home. And yet, Mr. Geen, you talked about that the problem is
retention, that recruitment.
How do we deal with the fact--or what is to account for the
fact that so many foster children have bad experience after bad
experience--Mrs. Petersen, 12 different places--and yet we
apparently have a surplus of people that want to be responsible
foster parents? This doesn't make sense to me.
Mr. GEEN. Well, let me start by saying that your experience
with a foster parent ``doing it for the money,'' is an
incredibly rare exception. The vast majority of foster parents
spend far more on their children than they receive from
government agencies.
The reason that I say it is a retention problem and not a
recruitment problem is the number of people who start inquiring
and get involved in foster parenting. If we held on to them, we
would have enough homes for every single child in care. Foster
parents tend to give up when they don't think they are doing a
particularly good job. What they need most is not money. Yes,
they do need financial assistance. Many of them are challenged
financially. What they need most is support from their peers
and from someone who will listen to them and help them care for
the child that has been placed in their home.
Mr. BEYER. My time is up, but at some point I would love to
hear from Mrs. Petersen why she gave up on them or why they
gave up on you.
Chairman SMITH. Mr. Feenstra.
Mr. FEENSTRA. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Hilton, for coming forward and telling your
story, writing the book and your memoir.
And Mrs. Petersen, thank you. That is a bold step. We are
all created in God's image, and we are all children of God. We
always have to remember that. So thank you.
In 2018 Congress passed the Family First Prevention
Services Act, one of the largest child welfare reforms in state
history. The bill represented a shift in how we approach child
welfare, recognizing that children do best when they grow up in
a family and in their communities. That is so big. We started
to focus more on helping strengthen families by responding to
the root causes that were splintering them apart and leaving
children in the foster care program. The goal of prevention is
to help families stay together, and the importance of this has
only grown as the foster care program seems to increasingly get
strained because of maximum capacity.
Mr. Geen, you highlighted the successes of the progress of
the Family First Prevention Services Act in your opening
statement. However, there are still barriers in the full
implementation. It is crucial to have a wide variety of
evidence-based programs available in the clearinghouse.
Representative Kildee and I introduced the Strengthening
Evidence Based Prevention Services Act to establish a new
competitive grant program aimed at supporting prevention
programs through research and evaluations which are required to
receive federal support.
So my question is this, Mr. Geen, do you believe that there
is a need for a more diverse array of programs in this
clearinghouse?
Mr. GEEN. So as a recovering researcher, I certainly
support evidence-based policy and evidence-based funding
decisions. At the same time, there is absolutely no doubt in my
mind that states need a broader array of programs to invest in.
What we don't want to happen, and what I fear could happen
is a state looks at the clearinghouse and says, this is what is
well supported, so this is what we are going to pay for and
invest in, without an understanding of whether these programs
actually meet the needs of children and families in their
community.
And so there is absolutely a need to expand the variety of
the programs so that each state and community and tribe can
look at their own circumstances and find out what works for
them.
Mr. FEENSTRA. And what barriers--so I agree, you and I
agree on this, but--so what are the barriers? Why aren't we
doing this?
Mr. GEEN. So I think there are a number of things. One, it
gets down to the way the legislation was written.
Mr. FEENSTRA. Yes.
Mr. GEEN. And the words that we use for ``promising
practice,'' ``well supported,'' and ``supported.'' There was a
period of time when Congress had a temporary authorization to
allow states to get reimbursement if 50 percent of their
programs were either supported or well supported. Now we are
back to what the traditional legislation says, which is it has
to be 50 percent of well supported. This is why I worry about
states just looking at those well supported programs without
the knowledge of what do they actually need in their community.
Mr. FEENSTRA. Yes, yes. So--exactly right. So we have 50
states. How do we manage this, partnering then with the states
and their programs?
Mr. GEEN. So I will say there is progress being made, which
is good. We are seeing states investing more in prevention
through IV-E. There are growing numbers of programs being
approved by the clearinghouse.
I do think reauthorization of IV-B plays an important role
here. States can use IV-B to test a program that is not yet
approved on the clearinghouse. They can test it. They can say,
yes, this meets our needs, and then hopefully it will get
through the approval process.
I do think that approval process needs to be sped up.
Mr. FEENSTRA. Yes, thank you. Thank you so much for that.
Mrs. Petersen, I have just got a question after Mr.--
Congressman Kildee noted. So if you had to look back, okay, you
look back and you were in, what, 12 homes or something like
that? What was the root cause, I mean, of these families and
changing homes and all this stuff?
I mean, do you have any solutions to say, all right, we
don't want this for other children what happened to you?
Ms. PETERSEN. Yes. My time in care I was--so the second
time I went into care, I was in care as a teenager. And we know
that teenagers, it is hard to find placements for them more so
than it is young children. Teenagers in foster care are
stigmatized and viewed very unfairly. I was a 4.0 student, I
was a good athlete, and it was hard for me to find placement,
and it was hard for me to retain placement because people--
foster parents want to adopt little children, and so little
children would come into the home and then I would be moved to
the next home.
And there were also--there is a lot of rules in the foster
care system, revolving youth in foster care. And the Normalcy
Act passed, which I mentioned earlier, after I had emancipated.
But a lot of those rules I didn't follow, and I would be kicked
out of homes. Those rules were rules that my peers did not
follow because they weren't putting me in danger, they were
just--I wanted to have a normal experience as a teenager, as
any teenager would.
And so I was either usually moved out because the family
was establishing their family through adoption, or because of
rules that I didn't follow.
Mr. FEENSTRA. Thank you. Thank you for that.
Ms. PETERSEN. Thank you.
Mr. FEENSTRA. We need solutions, and I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Mr. Carey.
Mr. CAREY. I want to thank the chair and, as a point of
personal privilege today, my mother and father were divorced
when I was probably no more than three or four months old, but
today is my mother's birthday. So I am not sure how many people
are watching C-SPAN, but I know that she is.
So happy birthday, Mother. [Laughter.]
Mr. CAREY. Listen, I just want to tell you, this is some of
the bipartisan stuff that many of us got elected to Congress to
actually do. Many of us don't like to shout at the rain all
day. We want to find solutions. And I wish that many of you
could join us for our lunch in between.
You know, I was with my dear colleague on the Democratic
side, Beyer, and Schweikert, and we had a great discussion
about this issue, not for the cameras. But I just want you to
know that there are people in Congress, whether they are
Republican, whether they are Democrat, whether they are
independent, that really want to keep this country moving
forward. And this is a big issue that we do have bipartisan
support.
So to that end, Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank you for
having this hearing. I want to thank the ranking member, as
well. But I also want to thank the witnesses for being here
today to discuss this critical need to reauthorize the IV-B of
the Social Security Tax Act.
Last week, alongside my dear friend, Representative Larson,
I introduced the Promoting Community Based Prevention Services
Act. This legislation will allow states greater flexibility in
their allocations of funds to family resource centers. When
parents feel supported, families thrive. And that is why I am
proud to help guarantee these resources can be available in
every community across the country for every family that might
need them.
Ms. Hilton, I do want to say you have got a tremendous
team, and I see some of them behind you today. They work
extremely hard. They are in our offices a lot, talking about
the issues that are very important to you and all credit to
your team on that.
Family First requires the Qualified Residential Treatment
Programs, or the QRTPs, to have a licensed clinical staff
available 24/7. Based on your advocacy and the experience, are
these staffing requirements being met consistently and
effectively?
Ms. HILTON. Thank you. My team and I love working with you
and your team. And happy birthday to your mom, as well.
Mr. CAREY. Thank you.
Ms. HILTON. And I appreciate the committee's work on Family
First. I am not a policy expert, but based on my lived
experience, the staff are untrained and unfit to work with
children.
Licensed staff is important, but the floor staff, the
people who do the overnight shifts and the hard work, they need
to be looked at, as well. These facilities keep staffing costs
as low as possible to increase the bottom line. In my case,
many staff enjoyed abusing the children because they knew they
could get away with it. They would take kids to rooms without
cameras, beat them up, and physically and sexually abuse them.
There is a lot of sexual abuse that happens. I just heard a
situation right now where a 12-year-old foster youth is
pregnant because she was sexually abused by staff. I think we
need stronger oversight over who works with children, as
children are dying at the hands of these staff.
Mr. CAREY. And really, kind of as a follow-up to that, what
further training or education requirements should be imposed on
staff in these facilities to better support and protect our
youth, in your opinion?
Ms. HILTON. I think that there needs to be checks on these
people, and background checks, as well, and they need to be
trained in how to deal with children.
And I think that you guys could speak better on that for--
--
Mr. CAREY. Well, that is all right. I am about down to a
minute, and I appreciate your testimony.
Mrs. Petersen, I did want to talk to you.
But Mr. Geen, I wanted to touch upon something because your
opening testimony--all of you mentioned the young people that
are in foster care that are--through the adoption process
today, and that help is on the way, and that we want to--we
want them to be--we want them to know that there is something
on the other side. And to that end, your founder, Mr. Thompson,
he is--Thomas--has been a legend in--not only in Columbus and
the 15th congressional district, but across the world.
And what I want people to know today. I know his daughter,
Lori, is a dear friend of mine. His granddaughter, Ally, is a
good friend of mine. But what he was able to do, given his
situation--and if you look at the franchisees with the Wendy's
Corporation across the country--because of what he did, he
created more than 200,000 jobs. Every life matters. And I want
everybody who is listening and watching today to know that.
And I appreciate all of you coming in here today. It means
a lot.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you.
Mr. Panetta.
Mr. PANETTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Ladies and gentleman, thanks for being here. And of course,
thanks to Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Neal for having
this hearing on not just an important issue, as obviously, you
understand, but also you are hearing--we understand that. What
I mean by that, this is a bipartisan issue which--I want to
echo the sentiments of my colleague, Mr. Carey, as to when it
comes down to these types of issues, you know, good governing
isn't sexy sometimes. But let me tell you, good governing is
good politics in my book. And so I appreciate you being a part
of the--this good governing that you are seeing right here
today.
However, as you have testified, though, you know, we want
to make sure that we can do everything we can to ensure the
well-being of our foster youth. There was a 2022 Government
Accountability Office report that, unfortunately, revealed that
there are an absolutely alarming amount of instances of
maltreatment and abuse in federally-funded youth residential
treatment centers. And in that report the GAO recommended
certain steps that need to be taken to address the abuse, but
also how federal agencies can support local agencies and also
make sure that there is better oversight.
That is why I am working and partnering with my colleague,
Greg Steube on this committee, on the bipartisan H.R. 8817, a
bill that would mandate relevant federal agencies to collect
the appropriate data, collaborate to develop guidance and best
practices for those states receiving Title IV-B funds, and
report on how we can improve the well-being of youth in
residential treatment facilities.
The goal of this bill is to provide proper oversight for
those youth residential programs that receive federal funding,
and we have consulted with a number of federal agencies on our
bill. And the agencies that would be mandated to share this
information and collaborate include HHS, Department of
Education, the Administration for Children and Families, the
Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Department of
Justice, and--I quote--``other policy experts.''
Mr. Geen, my first question to you. Who should those other
policy experts be, in your opinion? And are there any agencies
that we should be consulting with on this matter?
Mr. GEEN. So I would be remiss if I didn't answer this
question looking at the people next to me. One of the folks who
needs to be--or the category of folks that needs to be involved
are people who have lived experience in the system. They need
to have a voice into making sure that what is being developed
is sound.
Let me also say that we absolutely need to be able to
collect data on the abuses in these facilities. That is not
enough. Would you place your child in a facility that you knew
didn't abuse them? Well, that is the minimum you possibly need.
You want to look at quality. You want to make sure that they
are not taking in young people who don't need to be there. You
want to make sure they are not holding on to young people for
longer periods of time than they need the intervention, right?
What difference does it make? They will continue to get paid.
You want to make sure, as another one of your colleagues
mentioned, there is not the abuse of psychotropic drugs or
policy pharmacy use.
So as we look into this accountability, it goes far beyond
just saying they are not abusing kids.
Mr. PANETTA. Understood, and that is exactly why in that
bill we want these agencies to come up with best practices for
the states that are receiving these types of funds.
Let me take it one step further, though, Mr. Geen.
Obviously, we have a direct role overseeing funds that place
children in these settings, but we don't have the same power of
the purse when it comes to private facilities and private
insurance. Can you talk to us about the leverage that can be
used over private facilities that are not paid through the
Title IV-B program?
Mr. GEEN. It is my understanding--and again, there are
people on this panel who may know differently than I--that many
of these private institutions are serving kids from multiple
different populations. Some are caring for foster kids,
juvenile justice kids, truant kids, the rest. And so I think
having all of those agencies at the table to talk about their
use would be important, and could advise you.
Mr. PANETTA. With 30 seconds left, would anybody want to
add to that answer as to what type of leverage we could use
over private industries and private residential treatment
facilities?
Mr. GEEN. Let me just add one thing, because this has come
up over and over again. Private institutions aren't by nature
evil. There are private facilities that are probably doing good
work. There are non-profit facilities that are doing work that
is at least abusive, if not more. And so, while I appreciate
the question, I want to make sure that we look at the totality,
and not focus on one or the other.
Mr. PANETTA. Absolutely, and that is why I focused on both,
basically, those facilities that are receiving Federal funds
and private facilities, as well, and obviously, making sure
that we come up with solutions to ensure the proper oversight
on both. Thank you. Thanks to all of you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you.
Ms. Malliotakis.
Ms. MALLIOTAKIS. Thank you very much. I want to thank you
all for being here. It has been, obviously, a very difficult,
heartbreaking hearing, but very important that we put the
spotlight on these atrocities that are happening, and that we
work together for solutions to end the abuse of these children.
You know, I represent New York City, and in New York City,
sadly, there have been a number of instances over the last few
years of children that were killed. They were killed either in
their home by their parent because their cases fell through the
cracks. We had one child, a three-year-old, who was beaten by
their father. ACS knew about it, but he was taken away and then
put back into the home, which was a homeless shelter, and he
ended up being beaten to death. Another three-year-old who was
in a foster care facility--a foster home, ended up with a drug
overdose and died.
How do we work with these local agencies? What can the
federal government do to have more accountability for these
local agencies? Because it is a balancing act, right? We had
this whole hearing about how we don't want to unnecessarily
take children from their homes if we can help rectify the
situation. But then, on the other hand, you have these children
that are falling through the cracks. They know there is an
issue, but they leave them there and then they ended up dead.
Do you have any thoughts, any of you--Mr. Geen, in
particular--about what we can do as a federal government to try
to hold some accountability for our local partners?
Mr. GEEN. So I will start by saying that a single child
death involved in the system is a tragedy. And we also can
learn from those instances and localities, do child death
reviews, and use the information from those reviews to talk
about how could we prevent this in the future.
At the same time, we don't want to make the problem seem
larger than it is. The child fatality issue is an important
one, but we don't want to expand it to make it--we think that
it is larger than it actually is.
Ms. MALLIOTAKIS. Okay. I still think that we need to have
more accountability measures to find out why those children
fell through the cracks, why they were neglected. Was it a
staffing issue or is it something that is a little bit----
Mr. GEEN. And recognizing the impossible decision that we
are putting upon--and I will be stereotypic--a 20-something-
year-old new case worker making a decision with very limited
information--it is unfortunate, a tragedy that children die. It
is impossible to make that best decision. Removing the child
harms them, causes them trauma. It is often not the best
scenario. And so we don't want to overreact to a child death,
as well. Making policy based on a small number of incidents
usually lead to outcomes that do more harm than good.
Ms. MALLIOTAKIS. Well, thank you.
And I am proud to sponsor the bill being advocated for by
you, Ms. Hilton, the Stop Institutionalized Child Abuse Act. I
think it is a really great step. I know that you have had some
success in passing this legislation on the state level. Can you
talk a little bit about the changes that you have seen
happening in the States as a result of this--similar
legislation?
Ms. HILTON. Yes, we have helped pass nine state laws, but
that is not enough. It needs to be on a federal level.
But the positive part about it is that people know that
they are being watched, but abuse is still happening, and
children are still dying in the name of treatment. So that is
why the Stop Institutional Child Abuse Act is so important. And
thank you for supporting it, I really appreciate that.
Ms. MALLIOTAKIS. Today NBC came out with an article that
says the states fail to track abuse in foster care facilities
housing thousands of children, and this was based on a U.S.
Health and Human Resources Office of Inspector General report.
We talked about transparency, the need to report these
instances of abuse, and for states to share the information
because if you have state--one facility operating in one state
and they are operating in other states, and those states are
still contracting with that same company, that is an issue.
What other transparency measures would you like to see that
could help us with the accountability and oversight component?
[No response.]
Ms. MALLIOTAKIS. Well, I have another question if you want
to--let me get this question, and then you can expand, because
I am running out of time.
The topic of Social Security benefits being garnished by
states for foster care has been a growing issue, and we know
that a small portion of forced foster youth are eligible for
SSI benefits, sometimes inheritance from their parents who
passed away. And this can be particularly helpful for them when
they--as, you know, as they work to prepare to transition from
foster care, maybe give them some--a basis to start with. And I
am concerned about the lack of transparency of that issue in
these SSI benefits being taken by the states. Could you comment
on that, and if that is something we should look to reform?
Mr. GEEN. Sure, and I think transparency in that is
essential. I also think it is an incredibly complex issue.
Children often come into care without SSI benefits, and
they get SSI benefits because the state agency applies on their
behalf. They then use that money to reimburse themselves for a
portion of the cost.
There is a concern, at least among some, that if states are
told they are not going to be able to use any of that SSI
money, they won't go through the trouble of applying for SSI
for children. So we want to make sure that children who would
be eligible are going to be found eligible. And if the child
welfare agency doesn't do it, they may wind up leaving care
still without SSI benefits.
In addition, if a child had SSI benefits with a parent, the
parent could use a portion of the SSI benefits to care for the
child. So there probably is some middle ground here between the
idea of you are not allowed to use any of the SSI funds for any
state purpose versus we get to take all of it and you don't get
anything. And so I think that it is a complex discussion that
is worthy of further debate.
Ms. MALLIOTAKIS. Yes, I think certainly the committee
should examine it further, and we would love to work with you
more on how we can come to a good, equal ground on that. Thank
you.
Chairman SMITH. Last, but certainly not least, Mr. Gomez.
Mr. GOMEZ. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
First, let me thank all of you for being here on this
important topic.
Ms. Hilton, I am happy to have a fellow Angeleno here. I am
proud to represent Los Angeles in Washington. And just thank
you for sharing your story.
When I was getting briefed by my staff about the hearing
and about the issues, they told me about your story and I was
thinking about how much time you must have spent. And I was
thinking months, not years. So just to hear the fact that you
were in this facility for two years is just astonishing to me,
especially, like, knowing--I have--I know some people that were
in the California Youth Authority for less time. So it is mind
boggling that somebody can be held. So--and at the same time,
they told me about how your advocacy has been very thoughtful,
and has been moving the ball forward. So thank you so much.
And I am a new parent. I have a 22-month-old toddler, I
have the scars to prove it, physical scars from him trying to
bite me once in a while. But we are--I know that we are trying
to do more here, and that is why one of the things I did was I
started the Dads Caucus, so that dads would actually do more at
home to help raise children, but also for dads to do more here
in the halls of Congress to fight for family-friendly policies
that really help kids and families everywhere.
And in your testimony, Ms. Hilton, you mentioned that
families need resources and support so they don't need to come
into the child welfare system in the first place. Could you
elaborate on the need for more federal resources for children?
Ms. HILTON. I think it is really important because a lot of
the things that are happening to these children is because they
don't have the funds, and then they are going to be going into
the system because of that. And sometimes their families can't
afford to take care of them, and it is just heartbreaking that
because of that reason that they would be taken away and then
locked away in these facilities and being abused. So I just
think it is important for that to be taken care of before, so
that they will never have to go into the system and be put
through this abuse.
Mr. GOMEZ. And I agree with you. A lot of what we want to
try to prevent is to prevent these children from entering into
the foster system in the first place, to have smart policies, a
national paid family leave program so people can take the time
off to care for a kid.
The Child Tax Credit, we did pass a bipartisan bill here
that did--that is not what we would have written as Democrats,
but it was still a good bill. We moved it forward.
Affordable child care, because families--too many families
are struggling, and we have to think about how does--how do
parents--how do we help parents make it a little bit easier on
them to raise those kids?
And as a new dad, I kind of realize we do a lot in how we
influence how a child is raised. It is almost like what you put
in is what you get back. And making it easier for them,
parents, to do that is crucial. And we are going to keep
fighting for those.
Also, one question--one issue on the foster care system is
when it comes to LGBTQ youth. Because what I have read in
certain reports is that LGBTQ youth represent about--represent
about 30 percent of all children in the foster care system.
Five percent are considered--identify as transgender. What can
we do to support those children? Because those are often the
ones that don't end up being--ever finding a home, living on
the streets, and then often being put in terrible situations.
Ms. Mansfield.
Ms. MANSFIELD. I am not sure that I have the answer to
that, unfortunately. But I will speak from my own experience
growing up with foster siblings, that my brother originally
could not be placed because they identified that he should not
be in a home environment because of his sexual orientation. And
no child should be labeled like that or not be placed in a home
environment because of that. It is a huge issue, and I wish I
had the solutions to it. I do not.
But I appreciate you bringing that up because it is
something that comes up frequently, both for children in foster
care as well as those children who then become adults and often
become the incarcerated mothers that I work with, as well.
Mr. GOMEZ. Thank you.
My time is up. I just want to thank the chairman. Although
we don't always see eye to eye on solutions, we do believe that
there is a problem that we have to be--that has to be dealt
with.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you.
I want to thank each and every one of you for spending the
time on this important hearing. Hearing your powerful
testimony, it definitely is making a difference.
Please be advised that members have two weeks to submit
written questions to be answered later in writing. Those
questions and your answers will be made part of the formal
hearing record today.
With that, the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:37 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
MEMBER QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]