[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 78 (Friday, June 16, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1180-E1181]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


               CHILD WELFARE LEAGUE OF AMERICA TESTIMONY

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, June 16, 2006

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to your attention Part 
II of the testimony of the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) when 
they testified before the Human Resources Subcommittee of the Ways and 
Means Committee on May 23, 2006.
  The purpose of the testimony given was to share with the Subcommittee 
important measures to improve our nation's child protective services. 
It is my hope that my colleagues will find this information useful as 
well as informative as we focus on legislation that addresses the needs 
and care of our children.

          CWLA Policy Recommendations on Proposed Legislation

       The Reauthorization of Promoting Safe and Stable Families--
     Of most immediate importance for this Committee is the 
     reauthorization of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families 
     program (PSSF) beyond FY 2006, PSSF supports four vital 
     services that address four different types of families in 
     need: those in need of basic support services to strengthen 
     the family and keep them whole, families being reunified, 
     families we are trying to preserve, and adoptive families in 
     need of support. As you review some of the key needs included 
     in this testimony, the Subcommittee can see how the issues of 
     prevention, aftercare, permanency and stability and 
     maintaining families are all addressed by these categories,
       CWLA believes these services and families should continue 
     to be the target for PSSF in a reauthorization bill:
       Family Support Services (FSS) were developed to respond to 
     the concerns, interests, and needs of families within a 
     community. Family Support Services are targeted to families 
     with difficulties and concerns related to the proper 
     functioning of the family and care of the children. The focus 
     of the program is on prevention. The services address the 
     need to improve the well-being of a child, family 
     functioning, and the parent's ability to provide for the 
     family, before they are in crisis. In order to reach 
     families in need of assistance, family support programs 
     work with outside community organizations such as schools 
     and child welfare agencies. The aim is to provide 
     temporary relief to families and to teach them how to 
     better nurture their children. Involvement in these 
     services is voluntary. Types of services include parent 
     education, child care relief, and selfhelp groups.
       Reunification is the first permanency option states 
     consider for children entering care. Yet, in many ways, it is 
     the most challenging option to achieve in a plan-based, 
     permanent way. We know that forty-eight percent of, or 
     246,650, children in care on September 30, 2003 had a case 
     plan goal of reunification with their parents or other 
     principal caretaker. At the same time, 151,770 children, or 
     55 percent of those children who left care in 2003, were 
     returned to their parent's or caretaker's home.
       Successful permanency through reunification requires many 
     things, including skilled workers, readily available 
     supportive and treatment resources, clear expectations and 
     service plans, and excellent collaboration across involved 
     agencies. Reunification also requires culturally appropriate 
     support and treatment services for families and the critical 
     need for after care or postpermanency services to ensure that 
     safety and permanency are maintained following reunification.
       Family Preservation Services (FPS) are comprehensive, 
     short-term, intensive services for families delivered 
     primarily in the home and designed to prevent the unnecessary 
     out-of-home placement of children or to promote family 
     reunification. The services are intended to protect a child 
     in a home where allegations of child abuse or neglect have 
     occurred, prevent subsequent abuse or neglect, prevent 
     placement of a child, or reduce the stay for a child in out-
     of-home care. Families in need of family preservation 
     services are usually referred by public welfare agencies. 
     Services are provided within 24 hours of referral and the 
     family's involvement is voluntary. These services respond to 
     families on a 24-hour basis, including services such as 
     family therapy, budgeting, nutrition, and parenting skills.
       Adoption support is an important need as the number of 
     adoptions have increased. There is still more work to be 
     done. Services may include information and referral, case 
     management services, support groups and a range of other 
     services. Of the 523,085 children in foster care in 2003, 
     approximately 119,000 were waiting to be adopted, with 68,000 
     of these children being free for adoption (parental rights 
     had been terminated). Of the children waiting, 40 percent 
     were black non-Hispanic, 37 percent were white non-Hispanic, 
     14 percent were Hispanic, and 4 percent were of undetermined 
     ethnicity.In 2003, the median age of children waiting to be 
     adopted was 8.7 years; 3 percent of the children waiting to 
     be adopted were younger than 1 year; 32 percent were ages 1 
     to 5; 28 percent were ages 6 to 10; 30 percent were 11 to 15; 
     and 6 percent were 16 to 18.
       Use Of $40 Million PSSF Increase--CWLA supports the 
     extension of the $40 million in mandatory funding that was 
     included in the Deficit Reduction Act and we want to work 
     with the Subcommittee and members of Congress to see that 
     PSSF is at a minimum fully funded at the level of $505 
     million as adopted by this Subcommittee in 2001. We feel 
     there a need for more. As indicated earlier in our testimony, 
     forty percent of children substantiated as abused or 
     neglected do not receive follow up services. We also feel it 
     bears repeating that there is need for more reunification, 
     adoption and other support services than PSSF attempts to 
     address. To truly reach the goal of safe and stable families 
     this country needs to go much further in its funding and 
     priority of the entire child welfare system.
       CWLA recognizes that the Subcommittee and members of 
     Congress see the $40 million in mandatory funding as an 
     opportunity to address some additional issues in the child 
     welfare field. If that is the decision of the Congress we 
     strongly urge you to make this the first step in a 
     comprehensive strategy over the next few years to more fully 
     address the needs of these children.
       The draft legislation includes a workforce element tied to 
     caseworker visits. CWLA supports regular and on-going visits 
     to children in care. In the child welfare field visitation is 
     not an isolated service or stand-alone intervention. Rather 
     it is part of a larger case planning process. To reach this 
     visitation goal we need a comprehensive strategy to 
     strengthen the child welfare workforce.
       We would not want a system of care where too few workers 
     with very high caseloads are simply meeting an outcome 
     measure of numbers. Rather each state should be assisted in 
     implementing a long term workforce strategy that sets goals 
     around reduced workforce turnover, higher education levels, 
     adequate case loads, initial training and on-going training, 
     adequate supervision and the proper partnerships with 
     educational institutions and other partners in workforce 
     development.
       For each state this will be different so we would urge the 
     Subcommittee to craft legislation around such a flexible 
     allocation of funding and planning that will work with states 
     to develop outcomes and provide related data that can 
     demonstrate progress toward a comprehensive workforce 
     strategy or goals. Again, this is a long-term strategy that 
     requires federal, state and local partnerships. It should 
     also be recognized that $40 million for fifty states may 
     limit the kind of progress we all seek in advancing this 
     goal. In addition, it will be difficult to determine how this 
     designation of $40 million will supplement and not supplant 
     current state efforts since it will overlap with Title IV-E 
     Administrative funding used for these critical purposes but 
     we do highlight that additional resources are needed.
       Possible Improvements--Access For Tribal Communities--In 
     your reauthorization, CWLA suggests that the Subcommittee 
     include the recommendations being proposed by the National 
     Indian Child Welfare Association, National Congress of 
     American Indians and the Association of American Indian 
     Affairs. Their joint proposal would set the reserved amounts 
     of funding for tribal governments at 3 percent in both the 
     mandatory and discretionary funding. A consortium of tribal 
     governments could also apply for the funding and we endorse 
     an authorization of a tribal court improvement program.
       Better Data--As part of the application process, states 
     submit information on how they intend to allocate their PSSF 
     funding. This information should be collected and included in 
     an annual report by HHS. We also urge the Subcommittee to 
     include legislative language that would direct HHS to work 
     with states to determine how to compile an annual report that 
     would provide information on how funds are actually spent and 
     would include information on families and children served. 
     The annual reports by HHS on the Social Services Block Grant 
     have only been issued since 1998, yet they have provided a 
     stronger picture of why that funding is important to so many 
     human service programs.
       Mentoring of Children of Prisoners--We commend the 
     Committee for including the reauthorization of the Mentoring 
     Children of Prisoners program in this legislation. Mentoring 
     for this population is an effective way to engage at-risk 
     children and youth, provides connections to caring adults, 
     and perhaps most importantly, builds relations among family 
     members during and after incarceration. We know there are 
     many areas in the country today where children of prisoners 
     are not able to access this mentoring service due to lack 
     of availability. Expansion is necessary and the Committee 
     is to be commended for focusing on this. We urge the 
     committee to carefully consider the following issues as 
     this new initiative is implemented.
       Currently there are 218 federally funded sites around the 
     country where this mentoring is taking place, involving 
     thousands of children. It would be tragic for these children 
     to have their mentoring disrupted or ended prematurely. We 
     urge the Committee to include provisions to allow these 
     efforts to continue.
       Researchers and mentoring experts have concluded that 
     children facing multiple developmental risks benefit more 
     from mentoring than other children; however, they require a 
     higher quality of mentoring program and are more likely to be 
     adversely affected by poor quality mentoring. We urge the 
     Committee to examine carefully the expertise and background 
     of all potential national

[[Page E1181]]

     entities specific to mentoring children of prisoners. New 
     trainings, techniques and curricula, have recently been 
     developed. Whatever entity is chosen will need to be fully 
     knowledgeable of these tools and prepared to make them 
     available.
       IV-B Part 1 Child Welfare Services--CWLA appreciates the 
     Subcommittee's efforts to better align the IV-B Part 1, Child 
     Welfare Services program with that of PSSF. This can add 
     clarity to the understanding of funding sources although it 
     is unclear to what extent IV-B 1 funds are spent on adoption, 
     foster care and child care on an annual basis. In practical 
     terms, since federal Title IV-E funds cover half or less than 
     half of the children in foster care, it is also unclear that 
     this change in statute will result in any increase in funding 
     for services covered under IV-B part 1 or PSSF. Inevitably 
     states must pick up the cost of foster care for children 
     ineligible for IV-E by relying on other federal funds, state 
     funds, local funds or a combination of all three.
       CWLA also appreciates the Subcommittee's efforts at 
     updating the state plan requirements. In addition we suggest 
     the requirement to include a description of efforts to 
     address the overrepresentation of children of color in the 
     child welfare system. These children represent African 
     American/Black, Latino/Hispanic, American Indian/Alaskan 
     Native, Asian, Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, or two or 
     more races.
       Conclusion--CWLA appreciates the opportunity to offer our 
     testimony and comments to the Subcommittee in regard to this 
     reauthorization of Promoting Safe and Stable Families. As 
     this legislation moves forward we look forward to a continued 
     dialogue with the Subcommittee and Members of Congress. We 
     also hope that this reauthorization serves as a building 
     block for future efforts that will create a comprehensive 
     reform that results in reduced numbers of children being 
     abused and neglected and safer and permanent families for 
     those children who do come into contact with the child 
     welfare system.

                          ____________________