[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 121 (Monday, September 23, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1636-E1637]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   CRISIS IN THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. GEORGE MILLER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Monday, September 23, 2002

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, we can all agree that 
the quality of care received by children under the supervision and 
protective custody of the state is an important aspect of the foster 
care system. Unfortunately, there is widespread disagreement between 
states and the federal government on how quality of care standards 
should be defined, assessed, and enforced.
  In the following article, the Sacramento Bee reports that 
California's Department of Social Services and the U.S. Administration 
for Children and Families are immersed in a heated battle over foster 
care licensing standards. At issue, is a 2-year-old federal mandate 
that directs states to equalize foster home licensing standards between 
relative and non-relative foster care providers.
  The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) contends that the 
long-standing regulation that allowed states to exempt relative 
caregivers from meeting some of the licensing standards that applied to 
professional non-relative foster parents created a separate and unequal 
standard that could not be upheld. HHS maintains that it repeatedly 
told states like California in writing that it could not bill the 
federal government for relative foster homes that failed to meet 
federal regulations. Consequently, the U.S. Administration for Children 
and Families withheld $18 million in grants from California for failure 
to bring relative foster homes up to non-relative foster home 
standards.
  In response, California asserts that the federal government's 
insistence on rigid compliance with non-relative foster care standards 
eliminates room for flexibility in overlooking minimal licensing 
violations. Additionally, California argues it threatens their ability 
to place children in the homes of loving and caring relatives that are 
unable to fully meet licensing requirements because of issues of 
poverty. According to the California Deputy Director of Social Services 
``it [lsqb]relative foster home;[rsqb] could be a very loving, giving 
family, but the question is can the child go there if, for example, the 
siblings will sleep [lsqb]together[rsqb] in a double bed.''
  The battle unfolding in California may be just the tip of the 
iceberg. In many states across the nation, kinship care standards vary 
and are more relaxed than non-relative foster care standards. If we 
truly believe the safety and well-being of children should come first, 
then we must begin to carefully assess and examine child welfare issues 
such as kinship care practice and foster care licensing standards. 
While it is the government with the power of the purse that may 
ultimately win the war, we must be careful to ensure that the best 
interests of foster children are not forgotten in the heat of battle.
  The article follows:

           [lsqb]From the Sacramento Bee, Sept. 3, 2002[rsqb]

          Lawsuit To Target Rules for Foster Care by Relatives

                           (By Mareva Brown)

       More than $100 million designated for relatives who care 
     for California's foster children is in danger of being 
     withheld over the next year while California's Department of 
     Social Services and a federal regulatory agency wage a fierce 
     battle over standards.
       At issue is a 2-year-old federal requirement that relatives 
     caring for foster children be screened and approved using the 
     same criteria as is used to license non-relative foster 
     homes. Federal officials say California has refused to 
     enforce the new standard, and they have begun withholding the 
     first of $112 million in foster care payments that could be 
     held back if tens of thousands of relatives' homes aren't 
     quickly approved using the new standards.
       California officials maintain they have followed the intent 
     of the law, eliminating relatives who have criminal pasts or 
     who can't be trusted to keep children safe. But they say 
     following it to the letter would require them to remove 
     children from nurturing relatives who are capable of 
     providing good care but whose homes do not meet federal 
     foster care guidelines, often because of poverty. Of 
     particular concern, state officials say, are federal mandates 
     specifying no more than two children to a bedroom, no shared 
     beds and no mixing of genders in bedrooms--space requirements 
     many impoverished families can't afford to meet.
       ``It could be a very loving, giving family, but the 
     question is can the child go there if, for example, the 
     siblings will sleep in a double bed,'' said DSS Deputy 
     Director Sylvia Pizzini. ``It's the intersection with poverty 
     that has the roughest edges here.''
       As state officials tried to hammer out a compromise late 
     last week, a public interest law firm in San Francisco 
     prepared to file a civil lawsuit that would compel the state 
     to comply with the federal standard. The Youth Law Center's 
     executive director, Carole Schauffer, said that while the 
     state bickers over language, it risks robbing foster families 
     of desperately needed funds.
       ``Even tough this is not a role we logically should take, 
     we're trying to see if there is any peace here,'' said 
     Schauffer, a staunch advocate for foster children. ``Because 
     without peace, it's very harmful to California kids.''
       The federal government pays for about 40 percent of the 
     cost to care for the nation's half-million foster children. 
     In California, home to nearly 100,000 foster children, the 
     federal share amounts to nearly $300 million per quarter. 
     About half the state's foster children are placed with 
     relatives.
       Last spring, the U.S. Administration for Children and 
     Families began deferring $18.7 million per quarter as a 
     penalty for the state's failure to document that all 
     relatives' homes had been cleared. The deferral, which cannot 
     be appealed, comes after two years of debate between federal 
     and state officials over how to interpret and apply the new 
     statute.
       While the state has absorbed the first deferral, officials 
     say they eventually will have to reduce foster payments to 
     the counties. The counties, in turn, will have to choose 
     between removing children from the homes of relatives or 
     reducing payment to those relatives.
       And for many relatives living close to the edge, providing 
     foster care without the payment simply would be too 
     expensive.
       Albert Cabrera and his wife, caring for their 9-month-old 
     granddaughter in a three-bedroom home off Power Inn Road, 
     offer a typical example. The baby was placed there two months 
     ago by social workers who ensured the couple had no criminal 
     record and that the temperature in their hot water heater was 
     safe, and who left the couple with a letter saying they would 
     be reimbursed $425 per month for the child's care.
       The Cabreras are among many foster grandparents who are 
     retired or don't earn enough to easily absorb the costs of 
     raising grandchildren. Last week, as the couple waited for 
     their reimbursement check, Cabrera's wife delayed buying 
     medicine for her high blood pressure so she could buy formula 
     for the baby. Cabrera worries about how he'll pay for the 
     additional gas money they'll need each month to take the baby 
     to visits with her parents and to doctor's appointments.
       ``In the beginning, we thought we would put away the money 
     they were going to send us for the baby,'' Cabrera said. 
     ``But we need it.''
       Sacramento County actually is among the few counties in 
     California that have inspected relatives' homes using the new 
     standards. Ninety percent of the 1,490 relatives' homes used 
     for foster care in Sacramento County have been approved. The

[[Page E1637]]

     rest are awaiting upgrades and are expected to be certified 
     soon.
       But Sacramento County is the exception. Most counties in 
     January began using the standards to approve new foster 
     placements with relatives but have not inspected the homes of 
     relatives where children placed before January.
       Until state officials can provide the federal government 
     with proof that all relatives' homes in California have been 
     certified, the penalties will continue--and will affect all 
     counties alike.
       The biggest backlog is in Los Angeles.
       In March, prompted by the new statute, Los Angeles County 
     conducted a sample survey of the foster homes of children 
     placed with relatives. The county is home to more than half 
     the state's foster children, and nearly 6,500 of them live 
     with relatives.
       Of the 200 homes surveyed, only two met federal standards. 
     Among the deficiencies were 16 families who did not have 
     adequate smoke detectors in their homes and 50 cases in which 
     children shared a bed or slept in a non-bedroom area.
       ``Most cases can be remedied with adequate financial 
     resources,'' the report concluded.
       Pizzini said state officials have been working diligently 
     on the issue for more than a year and criticized the federal 
     government for its heavy penalty, saying there were lesser 
     sanctions available.
       But federal regulators and Schauffer, of the Youth Law 
     Center said the state has not made any significant effort to 
     meet federal guidelines, even though some remedies are fairly 
     simple.
       The Department of Social Services has yet to create and 
     disperse a statewide standardized checklist for evaluating 
     relatives' homes, as officials agreed to do in April, 
     according to a federal letter.
       The state has not provided any proof that homes have been 
     approved using the new guidelines. And, despite a deadline of 
     June to reassess the homes of all relatives providing foster 
     care, thousands of homes have been checked.
       ``It was deliberately not done,'' said Schauffer, who says 
     she plans to file the lawsuit this week. ``It was either a 
     financial or a philosophical position they were taking: 
     Either we don't think relatives should be licensed, (that) 
     they should be able to take care of their kids in any way 
     they want. Or, if you look at it in a different way, neither 
     the counties or the states way to pay the cost of having 
     relatives assessed.''
       It is expensive.
       In Sacramento County, officials created a kinship 
     evaluation unit five months ago and staffed it with six 
     social workers who were removed from units in which they were 
     overseeing the care of children.
       Child Protective Services Director Leland Tom said he is 
     proud that the county has evaluated every relative's home but 
     that the cost has been high.
       ``It's having a major impact on our workload,'' Tom said. 
     ``And the sticking point for counties has been, here is this 
     additional workload that is being pushed on us, but we're not 
     being given additional funding to do it.''
       Pizzini said the state also has concerns about the 
     potential harm to children, given that the new process takes 
     longer to complete, in some cases forcing children into the 
     foster homes of strangers before relatives can be cleared. 
     She said allowances need to be made.
       ``Grandmother and Uncle don't come into our office three 
     months ahead of time and say, `In the future, you're going to 
     remove one of my nieces (from her home),' '' she said. ``That 
     doesn't happen. On the other hand, we recruit strangers to 
     come into care, and we have the luxury of some time.''

     

                          ____________________