[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
TO REVIEW FEDERAL AND STATE OVERSIGHT OF CHILD WELFARE PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JANUARY 28, 2004
__________
Serial No. 108-30
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
92-984 WASHINGTON : DC
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
BILL THOMAS, California, Chairman
PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut ROBERT T. MATSUI, California
AMO HOUGHTON, New York SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
WALLY HERGER, California BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington
DAVE CAMP, Michigan GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin
JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota JOHN LEWIS, Georgia
JIM NUSSLE, Iowa RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
SAM JOHNSON, Texas MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York
JENNIFER DUNN, Washington WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
MAC COLLINS, Georgia JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio XAVIER BECERRA, California
PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
JERRY WELLER, Illinois MAX SANDLIN, Texas
KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio
SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado
RON LEWIS, Kentucky
MARK FOLEY, Florida
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin
ERIC CANTOR, Virginia
Allison H. Giles, Chief of Staff
Janice Mays, Minority Chief Counsel
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
WALLY HERGER, California, Chairman
NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
DAVE CAMP, Michigan JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington
PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
RON LEWIS, Kentucky
ERIC CANTOR, Virginia
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Ways and Means are also, published
in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the official
version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare both
printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of
converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Advisory of January 21, 2004, announcing the hearing............. 2
WITNESSES
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Hon. Wade F. Horn,
Ph.D., Assistant Secretary for Children and Families........... 8
U.S. General Accounting Office, Cornelia M. Ashby, Director,
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues............... 18
______
Alliance for Children and Families, Curtis C. Mooney............. 93
Association on American Indian Affairs, Jack F. Trope............ 105
Atwood, Thomas C., National Council For Adoption................. 82
Bell, William C., New York City Administration for Children's
Services....................................................... 43
Bilchik, Shay, Child Welfare League of America................... 73
Birch, Thomas L., National Child Abuse Coalition................. 97
Burge, Cathy, Naples, FL......................................... 122
Catholic Charities, Archdiocese of New York, Monsignor Kevin
Sullivan....................................................... 80
Child Welfare League of America, Shay Bilchik.................... 73
DePelchin Children's Center, Curtis C. Mooney.................... 93
Frenzel, Hon. William, Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care. 70
Gladwell, Lisa E., River Edge, NJ................................ 125
Holden, Courteney Anne, Voice For Adoption....................... 102
Home School Legal Defense Association, Christopher J. Klicka..... 109
Iowa Department of Human Services, Division of Behavioral,
Developmental, and Protective Services for Families, Adults,
and Children, Mary J. Nelson................................... 32
Klicka, Christopher J., Home School Legal Defense Association.... 109
Mooney, Curtis C., Alliance for Children and Families, and
DePelchin Children's Center.................................... 93
National Association of Foster Care Reviewers, Bill Stanton...... 56
National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators, Mary
J. Nelson...................................................... 32
National Child Abuse Coalition, Thomas L. Birch.................. 97
National Council For Adoption, Thomas C. Atwood.................. 82
Nelson, Mary J., National Association of Public Child Welfare
Administrators, and Iowa Department of Human Services, Division
of Behavioral, Developmental, and Protective Services for
Families, Adults, and Children................................. 32
New York City Administration for Children's Services, William C.
Bell........................................................... 43
O'Hara, Marie C., Barnegat, NJ................................... 130
Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, Office of Children,
Youth, and Families, Wayne T. Stevenson........................ 53
Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, Hon. William Frenzel.. 70
Stanton, Bill, National Association of Foster Care Reviewers, and
Phoenix Administrative Office of the Courts, Dependent
Children's Services Division................................... 56
Stevenson, Wayne T., Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare,
Office of Children, Youth, and Families........................ 53
Sullivan, Monsignor Kevin, Catholic Charities, Archdiocese of New
York........................................................... 80
Trope, Jack F., Association on American Indian Affairs........... 105
Voice For Adoption, Courteney Anne Holden........................ 102
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Beauchamp, Edith J., Greenbelt, MD, statement.................... 137
de Santos, Patricia, Claremont, CA, statement.................... 144
Evans-Baxter, Judith G., Pompano Beach, FL, letter............... 147
Voice Application Specialists International, Inc., Woodstock, GA,
Maricriz Nolan, letter......................................... 148
TO REVIEW FEDERAL AND STATE OVERSIGHT OF CHILD WELFARE PROGRAMS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 2004
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Subcommittee on Human Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:32 a.m., in
room B-318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Wally Herger
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:]
ADVISORY
FROM THE
COMMITTEE
ON WAYS
AND
MEANS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
CONTACT: 202-225-1721
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 21, 2004
HR-7
Herger Announces Hearing to Review Federal and State Oversight of Child
Welfare Programs
Congressman Wally Herger (R-CA), Chairman, Subcommittee on Human
Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the
Subcommittee will hold a hearing to review Federal and State oversight
of child welfare programs. The hearing will take place on Wednesday,
January 28, 2004, in room B-318 Rayburn House Office Building,
beginning at 10:30 a.m.
Oral testimony at this hearing will be from both invited and public
witnesses. Invited witnesses will include Federal and State officials
and other experts familiar with child welfare programs. Any individual
or organization not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a
written statement for consideration by the Subcommittee and for
inclusion in the printed record of the hearing.
BACKGROUND:
On November 6, 2003, the Subcommittee held a hearing to examine a
case in New Jersey involving four boys who were apparently starved
while in the care of their adoptive parents. This neglect escaped the
attention of caseworkers who made numerous visits to the home, and
instead was first reported by a neighbor who found one of the boys
rooting through the trash in search of food. The Federal Government
provides approximately $7 billion to the States to operate foster care
and adoption assistance programs intended to protect children. However,
this case as well as others involving the death or abuse of children
involved with the child welfare system raise questions about whether
more needs to be done to ensure that children are protected and reside
in safe environments rather than continuing to be subjected to abuse
and neglect.
On November 19, 2003, the Subcommittee held a hearing to examine
improved monitoring of children in care by focusing on the information
systems designed to track and protect these vulnerable children from
abuse and neglect. Government officials and outside experts testified
at this hearing that effective data systems are necessary to keep
children safe. Quality information systems can provide crucial
information to monitor these children and help to ensure State
accountability for their well-being, but for this to happen States must
effectively use the data they collect to protect and track these
children. The Subcommittee's third hearing in this series, to be held
on January 28, 2004, will review Federal and State oversight systems
designed to prevent abuse and neglect of children, including those
under State protection.
In announcing the hearing, Chairman Herger stated, ``It is critical
that we do all we can to ensure the safety of children. When the very
systems intended to protect these children fail to defend them from
continued abuse or neglect, we must ask hard questions about what more
needs to be done. This hearing will give us the opportunity to learn
what Federal, State, and local officials should be doing to ensure that
children are in safe, loving environments.
FOCUS OF THE HEARING:
The hearing will focus on what Federal, State, and local officials
can do and should be doing to ensure the safety, permanency, and well-
being of children.
DETAILS FOR SUBMISSIONS OF REQUESTS TO BE HEARD:
Requests to be heard at the hearing must be made by telephone to
Peter Sloan or Kevin Herms at (202) 225-1721 no later than 5:00 p.m. on
Friday, January 23, 2004. The telephone request should be followed by a
formal written request faxed to Allison Giles, Chief of Staff,
Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, 1102
Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515, at (202) 225-
2610. The staff of the Subcommittee will notify by telephone those
scheduled to appear as soon as possible after the filing deadline. Any
questions concerning a scheduled appearance should be directed to the
Subcommittee staff at (202) 225-1025.
In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, the
Subcommittee may not be able to accommodate all requests to be heard.
Those persons and organizations not scheduled for an oral appearance
are encouraged to submit written statements for the record of the
hearing in lieu of a personal appearance. All persons requesting to be
heard, whether they are scheduled for oral testimony or not, will be
notified as soon as possible after the filing deadline.
Witnesses scheduled to present oral testimony are required to
summarize briefly their written statements in no more than five
minutes. THE FIVE-MINUTE RULE WILL BE STRICTLY ENFORCED. The full
written statement of each witness will be included in the printed
record, in accordance with House Rules.
In order to assure the most productive use of the limited amount of
time available to question witnesses, all witnesses scheduled to appear
before the Subcommittee are required to submit 200 copies, along with
an IBM compatible 3.5-inch diskette in WordPerfect or MS Word format,
of their prepared statement for review by Members prior to the hearing.
Testimony should arrive at the Subcommittee office, B-317 Rayburn House
Office Building, no later than 1:00 p.m. on Monday, January 26, 2004.
The 200 copies can be delivered to the Subcommittee staff in one of two
ways: (1) Government agency employees can deliver their copies to B-317
Rayburn House Office Building in an open and searchable box, but must
carry with them their respective government issued identification to
show the U.S. Capitol Police, or (2) for non-government officials, the
copies must be sent to the new Congressional Courier Acceptance Site at
the location of 2nd and D Streets, N.E., at least 48 hours prior to the
hearing date. Please ensure that you have the address of the
Subcommittee, B-317 Rayburn House Office Building, on your package, and
contact the staff of the Subcommittee at (202) 225-1025 of its
impending arrival. Due to new House mailing procedures, please avoid
using mail couriers such as the U.S. Postal Service, UPS, and FedEx.
When a couriered item arrives at this facility, it will be opened,
screened, and then delivered to the Subcommittee office, within one of
the following two time frames: (1) expected or confirmed deliveries
will be delivered in approximately 2 to 3 hours, and (2) unexpected
items, or items not approved by the Subcommittee office, will be
delivered the morning of the next business day. The U.S. Capitol Police
will refuse all non-governmental courier deliveries to all House Office
Buildings.
WRITTEN STATEMENTS IN LIEU OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE:
Please Note: Any person or organization wishing to submit a written
statement for the printed record of the hearing must send it
electronically to [email protected], along with
a fax copy to (202) 225-2610, by the close of business Wednesday,
February 11, 2004. In the immediate future, the Committee website will
allow for electronic submissions to be included in the printed record.
Before submitting your comments, check to see if this function is
available. Finally, those filing written statements who wish to have
their statements distributed to the press and interested public at the
hearing can follow the same procedure listed above for those who are
testifying and making an oral presentation. Please directly follow
these guidelines to ensure that each statement is included in the
record.
FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS:
Each statement presented for printing to the Committee by a
witness, any written statement or exhibit submitted for the printed
record or any written comments in response to a request for written
comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any statement or
exhibit not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed,
but will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the
Committee.
1. All statements and any accompanying exhibits for printing must
be submitted electronically to
[email protected], along with a fax copy to
(202) 225-2610, in WordPerfect or MS Word format and MUST NOT exceed a
total of 10 pages including attachments. Witnesses are advised that the
Committee will rely on electronic submissions for printing the official
hearing record.
2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not
be accepted for printing. Instead, exhibit material should be
referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material not meeting
these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for
review and use by the Committee.
3. All statements must include a list of all clients, persons, or
organizations on whose behalf the witness appears. A supplemental sheet
must accompany each statement listing the name, company, address,
telephone and fax numbers of each witness.
Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on
the World Wide Web at http://waysandmeans.house.gov.
The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons
with disabilities. If you are in need of special accommodations, please
call 202-225-1721 or 202-226-3411 TTD/TTY in advance of the event (four
business days notice is requested). Questions with regard to special
accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee
materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as
noted above.
Chairman HERGER. Good morning. I would invite everyone to
take their seats, please. Welcome to today's hearing. The
purpose of this hearing is to continue our efforts to review
and understand how well our Nation's child welfare programs are
protecting vulnerable children. Last November, the case of four
boys apparently starved by their adopted parents in New Jersey
came to the attention of the Nation. Many of us were shocked to
learn that the alleged abuse and neglect of these boys had for
so long escaped the attention of so many individuals, including
child welfare workers who repeatedly visited their homes. We
held our first hearing, learning what happened in this specific
case, and learning how the boys were doing. Two months later, I
understand that the boys continue to make progress in their new
environments.
Our second hearing looked at routine but important
questions surrounding the data States collect to monitor kids
in their care. Witnesses told us that good information systems
play a vital role in helping States protect kids in care. We
also learned that a number of States lack the capacity to use
the data they collect to help ensure safe and permanent
placements for kids. Today's hearing will review Federal and
State oversight of child welfare programs. The basic questions
today are simple, but I expect that the answers may not be so
simple. What do we do at the Federal, State, and local level to
ensure that children are safe and placed with loving families?
Are current measures working to protect children? What more
should we be doing to protect children in foster or adoptive
families?
We know the foster care system includes many thousands of
loving families who provide safe, nurturing homes to vulnerable
children. Without them, these children would grow up without a
family or a place to call home. We commend them, and thank them
for their dedication to these children. However, we also know
that the case in New Jersey is not an isolated incident. Every
one of our States has witnessed shocking stories of children
whose abuse slipped through the cracks--of children missing
from care, or even children who died while in State custody.
We have asked representatives from the Federal Government,
State and local government, and child welfare organizations to
join us to discuss whether Federal and State protections are
working. I am also pleased that a number of organizations and
individuals have responded to our request for additional input.
Finally, we are joined by several parents who have been
involved with the child welfare system, and who will offer us
their personal perspective. I thank all of our witnesses for
joining us today. We tried to accommodate everyone who
submitted a request to testify that met the Committee's
requirements and was related to the topic of today's hearing.
We look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses about ways
to better promote safety for children in foster and adoptive
families. Without objection, each Member will have the
opportunity to submit a written statement and have it included
in the record at this point. Mr. Cardin, would you like to make
an opening statement?
[The opening statement of Chairman Herger follows:]
Opening Statement of the Honorable Wally Herger, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Human Resources, and a Representative in Congress from the State of
California
Good morning and welcome to today's hearing. The purpose of this
hearing is to continue our efforts to review and understand how well
our nation's child welfare programs are protecting vulnerable children.
Last November the case of four boys apparently starved by their
adoptive parents in New Jersey came to the attention of the Nation.
Many of us were shocked to learn that the alleged abuse and neglect of
these boys had for so long escaped the attention of so many
individuals, including child welfare workers who repeatedly visited
their home. We held our first hearing to learn what happened in this
specific case and to learn how the boys were doing. Two months later, I
understand that the boys continue to make progress in their new
environments.
Our second hearing looked at routine but important questions
surrounding the data States collect to monitor kids in their care.
Witnesses told us good information systems play a vital role in helping
States protect kids in care. We also learned that a number of States
lack the capacity to use data they collect to help ensure safe and
permanent placements for kids.
Today's hearing will review Federal and State oversight of child
welfare programs. The basic questions today are simple, but I expect
the answers may not be so simple. What do we do at the Federal, State,
and local level to ensure children are safe and placed with loving
families? Are current measures working to protect children? And what
more should we be doing to protect children in foster or adoptive
families?
We know the foster care system includes thousands of loving
families who provide safe, nurturing homes to vulnerable children.
Without them, these children would grow up without a family or a place
to call home. We commend them and thank them for their dedication to
these children.
However, we also know that the case in New Jersey is not an
isolated incident. Every one of our States has witnessed shocking
stories of children whose abuse slipped through the cracks, of children
missing from care or even children who died while in State custody.
We've asked representatives from the Federal Government, State and
local government, and child welfare organizations to join us to discuss
whether Federal and State protections are working. I'm also pleased
that a number of organizations and individuals have responded to our
request for additional input. Finally, we are joined by several parents
who have been involved with the child welfare system, who will offer us
their personal perspective. We look forward to hearing from all of our
witnesses today about ways to better promote safety for children in
foster and adoptive families.
Mr. CARDIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I very much
appreciate your leadership in putting together this hearing. I
think this is a very important hearing for us. It is not our
first in the area of child welfare or protecting our children;
we have had several other hearings. Yet this hearing is
particularly meaningful because of the wide diversity of the
panels that will be appearing before us, and their expertise in
this area. We should be able to get the perspective from just
about every one of the stakeholders in our child welfare
system, and I thank you very much for convening this hearing.
None of us will forget the hearing we had in regard to the
case in New Jersey that you mentioned, where four children were
literally being starved. Yet we don't have to go to New Jersey.
I think we can look in each one of our States and find that
there is a lot more that needs to be done to protect the
welfare of children. I notice in my own State of Maryland that
there is a highly profiled case that is currently going on
about a child who was beaten to death. So, each of us need to
really scrutinize what is happening in our own individual
States and look--and I particularly appreciate Dr. Wade Horn
being here--look at what we can do at the national level to
provide the right structure to protect our children.
Let me make a couple of observations. First, there is the
issue of funding. I think we have to adequately fund the
programs in this area. I do have concerns about the open-ended
funding for children that are placed out of home--but that we
have a capped funding source for preventive services in order
to keep our children safe and healthy. I think we need to take
a look at that as we review the budget of this country. Second,
the child welfare system is only as good as the people that are
in the system who provide the leadership. When we look at the
turnover, particularly of caseworkers--they are the frontline
people--we know that we have a problem here of how to attract
and retain the best people to stay in this very difficult
arena, so that they can provide the leadership and experience
necessary to protect our children. Third, there is the issue of
what the Federal role should be. I know that we are all
struggling with providing the flexibility to local government.
We want to do the best we can to allow the locals to do what
they think is right, and I support that. I support the
flexibility. Yet there needs to be Federal accountability. We
need a Federal system that says that every child is precious,
and that we need to protect vulnerable children.
During past hearings, I have expressed concern about the
Bush Administration's child welfare proposals--that they fail
to adequately address these three core issues that I mentioned.
I am concerned about the President's budget, as to whether it
will be adequate to meet these objectives. I know that the
Administration has proposed the block granting of child welfare
dollars. That gives me a great deal of concern, because I see
in every case that we have gone to block grants, it is followed
with a reduction of the Federal Government's role in meeting
these needs. Look at the Social Services Block Grant program
(title XX of the Social Security Act, Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act 1987, P.L. 100-203) that was at one time
funded at $2.8 billion. Its funding is now down to $1.7
billion. Look at the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) reauthorization. The TANF program has not kept up with
inflation, and the chances of this Congress approving a TANF
reauthorization that will reflect inflation--buying the same
amount for the dollars that are being made available--is not
very likely. So, we have seen that when the Federal Government
goes from a guaranteed funding program to a block grant funding
program, it is usually followed by less Federal funds.
Nevertheless, I remain hopeful that we can work together,
Mr. Chairman, because this is an area for which we all share
the same objective. We all want to make sure that America's
children are protected--particularly the most vulnerable. So,
on behalf of the Democratic Members, we want to continue to
work without party distinction here. We want to be able to
develop a national commitment to our vulnerable children. We
want to improve our current system and make it accountable. We
want to provide the resources that are necessary, so that we
can truly protect our children, and so we don't have to read in
the paper about these horrible abuse cases that should have
been corrected. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
[The opening statement of Mr. Cardin follows:]
Opening Statement of the Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Maryland
Mr. Chairman, I am glad we are here today to continue a series of
hearings on our Nation's child welfare system. These discussions may
not get reported on the front pages of any newspaper, but they are
vitally important to the nearly one million children who are victims of
abuse and/or neglect every year, and to the half million children who
now reside in foster care.
The written testimony provided today in combination with the
comments we have heard in our past hearings appears to illustrate a
growing consensus on a few key issues.
First, the current child welfare system grossly under-funds
services designed to prevent child abuse by strengthening families.
Experts, administrators, and advocates alike have repeatedly pointed
out that the Federal Government provides open-ended funding for out-of-
home care, while providing only limited, capped funds for preventive
services.
Second, the child welfare system is only as good those who run it--
from the top all the way down to the frontline caseworker. To make real
improvements, sufficient political will has to exist within those
making policy decisions, and adequate experience and training is needed
by those making the hard decisions every day about how to care for
children in troubled homes. Regrettably, we know that low pay, high
caseloads and inadequate training has led to rapid turnover for child
welfare caseworkers--with their average tenure lasting less than two
years.
Third, the results of the recent Child and Family Service Reviews,
past and current litigation revolving around the child welfare system,
and recent reports on specific child abuse cases (including the
disturbing story about an adoptive family in New Jersey), all
illustrate the clear need for a strong Federal presence in ensuring the
safety of our most vulnerable children.
This does not mean we cannot provide flexibility to our States and
communities--because we can and should. But it does mean the Federal
Government must demand better outcomes for abused children, while
providing the necessary resources to promote that goal.
During past hearings, I have expressed concern that the Bush
Administration's child welfare proposal fails to adequately address
these three core issues. The President's plan is designed to be budget
neutral, indicating a belief that no new resources are needed to
provide protection and permanency for at-risk children.
I do not think the evidence before us supports such a conclusion.
I also have grave doubts about the long-term impact of effectively
block-granting nearly all child welfare funding. Beyond the question of
what happens if caseloads go up, I am concerned about the Federal
financial commitment over time. The Social Services Block Grant, which
among other things funds child protective services, has been cut from
$2.8 billion a year in 1996 to $1.7 billion today. Furthermore, the
TANF block grant is not keeping up with inflation, meaning it is set to
lose about a quarter of it purchasing power over the next five years.
In short, block grants too often lead to spending cuts.
Nevertheless, I remain hopeful that we can work together on a
comprehensive solution to the problems now confronting our child
welfare system. We all agree there is a problem, and I think there is a
fair amount of consensus about what is causing that problem. That is an
important first step towards moving to a meaningful solution. I look
forward to taking the next step so that we can better protect our most
vulnerable children. Thank you.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Cardin. Before we move on
to our testimony, I want to remind our witnesses to limit their
oral statement to 5 minutes. However, without objection, all
the written testimony will be made a part of the permanent
record. As you will note from the witness list, we have a
number of individuals scheduled to testify today. We expect to
receive testimony from Dr. Wade Horn and the first panel before
breaking for lunch. Then we expect to return for the remaining
witnesses, starting at approximately 1:30 p.m. We appreciate
everyone's patience in allowing us to hear from so many
witnesses on such an important topic today. To begin, I would
like to welcome Dr. Wade Horn, Assistant Secretary for Children
and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS). Dr. Horn has been before the Subcommittee on a
number of occasions, and I thank him for appearing before us
today. Dr. Horn to testify.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WADE F. HORN, PH.D., ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES
Dr. HORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Subcommittee. I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today to discuss Federal child welfare oversight
activities, and to share with you initiatives we are
undertaking to further strengthen child welfare services in
America. The Administration for Children and Families uses
several mechanisms to work with States to assess State and
local child welfare systems, to measure compliance with Federal
laws, and to hold States accountable, both for meeting Federal
requirements, and, more importantly, for achieving positive
outcomes for children and families. We also use information
gathered from our various reviews to provide targeted technical
assistance that is responsive to individual State needs, in an
effort to help improve their systems and services.
The principal mechanisms for Federal oversight include
title IV-E eligibility reviews, reviews of the Adoption and
Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS), reviews of
the statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System
(SACWIS), and the Child and Family Services Review (CFSR). The
CFSRs are the cornerstone of our efforts to review State
performance, and ensure a State's compliance with key
provisions of Federal law. It is also our means to partner with
the States in identifying areas that need improvement, and
working to bring about those improvements. The CFSRs began in
fiscal year 2001, and to date, we have completed 48 of them.
The CFSRs cover all areas of child welfare services, from
child protection and family preservation, to adoption and
positive youth development. The review itself includes a self-
assessment phase, followed by an intensive on-site review in
which we pair teams of Federal and State staff to review cases
and interview children, parents, foster parents, and
stakeholders, to identify areas of strength in each State, and
areas that require improvement. When weaknesses are identified,
States enter into a Program Improvement Plan (PIP) to address
the areas where we find deficiencies. To date, 31 PIPs have
been approved. After the PIP period ends, States will undergo a
second review--and we continue this process until the State
comes into compliance on all of the 14 areas under review. If a
State fails to carry out provisions of this PIP, or fails to
achieve its goals, we will begin imposing applicable penalties.
We recognize that providing quality technical assistance is
critical to helping States get the most out of the review
process and to bring about needed change. Therefore, the
Administration provides over $8 million annually to support 10
national resource centers, whose role is to build the capacity
of State, local, tribal, and other publicly administered and
supported child welfare agencies. The national resource centers
are providing technical assistance to States in different
stages of the CFSR process. These reviews are beginning to make
a significant contribution to improving child welfare services
across the country. However, we know we must do more in order
to better protect children, support families, and promote
timely permanency. Therefore, last year, the President unveiled
a bold new proposal--the Child Welfare Program Option--that
would allow States to choose a flexible alternative funding
structure, to design more effective ways to strengthen services
to vulnerable children and families. States that choose the
program option would be able to use funds for foster care
payments, as well as other child welfare services, such as
prevention activities and case management. While States that
choose this option would have much greater flexibility in how
they use title IV-E funds, they would continue to be required
to maintain the child safety protections under current law.
We believe that this option would offer a powerful new
means for States to structure their child welfare services
programs in a way that supports the goals of safety, timely
permanency, and enhanced well-being for children and families,
while relieving them of significant administrative burdens. We
appreciate the Committee's support in working with us on
crafting legislative language to make this proposal a reality.
Finally, I would like to mention another Presidential priority
that speaks to a concern Mr. Cardin brought up in his opening
comments, and which directly supports State efforts to provide
needed services to children and families. The Promoting Safe
and Stable Families amendments of 2001 (P.L. 107-133) fund
family support, family preservation, time-limited
reunification, adoption promotion, and support services, and
provides funding for the Court Improvement Program.
The President, as you know, has proposed an increase of $1
billion in this program over 5 years. Thus far, Congress has
appropriated approximately half that amount. The President is
firm in his commitment to continue to seek and secure full
funding--$505 million a year--for this important program. We
ask for your continued support of this vital investment in our
Nation's children and families. We have made great strides in
the field of child welfare, but the work of assuring the
safety, permanency, and well-being of every child who comes to
the attention of a child welfare agency or court remains a
tremendously challenging task. We are committed to working with
the States, Members of Congress, community-based organizations,
and concerned citizens to continuously strive for better
outcomes for all of these children. Thank you, and I would be
pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Horn follows:]
Statement of the Honorable Wade F. Horn, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary for
Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you to discuss issues related to Federal
child welfare oversight and the President's commitment to improving the
lives of vulnerable children and families. Through the development of
national outcome measures, and the implementation of the results-
oriented Child and Family Services Review process, we have built a
national consensus on the key goals for child welfare: assuring
children's safety, meeting children's needs for timely permanency in a
loving and stable family, and promoting child and family well-being. I
am pleased to have this opportunity to provide a brief overview of our
Federal oversight activities and to share with you initiatives we are
undertaking to further strengthen child welfare services.
Overview of Child Welfare Oversight
The role of Federal child welfare oversight is to monitor States
and federally recognized Tribes to ensure they are meeting their
responsibilities of protecting our nation's most vulnerable children
and providing effective services to at-risk families. The
Administration for Children and Families (ACF) uses several mechanisms
to work with the States to assess State and local child welfare
systems, to measure compliance with Federal laws and to hold States
accountable both for meeting Federal requirements and, more
importantly, for achieving positive outcomes for children and families.
We also use information gathered from our various reviews to provide
targeted technical assistance that is responsive to individual State
needs in an effort to help them improve their systems and services. We
urge States to collect and analyze information in a manner that
promotes a culture of continuous assessment and improvement, rather
than waiting for the next tragedy to call for reform.
The following are the principle mechanisms for Federal oversight of
child welfare systems:
Title IV-E Eligibility Reviews--Title IV-E reviews focus
on whether a child meets the statutory eligibility requirements for
foster care maintenance payments. Federal funds are disallowed for
cases that fail to meet these requirements. If a State fails in more
than a specific percentage of cases, it is considered to be out of
compliance with the Federal foster care program requirements. Most of
the States reviewed to date were in substantial compliance with the
eligibility requirements and most of the remainder are in the process
of implementing corrective action plans.
The Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting
System (AFCARS)--AFCARS collects case level information on all children
under the care of the State in foster care and those children adopted
from the State public child welfare system. It also includes
information on adoptive and foster parents. The AFCARS review
encompasses assessing the ability of a State's automated information
system to gather, extract and submit the correct AFCARS data
accurately. The review process is a rigorous evaluation of the State's
system and allows the review team to identify problems, investigate the
causes, and suggest solutions during the review.
Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System
(SACWIS)--Through these reviews we assess and inspect the planning,
design, and operation of SACWIS systems to determine how such systems
meet the requirements imposed in the law, regulations, guidelines, and
in the State's unique business plan. ACF evaluates all mandatory
functional components (e.g. intake, screening, assessment, and
investigations) and all the optional components the State elected to
include in the system design (e.g. court processing and contract
monitoring). The SACWIS can function as a ``case management'' system
that serves as the electronic case file for children and families
served by the States' child welfare programs. Twenty-nine States now
have operational systems that are comprehensive and capable of
supporting both improved case management and required data reporting.
Child and Family Services Review--The CFS Review is
designed to ensure that State child welfare agency practices are in
conformity with Federal child welfare requirements, to determine what
is actually happening to children and families as they are engaged in
State child welfare services, and to assist States with enhancing their
capacity to help children and families involved with the child welfare
system achieve positive outcomes.
The CFS Review is the most comprehensive Federal child welfare
monitoring tool we have and is the focus of my testimony today.
Child and Family Services Reviews
The Child and Family Services Review is the cornerstone of our
efforts to review State performance and ensure compliance with key
provisions of law. It also is our means to partner with the States in
identifying areas that need improvement and in working with them to
bring about those improvements. I would like to take a few moments to
describe the reviews and what we are learning from them.
The CFS Review began in FY 2001 and to date we have completed 48
reviews including 46 States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia.
Only 4 reviews remain: Mississippi, Rhode Island, Nevada, and New
Jersey. These reviews will be completed by the end of March 2004.
The CFS Review covers all areas of child welfare services, from
child protection and family preservation, to adoption and positive
youth development. The review requires that State child welfare
agencies, in collaboration with a range of other State and local
representatives, engage in an intense self-examination of their
practices and analyze detailed data profiles that the Federal
Government provides from our national databases on child welfare.
We follow the self-assessment phase of the review with an intense
onsite review--in which we pair teams of Federal and State staff to
review cases and interview children, parents, and foster parents--to
identify areas of strength in State child welfare programs and areas
that require improvement. This joint approach to reviewing States has
had the effect of not only engaging States in identifying their own
strengths and weaknesses, but also in building the commitment of States
to make needed improvements and strengthen their capacity to self-
monitor between Federal reviews.
When weaknesses are identified, States enter into Program
Improvement Plans (PIP) to address any of the areas where we find
deficiencies. The PIP must be submitted for approval within 90 days of
the completion of their final report. To date, 31 Program Improvement
Plans have been approved.
We recognize that providing quality technical assistance is
critical to helping States get the most out of the review process and
bring about needed change. Therefore, the Administration provides over
$8 million annually for 10 national resource centers whose role is to
build the capacity of State, local, tribal and other publicly
administered or supported child welfare agencies. These resource
centers are organized around subject areas including: Family-Centered
Practice; Organizational Improvement; Foster Care and Permanency
Planning; Information Technology in Child Welfare; Special Needs
Adoption; Youth Services; Child Maltreatment; Abandoned Infants;
Community-Based Family Resource and Support Programs; and Legal and
Judicial Issues. In addition to these ACF-funded resources centers, we
also are partnering with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Administration in supporting a National Center on Substance Abuse and
Child Welfare.
The national resource centers are providing technical assistance to
States in different stages of the CFS Review process. For example, the
National Resource Center for Organizational Improvement has guided many
States in developing work plans for the statewide assessment portion of
the review and other resource centers have assisted States in
developing their Program Improvement Plans.
After the Program Improvement period ends, States will undergo a
second review, and will continue this process until they come into
compliance on all of the 14 areas under review.
We hold the States accountable for achieving the provisions of
their Program Improvement Plans but, in order to assist them in making
needed improvements, we suspend Federal penalties while a State is
implementing its plan. If a State fails to carry out the provisions of
its Program Improvement Plan or fails to achieve its goals, we will
begin imposing applicable penalties.
Among the most significant findings across the 46 States, Puerto
Rico, and the District of Columbia are the following:
States are performing somewhat better on safety outcomes
for children than on permanency and well-being. Overall, States are
responding to reports of abuse and neglect in a timely manner, and are
providing services to prevent out-of-home placement when appropriate.
States need to work on preventing repeat abuse and
neglect of children and need to improve the level of services provided
to families to reduce the risk of future harm, including monitoring
families' participation in services.
The timely achievement of permanency outcomes, especially
adoption, for children in foster care is one of the weakest areas of
State performance.
Most of the States need to make significant improvements
in their judicial processes for monitoring children in foster care,
such as assuring timely court hearings and increasing their attention
to timely termination of parental rights, where appropriate.
There is a strong correlation between frequent caseworker
visits with children and positive findings in other areas, such as
timely permanency achievement (which is one of the most difficult areas
for States to address effectively) and indicators of child well-being.
In the area of well being, States are strongest in
meeting the educational needs of children, followed by physical health,
and then mental health. States need to improve the way in which they
assess the needs of family members and provide services, and the way in
which they engage parents and children in developing case plans. In
particular, States need to focus on their work with fathers, including
identifying fathers and engaging them in services.
There are important differences in the level of services
provided to intact families, as opposed to families whose children are
in foster care, often with less attention to the intact families. We
believe that many States need to strengthen the up-front preventive
services they provide to intact families if they are to be successful
in preventing the unnecessary break-up of families and in protecting
those children who remain at home rather than being placed in foster
care.
The Child and Family Services Review is making a significant
contribution to improving child welfare services across the country,
but there is still much work to be done. We know that we must do more
in order to better protect children, support families and promote
timely permanency. Therefore, the President has put forth a bold new
Child Welfare Financing proposal that would strengthen State child
welfare systems and help States better meet the needs of America's most
vulnerable children and families.
Child Welfare Program Option
In FY 2004, the President unveiled a new proposal, the Child
Welfare Program Option that would allow States to choose a flexible,
alternative financing structure over the current title IV-E foster care
entitlement program. Over the years, we consistently have heard from
States that the title IV-E foster care program is too restrictive
because it only provides funds for the poorest children who have been
removed from the home.
The program also has been criticized for failing to support the
goal of permanency. While reimbursement for foster care and related
case management services is open-ended, title IV-E funds may not be
used for other types of services that could prevent a child from
needing to be placed in care in the first place, or that would
facilitate a child's returning home, or moving to another permanent
placement.
Under the President's proposal, States could choose to administer
their foster care program more flexibly, with a fixed allocation of
funds over a five year period, should this approach better support
their unique child welfare needs. States that choose not to receive
funding provided by this option would continue operating under the
current title IV-E entitlement program.
The Program Option provides States with more flexibility so they
can design more effective ways to strengthen services to vulnerable
children and families. States that choose the Program Option would be
able to use funds for foster care payments, prevention activities,
permanency efforts (including subsidized guardianships), case
management, administrative activities (including developing and
operating State information systems), training for child welfare staff
and other such service related child welfare activities. States would
be able to develop innovative and effective systems for preventing
child abuse and neglect, keeping families and children safely together,
and moving children toward adoption and permanency quickly.
While States that choose this option would have much greater
flexibility in how they use funds, they would continue to be required
to maintain the child safety protections under current law, including
requirements for conducting criminal background checks and licensing
foster care providers, obtaining judicial oversight over decisions
related to a child's removal and permanency, meeting permanency
timelines, developing case plans for all children in foster care, and
prohibiting race-based discrimination in foster and adoptive
placements. The proposal also includes maintenance of effort
requirement to ensure that States selecting the new option maintain
their existing level of investment in the program.
In addition to providing a new option for States, the President's
proposal includes a $30 million set-aside for federally recognized
Indian Tribes or consortia that can demonstrate the capacity to operate
a title IV-E program. Currently Tribes are not eligible to receive
title IV-E funding, although some Tribes are able to access funds
through agreements with States. This proposal would open the
possibility for federally recognized Tribes to receive direct title IV-
E funding. We believe this proposal will result in the development of
innovative child welfare programs that ultimately will better serve
vulnerable children.
We believe that this option would offer a powerful new means for
States to structure their child welfare services program in a way that
supports the goals of safety, timely permanency and enhanced well-being
for children and families, while relieving them of administrative
burdens. Given the continuing problems faced by States in managing
their child welfare programs, we all must think about more creative
ways to strengthen these programs. We appreciate the support of this
Committee as demonstrated by holding hearings such as this and in
working with the Administration on creating legislative language to
make this proposal a reality.
Finally, I would like to mention another Presidential priority that
directly supports State efforts to provide needed services to children
and families. As discussed earlier, the Child and Family Services
Review points to States ongoing struggle with providing services to
children remaining in their own home as well as the need for
improvements in State judicial processes relating to child welfare. The
Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program funds family support, family
preservation, time-limited reunification, and adoption promotion and
support services and provides funding for the Court Improvement
Program. The President is deeply committed to securing full funding,
$505 million, for this important program and we ask for your support of
this vital investment in our Nation's families.
Conclusion
We have made great strides in the field of child welfare, but the
work of assuring the safety, permanency and well-being of every child
who comes to the attention of a child welfare agency or court in this
country remains a tremendously challenging task. We are committed to
working with the States, Members of Congress, community-based
organizations and concerned citizens to continuously strive for better
outcomes for all of these children.
I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to discuss
our ongoing efforts to monitor the child welfare system through the
Child and Family Services Review. More than any recent initiative of
the Federal Government, the Child and Family Services Review has
captured the attention of State child welfare agencies. It also has
gained the attention of the media, State legislatures, and others who
know that changing complex child welfare systems will not be fast or
easy. We, in the Administration for Children and Families, are
committed to working with States, and to using the knowledge that we
are gaining through the review to support States in improving the
outcomes of child welfare services for the children and families they
serve.
I also would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to
highlight the President's bold new vision for strengthening the child
welfare system through the Child Welfare Program Option. We are proud
of the progress we have made to-date in providing more resources to
States to support children, youth and families and look forward to
working closely with you on the President's Child Welfare Option
Proposal.
I would be pleased to answer any questions.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Dr. Horn, for your testimony.
First to inquire is the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Lewis.
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Horn, I note that
the CFSRs are key to Federal oversight of the child welfare
programs. What lessons have we learned from these reviews, and
what, if any, changes in practice have resulted from these
reviews?
Dr. HORN. The primary thing we have learned is that every
State we have reviewed so far--and we have reviewed all but
four at this point--have areas of strength, and areas that
require improvement. What we are doing is working with each
individual State to develop a plan that is consistent with our
findings from the CFSR to improve the child welfare system in
that State. We know we set the bar high when it comes to
passing each of the elements within the CFSR. We did that on
purpose because we want to use it as a way to drive
improvements in the system, not simply to create a system that
validates what States are already doing in child welfare. We
feel that this is a very critical review process, which will
allow us to help each individual State improve their systems.
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you. While States are implementing their
PIPs, of course, as they are required to by these reviews, any
financial penalties they may incur are waived. Do you ever
foresee a time when these reviews may become more stringent,
for example, by linking Federal funding to achievement of
expected standards?
Dr. HORN. It is my personal hope that we will not ever
impose a penalty, because States will have adequately
implemented their PIPs and met the goals that are outlined in
the PIPs. The goal of the penalties is not to recoup Federal
dollars, but rather to drive improvements in the system. The
hope is that through this process, every State will have an
improved child welfare system, in order to better ensure the
safety, permanency, and well-being of children that interact
with the system. However, if in the course of implementing the
PIP, a State either does not do it adequately, or does not meet
the goals that they set in their PIP, we certainly stand ready
to impose penalties. We are in the process now of going back to
the States that have started to implement their PIPs, and we
look forward to determining how much progress has been made.
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. The Ranking Member,
the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cardin, to inquire.
Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Horn, it is always
a pleasure to have you before our Committee. We thank you for
your commitment in this area. There is one area that we may
agree on--the funding for the Promoting Safe and Stable
Families program--which you would like to see in the
Administration's request for full funding. You are right,
Congress has not approved that. Wouldn't it be easier if we
just made that mandatory funding? That way, you wouldn't have
to worry about a fickle Congress. I certainly would be willing
to support that. If we could get some Administration support,
maybe we could get it done on the mandatory side.
Dr. HORN. The President is committed to----
Mr. CARDIN. Good.
[Laughter.]
Dr. HORN. To securing full funding for his request. At the
end of the day, a dollar out of discretionary funds is equal to
the same dollar out of mandatory spending, in terms of
purchasing power at the State level.
Mr. CARDIN. It is not the same here on Capitol Hill. You
pay a price on the discretionary side, whereas the mandatory
side speaks to priorities. I agree with you that this is a
program that is working, and would provide us additional help
with regard to the concerns of today's hearing. So, I would
just urge you--this may be one area on which we could reach
bipartisan agreement, and not have to confront the
appropriators every year. The U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) will testify a little bit later about workforce
deficiencies, talking about the high turnover issue that is not
a surprise to any of us, since caseworkers are given a large
number of children that they must monitor. That is
unacceptable. Is HHS looking at coming in with some Federal
guidelines as to what is the appropriate caseload for
caseworkers, or other ways to try to deal with the problem of
high turnover, inadequate training, and inadequate pay for
caseworkers?
Dr. HORN. Certainly, this is something that we look at when
we go out and do the CFSRs. One of the things that we try to
take a look at in the cases that we review, for example, is
whether there are timely visits to foster homes. If you are
struggling with 120 cases per caseworker, it is harder to visit
a foster home on a monthly basis than if you have a more
reasonable caseload. I worked in the child welfare system
myself. In fact, my first internship when I was in graduate
school was as a caseworker in Child and Family Services in
Southern Illinois, and I can speak from personal experience
that it is harder to do your job when you have high caseloads
versus lower caseloads. I think one of the difficulties that
States face in this area is the categorical nature of the
funding streams that come from the Federal Government to the
States. One of the things that we would like to see happen with
the President's flexible funding proposal, is to break down
those categorical walls and allow States, if they feel that one
of the problems they are experiencing is caseloads that are too
high, to use those funds not just to support kids in terms of
maintenance payments in foster care, but to hire more
caseworkers, if that is what they need.
Mr. CARDIN. My concern with that is, I think perhaps just
the opposite will happen. I know the pressures that State
governments are facing today. I know what is happening in the
State of Maryland during the legislative sessions. We just got
the Governor's budget. It is not balanced very well at all, and
the prognosis for next year is even worse. All of the programs
in regard to this area are under constant attack, and caseload
is one of the areas that they fudge. I would think that unless
there is some direct guidance from the Federal Government,
either a carrot or stick, it is unlikely that Maryland, even
though it wants to make progress in this area, could make
progress in this area.
I would just suggest two things. One is to set up Federal
guidelines as to what is acceptable. Perhaps offer incentive
bonuses for States that achieve certain levels on training,
retention, and caseload numbers. That might be a way in which
federalism could truly work--where we offer encouragement to
the States. We could offer the States additional incentives
through bonus payments, and then see how they respond to it. I
think just giving States a block grant, hoping that they will
hire more people, in today's environment, is a little bit too
much trust with regard to the political realities they are
confronting. I would just mention one more thing because my
time is running out, and that is, we have gotten word that some
States, rather than comply with the review requirements of law,
may very well just take the Federal penalties, because it is
just too costly for them to do the reviews. Have you heard
this? Are you concerned that you might, in fact, find States
prepared to incur the Federal penalties rather than make
improvements on the CFSRs that we think are so important to
understanding what is going on in our States?
Dr. HORN. I would hope not. I have not heard that any
specific State has taken that position. The penalties are
escalating, so they can become quite significant. As I
indicated in my response to Congressman Lewis, our perspective
is not that this is a system to recoup Federal dollars, but
rather to drive improvement in State systems. As I also
mentioned, we are using our network of national resource
centers to help States figure out how to make the improvements
that are required in their system. I do believe that part of
the problem, again, is the categorical nature of the funding
streams. I appreciate your passion on this issue, and your
longstanding interest in improving the child welfare system. I
would, however, respectfully challenge your description of the
President's proposal as a block grant, precisely because a
block grant is one in which the money goes out in one form to
all the States. If a State chooses to continue to have an open-
ended entitlement program, they can continue to do that under
the President's proposal.
Mr. CARDIN. The problem is that, because it is budget
neutral, if the caseload goes up in a particular State, they
are going to lose money from this program that they would have
otherwise received.
Dr. HORN. Yes.
Mr. CARDIN. So, it is capping the dollars that are going
into the program.
Dr. HORN. We have heard that. First of all, I don't deny
that there would be anxiety about this at the State level. We
heard the same argument in 1996 when Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC) was replaced with the TANF program.
We have recently done an analysis of the amount of money a
State would have had under AFDC over the last 6 years if the
caseloads had declined as they had under TANF--if it is true
that the TANF declines are all due to the economy, versus what
they actually got under the TANF program. In contrast to your
opening statement, suggesting that block grants inevitably lead
to fewer dollars, our analysis showed that States got $54
billion more over the last 6 years under TANF than if they had
the AFDC program.
Mr. CARDIN. That is based on the fact that AFDC was a cash
assistance program. On the other hand, TANF is a program whose
support extends beyond cash assistance. The program is working,
but I think it is unfair to say that the States would have
gotten less money. The truth is that we probably would have
developed other initiatives to deal with the related programs
other than cash assistance. So, I understand what you are
saying and I think you can make that argument, but I also think
that when you look at the total services that are now being
provided, which are much more comprehensive than this cash
assistance, it is working. It is doing exactly what Congress
said. States don't have as much money as they had in 1996. They
can't buy as much today as they could in 1996.
Dr. HORN. One of our concerns, Congressman, is that the
percentage of children in foster care who are eligible is
declining. We think it is declining, at least in part, because
of the link back to the AFDC program. We have had to readjust
our baseline estimates downward each of the last 3 years. If
you were to lock in the amount of money that is available under
the current baseline projections, you actually get a good deal
by capturing the money now rather than seeing the amount of
money available ratchet down over the next 5 years.
Mr. CARDIN. We are in agreement on that point. I just wish
that all States could get away from the look back provision.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you. Dr. Horn, you have read about,
as virtually all of us have, the New Jersey starvation case
involving the Jackson family. In your opinion, how could that
situation escape the notice of so many people, neighbors,
fellow worshipers, and others, for so long, and are there
specific changes that this case suggests we should be making on
the national level?
Dr. HORN. I am not familiar with all the details of that
particular case, but I am as incredulous as others with the
details that I do know--that this could have possibly escaped
the notice of caseworkers, who apparently came into the home
because of other children that they were either monitoring, or
thinking about placing in that home. At the same time, I would
say that I think it is not possible to expect the Federal
Government to be able to assure that every single case at the
local level is being appropriately managed. The best that the
Federal Government can do is look at trends, and look at
systemic factors within a child welfare system, to determine
whether there is something wrong with the system as a whole,
not at each individual case level. Otherwise, every single case
would have to be reviewed by a Federal employee or staff member
for every child in foster care, a task that there simply is not
enough money in even a perfect world to be able to do.
One of the problems in the New Jersey case, is that there
isn't enough money available currently, nor enough flexibility
in the current system to provide the kinds of post-adoption
services that I think are necessary to ensure that once a child
is adopted, the family has the resources and the skills
necessary to be able to deal with whatever post-adoption
circumstances come up. Under the President's proposals, both
the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program, and the
flexible funding proposal, there would be more money available
to provide post-adoption services if that is an issue that
needs to be addressed within an individual State. We think that
the way we can help situations such as the one in New Jersey
is, A, by having more resources available for adoption
services; and B, by giving more flexibility to the States to
target the resources they have in ways that fit the needs of
the children who interact with the child welfare system in that
State--whether they are post-adoption services at the back end,
or prevention services at the front end.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Dr. Horn, for your testimony.
With that, I would like to call up our first panel: Cornelia
Ashby, Director of Education, Workforce, and Income Security
Issues for the U.S. General Accounting Office; Mary Nelson,
President of the National Association of Public Child Welfare
Administrators; William Bell, Commissioner of the New York City
Administration for Children's Services (ACS); Wayne Stevenson,
Deputy Secretary for Children, Youth, and Families for the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and Bill Stanton, President of
the National Association of Foster Care Reviewers. Ms. Ashby?
STATEMENT OF CORNELIA M. ASHBY, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, WORKFORCE,
AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Ms. ASHBY. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cardin, thank you for inviting
me here today to discuss several issues related to the
oversight of child welfare programs. My testimony will focus on
three key issues: States' use of funds authorized by title IV-B
of the Social Security Act to prevent abuse and neglect in
foster care placements, as well as provide other child welfare
services; factors that hinder States' ability to protect
children from abuse and neglect; and HHS's role in helping
States overcome these factors. My comments are based primarily
on the findings from three reports we issued last year. Title
IV-B, which has two parts, is the primary source of Federal
funding for services to help families address problems that
lead to child abuse and neglect, and prevent the unnecessary
separation of children from their families. Relatively few
subpart 1 dollars are used to provide family support and family
preservation services, while the majority of subpart 2 funds
are used for these services.
We found that States most frequently use subpart 1 funds to
fund staff salaries, administration and management expenses,
child protective services, and foster care maintenance
payments. In contrast, States spent half of their subpart 2
funds on family support or prevention programs, and another 12
percent on family preservation services. However, the results
for the past 2 years of HHS's formal process for assessing
States' child welfare systems, known as the CFSR, indicate that
States have not performed strongly in terms of assessing the
services that families need, and providing those services. When
HHS reviewed case files, it determined that 31 of the 32 States
that had a CFSR in 2001 or 2002 needed improvement in this
area.
Child welfare agencies face a number of issues relating to
staffing and data management that impair their ability to
protect children from abuse and neglect. In particular, low
salaries hinder agencies' ability to attract potential child
welfare workers, and to retain those already in the profession.
Additionally, large caseloads, administrative burdens, limited
supervision, and insufficient training reduce the appeal of
child welfare work. Our analysis of the CFSRs in 27 States
indicated that large workloads and worker turnover delay the
timelines of investigations, and limit the frequency of worker
visits with children, hampering agencies' attainment of some
key Federal safety and permanency outcomes. Furthermore, States
face challenges developing a SACWIS to track abuse and neglect
reports and monitor children in foster care, with many States
reporting development delays. Most States responding to our
survey faced challenges to SACWIS development, such as
obtaining State funding, and developing a system that met child
welfare agencies' needs statewide.
In addition, several factors affect the States' ability to
collect and report reliable adoption, foster care, and child
abuse and neglect data, including insufficient caseworker
training, inaccurate and incomplete data entry, and technical
challenges reporting the data. Of course, HHS plays a role in
helping States implement their child welfare programs, but in
some cases, additional Federal oversight or technical
assistance could help States provide more effective services.
For example, HHS's oversight of title IV-B focuses primarily on
States' overall child welfare systems and outcomes, but the
agency provides relatively little oversight specific to the
services provided under title IV-B, subpart 1. The role of HHS
in assisting States to overcome child welfare workforce
challenges, is limited to partial Federal reimbursement for
training expenses, and management of discretionary grant
programs that fund State child welfare improvements. The agency
monitors SACWIS development and data reporting, and provides
assistance to States. However, States reported ongoing
challenges, such as the lack of clear and documented guidance
on how to report child welfare data, despite the availability
of this assistance.
In each of the three reports upon which this testimony is
based, we made recommendations to the Secretary of HHS. We
recommended that HHS provide the data necessary to ensure that
regional offices monitor States' use of title IV-B, subpart 1
funds, and consider gathering additional information on their
use. We also recommended that HHS take actions that may help
child welfare agencies address recruitment and retention
challenges, and that HHS consider ways to enhance the guidance
and assistance offered to help States overcome key data
challenges. We found that HHS generally agreed with our
recommendations, except that it noted that its level of
oversight of title IV-B was commensurate with the program's
scope and intent. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared
statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ashby follows:]
Statement of Cornelia M. Ashby, Director, Education, Workforce, and
Income Security Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office
Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss several issues
related to the oversight of child welfare programs across the nation.
As you are aware, state child welfare agencies determined that over
900,000 children had been the victims of abuse or neglect by their
parents or other caretakers in 2001. Additionally, more than 800,000
children are estimated to spend some time in foster care each year,
with the Federal Government allocating approximately $7 billion each
year to investigate abuse and neglect, provide placements to children
outside their homes, and deliver services to help keep families
together. Title IV-B of the Social Security Act, comprised of two
subparts, is the primary source of federal funding for services to help
families address problems that lead to child abuse and neglect and to
prevent the unnecessary separation of children from their families.
Funding under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act is used primarily
to pay for the room and board of children in foster care. Since 1994,
designated federal matching funds have been available to states to
develop and implement comprehensive case management systems--statewide
automated child welfare information systems (SACWIS)--to manage their
child welfare cases as well as to report child abuse and neglect,
foster care, and adoption information to the Federal Government.
In addition to this funding, the Department of Health and Human
Services' (HHS) Administration for Children and Families (ACF) monitors
states' compliance with key federal goals, specified in part by the
Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997, to keep children safe
and ensure their placement in stable and permanent homes. Through its
formal review process, known as the Child and Family Services Review
(CFSR), HHS uses specific assessment measures, such as agencies'
ability to conduct timely abuse and neglect investigations and
regularly visit children in their homes, to assess the performance of
states' child welfare systems.
My testimony today will focus on three key issues: (1) states' use
of Title IV-B funds in providing a wide array of services to prevent
the occurrence of abuse, neglect, and foster care placements, as well
as other child welfare services; (2) factors that hinder states'
ability to protect children from abuse and neglect; and (3) HHS's role
in helping states to overcome the challenges they face in protecting
children from abuse and neglect. My comments are based primarily on the
findings from three reports: [1] U.S. General Accounting
Office, Child Welfare: HHS Could Play a Greater Role in Helping Child
Welfare Agencies Recruit and Retain Staff. GAO-03-357. Washington,
D.C.: March 31, 2003; Child Welfare: Most States Are Developing
Statewide Information Systems, but the Reliability of Child Welfare
Data Could Be Improved. GAO-03-809. Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2003;
and Child Welfare: Enhanced Federal Oversight of Title IV-B Could
Provide States Additional Information to Improve Services. GAO-03-956.
Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2003. Those findings were based on
multiple methodologies, including a survey of child welfare directors
on states' use of Title IV-B funds; an analysis of 600 exit interview
documents completed by staff who severed their employment from 17
state, 40 county, and 19 private child welfare agencies; and a survey
of all 50 states and the District of Columbia regarding their
experiences in developing and using information systems and their
ability to report data to HHS. In each case, we supplemented these
surveys and analyses by conducting multiple site visits to selected
states and by interviewing child welfare experts and HHS headquarters
and regional officials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[1]\ We also recently testified on one of these reports. See U.S.
General Accounting Office, Child Welfare: States Face Challenges in
Developing Information Systems and Reporting Reliable Child Welfare
Data. GAO-04-267T. (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 19, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, we found that states use Title IV-B funds to provide a
wide variety of services to prevent the occurrence of abuse, neglect,
and foster care placements, as well as to provide other child welfare
services. Subpart 1 dollars were most frequently used to fund staff
salaries, with almost half of these funds designated for the salaries
of child protective services (CPS) [2] social workers. In
comparison, states spent half of their subpart 2 funds on family
support or prevention programs and another 12 percent on family
preservation services. CFSR results for the past 2 years, however,
indicate that states have not performed strongly in terms of assessing
the services families need and providing those services. Child welfare
agencies face a number of issues related to staffing and data
management that impair their ability to protect children from abuse and
neglect. In particular, low salaries hinder agencies' ability to
attract potential child welfare workers and to retain those already in
the profession. Our analysis of CFSRs in 27 states indicated that large
caseloads and worker turnover delay the timeliness of investigations
and limit the frequency of worker visits with children, hampering
agencies' attainment of some key federal safety and permanency
outcomes. Furthermore, states face challenges developing appropriate
information systems needed to track abuse or neglect reports and
monitor children in foster care, with many states reporting development
delays. In addition, several factors affect the states' ability to
collect and report reliable adoption, foster care, and child abuse and
neglect data, including insufficient caseworker training, inaccurate
and incomplete data entry, and technical challenges reporting the data.
Although HHS plays a role in monitoring child welfare programs,
additional oversight or technical assistance could assist states in
meeting the needs of children served by child welfare agencies. For
example, HHS's oversight of Title IV-B focuses primarily on states'
overall child welfare systems and outcomes, but the agency provides
relatively little oversight specific to the services provided under
Title IV-B subpart 1.[3] In addition, HHS plays a limited
role in states' workforce activities by offering partial reimbursement
for training expenses and managing discretionary grant programs. The
agency monitors SACWIS development and data reporting, but despite the
availability of technical assistance, states reported ongoing
challenges reporting reliable data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[2]\ Child protective services activities typically include
reviewing reports of alleged child abuse and neglect, investigating
those that meet the state's criteria as a potential incident of abuse
or neglect to determine if the alleged incident occurred, and, in some
cases, referring families to needed services and removing the child
from the home, if necessary.
\[3]\ Our September 2003 report on Title IV-B focused primarily on
subpart 1 because little, if any, research has been conducted on how
subpart 1 funds have been spent on child welfare services. In contrast,
a number of studies have been conducted on the services provided under
subpart 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
ACF is responsible for the administration and oversight of federal
funding to states for child welfare services under Titles IV-B and IV-
E. HHS headquarters staff are responsible for developing appropriate
policies and procedures for states to follow in terms of obtaining and
using federal child welfare funds, while staff in HHS's 10 regional
offices and 10 national resource centers provide guidance and technical
assistance to improve child welfare services nationwide. HHS compiles
state-reported child welfare data in two databases: the Adoption and
Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) and the National
Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS). HHS relies on the
information available in its databases to analyze and track children's
experiences in the child welfare system, to determine states'
performance on federal child welfare outcome measures, and to report to
Congress on children's well being and child welfare experiences.
However, the monitoring of children served by state child welfare
agencies is the responsibility of the state agencies that provide the
services to these children and their families. Child welfare
caseworkers at the county or local level are the key personnel
responsible for documenting the wide range of services offered to
children and families, such as investigations of abuse and neglect;
treatment services offered to families to keep them intact and prevent
the need for foster care; and arrangements made for permanent or
adoptive placements when children must be removed from their homes.
Most states and counties provide some child welfare services directly
and provide others through contracts with private agencies. National
survey data confirm that both state and private child welfare agencies
are experiencing similar challenges recruiting and retaining qualified
caseworkers. For instance, turnover of child welfare staff has been
estimated at between 30 percent and 40 percent annually nationwide,
with the average tenure for child welfare workers being less than 2
years.
In 2000, HHS established a new federal review system to monitor
state compliance with federal child welfare laws. One component of this
system is the CFSR, which assesses state performance in achieving
safety and permanency for children, along with well-being for children
and families. The CFSR process includes a self-assessment by the state,
an analysis of state performance in meeting national standards
established by HHS, and an on-site review by a joint team of federal
and state officials. Based on the results of this process, HHS
determines whether a state achieved substantial conformity with (1)
outcomes related to safety, permanency, and well-being, such as keeping
children protected from abuse and neglect and achieving permanent and
stable living situations for children and (2) key systemic factors,
such as having an adequate case review system and an adequate array of
services. States are required to develop program improvement plans to
address all areas of nonconformity.
Federal Funding of Child Welfare Services and Programs
Two titles of the Social Security Act provide federal funding
targeted specifically to foster care and related child welfare
services.[4] Title IV-E[5] provides an open-ended
individual entitlement for foster care maintenance payments to cover a
portion of the food, housing, and incidental expenses for all foster
children whose parents meet certain federal eligibility
criteria.[6] Title IV-E also provides payments to adoptive
parents of eligible foster children with special needs.[7]
To qualify for federal IV-E funding for SACWIS, states must prepare and
submit an advance planning document (APD) to ACF's Children's Bureau,
in which they describe the state's plan for managing the design,
development, implementation, and operation of a SACWIS that meets
federal requirements and state needs in an efficient, comprehensive,
and cost-effective manner. Since the administration and structure of
state child welfare agencies vary across the nation, states can design
their SACWIS to meet their state needs, as long as states meet certain
federal requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[4]\ In addition, Title XX provides funds under the social
services block grant that may be used for many purposes, including
child welfare.
\[5]\ In fiscal year 2002, total Title IV-E spending was
approximately $6.1 billion. The state matching rate for these payments
is based on a state's per capita income and ranges from 50 percent to
83 percent.
\[6]\ States are entitled to Title IV-E reimbursement on behalf of
children who would have been eligible for Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC) (as AFDC existed on July 16, 1996), but for
the fact that they were removed from the home of certain specified
relatives. While the AFDC program was replaced by the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families Program in 1996, eligibility for Title
IV-E payments remains tied to the income eligibility requirements of
the now defunct AFDC program. In addition, certain judicial findings
must be present, and all other requirements included in section 472 (a)
and (b) of the Social Security Act must be met, in order for the child
to be eligible for Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments.
\[7]\ Special needs are characteristics that can make it difficult
for a child to be adopted and may include emotional, physical, or
mental disabilities, emotional disturbance, age, or being a member of a
minority race. To qualify for an adoption subsidy under Title IV-E, a
state must determine that the child cannot or should not return home; a
state must make a reasonable, but unsuccessful effort to place the
child without the subsidy; and a specific factor or condition must
exist that makes it difficult to place the child without a subsidy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title IV-B of the Social Security Act, established in 1935,
authorizes funds to states to provide a wide array of services to
prevent the occurrence of abuse, neglect, and foster care
placements.[8] In 1993, the Congress created a new program
as subpart 2 of Title IV-B (now known as Promoting Safe and Stable
Families), which funds similar types of services but is more
prescriptive in how states can spend the funds.[9] No
federal eligibility criteria apply to the children and families
receiving services funded by Title IV-B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[8]\ In fiscal year 2003, the Congress appropriated $292 million
for subpart 1 and $405 million for subpart 2. These federal funds cover
75 percent of states' total Title IV-B expenditures because states must
provide an additional 25 percent using nonfederal dollars.
\[9]\ States must spend a ``significant portion'' of their subpart
2 funds on each of the four service categories. HHS program
instructions require states to spend at least 20 percent of their
subpart 2 funds on each of the four service categories, unless a state
has a strong rationale for some other spending pattern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title IV-B subpart 1 provides grants to states for child welfare
services, which are broadly defined. Subpart 1 funds are intended for
services that are directed toward the accomplishment of the following
purposes: (1) protect and promote the welfare of all children; (2)
prevent or remedy problems that may result in the abuse or neglect of
children; (3) prevent the unnecessary separation of children from their
families by helping families address problems that can lead to out-of-
home placements; (4) reunite children with their families; (5) place
children in appropriate adoptive homes when reunification is not
possible; and (6) ensure adequate care to children away from their
homes in cases in which the child cannot be returned home or cannot be
placed for adoption.
In 1980, the Congress enacted legislation that limited the total
subpart 1 funds states could use for three categories of services:
foster care maintenance payments, adoption assistance payments, and
child care related to a parent's employment or training.[10]
The total of subpart 1 funds used for these purposes cannot exceed a
state's total 1979 subpart 1 expenditures for all types of services.
The intent of this restriction, according to a congressional document,
was to encourage states to devote increases in subpart 1 funding as
much as possible to supportive services that could prevent the need for
out-of-home placements.[11] However, this restriction
applies only to the federal portion of subpart 1 expenditures, as the
law notes that states may use any or all of their state matching funds
for foster care maintenance payments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[10]\ For our September 2003 report on Title IV-B and in this
testimony, we mention only foster care maintenance and adoption
assistance payments when referring to subpart 1 limits, although we did
include planned spending on child care in our analyses of states'
planned subpart 1 spending.
\[11]\ Staff of the House Committee on Ways and Means, 106th
Congress, Background Material and Data on Programs Within the
Jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means (Comm. Print 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart 2 authorizes grants to states to provide four categories of
services, which are defined below:
Family preservation services: Services designed to help
families at risk or in crisis, including services to (1) help reunify
children with their families when safe and appropriate; (2) place
children in permanent homes through adoption, guardianship, or some
other permanent living arrangement; (3) help children at risk of foster
care placement remain safely with their families; (4) provide follow-up
assistance to families when a child has been returned after a foster
care placement; (5) provide temporary respite care; and (6) improve
parenting skills.
Family support services: Community-based services to
promote the safety and well-being of children and families designed to
increase the strength and stability of families, to increase parental
competence, to provide children a safe and supportive family
environment, to strengthen parental relationships, and to enhance child
development. Examples of such services include parenting skills
training and home visiting programs for first time parents of newborns.
Time-limited family reunification services: Services
provided to a child placed in foster care and to the parents of the
child in order to facilitate the safe reunification of the child within
15 months of placement. These services include: counseling, substance
abuse treatment services, mental health services, and assistance to
address domestic violence.
Adoption promotion and support services: Services
designed to encourage more adoptions of children in foster care when
adoption is in the best interest of the child, including services to
expedite the adoption process and support adoptive families.
States Spend IV-B Funds on A Variety of Services, With Subpart 2
Focusing More on Prevention
In our September 2003 report on Title IV-B, we found that states
use these funds to provide a wide variety of services to prevent the
occurrence of abuse, neglect, and foster care placements, as well as
services to help children in foster care and their parents; however,
relatively few subpart 1 dollars are used to provide family support and
family preservation services, while the majority of subpart 2 funds are
used for these purposes. According to our survey data for fiscal year
2002,[12] states spent subpart 1 funds most frequently on
the salaries of child welfare agency staff, administration and
management expenses, CPS services, and foster care maintenance
payments. In comparison, states spent half of their subpart 2 funds on
family support or prevention programs and another 12 percent on family
preservation services. CFSR results for the past 2 years, however,
indicate that states have not performed strongly in terms of assessing
the services families need and providing those services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[12]\ To obtain a breakdown of state spending for subparts 1 and 2
for the Title IV-B report, we sent a survey to all 50 states and the
District of Columbia and received responses from 47 states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States Use Subpart 1 Funds Primarily for Staff Salaries
Relatively few subpart 1 dollars were used for family support or
family preservation services; instead, they were most frequently used
to fund staff salaries, with almost half of these funds designated for
the salaries of CPS social workers. Another 20 percent of these funds
were used for the salaries of other social workers.[13]
During a site visit to the state of Washington for the Title IV-B
report,[14] child welfare officials told us that they used
over 50 percent of the state's subpart 1 funds for salaries of staff
providing direct services, including CPS social workers, other types of
social workers, social work supervisors, and clerical support staff.
Administration and management comprised the second largest category of
service, accounting for almost 17 percent of subpart 1 dollars. This
category included rent and utilities for office space, travel expenses
for agency staff, and staff training.[15]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[13]\ The survey data reported in this category reflect the
salaries of staff affiliated with the child welfare agency. These
figures do not include the salaries of child welfare agency staff
dedicated to a specific program, which may be embedded within some of
the other direct service categories, such as family support and family
preservation. In addition, a state may use Title IV-B funds to contract
with an organization to provide a particular program, which may include
salary expenses as well as direct service expenditures.
\[14]\ For the Title IV-B report, we conducted site visits in
California, New Jersey, Ohio, and Washington to obtain more in-depth
information on the services provided and the types of children and
families served. These states represent both geographic diversity and
diversity in how states used subpart 1 funds.
\[15]\ This amount may be underestimated, since some states may not
have separately reported administrative expenses associated with a
specific program. For example, officials in one state reported that the
total spending for a family support program included salaries for
agency staff, overhead expenses, and related staff travel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPS represents the third largest category of services that states
funded with subpart 1. States used about 16 percent of their subpart 1
funds to provide a variety of CPS services, such as telephone hotlines
for the public to report instances of child abuse and neglect,
emergency shelters for children who needed to be removed from their
homes, and investigative services. During our site visit to California,
for example, officials reported using about 40 percent of their subpart
1 dollars to fund staff salaries and operating expenses associated with
a variety of shelter care services provided by counties, such as
emergency shelters and foster homes. A child is placed in one of these
shelters when no other placement option is immediately available--for
example, when an investigation in the middle of the night determines
that the child is at immediate risk of harm. States also used nearly 11
percent of their subpart 1 funds to make recurring payments for the
room and board of foster children who are not eligible for
reimbursement through Title IV-E. About 10 percent of subpart 1 dollars
were used to provide family support and family preservation services.
Subpart 2 Most Frequently Funds Family Support and Family Preservation
Services
In contrast to subpart 1, states used over 80 percent of their
subpart 2 dollars to fund services in its four mandated service
categories--family support, family preservation, family reunification,
and adoption promotion and support services (see app. I for additional
information on states' comparative expenditures on subparts 1 and 2).
For example, states reported using half of their subpart 2 dollars to
fund family support and prevention services. These services included
mentoring programs to help pregnant adolescents learn to be self-
sufficient; financial assistance to low-income families to help with
rent and utility payments; and parenting classes, child care, and
support groups provided by a community-based resource center.
Washington funded a network of public health nurses and social service
agencies to provide support services to families that are the subject
of a report of abuse or neglect--these services are provided in lieu
of, or following, a formal investigation when the level of risk to the
child is not considered high.
Family preservation services--designed to keep families together
and prevent the need to place a child in foster care--represented the
second largest service category funded by subpart 2. Washington used
subpart 2 funds for its statewide family preservation program, which
offers counseling and parent training services for up to 6 months to
families with children who are at risk of being placed in foster care.
In addition, states reported using about 11 percent of their
subpart 2 funds for adoption support and preservation services. With
these funds, states provided services such as counseling for children
who are going to be adopted, family preservation services to adoptive
families, and respite care [16] for adoptive families.
Officials in Ohio reported using almost half of its subpart 2 dollars
for adoption services, including post adoption services and services to
recruit families for children in need of adoptive homes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[16]\ Respite care refers to the temporary care of children that
can provide a break for the families from the daily demands of caring
for their children or respite during times of emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, states spent about 9 percent of their subpart 2 dollars on
family reunification services. States funded a diverse array of family
reunification programs, such as supervised visitation centers for
parents to visit with their children and coordinators for alcohol and
drug treatment services for families whose primary barrier to
reunification is substance abuse. New Jersey funded a supervised
visitation program that offers parenting education, counseling,
transportation, and support groups and is located in a private home,
allowing families to visit together in a homelike setting and engage in
more natural interactions.
CFSRs Find States Are Weak in Assessing Families' Service Needs
While states are using Title IV-B funds to provide this array of
services, CFSR results for the past 2 years indicate that states have
not performed strongly in terms of assessing the services families need
and providing those services. When HHS reviewed case files it
determined that 31 of the 32 states that underwent a CFSR in 2001 or
2002 needed improvement in terms of assessing family needs and
providing services to meet those needs. While 21 of the 32 states were
considered to have an appropriate array of services for families, HHS
found that the accessibility of services was a particular weakness in
that many services were either not available statewide or had long
waiting lists or other barriers to accessibility.
Staff and Data Issues Affect States' Ability to Protect Children From
Abuse and Neglect
Child welfare agencies face a number of issues related to staffing
and data management that impair their ability to protect children from
abuse and neglect. In particular, low salaries hinder agencies' ability
to attract potential child welfare workers and to retain those already
in the profession. Additionally, caseworkers in the four states we
visited for the March 2003 child welfare workforce report
[17] cited high caseloads and a lack of supervisory support
as issues impacting their ability to work effectively. According to
these caseworkers, high turnover rates and staffing shortages leave
remaining staff with insufficient time to establish relationships with
children and families and make the necessary decisions to ensure safe
and stable permanent placements. Furthermore, our July 2003 report
found that states face challenges developing appropriate information
systems needed to track abuse or neglect reports and monitor children
in foster care. While 47 states are developing or operating a SACWIS,
many states [18] reported that the development of their
SACWIS is delayed. Most states responding to our survey faced
challenges to SACWIS development, such as obtaining state funding and
developing a system that met the child welfare agency's needs
statewide. In addition, several factors affect states' ability to
collect and report reliable adoption, foster care, and child abuse and
neglect data, including insufficient caseworker training, inaccurate
and incomplete data entry, and technical challenges reporting the data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[17]\ For this report, we conducted site visits in California,
Illinois, Kentucky, and Texas to obtain more in-depth information on
workforce issues and their effect on children's safety and permanency
outcomes. Among other factors, these states represent geographic
diversity and diversity in the practices they have implemented to
address their recruitment and retention challenges.
\[18]\ These reports were obtained through both site visit
interviews and survey responses. For the child welfare information
systems and data report, we conducted site visits in Colorado, Iowa,
New York, North Carolina, and Oklahoma to obtain more in-depth
information on states' experiences developing SACWIS and reporting data
to HHS. These states represent both geographic diversity and different
stages of SACWIS implementation. In addition, we surveyed all 50 states
and the District of Columbia regarding their experiences in developing
and using information systems and their ability to report data to HHS.
We received responses from 49 states and the District of Columbia,
although some states did not respond to every question. Forty-six of
these states reported that they are developing or operating a SACWIS.
Nevada, which HHS reported has an operational SACWIS, did not respond
to our survey. Throughout this testimony, references to state survey
responses for our July 2003 report include the District of Columbia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recruitment and Retention Challenges May Hamper Agencies' Attainment of
Federal Child Welfare Outcomes
In our report on the child welfare workforce, we found that public
and private child welfare agencies face a number of challenges
recruiting and retaining qualified caseworkers and supervisors. Low
salaries, in particular, hinder agencies' ability to attract potential
staff and to retain those already in the profession. For example,
caseworkers in each of the four states we visited said that many of
their former child welfare colleagues pursued positions in the
education field where they could not only make more money but also work
with children without risking their own safety. For example, the Bureau
of Labor Statistics' national wages survey [19] reports that
elementary and middle school teachers earn, on average, about $42,000
annually while social workers earn about $33,000.[20]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[19]\ U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2000
National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates.
\[20]\ This amount is specific to child, family, and school social
workers (the occupation under which caseworkers would likely be
classified).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, high caseloads, administrative burdens, limited
supervision, and insufficient training reduce the appeal of child
welfare work. Caseworkers and supervisors in all four states we visited
cited demanding and complex caseloads and related administrative
requirements, such as casework documentation, as factors affecting
retention. Some of the caseworkers we interviewed handled double the
number of cases recommended by advocacy organizations,[21]
and one study found that caseloads for individual child welfare workers
ranged from 10 to 110 children,[22] with workers handling an
average of about 24 to 31 children each. Furthermore, some of the
caseworkers we interviewed told us that they spent between 50 and 80
percent of their time completing paperwork, thereby limiting their time
to assist children and families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[21]\ The Child Welfare League of America suggests a caseload
ratio of 12 to 15 children per caseworker, and the Council on
Accreditation for Children and Family Services suggests that caseloads
not exceed 18 children per caseworker.
\[22]\ American Public Human Services Association, Report from the
Child Welfare Workforce Survey: State and County Data and Findings, May
2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caseworkers told us that their desire to stay in the child welfare
profession was influenced by high-quality supervision and adequate on-
the-job training; however, these elements were often lacking. According
to supervisors in one city we visited, about half of new trainees left
their jobs before completing 1 year, in part, because these newly hired
caseworkers were not sufficiently trained to do their jobs.
Furthermore, some newly promoted supervisors have requested demotions
because they felt unprepared to meet job demands, and the caseworkers
they supervised complained of poor management and insufficient support.
There is some evidence to suggest how recruitment and retention
challenges affect the safety and permanency of children in care, but
the magnitude of this effect is unknown. Caseworkers in the four states
that we visited said that high turnover rates and staffing shortages
leave remaining staff with insufficient time to conduct the types of
home visits necessary to assess children's safety and to make well-
supported decisions to ensure safe and stable permanent placements. For
example, when staff change, caseworkers may have to reestablish
information to update the case record and families may become hesitant
to work with unfamiliar caseworkers, making it difficult to learn the
history of the case. Worker turnover also disrupts the continuity of
services, particularly when newly assigned caseworkers have to conduct
or reevaluate educational, health, and safety assessments due to poor
or insufficient information in case files left behind by others.
Furthermore, caseworkers explained that high caseloads require them to
limit the number and quality of the home visits they conduct, forcing
them to focus only on the most serious circumstances of abuse and
neglect. One caseworker in Texas noted that when she does make a home
visit, the visit is quick and does not enable her to identify subtle or
potential risks to the child's well-being.
Our analysis of federal CFSRs corroborated caseworker
accounts,[23] showing that large caseloads and worker
turnover delay the timeliness of investigations and limit the frequency
of worker visits with children, thereby hampering agencies' attainment
of some key federal safety and permanency goals. Although identifying
workforce deficiencies is not an objective of the CFSR process, in all
27 CFSRs we analyzed, HHS explicitly cited workforce deficiencies--high
caseloads, training deficiencies, and staffing shortages--that affected
the attainment of at least one assessment measure. While the number of
affected assessment measures varied by state, we found that HHS cited
these factors for an average of nine assessment measures per state,
with more than half of the 27 states exceeding this average. For
example, in New Mexico's CFSR, reviewers cited staff turnover and
vacancies as impairing workers' ability to investigate child
maltreatment reports, provide appropriate services for families, and
establish timely permanency goals. Furthermore, the District of
Columbia's CFSR describes heavy workloads, high staff turnover, and a
climate in which supervisors often call new workers out of training to
handle ongoing caseload activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[23]\ At the time of the original study, CFSR final reports were
available for only 27 states; as of January 28, 2004, HHS had released
reports for an additional 14 states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delays in SACWIS Completion and Challenges with Data Collection Affect
States' Ability to Ensure Reliable Data on Children's
Experiences
In addition to performing a wide range of services to protect
children, child welfare caseworkers are the key personnel who collect
and document information on children and families served by children
welfare agencies. Case file documentation is generally captured in
state computer systems. In our July 2003 report, HHS reported that 47
states are using targeted federal funds to develop or operate their
child welfare computer systems--known as SACWIS--but many continue to
face challenges completing their systems. In our November 2003
testimony on SACWIS,[24] we reported on the costs associated
with developing SACWIS and the associated barriers, such as development
delays and difficulties in receiving state funding approval, creating a
system that reflects child welfare work processes, and securing
contractors knowledgeable about child welfare. Many state officials
said that they recognize the benefit their state will achieve by
developing SACWIS, such as contributing to the timeliness of child
abuse and neglect investigations. In Oklahoma, for example, caseworkers
and state officials noted that they believe their children are safer
since the implementation of SACWIS simply because the information on
the children is easily accessible to the caseworkers and their
supervisors. According to our survey results, automated systems
provided easier access to data and allowed caseworkers to better
monitor children in their care, which may contribute to additional
child welfare and administrative benefits, such as decreased incidences
of child abuse and neglect, shortened length of time to achieve
adoption, timeliness of payments to foster families, and timeliness of
payments to foster facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[24]\ See U.S. General Accounting Office, Child Welfare: States
Face Challenges in Developing Information Systems and Reporting
Reliable Child Welfare Data, GAO-04-267T (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 19,
2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the data captured in case file records are reported to two
HHS databases that compile child welfare data--AFCARS and NCANDS. We
found that several factors affect states' ability to collect and report
reliable data to HHS on children served by state child welfare
agencies. Almost all of the states responding to our survey
[25] reported that insufficient caseworker training and
inaccurate and incomplete data entry into their information system
affect the quality of AFCARS and NCANDS data. Although most states
reported these as separate factors, HHS and the states we visited found
that insufficient training and inaccurate and incomplete data entry are
often linked. Caseworkers, supervisors, and managers in the five states
that we visited reported that additional factors, such as difficulties
balancing data entry with the time that they spend with the families
and children, contributed to inaccurate or incomplete data entry.
Supervisors in Iowa explained that since caseworkers are responsible
for ensuring that children and their families receive the services they
need, the caseworkers tend to initially limit data entry to the
information that is necessary to ensure timely payment to foster care
providers, and complete all other data elements when the caseworkers
have time. In addition, caseworkers in Colorado said that they are
between 30 and 60 days behind in their data entry, so the information
in the automated system may not accurately reflect the current
circumstances of children in care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[25]\ The analysis of survey responses about reporting data to HHS
is based on responses from 49 states and the District of Columbia. All
states, regardless of SACWIS development, were asked to complete these
questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also reported in our July 2003 report and November 2003
testimony that many states experienced technical challenges reporting
their data to HHS. The problems reported by states are typically a
result of challenges associated with data ``mapping''--matching state
data elements to the federal data elements. For example, 36 states
reported in our survey that matching their state-defined data to HHS's
definitions affected the quality of the data reported to NCANDS and
AFCARS. In addition to the challenges reported in our survey, HHS
reported that transferring data from older data systems into SACWIS
affects the quality of the data reported to AFCARS and NCANDS.
Improvements in HHS's Oversight of Child Welfare Programs Could Help
States Overcome Some Challenges
HHS plays a role in helping states implement their child welfare
programs, but in some cases, additional federal oversight or technical
assistance could help states provide more effective services. In terms
of child welfare funding, HHS focuses its programmatic oversight on the
overall child welfare system in each state and provides relatively
little oversight specific to Title IV-B subpart 1. HHS's role in
assisting states overcome the child welfare workforce challenges is
limited to partial federal reimbursement for training expenses and
management of discretionary grant programs, such as the Child Welfare
Training Program. HHS also monitors SACWIS development and data
reporting and provides assistance to states to address some of the
associated challenges; however, states reported ongoing challenges,
such as the lack of clear and documented guidance on how to report
child welfare data, despite the availability of this assistance.
HHS Focuses Oversight on the Overall Child Welfare System, but Has
Limited Knowledge about States' Use of Subpart 1 Funds
HHS focuses much of its programmatic oversight on the overall child
welfare system in each state, rather than focusing specifically on
subpart 1 or any other federal funding source. A major component of
HHS's subpart 1 oversight is having the regional offices actively work
with states to develop appropriate goals for their child welfare
systems and ensure that available funds are used to support those
goals. To receive Title IV-B funding, HHS requires states to submit a
Child and Family Services Plan, which covers a 5-year period and
describes the state's goals and objectives toward improving outcomes
related to the safety, permanency, and well-being of children and
families, as well as the services and programs the state will pursue to
achieve these goals. In addition to the 5-year plan, HHS requires
states to submit an update each year to discuss their progress in
meeting the goals outlined in their plans. Some regional officials
noted that states are still struggling to use these documents
appropriately for planning purposes and frequently just describe their
current programs, rather than focusing on outcomes and collecting data
to measure progress toward those outcomes.
The CFSR process is an additional tool HHS uses to ensure that
states conform to federal child welfare requirements and to help states
improve their child welfare services. Staff at one regional office
described the CFSR as a thorough review of the services funded by
different federal programs, such as Title IV-B, providing an
opportunity to determine whether states are providing the services they
report in their planning documents and whether those services are
adequate and appropriate to meet the needs of the state's children and
families. When asked about HHS's role in guiding states' use of subpart
1 funds to address weaknesses identified by the CFSRs, an HHS official
told us that the agency provides technical assistance to states to help
them determine the most effective use of their resources, while giving
states much latitude to determine the most appropriate use of their
subpart 1 funds.
HHS does not require states to provide any data about their use of
subpart 1 funds, such as their subpart 1 expenditures for specific
services.[26] As a result, several regional offices noted
that they have no way of knowing how states actually spend their
subpart 1 funds. Instead, HHS requires states to submit annual
estimates of the amount of subpart 1, subpart 2, and other federal
funds the state plans to spend in the upcoming year on different
categories of services (such as family support or CPS). However, these
estimates may not provide reliable data as to how states are using
subpart 1 funds. HHS officials explained that states' actual
expenditures may vary from these estimates, as they address unforeseen
circumstances. In addition, HHS requires states to submit their
estimates before the final spending amounts have been
appropriated.[27]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[26]\ States are required to submit general reports on their total
subpart 1 expenditures, but these provide no data on how the funds are
actually used. Per instructions from the Office of Management and
Budget, agencies must require states receiving federal grants to
complete a financial status report (SF 269), providing general
information on state expenditures. For example, the form might indicate
that a state spent $10 million in subpart 1 funds in a specific fiscal
quarter, but it provides no details on how the $10 million was used.
\[27]\ HHS requires states to submit their annual estimates for the
upcoming fiscal year on a form CFS-101. For example, for fiscal year
2002, the CFS-101 was due by June 30, 2001. Because they are submitted
before final appropriations have been enacted, a state might not
request the full amount of funds to which it is entitled, if the final
appropriation is greater than the state's initial estimate. States must
submit a revised CFS-101 by June 30, 2002, to request any additional
fiscal year 2002 Title IV-B funds that might be available to them once
appropriations are finalized. In addition, states can request
additional Title IV-B funds if other states do not use the total funds
to which they are entitled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The descriptions provided by regional office staff of their review
of these estimates indicate that they review them for relatively
limited purposes. As a result, most HHS regional offices do not review
the annual estimates for compliance with the statutory limits. In
addition, HHS's annual program instruction, which details what
information states must include in their estimates and serves as the
basis for the regional offices' review of subpart 1 spending, does not
mention the subpart 1 limits. Five regional offices were unaware that
any limits on the use of subpart 1 funds existed. Four other regional
offices were aware of the limits, but did not ensure that states
complied with the limits.
This lack of review led HHS to approve spending plans for 15 states
that reported fiscal year 2002 planned subpart 1 expenditures for
foster care maintenance and adoption assistance payments that exceeded
the statutory limits.[28] The dollar amounts by which the
subpart 1 spending estimates surpassed the limits were small in some
cases, but large in others. For example, Georgia reported that it
planned to spend $1,497,000 of subpart 1 funds for these purposes in
2002, which would exceed its statutory limit by $1,558. At the other
extreme, Florida's estimate indicated that it planned to spend over $9
million, which was more than $7 million over the maximum allowable
spending of $1.9 million. In total, these 15 states submitted planned
subpart 1 spending estimates for foster care maintenance and adoption
assistance payments that would exceed the statutory limits by over $30
million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[28]\ In most cases, we reviewed the final revised CFS-101
approved by HHS. For 1 state, however, we used the initial CFS-101
approved by HHS because it included planned subpart 1 expenditures that
exceeded the limits for foster care and adoption assistance payments.
Although the revised CFS-101 did not show that the state planned to
exceed the limit, we used the initial CFS-101 to show that HHS had
previously approved a spending plan that did not comply with the
statutory limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several regional offices said that they are not concerned about a
state planning to spend significant proportions of its subpart 1 funds
on foster care maintenance and adoption assistance payments if they
believed the state had a strong child welfare system with an
appropriate array of services. Regional office staff said that they
would, however, ask a state to reconsider its funding strategy if the
state were performing poorly. However, many of the states with approved
subpart 1 estimates above the statutory ceilings did not achieve strong
outcomes on their CFSR evaluations with regard to providing needed
services and having an appropriate array of services. HHS has conducted
CFSRs on 13 of the 15 states with approved annual estimates over the
subpart 1 spending limits and determined that appropriately assessing
family needs and providing services to address those needs was an area
needing improvement in 12 of the 13 states. In addition, 7 of the 13
states were also determined to need improvement in terms of having an
appropriate array of services to meet the needs of families in the
state.[29]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[29]\ Ten of the 13 states were also cited as needing improvement
in ensuring that needed services are accessible to families in all
areas of the state and 9 of the 13 states were categorized as needing
improvement in terms of individualizing services to meet the unique
needs of individual families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In discussing the current structure of Title IV-B, officials in all
of HHS's regional offices told us that they believe states need some
flexibility to use Title IV-B funds to address state-specific child
welfare needs as is currently the case under subpart 1. At the same
time, officials in 8 of HHS's 10 regional offices also stressed the
importance of subpart 2 to ensure that states use some funds on family
support services and prevention activities to help preserve families
and keep children from entering foster care. Several regional offices
expressed concern that, in the absence of the minimum spending
requirements outlined in subpart 2, states would neglect preventive
services, while using Title IV-B funds for more urgent services, such
as CPS or foster care. State and local child welfare officials in one
state we visited, along with officials at 2 HHS regional offices, said
that states need more federal funds to provide services to prevent
foster care placements, such as an increase in funds available under
Title IV-B or more flexibility to use Title IV-E funds to provide
services. HHS is currently developing a legislative proposal to give
states more flexibility in using Title IV-E foster care funds for such
preventive services.[30]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[30]\ Under this new proposal, states could voluntarily choose to
receive a fixed IV-E foster care allocation, which could be used for
any services provided under Titles IV-B and IV-E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HHS's Involvement with States' Child Welfare Workforce Is Limited
HHS's primary connection to the child welfare workforce has been
through partial federal reimbursement--75 percent--of states' training
funds to implement educational programs for current child welfare staff
and to enhance the child welfare curriculum of undergraduate and
graduate social work programs to better educate and prepare potential
caseworkers.[31] This funding may also be used for
curriculum development, materials and books, support for current
workers to obtain a social work degree, and incentives to induce entry
to the child welfare field. During fiscal year 2002, 49 states received
$286 million in title IV-E training reimbursements.[32]
These reimbursements ranged from a low of approximately $10,400 in
Alaska to a high of more than $79 million in California, with the
median reimbursement approximating $2.7 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[31]\ As authorized under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act,
the Federal Government reimburses 75 percent of states' training
expenditures related to foster care and adoption services. States
providing training for contracted private agency staff can receive 50
percent federal reimbursement for this purpose.
\[32]\ Fiscal year 2002 data are the most recent data available at
the time of this testimony. The District of Columbia, Massachusetts,
and Puerto Rico have not participated in title IV-E reimbursements for
the last three fiscal years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, ACF's Children's Bureau manages six discretionary
grant programs through which it funds various activities related to
improvements in the child welfare system. One of these programs--the
Child Welfare Training Program, authorized by Section 426 of Title IV
of the Social Security Act--awards grants to public and private
nonprofit institutions of higher learning to develop and improve the
education, training, and resources available for child welfare service
providers.[33] This is the only program of the six with a
specific emphasis on staff training;[34] however, in fiscal
year 2003, it received the second smallest share--8 percent--of the
Children's Bureau's total discretionary funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[33]\ In fiscal year 2003, among other child welfare training
project activities, HHS awarded grants to eight recipients for
developing models of effective child welfare staff recruitment and
retention training.
\[34]\ Although the other discretionary grant programs fund
initiatives that can involve caseworker training, caseworker training
and development is not their primary focus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to HHS officials, HHS has no authority to require states
to address caseload issues in their CFSR-related program improvement
plans or to enforce any caseload standards. Furthermore, HHS officials
said that states have made few requests of HHS's national resource
centers for assistance with child welfare staff recruitment and
retention. Although HHS officials told us that they plan to examine the
CFSRs to better understand the relationship between recruitment and
retention and safety and permanency outcomes across the states, the
agency is still conducting these reviews and is not expected to
complete them until March 2004.
HHS Offers Assistance to Help States Develop SACWIS and Improve Their
Data, but States Report Ongoing Challenges with Some of HHS's
Efforts
In response to some of the challenges states face in developing
SACWIS and collecting and reporting child welfare data, HHS has
conducted on-site reviews of information systems and provided technical
assistance from a variety of sources. For example, at the time of our
review, HHS had conducted on-site reviews in 26 states with operational
SACWIS to ensure that the systems met all federal requirements and to
offer assistance to states that faced challenges completing the
development of their SACWIS. Few systems have been determined complete
after an on-site review because of unresolved issues, such as not being
able to build links to other state information systems or not
implementing certain eligibility determination functions. To help
states address some of these development challenges, the SACWIS review
team provides the state with recommendations for complying with SACWIS
requirements and schedules a conference call with the state officials
to walk through the system's deficiencies and offer guidance on how the
state can move forward. In addition, in an attempt to help states
comply with the reporting standards and address some of the factors
that contribute to data quality problems, HHS performs comprehensive
reviews of state information systems' ability to capture AFCARS data to
identify problems associated with data collection and reporting and to
ensure that the information in the automated system correctly reflects
children's experiences in care.
Other technical assistance is available to states in a variety of
formats. HHS facilitates the sharing of information between states
developing SACWIS through an automated system users' group that allows
state and federal officials to exchange information, ideas, and
concerns. In addition to the users' group, HHS officials sponsor a
Listserv--an electronic mailing list--that allows state officials to
exchange information, a monthly conference call with state information
technology directors,[35] an annual technical assistance
meeting, and an NCANDS state advisory group. The National Resource
Center for Information Technology in Child Welfare, which opened in
1999, also provides assistance to states on SACWIS development and data
issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[35]\ In commenting on a draft of the July 2003 report, HHS
indicated that a Web resource is available to states interested in
learning about other states' efforts to develop human services--child
welfare, food stamps, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, child
care, and child support enforcement--information systems at http://
www.acf.hhs.gov/nhsitrc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HHS has also made available to states the software it uses to
examine states' AFCARS and NCANDS submissions for inconsistencies and
invalid data. Officials in all the states that we visited said that
they regularly use this software, and an HHS official said that nearly
every state has used the software at least once. HHS officials reported
that these tests help them to identify some data quality errors, such
as missing data, and said that they believe that, in general, data have
improved in recent years. However, the officials indicated that the
tests cannot pinpoint the underlying problems contributing to these
errors. Furthermore, one official reported that no specific efforts
have been conducted to track the individual data elements and,
therefore, HHS cannot report on how data quality has changed over time.
Although the states we visited appreciated some of HHS's efforts to
assist with improving state data quality, they and most states
responding to our survey agreed that the assistance is not always
consistent or easily accessible. The primary concerns reported by the
states we visited were delays in receiving clear written guidance on
defining and reporting certain data elements and the lack of state
input in suggesting changes to AFCARS. Despite the written guidance
available to states in the form of regulations and an online policy
manual, states reported that the variation in state policies and
practices makes it difficult to interpret how to apply the general
guidance. As a result, states consult with HHS to ensure they are
applying the regulations appropriately. However, in commenting on a
draft of the July 2003 report, officials in Oklahoma told us that a
common concern among the states is the lack of timely response from HHS
when seeking guidance on how to report data. In commenting on a draft
of the same report, HHS explained that it first refers states to its
Web site for information and believes that the available guidance
addresses states' concerns in most instances. In addition, the states
that have had an AFCARS review experienced delays in obtaining guidance
on how to proceed following the on-site review. An HHS official told us
that since the review process is relatively new, the agency is still
developing a process to respond to the states and recognizes that it
has not been responsive to the states already reviewed. In addition,
HHS is taking steps to gather feedback from states and other users of
AFCARS data to determine how to improve the system to make the data
more accurate and usable. As a part of these efforts, HHS has published
a Federal Register notice soliciting comments and held focus group
meetings at national conferences. The difficulties states face in
receiving federal guidance and assistance, as well as the other
challenges they face in reporting data, may negatively affect the
reliability of the data available in AFCARS and NCANDS.
Concluding Observations
Despite its relatively small funding level compared to other
funding sources for child welfare services, Title IV-B represents an
important federal commitment to states' efforts to protect children
from abuse and neglect. However, HHS does not provide in-depth
oversight specific to Title IV-B subpart 1. Two key issues further
compound states' ability to prevent abuse and neglect. For example,
given the difficulties that public and private child welfare agencies
are experiencing in hiring, training, and retaining their work forces,
these agencies' ability to provide services to children is threatened.
In addition, states face challenges in completing their SACWIS systems
and in ensuring that caseworkers input complete and accurate case data
in a timely manner.
We recommended in our September 2003 report on Title IV-B that the
Secretary of HHS provide the necessary guidance to ensure that HHS
regional offices monitor states' use of Title IV-B subpart 1 funds for
compliance with statutory restrictions on the use of these funds. We
also recommended that the Secretary consider the feasibility of
collecting basic data on states' use of these funds to facilitate its
oversight of the program and to provide guidance to help states
determine appropriate services to fund. In commenting on a draft of
that report, HHS agreed with our first recommendation but noted that
the statutory limitations on Title IV-B funds no longer serve a useful
purpose and are incompatible with its current proposal to offer states
much more flexibility in using other federal child welfare dollars. HHS
disagreed with our second recommendation, stating that it believes that
its level of oversight is commensurate with the scope and intent of the
program and minimizes states' reporting requirements.
We recommended in our March 2003 report on child welfare worker
recruitment and retention that, because of the reported impact staffing
shortages and high caseloads have on the attainment of federal outcome
measures, that the Secretary of HHS take actions that may help child
welfare agencies address the recruitment and retention challenges they
face. In commenting on a draft of that report, HHS generally agreed
with our findings and concurred with our recommendation, saying that it
has begun to explore the effectiveness of child welfare training
programs, with an emphasis on lessons learned and best practices.
However, HHS stressed that it has no authority to require states to
address caseload issues in their CFSR program improvement plans or to
enforce any caseload standard.
To improve the reliability of state-reported child welfare data, we
recommended in our July 2003 SACWIS report that the Secretary of HHS
consider, in addition to HHS's recent efforts to improve AFCARS data,
ways to enhance the guidance and assistance offered to states to help
them overcome the key challenges in collecting and reporting child
welfare data. HHS generally agreed with our findings and, in response
to our recommendation, noted that the data definitions need to be
updated and revised and said it is currently in the process of revising
the AFCARS regulations to further standardize the information states
are to report. More recently, HHS said that it would be creating policy
guidance that will delineate what will happen if a state fails to
complete its SACWIS within a reasonable time frame.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be
pleased to respond to any questions that you or other members of the
Subcommittee may have.
______
Appendix I: Subparts 1 and 2 Expenditures
Table 1: Fiscal Year 2002 Expenditures for Subparts 1 and 2 Service Categories
Subpart 1 Subpart 2
Percentage
Service category Number of Amout of Percentage Number of Amout of of subpart
States subpart 1 of subpart States subpart 2 2 funding
funding a 1 funding funding a b
Staff positions................... 25 $70,965,578 27.6 17 $6,229,058 2.4
Administration and management..... 16 43,143,097 16.8 18 11,614,667 4.5
Child protective services......... 17 40,543,000 15.8 5 2,248,690 0.9
Foster care maintenance payments.. 17 27,890,783 10.8 2 647,154 0.3
Multiple responsesc............... 8 25,806,347 10.0 4 3,503,585 1.4
Family support/prevention......... 17 19,840,891 7.7 28 127,430,496 49.8
Counseling and mental health 2 8,350,562 3.2 5 1,354,763 0.5
services.........................
Family preservation............... 7 5,986,045 2.3 23 30,308,896 11.8
Adoption subsidy payments......... 7 4,657,546 1.8 2 737,412 0.3
Family reunification.............. 4 2,446,570 1.0 26 23,625,973 9.2
Recruitment and training for 9 2,260,061 0.9 16 6,828,885 2.7
foster/adoptive parents..........
Adoption support and preservation 2 446,877 0.2 27 28,481,585 11.1
services.........................
Other............................. 11 4,817,180 1.9 15 12,795,915 5.0
Totald............................ $257,154,537 100.0 $255,807,079 100.0
Source: GAO survey.
Notes: Percentages do not always total to 100 due to rounding.
Data on subpart 1 expenditures are based on survey responses from 46 states and data on subpart 2 expenditures
are based on survey responses from 44 states. While Pennsylvania responded to our survey, it did not provide
expenditure data for subparts 1 or 2.
a When providing data for our survey, states were asked to indicate the single service category that best
described the type of program funded by subparts 1 and 2. Thus, programs that fall into multiple service
categories may not be fully captured. For example, one state indicated it funded a family support program,
which includes some family preservation and reunification services. In addition, states may not have been
consistent in categorizing services. For example, several HHS officials told us that the delineation between
family support and family preservation services is not clear, so that two states providing the same services
to the same types of families may report them in different categories. Inconsistencies such as these could
have an effect on any measured differences among service categories.
b States may spend less than 20 percent of their subpart 2 funds on any of the required service categories if
they have a strong rationale. Some HHS regional officials said that they approve exceptions to the 20 percent
requirement if a state is spending a significant amount of nonfederal funds on a subpart 2 service category.
c Although states were asked to indicate the single service category that best described the type of program
funded by subparts 1 and 2, several states selected multiple program categories when responding to our survey.
For example, Rhode Island reported that it funded a home visitation program and indicated that this program
includes family support, health, and family reunification services. Thus, the responses from states that
reported multiple categories for a program are represented by this category.
d The aggregate dollars reported in the service categories do not match the total allocations for subparts 1 and
2 in fiscal year 2002. States have 2 years to spend their Title IV-B allocations; as a result, expenditures in
fiscal year 2002 may include dollars from a state's fiscal year 2001 Title IV-B allocation, as well as its
fiscal year 2002 Title IV-B allocation. Similarly, some fiscal year 2002 allocations may not have been spent
until fiscal year 2003.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you. Ms. Nelson?
STATEMENT OF MARY J. NELSON, ADMINISTRATOR, DIVISION OF
BEHAVIORAL, DEVELOPMENTAL, AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES FOR
FAMILIES, ADULTS, AND CHILDREN, IOWA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
SERVICES, AND PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC CHILD
WELFARE ADMINISTRATORS
Ms. NELSON. Good morning, Chairman Herger, and Ranking
Member Cardin. My name is Mary Nelson and I serve as Iowa's
Child Welfare Administrator, and President of the National
Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators. Thank you
for the opportunity to relate some of the challenges we face,
the strategies we employ, and the goals we have set to improve
outcomes for the children and families we serve. From the time
someone contacts our agency with reason to suspect that a child
is abused or neglected, to well beyond case closure, no other
decision looms as large as child safety. An enormous
responsibility is placed in the hands of caseworkers as they
make multiple decisions that have the power to change a child's
life. Their judgment can determine whether a child is kept
safe, or put at risk. We struggle to recruit, retain, and
reward these dedicated professionals. Pay is low, work is
demanding, caseloads are high, and tight budgets limit access
to much-needed training and supervision. A stable and tenured
workforce is critical to the work we do.
In Iowa, the number of reports of suspected child
maltreatment reached an all-time high in 2001, and has declined
slightly in recent years. Still, our rate of child abuse is
higher than the national average, with child neglect accounting
for 66 percent of our cases. The use of methamphetamines has
become a central driver of Iowa's child protective caseloads.
For example, in the Council Bluffs service area, almost half of
the children come from homes where caretakers are involved with
methamphetamines. The prevalence is even higher in some
individual counties. With respect to child safety, Iowa has
adopted aggressive timeframes for responding to reports of
maltreatment. A report involving an immediate threat or high
risk to the child receives a response within 1 hour, reports
absent an immediate threat within 24 hours, and all other
reports in 96 hours. Iowa investigates all reports screened for
action.
We have strengthened training on intake and screening. We
have implemented structured risk and safety assessment tools.
We have a new 30-hour training curriculum for new foster and
adoptive parents that incorporates the Adoption and Safe
Families Act (ASFA, P.L. 105-89) and CFSR outcomes and
expectations. However, time and budget constraints prevent us
from providing training in these areas as extensively as we
would like. Ongoing measurement of State performance is
integral to our work. Long before the Federal CFSR, many States
developed quality assurance systems to evaluate, monitor, and
improve practice. States identify conditions that both enhance
and limit the ability to achieve good outcomes. Some States
have embraced structured decisionmaking that has reduced
recidivism--reabuse or neglect--and that has lessened time in
care. In Iowa, we have established a framework for quality
assurance, placing a strong focus on child safety, permanency,
and well-being, which incorporates data from our SACWIS and in-
depth reviews of individual cases.
As you know, States are engaged in measuring child welfare
system performance through the CFSR and PIP. Iowa's CFSR found
that we met two of seven outcomes, and three of seven systemic
factors. While we were pleased with some of these results, we
acknowledge that we have a great deal of work to do to improve
performance in the areas where we did not achieve substantial
conformity. The challenge is great. State child welfare workers
are engaged in ongoing work with families, as well as the
oversight and improvement of our agencies. With respect to the
Federal role in oversight, it has been greatly enhanced through
the CFSR and PIP. All States are engaged in this effort to set
baselines so that we can measure progress. Beyond setting
goals, States need the tools to achieve them. That is why we
believe that Congress must reform title IV-E funding. It is too
limited in its definition, and no longer in step with the work
of our agencies. It cannot be used to support the most basic
responsibilities of our agencies, such as investigating charges
of abuse and neglect; nor can it be used to fund the
initiatives contained in our PIP, such as expanding services to
prevent placement.
The American Public Human Services Association (APHSA) has
long supported the de-linking of title IV-E eligibility from
AFDC, and expanded waiver authority--and continues to do so. We
know Congress is exploring new funding options, as well. We
believe Congress should consider a policy change that would
permit States to use Federal dollars for any purpose set forth
in the PIP. Given the rigor of the approval process, the
Federal Government would have all the tools necessary to ensure
that State initiatives relate directly to specific outcomes. In
the coming months, APHSA plans to further refine this idea. We
believe that it is not enough to identify goals and initiatives
in a PIP. Resources must also be available. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify, and I would be happy to answer any
questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Nelson follows:]
Statement of Mary J. Nelson, Administrator, Division of Behavioral,
Developmental, and Protective Services for Families, Adults, and
Children, Iowa Department of Human Services, and President, National
Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators
INTRODUCTION
Good morning, Chairman Herger and Members of the Subcommittee. I am
Mary Nelson, administrator of the Division of Behavioral, Developmental
and Protective Services for the Iowa Department of Human Services. In
this position, I have responsibility for program and policy in child
protection, foster care, permanency, and adoptions as well as child
care regulation, juvenile institutions, delinquency programs, dependent
adult protection, mental health and developmental disability services
for adults and children, family planning, and teen pregnancy
prevention. I am also the current president of the National Association
of Public Child Welfare Administrators (NAPCWA), an affiliate of the
American Public Human Services Association (APHSA), and am here today
in that capacity. APHSA is a nonprofit, bipartisan organization
representing state and local human service professionals for over 70
years. NAPCWA, created as an affiliate in 1983, works to enhance and
improve public policy and administration of services for children,
youth, and families. As the only organization devoted solely to
representing administrators of state and local public child welfare
agencies, NAPCWA brings an informed view of the problems facing
families today to the forefront of child welfare policy.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee
about the review of federal and state oversight of child welfare
programs. With over 29 years of experience with the Iowa Department of
Human Services, beginning as a caseworker, I have seen the many changes
the child welfare system has undergone. My testimony today will focus
on the strategies being utilized in Iowa to address the needs of
children and families involved with the child welfare system,
particularly the role that the states, the Federal Government and
communities can play with respect to the safety of vulnerable children
we serve.
THE CURRENT CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM
Challenges
The challenge is great. In 2001, state child protective services
agencies received an estimated 2.7 million referrals alleging child
abuse and neglect. An estimated 903,000 were found to be victims. The
majority, about 517,000 or 57.2 percent, were the victims of neglect.
Two percent were the victims of medical neglect, 6.8 percent were the
victims of psychological abuse, 9.6 percent were the victims of sexual
abuse, and 18.5 percent were the victims of physical abuse. As of
September 2001, 542,000 children were in foster care and 126,000
children were awaiting adoption. For families in need of support and
children in need of protection, states are pursuing solutions in many
areas and at multiple levels simultaneously. Public child welfare
incorporates a broad array of core services including prevention,
family support, early intervention, family preservation, child
protection, foster care, adoption, guardianship, post-permanency
services, and independent living.
Safety Strategies and System Collaborations
Core Work of the Child Welfare System
Child safety is a central focus for America's child welfare
systems. From the time a mandated reporter, a family member, a
concerned neighbor, or any other person believes he or she has reason
to suspect that a child is being maltreated, through well beyond case
closure, the focus on child safety is unwavering. No other decision
rests more heavily on a child welfare professional than the safety
decision; therefore, states have developed strategies to help guide
this decision process.
When an allegation of abuse or neglect comes in, caseworkers make
broad-based assessments that identify current safety issues, future
risks of maltreatment, and the family's strengths and needs to
determine the status of the case. Caseworkers must be skillful in
considering how serious the abuse or neglect is, how likely it is to
occur again, and what underlying causes led to the incident. The
majority of cases that initially come to the attention of the system do
not pose serious harm to the child. In cases where the degree of harm
is relatively minor, a caseworker can and should look at other factors,
such as the vulnerability of the child and the protective capacities of
the family, to make the best judgment about the most appropriate safety
response. In more serious cases, the safety response will include
restriction of access to the child either by placing the child out of
the home or restricting access of a maltreating caretaker. However,
there may be other options if the caseworker assesses that the risk to
the child can be mitigated by alternative responses such as intensive
case management, mental health services, substance abuse treatment,
parenting skills, and other interventions.
The safety of children is dependent on good decision-making by
child welfare professionals, judges, service providers, and the
community. Decision-makers in child welfare cases must contend with the
fact that what they decide to do or not do will directly impact the
lives of children and families. A community member who calls in a
report of suspected abuse may hesitate because of concerns for what may
happen to the family. Child protection workers who remove children from
dangerous homes must often immediately face a child's grief at the loss
of parents and the child's need for a stable and nurturing family.
Given the statutory requirement for states to make ``reasonable
efforts'' to prevent the child's removal from his or her home,
caseworkers who have determined that a child can stay home may second
guess if they have made the right decision. The need to continually
balance potentially conflicting goals often places a premium on skilled
decision-making and a need for a skilled workforce.
Need for a Skilled Workforce
Child welfare professionals courageously work in one of the most
challenging professions in this country. The jobs performed by
caseworkers have become more complicated as the challenges faced by
families in the child welfare system have become increasingly complex.
An enormous responsibility is placed in the hands of caseworkers as
they are expected to perform multiple interventions and make judgments
that have the power to change a child's life. Their findings can
determine whether a child is kept safe or put at risk.
Child welfare systems throughout the country struggle to recruit,
retain, and reward these dedicated professionals. In a survey of public
agency administrators, APHSA found that the number one issue in
preventable turnover was that ``workloads are too high, demanding, or
both.'' Systems, workers, and families face many barriers and
constraints as they work to achieve safety, success, and positive
outcomes. Economic and budgetary challenges, changes in the political
landscape, complex social factors, and complicated demands can impact a
child welfare system's ability to contain workloads.
Child welfare supervisors play a vital role in providing support,
skill building, and professional development to caseworkers.
Supervisors are coaches, mentors, and evaluators responsible for the
quality of services children and families receive. A supported,
skilled, and stable workforce is crucial in child welfare practice
given the tremendous impact caseworkers can have on helping vulnerable
children and families overcome difficult life circumstances. Training,
workload, risk of violence, supervision, and turnover present great
challenges to providing the needed workforce supports in this field.
However, the level of motivation and the level of dedication among the
child welfare workforce are assets that can contribute to meaningful
and sustained improvements. A key to improving the workload for
caseworkers is to ensure access to other human service systems that can
help provide the services needed by children and families.
Cross-system Collaborations
The child welfare system cannot work in isolation from other
critical human services programs. The system has increasingly been
contending with crosscutting challenges impacting the lives of children
and families including high rates of domestic violence, unmet medical
and mental health needs, substance abuse, and poverty. Child protection
is often the final safety net for many of the children and families who
weren't ``caught'' in time by other social service systems. Addressing
these issues is often integral to the ability of a family to care
properly for its children.
Although many child welfare systems have begun to partner
effectively with other sectors to address the multiple needs of
children and families, there remain obstacles to truly connecting the
supports these families need. For instance, an inpatient substance
abuse treatment facility may not have the capacity to accommodate a
family, causing a mother to have to lose physical custody while she is
receiving treatment to keep her child. Even that is assuming that the
parent can get into a treatment facility in a reasonable amount of
time. Many states struggle with substance abuse treatment waiting lists
that are often long due to insufficient resources and facilities. Once
children are in the system, parental substance abuse is a significant
hurdle in their path out of the system--a hurdle that requires drug or
alcohol treatment for the parent in addition to other services for the
family. The nature of drug and alcohol addiction means a parent's
recovery can take a considerable amount of time. Other problems these
parents face, such as mental illness and homelessness, further
complicate these cases. Foster care cases that involve parental
substance abuse therefore place an additional strain on a child welfare
system already overburdened by the sheer number of foster care cases.
Numerous families that come to the attention of child protection
have unmet mental health needs. Private health insurance limitations,
an inadequate supply of services, and limited resources have all
impacted the access to mental health services for both children and
parents. A recent General Accounting Office study highlighted the
critical importance of access to mental health services for children
within and outside the child welfare system. These factors can cause a
family to run up against the timelines set in the Adoption and Safe
Families Act (ASFA), under which states must seek, with limited
exceptions, termination of parental rights whenever a child has been in
foster care for 15 of the previous 22 months. We have seen cases where
the lack of adequate housing can lead to overcrowded conditions that
cause high levels of stress and can ultimately lead to the maltreatment
of a child. These examples serve to highlight how systems must work
together to better address the varied needs of families.
I can share with the Committee the Iowa story to more clearly
illustrate how a system goes about its core work in safety, addresses
the need for a skilled workforce, and develops cross-system
collaborations.
IOWA'S CHILD WELFARE STORY
Challenges
The number of reports of suspected child maltreatment in Iowa
reached an all-time high in 2001, and have subsequently declined
slightly and leveled off, as have the number of child abuse victims.
Iowa's per-thousand rate of child abuse is higher than national
averages. Child neglect is by far the most common category, accounting
for 66 percent of all substantiated cases.
Safety Strategies and System Collaborations
Core Work of the Iowa Child Welfare System
Addressing child protective concerns resulting from parental use
and/or manufacture of methamphetamines has become a significant part of
the work of the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) and its
community partners. Recent studies of Iowa's child protective caseloads
in the southwest region, for example, have revealed that one-third of
child protective investigations conducted involved methamphetamines;
one in four cases referred to child protection for assessment were
referred specifically due to parental meth involvement; and 49 percent,
almost half, of the children in ongoing caseloads in the Council Bluffs
Service Area come from homes where caretakers have been or are involved
with meth. The prevalence is even higher in some counties.
The Iowa DHS has been continually working to address these and
other challenges to child safety and well-being. Iowa has aggressive
timeframes for responding to reports of maltreatment--a report
involving an immediate threat or high risk to the child receives a
response within 1 hour; reports not involving an immediate threat, but
in which the alleged responsible person has access to the child,
receive a response within 24 hours; and reports not involving immediate
threat or access to the child by the perpetrator receive a response
within 96 hours. Iowa does not triage child abuse reports and
investigates all reports that are screened in. We only screen out if a
report doesn't meet the three criteria of potential abuse--not a child,
not a caretaker, or the allegation would not constitute the definition
of abuse even if it were true. We've recently strengthened training on
intake to build more consistency across the state and to emphasize a
focus on screening cases in unless a report clearly does not meet the
criteria of potential abuse.
We have also developed an extensive manual for staff on issues to
consider in assessing child safety. We have recently implemented use of
standardized risk and safety assessment tools, as well as a family
assessment that focuses on family strengths and needs. We have
developed strong training programs for new child protective assessment
workers, although these training programs have been negatively impacted
by budget cuts in the last few years--which have reduced available
training and caused higher caseloads resulting in less time for staff
to take training classes.
The focus on child safety extends beyond child proactive
assessments and in-home services. The Department has recently
implemented a new 30-hour training curriculum for new foster and
adoptive parents that integrates ASFA and the Child and Family Services
Reviews (CFSR) outcomes and expectations into the training. To the
extent possible, we want to encourage and allow existing foster parents
to go through this training as well. However, the lack of resources,
money for actual training, and time prevents us from doing this as
extensively as we would like. The Department also conducts record
checks before foster family licensure and adoptive family approval--
including criminal history, child abuse, and sex offender registry.
We've also built a strong partnership with the Iowa Foster and Adoptive
Parent Association (IFAPA) to provide a range of supports to foster and
adoptive parents. For example, we have a contract with IFAPA to do our
recruitment and retention project, as well as to provide other supports
such as peer liaisons to new and experienced foster and adoptive
parents, training, and on-going support groups. Iowa's CFSR Program
Improvement Plan (PIP) also includes new activities for IFAPA--
including training foster parents on preventing child abuse, contacting
new foster families after the first placement to help provide support
to the family, and providing post-adoptive support to families when
their adoption is finalized.
Need for a Skilled Workforce
The Department uses private agencies extensively to supervise and
support foster parents. Due to our own high caseloads, we contract with
private agencies to ensure face-to-face visits with children and
families. We've also implemented policy and training on safety planning
throughout our involvement with a child and family, and on safe case
closure. The policy requires safety assessments, for example, when
considering unsupervised visits, immediately before returning a child
home, and immediately before closing a service case.
Cross-system Collaborations
Iowa's child welfare system has endeavored to build working
relationships at both the state and community level with partners in
domestic violence, substance abuse, the courts, the local community,
law enforcement, mental health, and education. For example, we are
implementing Rural Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment Response
Teams. Through these teams, six agencies are working to develop state
protocols for collaboration among domestic violence, child protection,
law enforcement, county attorneys, and others. We're also working with
seven communities to reduce domestic violence and child victimization
by creating Family Violence Response Teams whose goal is to ensure
safety, justice, stability, and well-being for families.
In response to the increasing challenge of substance abuse,
particularly methamphetamines, Iowa has taken several steps. For
example, we've created meth specialist positions in our eight Service
Areas. These staff provide consultation for our staff and the community
in addressing meth abuse and working with families with a history of
meth use, and provide case management for a limited caseload of
families involved with meth. Iowa has also initiated Drug Endangered
Children (DEC) projects in three communities with heavy reported meth
production--including our most populous county, a rural county, and a
mid-size county. These projects bring law enforcement, child protection
workers, public health officials, medical practitioners, and
prosecutors together to assist children who are endangered by being
exposed to meth manufacture or use in their environment. Projects focus
on removing children from the dangerous living conditions in a drug
lab, holding the caretakers accountable for the endangerment with
prosecution, and medical and developmental assessment to address the
child's needs.
The judicial system is a fundamental partner in child welfare. Iowa
has an active judiciary that takes a strong interest. Our juvenile
judges are knowledgeable about ASFA and the CFSR outcomes and
processes, and take seriously their role in child protection and
permanency. Juvenile judges and the director of our court improvement
project were actively involved in developing our CFSR self-assessment
and our PIP. Two juvenile judges actually participated in the on-site
review as peer reviewers. Our PIP includes several strategies that our
court improvement project will implement to strengthen the court's role
in improving outcomes for children and families.
Community Partnership for Protecting Children
Finally, Iowa has been a Community Partnership for Protecting
Children (CPPC) site through the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation since
1997. In Iowa's Community Partnership sites, community members are
engaged to help find solutions in child welfare cases. The sites have
organized a network of neighborhood and community supports. The
partnership has created a network of agencies, neighborhood groups, and
families to support the overall mission of the community child
protection. Core members of networks include schools, faith
institutions, mental health professionals and healthcare providers,
substance abuse and domestic violence programs, police, child care
providers, parent groups, and of course, the public child protective
services (CPS) agency.
The child welfare system in Iowa has begun to adopt new policies,
practices, roles, and responsibilities to support Community
Partnerships. In order to take a leadership role in the partnership,
DHS has changed the way it responds to reports of maltreatment, while
still fulfilling its legal mandate to protect children from abuse and
neglect. This process has meant teaching staff different skills for
working with families. If the child's immediate safety needs are met,
but the family is still in need of help, then the worker connects
parents to the services and resources they may need by first conducting
a thorough assessment. DHS has acted as a ``safety consultant'' to
other members of the partnership network--assisting teachers,
pediatricians, family support workers, and residents in determining
what they can contribute to child safety in the community, and how to
effectively intervene when a child is at risk of harm. DHS has also
incorporated the key principles of the Community Partnership in child
welfare policy and practice.
The community partnership model has worked well for families in
Iowa. The following examples help to highlight the benefits we've seen
from this model.
In one CPPC site, the community has recruited and trained
Neighborhood Partners--local residents who organize events for parents
and children and help families who may be isolated within the
neighborhoods to take full advantage of local resources. They've also
located family support workers at two of the schools in the targeted
neighborhoods to assist families in identifying needed services. In
another site, the community developed circles of support for at-risk
families, as well as family partners for individual families. In this
particular site, the community has developed its CPPC work in
conjunction with a project called Beyond Welfare that is focused on
helping families achieve self-sufficiency goals.
We had a case in which a mother with two children, a newborn and a
two-year old toddler, was brought to the attention of the child
protection agency. A caseworker visited her home to find out about the
specific allegation--a bruise on the two-year old. Although the family
appeared troubled, the worker was unable to connect the bruise to
abuse.
The worker could have left with the hope that the family doesn't
reappear to the system on more serious abuse charges. But instead, the
caseworker conducted a thorough assessment of the family. The
assessment revealed a young single parent who was unsure of how to care
for her children and was drinking too much alcohol. She was isolated
from her neighbors, friends, and family and had no contact with the
father of the children.
After the assessment, the caseworker and mother developed an
``individualized action plan''. The plan targeted the family's
strengths as well as their problems, and brought together family
members and friends with service providers in a team meeting. As a
result of the meeting, the mother agreed to join a support group for
young parents and attend AA meetings; the caseworker went to the first
AA meeting with her. A neighbor agreed to visit every few days and help
out with occasional meals and errands. The toddler was enrolled in day
care. A family support worker helped the mother tackle long-term
challenges such as finding ongoing medical care for her family and
getting into a job training program.
Quality Assurance Systems
States constantly work to improve and move their child welfare
systems forward, as exemplified by Iowa's efforts noted above. To
assure that results are being achieved, it's critical for systems to
continually assess their progress. States have a strong history of
addressing and assessing quality within their own child welfare systems
so that these systems will better serve children and families. State
data has been a key piece in assessing quality services. Quality
assurance systems are employed to evaluate, monitor, and improve
practice. State quality assurance systems have helped to identify
conditions of frontline practice that can lead to good results--such as
quality of the relationship between the caseworker and the family, good
matching of needs and supports, good assessments, range of services
available, resilient children, and families able to communicate and
willing to ask for help. States have also been able to identify
conditions that limited the ability to achieve good outcomes including
caseload size, prevalence of crisis patterns, reluctance of family to
be involved with services, dual diagnosis caregivers, lack of available
treatment alternatives, and parental substance abuse.
Some states, such as Michigan, have found through quality
improvement outcome evaluations that tools like structured decision-
making have led to a higher rate of permanency in 15 months, lower
rates of subsequent harm to children returned home, less time in care,
and lower recidivism rates. Here in Iowa, we have established a
framework for a quality assurance and quality improvement system that
places a strong focus on child safety, permanency, and well-being. Key
components include:
provision and use of case-specific data to allow system-
wide results, trend data, and best practices to be shared to assist in
decision making;
use of in-depth quality service reviews (using a case
review protocol similar to that used in the on-site CFSR review) to
provide feedback on strengths and areas needing improvement related to
child and family outcomes (especially safety, stability and permanency)
and related to performance of the child welfare system (e.g., family
engagement, service planning, service coordination); and
support for the use of evidence-based practice.
A number of states have proactively incorporated federal
performance indicators within their state quality assurance systems and
performance-based budgeting systems to align state and federal
accountability standards.
Child and Family Services Reviews and Program Improvement Plans
Many of the federal performance indicators that states are aligning
with their own accountability standards come from the Child and Family
Services Reviews. Currently, states are engaged in measuring child
welfare system performance through the CFSR and subsequent program
improvement plans (PIP) based on the findings of the review. The CFSR
process has brought the focus on core outcomes and helped to create a
common platform of dialogue among states. States have been diligently
working on the CFSR and PIPs and are willing to be accountable for
their efforts on behalf of children and families in need of support and
services.
According to an Administration for Children and Families summary of
the 2001 and 2002 CFSR final reports of 32 states, performance was
stronger on the safety outcomes than in the permanency and well-being
outcomes. State performance on the indicators within the safety
outcomes shows that 47 percent of states achieved a strength rating for
timeliness of initiating investigations, 41 percent achieved a strength
rating for reducing repeat maltreatment, 50 percent achieved a strength
rating for services to protect children and prevent removal, and 34
percent achieve a strength rating for reducing risk of harm to
children. As of 2003, 48 states have had their system reviewed to
assess baseline data on measures of safety, permanency, and child well-
being; however, similar performance rating data are not yet available.
Despite some of the positive results, states recognize that they
need to continue to make strong efforts to address areas needing
improvement. In striving to meet the national standards, states must be
able to also support good practice. The compatibility of data across
states is a serious concern, and states feel strongly that the baseline
for each state from this first round of CFSRs should drive measurement
of improvement rather than national standards. Several differences in
state definitions and data contribute to the lack of compatibility
across states. Comparing results of a very rural state with a largely
urban state can prove misleading. States often have varying definitions
of abuse and neglect as well as different standards for substantiating
abuse and neglect. The very nature of the child welfare population,
where some states include certain children in their mental health and
juvenile justice programs and other states do not, is another source of
variation that contributes to the lack of comparability across states.
For states, the CFSRs and PIPs are consistent with their commitment
to improving outcomes and increasing accountability in the public child
welfare system. APHSA and states have had a long-standing interest in
moving the public child welfare system from a process-driven system to
an outcomes-focused system, so that its success is measured by positive
outcomes for children. States are committed to quality services for
children and families and accountability for achieving outcomes. States
support the outcomes-focused approach to federal child and family
service reviews and the use of both qualitative and quantitative
information to judge performance. However, reviews must serve as an
accurate and fair measure of state performance. National standards on
which performance is determined must be based on accurate data so that
the fairness of these reviews is not compromised.
Iowa's Child and Family Services Review
A key finding of the Iowa CFSR was that Iowa is in substantial
conformity with two of the seven outcomes and three of the seven
systemic factors. With regard to the outcomes, Iowa achieved
substantial conformity with Safety Outcome 2 (Children are safely
maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate) and Well
Being Outcome 2 (Children receive appropriate services to meet their
educational needs). The CFSR determined that DHS is effective in
addressing the risk of harm to children either through placement in
foster care or through providing adequate services to maintain children
safely in their own homes. Most stakeholders commenting during the
onsite CFSR indicated that there is a large array of preventive and
home-based services available to prevent children's removal from their
homes or re-entry into foster care after reunification. Stakeholders
also commented that DHS routinely conducts risk assessments and
establishes safety plans for children. The CFSR also determined that
DHS makes concerted efforts to address the educational needs of
children in the child welfare agency caseloads and is consistently
effective in reunifying children with their families in a timely
manner.
With regard to the systemic factors, Iowa was determined to be in
substantial conformity with the factors of statewide information
system; agency responsiveness to the community; and foster and adoptive
parent licensing, recruitment, and retention. The state did not achieve
substantial conformity with the systemic factors of case review system,
training, and service array. Information from the Statewide Assessment
and the stakeholder interviews conducted during the onsite CFSR
attributed many of the current difficulties experienced by DHS to
recent budget cuts in all areas of child welfare agency functioning. In
recent years, funds available for services, training, quality
assurance, and maintenance of the management information system have
been substantially reduced.
Iowa's Program Improvement Plan
Iowa's program improvement plan, based on the child and family
services review, was submitted on January 20, 2004. The goals and
strategies from the PIP address a variety of safety outcomes.
Iowa's goals to address Safety Outcome 1 (Children are, first and
foremost, protected from abuse and neglect) include:
Increasing the timeliness of initiating responses to
reports of child abuse/neglect. Due to Iowa's aggressive timeframes for
responding to child abuse and neglect reports, our CFSR final report
found that Iowa was timely in establishing face-to-face contact with
children and families in accordance with state-established timeframes
when reports involved immediate threat or high risk, but was less
consistent in meeting timeframes when reports involved moderate or low
risk.
Decreasing recurrence of maltreatment. Iowa did not meet
the national standard for repeat maltreatment, although case reviews in
the CFSR on-site review did not identify extensive repeat maltreatment
and reviewers rated this item a strength in 92 percent of cases
reviewed.
Decreasing the incidence of abuse and neglect in foster
care.
Iowa's PIP strategies to address the safety outcomes include:
Enhancement of functional assessment protocols to better
identify critical underlying issues;
Providing staff with guidelines for service planning
around different issues such as neglect cases, domestic violence, and
substance abuse;
Expansion of Community Partnerships for Protecting
Children statewide by July 1, 2007;
Expansion of family team meetings;
Provision of training and technical assistance on
substance abuse and child welfare;
Provision of additional support to new foster parents
through IFAPA, as well as training on preventing abuse in family foster
care;
Review of cases of abuse in residential treatment on a
quarterly basis; and
Development and monitoring of performance data on all
three indicators and review quarterly with Service Area Managers
(SAMs).
THE FEDERAL ROLE
The Federal Government and states have begun working
collaboratively through the child and family services reviews and
program improvement plans to focus on key outcomes. Through this
process, there is a real opportunity for the Federal Government to
better support and help enhance the capabilities of state child welfare
systems to achieve these outcomes.
Limitations of IV-E Funding
Nationally, fewer than 60 percent of the children in the
child welfare system are served with IV-E federal dollars, and the
number of children is decreasing over time. As you are well aware,
states are required to ``look back'' to old AFDC rules in effect on
July 16, 1996, to determine Title IV-E eligibility. Not only is this
administratively burdensome, but the law does not allow the income
standards to grow with inflation. As a result, eligibility for federal
reimbursement has decreased over time, leading to a continued loss of
federal funding to states.
Federal IV-E funding does not support the most basic work
of our agencies, particularly with respect to safety. For example, the
investigation stage, where an agency determines the efficacy of the
charge of abuse or neglect--the first point of contact an agency has
with vulnerable children and families--cannot be supported with federal
IV-E dollars. Furthermore, federal funding is disproportionately
directed to funding out-of-home care--the very part of the system
agencies seek to minimize to achieve greater permanence for children.
Federal IV-E entitlement cannot be used to fund front-end services,
reunification, or post-adoption services for children and families in
the system.
The health and mental health of children in the child
welfare system is a key outcome measure in the CFSR. States have helped
many children and families in the system by providing wraparound
services, such as comprehensive needs assessments, individual service
plans, service plan development and review, referrals for services,
service coordination and monitoring, case management, rehabilitation
service coordination, rehabilitation links and aftercare, and service
management through targeted case management (TCM). Because federal IV-E
funds cannot be used for these purposes, states have funded these
services with Medicaid money for decades. APHSA and our members are
very concerned about recent federal actions to limit states' ability to
use Medicaid funds for TCM services for children in the foster care
system.
Despite the Federal Government's renewed emphasis on
accountability and program improvement through the Child and Family
Services Review process, IV-E funds cannot be used to achieve many of
the mutually agreed-upon goals in the Program Improvement Plans. It is
not enough to know what goals need to be achieved to help children and
families in the child welfare system; the resources must also be
available. For example, in Iowa's PIP we are proposing to undertake the
following initiatives to improve the safety outcomes for the children
and families we serve, but federal IV-E funding cannot be used for the
following:
One of the areas Iowa needs to work on is reducing
repeat maltreatment. IV-E funding, however, cannot be used for
individualized ``wraparound'' services to address the underlying causes
of maltreatment based on engaging the family and implementing a good
assessment--only foster care.
Iowa also wants to move to paying providers for
results--again, IV-E can only be used to pay for maintenance. And, if
the result the provider achieves is a shorter length of stay or foster
care prevention, we lose IV-E funding, and the state and provider have
fewer resources available to achieve results.
Iowa is proposing to expand our Community Partnership
initiative and to increase wrap-around flexible funds to provide
services based on individual family needs, and to allow children who
need services traditionally provided in residential care to remain in
their communities. Neither of these will qualify for IV-E funding
because they are not focused on foster care.
Iowa wants to include private agency staff, who deliver
many of the child welfare services to children and families in Iowa, in
our training. IV-E match for training private agency staff, however, is
lower than for training our own staff, meaning fewer dollars available
for this critical training.
Recommendations
NAPCWA and the states have welcomed the opportunity to
participate in the Children's Bureau workgroup to make improvements to
the outcomes and how they're measured based on the first round of
CFSRs. Some promising preliminary suggestions include augmenting AFCARS
data with state data to paint a more complete picture; increasing the
capacity of HHS regional offices and resource centers to better assist
states; incorporating commitments from other systems that impact child
welfare such as mental health and substance abuse; and supporting
development and execution of PIP goals.
We support breaking the link between IV-E eligibility and
the long-since-repealed AFDC program, so that the Federal Government
can share in the support of all children in the child welfare system,
regardless of income.
We support broadening the use of IV-E funding to support
investigations, prevention and post-permanency services, and other
services to vulnerable children and families.
We support the continued use of Medicaid funds for
targeted case management, health, and mental health services to
children and families in the system.
We support the reform and continuation of state child
welfare waiver authority contained in the pending welfare reform
legislation, H.R. 4, that would provide states with a mechanism to use
federal funding more flexibly over time within cost neutrality
constraints.
However, in addition to the aforementioned waiver
authority, we set forth another idea for your consideration.
Recognizing the constraints of growing federal and state budget
deficits, APHSA and our NAPCWA members want to be a part of a
reasonable and cost effective approach to afford states greater
flexibility in the use of federal IV-E funds. We are currently
developing a proposal that would allow states to use IV-E funding for
any purpose approved under their Program Improvement Plan. As you are
aware, following the CFSR, states are required to review the findings
and develop a PIP that specifies actions the state will undertake in an
effort to improve the outcomes. The PIP is a negotiation between states
and the Federal Government, concluding with a formal approval by the
Federal Government. States are asked to implement the PIP, and the
Federal Government will undertake a subsequent CFSR to evaluate the
extent to which the state has achieved improvement or attained the
desired outcomes set forth in its plan.
Because the PIP is formally approved by the Federal
Government, we believe Congress should consider a policy change that
would permit states to use a federal IV-E dollar for any purpose set
forth in the PIP and during the time period set forth in the PIP. Given
the rigor of the federal approval process, the Federal Government would
have all the tools necessary to ensure that the purposes set forth in
the PIP relate directly to the outcomes a state seeks to achieve.
CONCLUSION
Child welfare systems are meeting the ongoing challenges of the
many needs of children and families. States are working to ensure
quality assurance efforts which allow them to monitor and improve their
systems on an on-going basis. As was highlighted in the work in Iowa,
states are also building effective alliances with other crucial human
services systems and are pursuing promising new interventions. States
are thoughtfully engaged in the program improvement plan process
through the CFSR and are energized by the prospects of achieving much-
sought-after outcomes for children and families. In the pursuit of
these goals, NAPCWA and APHSA welcome the opportunity to work with the
Administration to make meaningful progress.
NAPCWA's vision for child welfare is a society where children are
free from abuse and neglect and live in safe, stable, permanent
families--where children and families have needed supports and can help
themselves. When children are at risk and come to the attention of the
public agency, the agency can provide services and supports to them and
their families to mitigate their problems and prevent them from being
removed from their families and communities. When children must come
into care, the agency can address children and family needs
expeditiously and enable a safe reunification or, where that is not
possible, find an alternative permanent placement expeditiously, while
assuring their well-being in the interim. This is a vision where the
safety and protection of children is the shared responsibility of all
parts of the human service agency and the larger community. It is a
vision where the child welfare system has the capacity to improve
outcomes for children and families, and the Federal Government and
states are equal partners in serving all children in all parts of the
system.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be pleased to
respond to any questions you may have.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Ms. Nelson. William Bell to
testify.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. BELL, COMMISSIONER, ADMINISTRATION FOR
CHILDREN'S SERVICES, NEW YORK, NEW YORK
Mr. BELL. Good morning, Chairman Herger, and Ranking Member
Cardin. Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today.
As recently as 1995, New York City may have been asked to
testify about its failings in child welfare rather than its
successes. My testimony here today is intended to serve as
tangible evidence that it is possible to turn around a failing
child welfare system. The most remarkable success of the past 8
years in New York City has been achieved over the past 2 years,
where in spite of the enormous impact of a budget deficit of
approximately $6 billion in each of the past 2 fiscal years,
New York City's child welfare system has improved. New York
City has experienced record lows in the number of children in
foster care, currently approximately 22,000, and the number of
admissions to foster care, approximately 6,600 placements last
year, 49 percent less than in 1997.
The success of New York City's transformation suggests that
the actions that we have taken are not merely optional steps
for change, but that they may constitute necessary elements in
the blueprint for any child welfare reform. Those steps
included, committing the political will necessary to sustain
change, appointing competent executive and mid-level
leadership, developing a clear plan of action, investing in
frontline supervision, investing in frontline staff, developing
and demanding strong cross-system partnerships, clearly
articulating principles and standards to guide the work,
creating and enforcing a data-driven accountability system,
publicly reporting on outcomes for children, and giving the
system time to improve. Successful reform has occurred in New
York City because the full support of the Mayor is placed
squarely behind this effort. The success or failure of the
child welfare system is owned as much by the leader of the city
as it is by the Child Welfare Commissioner and the caseworkers.
If a tragedy occurs, it is met by an aggressive effort to
understand and to improve, not by the sacrificial firing of the
Commissioner and the caseworkers responsible for the case.
We began our reform effort by investing in our workforce
and improving the quality of frontline supervision. Staff
cannot be expected to adequately fulfill their responsibilities
if they are not trained properly, if they do not receive
appropriate supervision, or if they are constantly afraid that
their decisions will not be supported by the agency. Since the
creation of ACS in 1996, we have made extraordinary progress in
improving the lives of New York City's vulnerable children and
their families. Since 1996, the ACS has completed over 27,000
adoptions, with the number of adoptions rising in each of the
past 2 fiscal years. We have successfully reduced the child
protective caseloads from an average of 26 cases per worker in
1996, to approximately 10.7 cases per worker in 2003. The
overall foster care population is less than half of what it was
just a decade ago. In 1990, New York City comprised 13 percent
of the national foster care census. Today, we represent just 5
percent of the national census. Moreover, ACS has accounted for
almost 30 percent of the total national decline in foster care
since 1999.
Data-driven accountability has been a great part of this
success. In 1999, ACS created the Evaluation and Quality
Improvement Protocol (EQUIP), which gives ACS the ability to
evaluate the quality of services being provided to children and
families by looking at process, outcomes, and quality measures.
After 3 years of EQUIP, ACS just recently introduced a
performance-based contracting system, which now, for the first
time, pays agencies based on the quality of services that they
are providing to children, not based on the number of days that
children remain in their organizations. As my words here today
suggest, we believe that improvement to the child welfare
system is achievable with the right ingredients. New York
City's ACS is a testament to this belief. Nevertheless, even
with our tremendous progress, we have much more to do if we are
going to achieve the level of excellence required in order to
help New York City's children become productive New York City
adults.
We believe that the Federal Government can assist in this
effort by increasing Federal funding, increasing the
flexibility that is allowed in how that funding is utilized,
de-linking title IV-E funding from the AFDC look back, and
allowing for title IV-E funding to be used in funding the
permanency option of guardianship for children. We also believe
that additional services are required in terms of mental health
and substance abuse services for families involved in the child
welfare system. Last, we believe that a new system that focuses
on after-care services for young people who have emancipated
from foster care is not only necessary, but absolutely required
to reduce the stream of young people who leave foster care and
end up in the penal system, in the homeless system, or on the
AFDC or TANF system. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bell follows:]
Statement of William C. Bell, Commissioner, Administration for
Children's Services, New York, New York
Good morning, Chairman Herger and members of the House Committee on
Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Human Resources. I am William Bell,
Commissioner of the NYC Administration for Children's Services (ACS). I
am here today on behalf of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and New York
City. While my testimony today is presented only in my capacity as ACS
Commissioner, I am pleased to acknowledge that I am also a member of
the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care and sit on the Executive
Committee of the National Association of Public Child Welfare
Administrators (NAPCWA).
Thank you for inviting me here today to speak about the
accomplishments of New York City's child welfare system. As recently as
1995, New York City may have been asked to testify about its failings
in child welfare. I am pleased to say that after more than eight years
of reform, I can today talk about the remarkable transformation of a
child welfare system with many successes and positive outcomes.
My testimony here today is also intended to serve as tangible
evidence that it is possible to turn around a failing child welfare
system and, as we have done in New York City, become recognized for
numerous successes rather than failures.
The most remarkable success of the past eight years has been
achieved under the Bloomberg Administration. In spite of the enormous
impact of record deficits of nearly $6 Billion in each of the past two
fiscal years, New York City's child welfare system has experienced
record lows in the number of children in foster care (approximately
22,300, the lowest since 1987) and admissions into foster care
(approximately 6,500 placements in 2003--49% fewer than 1997). These
achievements occurred even though both the number of reports of abuse/
neglect (55,000) and the number of children involved (85,000) have
remained consistent each year.
History of the Administration for Children's Services (ACS)
In response to several tragic child fatalities in New York City in
the mid-1990s, including the death of a six year-old named Elisa
Izquierdo, who was known to New York City's Child Welfare
Administration, former Mayor Rudolph Guiliani focused his attention on
improving the quality and accountability of the City's child welfare
system. The devastation of child abuse--and the failure of the child
protection system to protect Elisa and other vulnerable children--
shocked New Yorkers and the nation. A quote in the New York Times
captured accurately that which should be the position of the entire
country, ``All of us have some responsibility. We're all accountable.''
By not simply assigning blame and accepting accountability and
responsibility, New York City took the first of many important steps in
creating one of the strongest child welfare systems in the country.
The Mayor began a series of steps that we in New York City have
come to recognize as a blueprint for improvement for any system that is
failing in its mission of child protection. The success of NYC's
transformation suggests that these are not merely optional steps but
that they constitute necessary elements for child welfare reform for
any system:
1. Commit the political will necessary to sustain change;
2. Appoint competent executive and mid-level leadership;
3. Develop a clear plan of action;
4. Invest in frontline supervision;
5. Invest in frontline staff;
6. Develop and demand strong cross systems partnerships;
7. Clearly articulate principles and standards to guide the work;
8. Create and enforce a data driven accountability system;
9. Publicly report on outcomes for children; and
10. Give the system time to improve.
Necessary Elements for Reform
Success in New York City was not easy. Nor did it happen overnight.
Reform is possible for even the most troubled agencies, but first there
must be the political will and support for the agency and for change.
Successful reform occurred in New York City because the full support of
the Mayor was placed behind the effort. There was a public declaration
that the success or failure of the child welfare agency would be
shouldered by the leader of the city; not by the firing of the
commissioner and caseworker following the next tragedy.
The structure and leadership of the Administration for Children's
Services (ACS) reflected this political will. Nicholas Scoppetta,
former deputy mayor and a well-respected public servant, was appointed
as the agency's first Commissioner. The Administration for Children's
Services was also separated from the larger Human Resources Agency and
elevated to become a Cabinet level agency with the sole charge of
protecting New York City's children.
Strong leadership is also necessary to implement reform.
Commissioner Scoppetta's first action was to put together a strong
management team with extensive experience and dedication to reforming
the system. I was fortunate to be a part of this team as Deputy
Commissioner for Child Protective Services. Once the team was in place,
we thoroughly assessed the system, sought assistance and advice from
stakeholders and experts in the field and began to develop a clear plan
of action.
We began with investing in our workforce and improving the quality
of the front-line supervision and casework staff. Staff could not be
expected to adequately fulfill their responsibilities if they were not
trained properly, did not receive appropriate supervision, or if they
were constantly afraid that their decisions would not be supported by
the agency. At ACS, we have successfully changed this culture by
instituting strong leadership throughout the agency, improving the
quality of staff, providing staff with the resources necessary to do
their jobs, and supporting staff, when appropriate, rather than using
front-line staff as scapegoats when something went wrong. These changes
have dramatically improved ACS's ability to protect children.
One of the most important elements of reform is time. Change does
not occur overnight. In New York City there were years of poor
practice, bad publicity, fear and inadequate resources to overcome. As
the past eight years have demonstrated, however, success is possible
with support and time.
Some people believe that lawsuits are the only impetus to change. I
do not. Lawsuits may be necessary to force an entrenched system to the
point of beginning the change process; however, in and of themselves,
lawsuits cannot complete the long arduous work of systems reform.
Lawsuits often redirect limited agency resources into defending
against the lawsuit and becoming distracted from the primary objective
of protecting children. Lawsuits also reinforce the public's distrust
of child protective agencies, which can be very harmful to children.
Change is possible without legal action and court oversight. It is
possible with political will and support, increased resources, strong
leadership, workforce investment, a clear plan of action, clearly
articulated principles and standards, accountability, partnerships,
ongoing advice from experts in the field, and time.
Major Reform and Achievements of ACS
Since its creation in 1996, ACS has made extraordinary progress in
improving the lives of New York City's vulnerable children and their
families. Since taking office in January 2002, Mayor Bloomberg has
continuously demonstrated his commitment to children and families by
fully supporting ACS and its programs, as is seen in the significant
accomplishments the agency has continued to achieve.
Front-Line Practice
One of the first areas of focus for the new ACS was the point of
entry into the child welfare system: child protective investigations.
ACS made a commitment to ensure that all staff responsible for
investigating allegations of abuse or neglect had the resources and
support necessary to thoroughly perform their duties. The goal was to
ensure that every child that came to the attention of ACS would be
protected from harm and only be removed from their home if necessary to
prevent harm to the child.
In the first years of ACS, we took several actions to improve the
capacity of the front-line staff to conduct adequate risk-assessments
and provide appropriate assistance and intervention to protect children
and stabilize families. The entry-level standards for hiring child
protective workers were strengthened to require increased education in
social work or a related field. Compensation for the staff was also
increased in an effort to attract and retain higher quality staff.
Merit-based raises were instituted to encourage staff to succeed and to
reduce turnover. ACS also provided enhanced training, creating a more
intense and comprehensive curriculum for all new staff, as well as
advanced curriculums for more experienced staff.
In addition to increasing the quality of the staff, ACS also needed
to increase the number of child protective investigators. When ACS was
first created, caseloads were unreasonably high, which prevented
workers from having the time or ability to fully investigate each case
to ensure children were safe. Through aggressive hiring of quality
staff, quality supervision, and enhanced accountability, we have
successfully reduced the caseloads from approximately 26 per worker at
the creation of ACS, to 10.7 per worker in 2003.
Successfully improving the quality of practice in child protective
investigations also required the availability of additional services to
protect children and stabilize families without requiring a removal
from the child's home. Over the past seven years, ACS has dramatically
increased the array and availability of preventive services to New York
City's families. While families could always request these services
without being part of a child protective investigation, through the new
training and higher standards of front-line staff, preventive services
are now more widely used by child protective workers to allow children
to remain at home safely with their families.
In 2001, a critical milestone in ACS history was passed when, for
the first time, more children were served by in-home preventive
services than were in foster care. This profound shift within the child
welfare system in New York City is further evidence that ACS has
successfully improved the quality of case practice, training, and
supervision for the frontline child protective specialists making
decisions to keep families together whenever safe and appropriate.
Permanency and Adoption
Since 1996, ACS has completed almost 27,000 adoptions, with the
number of adoptions rising the past two fiscal years. As a result, more
and more children for whom a return to a parent or caretaker is not
appropriate or possible are living with permanent, caring families.
This increase in the number of adoptions has occurred during a time
when the number of children eligible for adoption has decreased with
the foster care census. In fiscal year 1998, the number of children for
whom parental rights had been terminated was 8,772. In fiscal year
2003, this number dropped to 4,194. This means that since 1998, ACS has
increased the number of adoptions completed as a percentage of the
total number of children eligible for adoption from approximately 45%
to 66.6% in fiscal year 2003.
One reason for this success is the partnerships that have been
built with all of the entities involved in the adoption process,
including: New York State Chief Judge Judith Kaye, the New York State
Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS), and the New York City
Family Court. In May 2003, this partnership was solidified through
``Adoption Now'', an initiative that seeks to address systemic barriers
to timely adoptions.
As part of ACS's work towards permanency for all children in foster
care, we have instituted several new initiatives that have been
specifically designed to address the needs of different populations in
foster care. Nationwide, the child welfare system has historically
failed to adequately meet the needs of adolescents in foster care.
Currently, more than half of New York City's foster care population is
over the age of twelve.
This shift in population over the past several years has resulted
in a focus on the special needs of adolescents. Under the Bloomberg
Administration, ACS designed and implemented the ``Families for Teens''
initiative to change the culture of child welfare practice to ensure
that all teens in foster care are provided with the care, skills,
resources and positive relationships necessary to succeed as adults. We
are breaking the myth that teens are not able to be adopted and we are
changing practice to make sure that everyone understands and believes
that teens not only need families, but that it is possible for them to
have families and to leave foster care with a loving, stable support
system in place.
In an effort to move adolescents out of foster care or into lower
levels of care, ACS has been working with teens living in group care
settings, their caseworkers, and their law guardians to identify
members of their extended family with whom they could be reunited and
to find adoptive families eager to parent a teenager. ACS now requires
a concurrent, family-based plan for every teen at risk of aging out of
foster care to safeguard against releasing young adults to the myth of
``independent'' living.
To build positive relationships in the lives of foster youth, we
are also actively working to expand mentoring opportunities for youth
in foster care by working with various reputable mentoring
organizations in New York City.
Teens are not the only population that requires specialized
services. Infants and toddlers have their own special developmental,
medical and emotional needs. In close collaboration with New York
State's Permanent Judicial Commission on Justice for Children, ACS has
worked to educate its staff about infants' unique needs and to boost
the enrollment of young foster children in its Head Start and Early
Intervention programs. In addition, ACS was recently awarded a large
HHS grant that will allow us to work closely with a network of service
providers in the Bedford-Stuyvesant community to improve the outcomes
for our youngest and most vulnerable children.
Foster Care Census
As a result of improved investigations and risk-assessments,
increased use of in-home preventive services, implementation of family
conferencing and an increased focus on permanency for all youth in
foster care, New York City's foster care population has decreased
dramatically. In 2003, New York City's foster care population reached
its lowest level since 1987. In November 2003, the foster care
population in New York City was approximately 22,300, a decline of
almost 21% over the past two years. This includes a projected yearly
decline of 12.2% in 2003 alone--the largest yearly percentage decrease
on record in New York City. Overall, the foster care population is now
less than half of what it was a decade ago.
The decrease in New York City's foster care census has primarily
driven the overall decrease in New York State and has played a
significant role in the reduction of the nation's foster care
population. While ACS was achieving a historic decline in the New York
City foster care census, the nation's foster care census was rising to
a high of 567,000 in 1999. And while the national foster care census
has fallen only slightly since 1999, New York City's decline has
continued at a remarkable pace. As a result, New York City's share of
the national foster care census has fallen from 13% in 1990 to only 5%
of the most recent national figures. Moreover, ACS has accounted for
almost 30% of the total national decline since 1999.
Neighborhood Based Services
A major theme in the reform efforts at ACS has been the creation
and enhancement of a neighborhood based services (NBS) approach through
which children who enter foster care are placed in their own
neighborhoods, keeping them close to family and in their own school.
This reduces trauma to children in care and facilitates family visits,
where appropriate. NBS promotes permanency by providing children with
preventive services, foster care services, health care, and other
support services in the community where they resided before removal
from their home. As part of the NBS approach, the contracted not-for-
profit foster care agencies, which provide over 90% of the foster care
services in New York City, were assigned to serve specific community
districts in New York City, based upon an extensive assessment of need
in every community in the City.
As part of the NBS approach, ACS has established 25 Neighborhood
Networks in the City's high-needs communities. These networks connect
neighborhood organizations, schools, service providers and faith-based
entities to support families in their own communities better and
leverage resources in the present fiscally constrained environment.
In 2002, ACS identified that over 60% of the children in foster
care came from 18 out of 59 community districts in the City. Therefore,
ACS has embarked upon a strategy to target these Top 18 neighborhoods.
Named ``Community Partnership to Strengthen Families,'' the goal of
this initiative is to target specific geographic areas with the highest
involvement with the child welfare system, and then engage these
communities in the process of collecting and analyzing the child
welfare data within their area.
After analyzing the data, ACS and its community partners develop a
community specific, multi-system strategy for keeping families together
safely with services and reducing the need for placement into foster
care. In one of the first communities to begin this process, Central
Harlem, we have found that 50% of the Central Harlem children that are
in foster care come from just 6 out of Central Harlem's 31 census
tracts. Using this data to help stabilize families, we have now focused
our efforts on the specific needs of the 24 blocks within these 6
census tracts.
Data and Accountability
The data being used in our neighborhood work is only one way we
have incorporated data into our daily practices and reform efforts.
Accurate and comprehensive data allows ACS to hold itself and its
contractors accountable for their performance in achieving positive
outcomes for children and complying with mandated activities. To this
end, ACS created the Evaluation and Quality Improvement Protocol
(EQUIP), which gives ACS the ability to evaluate the quality of
services being provided to children and families by looking at process,
outcomes and quality measures. EQUIP assesses the contracted agencies'
compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements, measures the
quality of service in areas such as child safety, education, and
service provision, and evaluates a set of child outcome indicators,
including rate of reunification and adoption and the success in
independent living after discharge from care.
First used in 2000 for foster care services, this qualitative
method discerns the meaningful differences in the quality of the foster
care programs, allowing ACS to rank programs based upon quality of
services. This information also provides ACS with the information
necessary to develop empirically-based corrective action plans and to
reward high quality performance by its contract agencies. And after
three successful years of using the foster boarding home EQUIP, ACS has
now developed a revolutionary performance based payment system that is
tied directly to the quality of services provided by the contract
agencies.
In December 2003, ACS announced a performance-based rate payment
system for foster boarding home services that rewards agencies for
quality of services rather than the number of days a child stays in a
program. The goal of this performance based contracting system is to
ensure that all children have the opportunity to receive the same level
of care, regardless of which agency is responsible for their placement.
This new system will also move all agencies towards the highest level
of performance and quality outcomes for the children in their care.
New Innovative Programs
A number of improvements and new programs have been implemented in
New York City over the past eight years. One of these includes the use
of Clinical Consultation Teams, which consist of four professionals: a
Domestic Violence Specialist, a Substance Abuse Specialist, a Mental
Health Specialist, and a Team Coordinator. Twelve of these teams are
placed in child protective field offices throughout the City and all
provide three types of services: case-specific consultation, office-
based training, and assistance with referrals for community-based
resources. ACS staff can request consultations from each specialist
individually, or any combination thereof, depending upon the needs
present in a case. Over the past year, there have been over 8,000
consultations. Over the next year Medical Specialists will be added to
these teams.
In 2002, the New York State legislature increased the age of
eligibility for Persons in Need of Supervision (PINS) to 17 years of
age, from 15 years of age. It was expected that this change would
increase the number of PINS cases by 28% in the first year. To address
this and to help stabilize families, ACS developed and implemented the
Family Assessment Program (FAP), in collaboration with the New York
City Department of Probation, to work with families who might otherwise
seek a PINS petition in Family Court for youth who are beyond their
parent's or caretaker's lawful control.
FAP offers crisis intervention, screening, and referrals to connect
families to preventive and community-based services before a PINS
petition is necessary--hopefully obviating the need for a PINS petition
or placement into foster care. After only six months of partial
implementation, FAP turned a projected 28% increase in PINS cases for
fiscal year 2003 into a 41% decline. Similarly, the number of PINS
foster care placements has declined significantly, and virtually no
recidivism into Family Court has occurred.
Ongoing and Future Goals of ACS
While ACS has implemented enormous change and seen many positive
results, we still have much more to do to ensure all children who come
into contact with our system remain safe, are provided with the highest
quality of care and have their emotional, physical and mental needs
met. ACS will continue to focus on the safety and well-being of all
children in our system, and will expand our work in communities to
empower them to ensure the safety and well-being of their children. The
following is a list of our highest priorities for the next two years:
1. Continue to focus on ``Families for Teens'', a New York City
initiative to ensure that all adolescents in foster care are provided
with the skills, resources and positive relationships necessary to
succeed as adults. Several strategies will be employed to achieve this
result:
ACS will continue the work already underway to reduce
the number of teenagers living in congregate care settings. Our current
goal is to have 600 fewer youth placed in group care by July 2005.
We will double the number of foster youth who are
engaged in positive mentoring relationships. Through our work with
Mentoring USA, the Mentoring Partnership of New York and other
mentoring programs, ACS is striving to make mentoring available to all
youth in foster care.
ACS will release and implement the ACS Adolescent
Services Plan. This comprehensive plan outlines the strategies and
programs that ACS will provide to adolescents in foster care to prepare
them for successful adult lives. This plan will detail policy and best
practices for all staff and contract agencies to use as a guide when
working with adolescents.
2. ACS strongly believes that the system's responsibility to
foster youth should not end immediately when the child is discharged
from foster care. We are committed to working towards the establishment
an after-care system in New York City for youth who have left the
foster care system--whether by being reunified with their families,
adopted or emancipated from foster care.
We believe that these services should be available on demand
for the purpose of averting crisis in the lives of adults between the
ages of 18 and 30 who were former foster children. We believe that the
availability of these services could significantly reduce the number of
former foster children who enter the criminal justice system, who
become homeless, or who end up on public assistance.
Funding is not readily available from the Federal or State
governments for this purpose, but research indicates that young people
require additional supports in the years after they leave foster care.
While many youth who leave care have stability at the time they are
discharged, life can be unpredictable and the child welfare system--in
collaboration with other government systems--must develop plans to
assist these youth in the years after they leave foster care. Over the
next two years, ACS is committed to exploring ways to improve the
services available to young people who have been in foster care.
ACS will work with Federal, State and City agencies, as well
as private entities, to seek new sources of funding for these services.
We will also establish partnerships and collaborations with external
organizations to develop a comprehensive after-care system for youth
who leave foster care. Services to be provided could include referrals
and assistance in the following areas: housing, employment and
education, finances, health and mental health, child care, and legal.
3. ACS has a goal of achieving 5,000 adoptions by the end of 2005.
ACS will reduce the number of children in foster care in New York City
to less than 20,000. Since January 2002, there has been a 21% decline
in the total foster care population in New York City. Over the next 2
years ACS will continue to see the population decline, while also
ensuring the safety of the City's children by:
Continuing to provide an array of preventive services
that allow children to remain safely with their families.
Continuing to expand the provision of quality training
and supervisory support to front-line child protective staff, while
also sustaining manageable caseloads, to ensure that accurate and
thorough safety assessments are conducted.
Continuing the use of Family Team Conferencing and
enhancing the effectiveness and family engagement at all Family Team
Conferences and Service Plan Reviews.
Reviewing and restructuring ACS's case management
functions to be more focused on permanency for all children in foster
care.
Continuing work in high need communities to understand
the issues affecting each specific community and expand appropriate
community supports for families in need of assistance. The goal is to
provide families with an opportunity to seek help before reaching a
crisis point and possibly prevent the need for out of home placement.
How the Federal Government Can Help Child Welfare Systems
1. Federal financing flexibility and increased funding are needed
to enhance resources for services and achieve improved outcomes for
children.
The Federal Government has clearly articulated the desired
outcomes for child welfare: children's safety, permanency and well-
being. In New York City, we have embraced these outcomes and have made
them central to our efforts in reforming child welfare.
If we as a Nation are to be successful in achieving the kind
of child welfare system envisioned, we must take a serious look at the
financing structure at the federal, state and local levels of
government. The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) has done much to
change the expectations for the child welfare system, but the financing
structure of 1980 remains today and is out of step with ASFA and the
work that needs to be done to achieve those outcomes. The bulk of
federal child welfare funding is directed to out-of-home care, with IV-
E only covering care and maintenance, and not the services--prevention,
permanency and protection--that actually produce positive outcomes and
assure that children are safe and have permanent families.
Federal regulations clearly state that allowable costs under
IV-E do not include the costs of social services provided to the child,
the child's family or foster family that provide counseling or
treatment to ameliorate or remedy personal problems, behaviors or home
conditions. Without the resources to provide services for and resolve
the very issues that created the need for foster care placement, it is
very difficult to reduce the foster care census and increase safety,
stability and permanency for children. The resources must follow the
outcomes, and fiscal incentives, rather than penalties, must be the
driver of improvement.
We believe that increased Federal financing flexibility and
funding are needed in order to enhance resources for prevention and
services. We have accomplished sweeping system changes and improved
outcomes for children and families, despite the challenges imposed by a
State block grant for child welfare services, and with the lion's share
of the needed investments undertaken with local dollars.
New York City has been experiencing enormous fiscal challenges
since 2001, requiring all City agencies to reduce expenditures. At the
same time, Mayor Bloomberg has made it clear that he will protect
children and has done everything possible to ensure that ACS maintains
its ability to protect and care for children; however, the City now
bears a large portion of what should be the State's financial
responsibility.
Based on New York City's experience operating a child welfare
system under the Family and Children's Services Block Grant over the
last eight years, we believe that a block grant or capped allocation of
state and federal foster care dollars raises a number of questions that
must be seriously considered. Will a block grant ensure adequate levels
of funding to states and localities? Will there be equitable
distribution of limited resources? Will states be required to make
equitable distributions? Will there be a cost shift to states and
localities? Will a safety net for vulnerable children and families be
assured as needs change? Any proposals to increase much needed
flexibility must be sure not to hamper the ability of local or state
child welfare agencies' to protect, support and achieve improved
outcomes for our most vulnerable children and families nor undo
accomplishments like those that we have worked so hard to realize in
New York City.
2. Reform must consider large urban jurisdictions.
Federal proposals to address the financing dilemma must take
into account the different structures of child welfare service delivery
from state to state and among localities within states, especially a
county-administered service system like New York. One size does not fit
all.
Many large urban jurisdictions, such as New York City, Los
Angeles County and Cook County (Chicago), account for 35%-70% of their
respective state's foster care population, yet each is dependent upon
the state to accurately represent their interests on the federal level.
If federal approaches to reform deal only with the states, the
operations of child welfare systems in urban areas will be dictated by
smaller states and jurisdictions, which operate under different
structures and face different issues. Under current federal policy,
large urban jurisdictions are currently prohibited from applying for a
IV-E waiver. They are dependent upon the will of the state, which may
not represent its needs or interests. New York City would like to
obtain a waiver to provide subsidized kinship guardianship similar to
that which occurred in the State of Illinois under former Child Welfare
Director, Jess McDonald, but we are currently excluded from taking
advantage of this important means of innovation and flexibility and are
dependent upon New York State to take such action.
3. Title IV-E eligibility must be de-linked from AFDC
Title IV-E should be amended to eliminate the requirement that
links the eligibility of a child for foster care maintenance payments
to the child's eligibility for AFDC as it existed prior to July 16,
1996. Prior to 1996, a child's eligibility for Title IV-E foster care
payments was linked to the child's eligibility for the Title IV-A (Aid
to Families with Dependent Children or AFDC) program. In 1996, when
Congress passed PRWORA (the welfare reform act), the AFDC program was
ended and replaced by TANF.
However, Congress, after much debate concerning how to
determine eligibility for Title IV-E after the end of AFDC, chose to
retain that prior program's eligibility criteria as a condition of
eligibility under the Title IV-E program. Thus, state agencies are
required to continue to make eligibility determinations pursuant to the
provisions of a program that no longer exists, other than for the
purpose of making these eligibility determinations. More than seven
years after the enactment of PRWORA, it is time to acknowledge that it
is no longer appropriate to make eligibility determinations in this
way.
This provision was included in the welfare reform act as a
placeholder and temporary solution. It is critical that Congress act
now to address this situation before a continuing loss of revenue
impacts states' ability to serve children and families. While AFDC has
been replaced by TANF, we do not believe that TANF should automatically
become the new eligibility standard. There must be more discussion and
further analysis on what elements should be used to determine
eligibility for IV-E funding.
4. Title IV-E Should Support Subsidized Kinship Guardianship
In order to increase permanency and the well-being of children,
the Federal Government needs to support assistance for guardianship, a
permanency option provided under ASFA, but not funded.
Kinship foster care placements often last longer than non-
kinship foster care placements because some birth parents feel less
pressure to seek the return of their children and many kinship foster
parents are reluctant to push for the termination of the parental
rights of their own family member and for the adoption of their own
family member's child. The result is that these children remain in
foster care and ACS and other social service districts retain the
``custody'' of such children, which requires the continuation of
casework services and performance of administrative functions.
Meanwhile, the children are deprived of permanency. More than five
years of IV-E waiver experience demonstrates subsidized guardianship as
a viable permanency option and all jurisdictions should have the
opportunity to provide subsidized guardianship.
5. Federal training funding should support private providers and
the entire continuum of child welfare services
Although ACS has made considerable progress in upgrading and
training child protective staff, there is a continued need to
strengthen the training of the staff of our contracted providers who
oversee more than 90% of children in foster care and those who provide
preventive services to families. We urge the Federal Government to
support training more comprehensively, which would include providing
the same enhanced 75 percent federal match rate for contract agency
workers and recognizing that, in the child welfare system today,
services are regularly and largely contracted out to not-for-profit
providers and demand the same high quality and outcome achievement.
Federal training dollars should also support the entire service
continuum of child welfare, not just training for foster care, but also
training for protection, prevention and after care, if we want quality
services that lead to safety, permanency and well-being.
6. Parents and children need increased mental health, medical and
substance abuse services
Increased funding for mental health, medical and substance
abuse treatment services to address parents' and children's needs in
the child welfare system is critical to ensuring safety, permanency and
well-being, as we know that these issues affect many of the children
and families we serve and can be barriers to the outcomes we seek to
achieve. Adequately funded mental health and development disability
systems are needed to meet ``the needs of children who inappropriately
end up in the child welfare system.
Additionally, if we are to achieve the permanency timeframes
contained in ASFA, the parents of children in foster care must be
designated as one of the priority recipients of federally funded
substance abuse services.
7. Adolescents Need Enhanced Support Services
Adolescents continue to be an increasing proportion of the
children we serve in foster care. The special needs and challenges of
the foster system's young adult population require an increased federal
investment in transitional and other support services for teens to
improve their prospects as adults.
One recent study suggests a very bleak picture for young
adults emancipating from the foster care system. The study indicates
that within 12 to 18 months of aging out of foster care, 50 percent are
unemployed; and 37 percent have not finished high school. It adds that
in this same period of time, 19 percent of the young women have given
birth; 33 percent are receiving some form of public assistance; and 27
percent of males and 10 of females have been incarcerated or have had
some encounter with the criminal justice system. The lack of enough
resources directed toward young adults in care now is costing us--both
figuratively and literally--a higher price than ever.
Federal funding for independent living services and education
and training vouchers through the Chafee Foster Care Independence
program has been an important source of federal support for this
population. We propose the provision of additional federal funding for
after care services so youth who leave foster care--through
reunification, adoption or emancipation--have access to a safety net
and assistance to ensure their safety and stability during the
vulnerable years following foster care.
Improvements to the child welfare system are achievable, with the
right ingredients. New York City's Administration for Children's
Services is a testament to this. Nevertheless, even with our tremendous
progress, we have much more work to do if we are to achieve the level
of excellence desired and required. Federal resources and flexibility,
with accountability, are critical ingredients to maintaining and
expanding reform efforts.
Thank you again for your time and consideration of these critical
issues.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Bell, for your
testimony. Now, Mr. Wayne Stevenson to testify.
STATEMENT OF WAYNE T. STEVENSON, DEPUTY SECRETARY, OFFICE OF
CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND FAMILIES, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WELFARE, HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. STEVENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
thank the Subcommittee for providing me with an opportunity to
testify at this hearing, and to review the Federal oversight of
child welfare programs. With regard to oversight, I would like
to commend HHS for the comprehensive look it is taking in
implementing the CFSR process. It is truly a catalyst for
change, and it is moving States toward continuous improvement,
so that we can reach positive outcomes for the children and
families we serve. The Administration for Children and
Families, I think, has done a tremendous job in doing that in
an intelligent and professional manner. The way they have
implemented this on the road, and on the streets in the States,
has allowed several byproducts to emerge. One is the broad
stakeholder involvement in the child welfare system, bringing
all of the parties together at the table as we do the self-
assessments and go through the review process. Second, because
it is focused on practice, it has energized the field--we see
great movement in the field, at this point, in terms of making
changes.
The second point I would make is that keeping children safe
is a responsibility of the larger community, and that
collaboration is critical. The child-serving systems need to
work more closely together. This includes mental health
services, substance abuse services, domestic violence services,
intensive in-home family preservation services, and a range of
other family services. These services should be available to
all children and to all families who need them. As States move
toward the framework, we need continued help from the Federal
Government. First, it would be beneficial if all Federal
offices were working under the same common framework, so that
more collaboration would be possible, and that service delivery
could be more effective. It is essential that all Federal
agencies with oversight responsibilities aim for the common
shared outcomes and performance measures that child welfare is
using.
In Pennsylvania, we have a county-administered, State-
supervised child welfare system. We cannot, and do not, ask
counties to collaborate across disciplines at the local level
without also asking those same changes of ourselves, and
providing the leadership to do it. The second area where States
need Federal support is in funding, particularly for the PIPs,
so that we can achieve success, and so not all of the funding
attaches to those PIPs. Thirdly, the Federal Government can
assist States by providing a stable funding source for child
welfare that adequately funds the fullest array of needed
services. We have title IV-B, title IV-E, and TANF; they are a
patchwork of funding streams. title IV-E, however, is
inadequate, in terms of allowing States the ability to reach
all of the children, because of the eligibility requirements,
and it is inadequate in terms of funding the fullest array of
services that these children and families need. It does need to
be expanded.
Funding for title IV-B is wholly inadequate, even with the
new commitment. Like many States where title IV-B allocation is
insufficient, Pennsylvania relies heavily on the TANF block
grant to fund child welfare intervention services, as well as,
and more importantly, primary and secondary prevention services
that are not allowed under title IV-E. This is a critical
point, and one that I hope you will hear closely. Absent a
stable, secure funding source for prevention and in-home
services, we have relied on TANF. The situation forces States
to choose between providing quality early learning programs and
family self-sufficiency programs, and funding those programs
that ensure child safety and by preventing abuse and neglect.
Oversight and accountability can identify where improvements
are needed, and where we need to target our resources and
technical assistance to improve outcomes. The missing component
is a stable and secure funding stream to assure the achievement
of safety, permanency, and well-being for children and their
families. Supporting families and protecting children is a
collective responsibility that requires maximum efforts from
families, from communities, from States, from Federal
Government, and from our business partners. By working together
and pooling our resources, we can ensure positive outcomes for
our children, and a healthy society for our citizens. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stevenson follows:]
Statement of Wayne T. Stevenson, Deputy Secretary, Office of Children,
Youth, and Families, Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
My name is Wayne Stevenson, and I am the Deputy Secretary for the
Office of Children, Youth and Families (OCYF) in the Pennsylvania
Department of Public Welfare. I would like to thank the Subcommittee
for providing me with the opportunity to testify at this hearing to
review federal and state oversight of child welfare programs.
The overall goal of Pennsylvania's child welfare system is to
ensure that our children grow up in safe, healthy and permanent homes
and develop into competent citizens who contribute to the community. To
achieve this goal, the Office of Children, Youth and Families, Bureau
of County Children and Youth Programs, has developed programs aimed at
preventing child abuse and neglect, protecting children when abuse
occurs and finding permanent homes for children when it is not possible
for them to be reunited with their birth parents.
In regard to federal oversight, I would first like to commend the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for the
comprehensive look it is taking through the Child and Family Service
Review (CFSR) process. These reviews are serving as catalysts for
change. CFSR focuses on State performance with regard to the safety,
permanency, and well-being of children and families who come into
contact with the public child welfare system. The overarching goal is
to promote continuous improvement in programs, policies, and services
that will result in positive outcomes for these children and families.
Keeping children safe is a responsibility of the larger community,
not just the child welfare agency. Collaboration within child serving
systems must be available and accessible if children and their families
who come into contact with the child welfare agency are to be kept
safe. This includes mental health treatment, substance abuse treatment,
and domestic violence services as well as intensive, in-home family
preservation services and a range of other child and family services.
However, this type of response system requires that children and
families have access (financially and physically) to the necessary
services.
As states continue to move toward an outcomes framework, they will
continue to need help from the Federal Government. First and foremost,
it would be beneficial if all federal offices were working under a
common framework. Since all human services are interrelated, it is
essential that all federal agencies with oversight responsibilities aim
for common, shared outcomes.
In Pennsylvania, we have a county-administered and state-supervised
child welfare system. We are not asking counties to collaborate across
disciplines at the local level, without also making changes and
providing the leadership needed at the state level.Therefore, just as
we need to model the behavior at the state level for our counties, we
are asking the Federal Government to be our model.
One of Pennsylvania's most recent initiatives--our Systems of Care
Project--highlights this need for collective goals and cross-system
collaboration across all child-serving systems. Pennsylvania is funding
this project through a system of care grant that we received last year
from HHS. Specifically, this project is helping us to better serve
children with behavioral health needs who are also involved with the
child welfare or juvenile justice systems. After all, we know all too
well that many children entering these systems have behavioral health
needs that go unmet.
The systems of care model promotes integration by requiring all
child-serving systems to develop an individualized service plan that
meets all of the needs of the child and his or her family--physical,
emotional, social and educational. This concept of integrated case
management under the authority of a single, integrated plan of care is
one Pennsylvania strongly supports.
Another area where states need federal support is funding to
implement the Program Improvement Plan, or PIP, that is required by the
CFSR. Unfortunately, since no additional federal dollars are attached
to the PIP mandate, my state--like all others--must find a way to pay
for critical prevention and earlier intervention services, particularly
since those services are not allowable under the Title IV-E program. In
Pennsylvania, the estimated cost of our PIP was nearly $70 million, and
the proposed improvements would certainly enhance the safety,
permanency and well-being of our children and families. To that end,
states need the Federal Government to invest sufficiently in these
efforts, which they prescribe.
Another way the Federal Government can assist states is by
providing a stable funding source for child welfare that adequately
funds the required services. Currently there are three primary funding
sources for child welfare: Title IV-B, Title IV-E and TANF.
Pennsylvania's Title IV-B allocation is approximately $25 million while
our Title IV-E expenditures will exceed $400 million and TANF
expenditures will be nearly $295 million for the upcoming state fiscal
year.
The Title IV-E program provides funds to States to assist with: the
costs of foster care maintenance for eligible children; administrative
costs to manage the program; and training for staff, for foster parents
and for private agency staff. The purpose of the program is to help
States provide proper care for children who need placement outside
their homes, in a foster family home or an institution. Title IV-E is
an entitlement program, and this means children have a right to the
services it funds and we firmly believe that all child welfare funding
should be an entitlement and that states should be able to fund the
necessary services for all children who enter their doors regardless of
the financial situation of the family.
Therefore, unless the current financing structure is changed,
states will not be able to move the child welfare system towards an
outcome-based accountability system. While Title IV-E is the largest
funding stream it is also very restrictive in that it can only be used
for eligible children. The pool of eligible children continues to
shrink as a result of the eligibility criteria that have a link to the
now non-existent AFDC guidelines. Additionally, the eligibility is
reliant on the willingness of courts, over which the child welfare
agency has no authority, to address required child welfare issues in
their rulings. While we acknowledge that Congress is looking at this
flexibility issue and appreciate its efforts, we must make it clear
that we do not support the capping or block granting of IV-E funds.
The Title IV-B program helps State public welfare agencies improve
their child welfare services with the goal of keeping families
together. These services are primarily aimed at preventing the risk of
abuse and promoting nurturing families; assisting families at risk of
having a child removed from their home; promoting the timely return of
a child to his/her home; and if returning home is not an option,
placement of a child in a permanent setting with services that support
the family.
Like many other states, Pennsylvania relies heavily on the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant to fund
child welfare initiatives. The TANF program was established to provide
assistance to needy families so that children can be cared for in their
own homes; to reduce dependency by promoting job preparation, work and
marriage; to prevent out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and to encourage the
formation and maintenance of two-parent families. Many states,
Pennsylvania included, have been able to utilize TANF funds to support
child welfare services.
One program we are replicating in Pennsylvania with TANF funds is
the very successful Nurse-Family Partnership Program, a national
program with positive evidence-based results in which nurses visit the
homes of first time, low-income pregnant mothers with high risk factors
and provide support for positive birthing experiences and parenting
skills.
Absent a stable secure funding source for prevention and in home
services, we have relied on TANF funding. This situation forces states
to choose between funding quality early learning programs or funding
those programs that ensure child safety. We want to invest in our
children by intervening earlier before their problems escalate and
become harder to manage and more costly. The more we can invest in
services that prevent child abuse and neglect, the better able we will
be to advance child well-being and healthy child development.
Oversight and accountability can identify where improvements are
needed and where we need to target our resources and technical
assistance to improve outcomes. The missing component is stable and
secure funding to assure the achievement of safety, permanency, and
well-being for children and their families.
Supporting families and protecting children is a collective
responsibility that includes maximum efforts from families,
communities, states, Federal Government, and other business partners.
By working together and pooling our resources we can ensure positive
outcomes for our children and a healthy society for our citizens.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Stevenson. Now, Mr. Bill
Stanton to testify.
STATEMENT OF BILL STANTON, DIRECTOR, DEPENDENT CHILDREN'S
SERVICES DIVISION, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS,
PHOENIX, ARIZONA, AND PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FOSTER
CARE REVIEWERS
Mr. STANTON. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I
am honored to have been asked to appear before you today and
testify about the citizen foster care review boards, and the
impact that they have on ensuring safety, permanency, and well-
being for children. Removing a child from a home and
terminating parental rights is one of the most powerful uses of
our government's authority. Since this decision is so severe,
it calls for extraordinary checks and balances. The foster care
review board provides that needed balance. Foster care review
boards began in South Carolina in the mid-seventies. Review
boards consist of citizens who volunteer their time to review
the cases of children who have been removed from their homes.
Volunteers meet each month to review the events of these
children's lives, and make recommendations to enhance the child
safety, permanency, and well-being. Long after judges have
rotated off the bench and caseworkers have moved on, in many
cases, the most consistent presence in the child's life is the
review board. They bring to the table their life experience,
community standards, and a belief that their involvement can
make a difference.
The fact is, citizen involvement has made a significant
difference, not only in the lives of individual children, but
in the systems charged with the responsibility of their care.
Let me give you an example of a child from Arizona. Joe was a
14-year-old young man who had been in foster care for
approximately 1 year. The caseworker reported to the review
board that the child's father was deceased. While this
information was in the file, it had apparently never been
verified. When the review board received the case to review,
they sent notices of the upcoming review to the last known
address of the father. It was soon determined that not only was
the father alive, but he wanted to be reunited with his son.
The review board volunteers' work doesn't end when they
leave the review. Volunteers actively advocate for system
changes. They identify problems during the review process, and
then they go out and do something about it. One example of this
came in Oregon. The review board conducted a study of the use
of the Family Group Decision Making program, and found that the
process was being used in only 30 percent of the cases. The
program wrote and advocated for legislation mandating the
inclusion of families in case review development, and as a
result, Family Group Decision Making is a standard practice in
almost all child welfare cases in Oregon. In Arizona, a review
board was instrumental in revamping the dependency court
process. Through their active advocacy, legislation was passed
to set strict timeframes in which the court hearings were to be
held. In addition, review boards have worked with the Arizona
State Supreme Court to pass a mandate that every new judge
rotating onto the dependency bench must attend an accredited
dependency training program.
Now, there are times when the volunteers realize that the
children may have some needs that the agency and government
cannot provide. When children are placed in foster care and
want to take piano lessons or go to football camp, additional
funds will likely not be available. Review board Members in
Arizona came together and formed the Arizona Friends of Foster
Care Foundation, an organization dedicated to providing the
extra things that many children would have to do without.
Foster care review boards are an effective way to provide
oversight as children go through the foster care system. The
problem, however, is that there are not enough review programs,
and that many of the programs that do exist face serious
financial crises. For example, Montana discontinued its review
program last year due to cuts in funding. Florida has seen two
of its programs close due to cutbacks in funding. Last year,
Utah's review program funding was cut in half. The National
Association of Foster Care Reviewers has attempted to assist
States in developing review programs. In collaboration with
HHS, we developed review guidelines and training materials.
These guidelines give communities the flexibility to develop
review boards that meet their needs, while following national
standards.
In 1997, Congress passed sweeping changes to the child
welfare system with the passage of the ASFA. Although this act
addressed many issues facing children in foster care, it failed
to change the basic requirement surrounding the 6-month
reviews. The National Association of Foster Care Reviewers
wants to be the national voice for administrative review. We
would like to see a requirement that all children in out-of-
home placement be given the benefit of an independent review.
We have thousands of volunteers and review staff ready to
assist and make this possible. We urge you to establish review
boards in all jurisdictions. Our volunteers stand ready to make
a difference. They ask for your assistance to make the foster
care review a reality for every child in out-of-home placement.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stanton follows:]
Statement of Bill Stanton, Director, Dependent Children's Services
Division, Administrative Office of the Courts, Phoenix, Arizona, and
President, National Association of Foster Care Reviewers
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee on Human Resources, I
am honored to have been asked to appear before you today to testify
about Citizen Foster Care Review Boards and the impact they have on
ensuring the safety, permanency and well being of children.
My name is Bill Stanton and I am the President of the National
Association of Foster Care Reviewers (NAFCR).[1] I am also
the Director of Dependent Children's Services Division of the
Administrative Office of the Courts in Arizona.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[1]\ nafcr.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removing a child from their home and terminating parental rights is
one of the most powerful uses of our Government's authority. Because
such a decision is so severe, it calls for extraordinary checks and
balances. The Citizen Foster Care Review Board process provides this
needed balance.
Foster Care Review Boards began in South Carolina in the mid 70's.
Currently, 23 states have some form of review board process in place.
Review Boards consist of citizens who volunteer their time to review
the cases of children who have been removed from their homes. Some
volunteers from programs in Arizona, South Carolina and Oregon have
remained with their programs for over 20 years. Volunteers meet each
month to review the events of children's lives and make recommendations
to enhance these children's safety, permanency, and well being. Long
after judges rotate off the bench and caseworkers move on, in many
cases, the most consistent presence in these children's lives is the
Review Board.
Review Boards are comprised of volunteers, not employees of the
agency, the court, or a treatment facility. They bring to the table
their life experience, community standards, and a belief that their
involvement can make a difference.
The fact is that citizen involvement has made significant
differences, not only in the lives of individual children, but in the
system charged with the responsibility of their care.
Let me give you an example of a child from Arizona. Joe was a 14-
year-old young man who had been in foster care for 1 year. The
caseworker reported to the review board that the child's father was
deceased. While this information was in the file, it had apparently
never been verified. When the review board received the case to review,
they sent notice of the upcoming review to the last known address of
the father. It was soon determined that not only was the father alive,
he wanted to be reunited with his son.
Still other cases have seen review boards, during their review,
discover abuses being suffered by children while in foster placement.
Children have subsequently been moved to safer, healthier environments.
The Foster Care Review Board meetings are unique. They are less
intimidating than a court hearing and less formal than a case staffing.
The Review Board members review each case every 6 months. They speak to
those involved in the case. They ask questions. Sometimes hard
questions. They make recommendations, and they don't forget. When the
case comes back again for review and services were not provided, they
will ask why. Their goals are to ensure that the children are safe,
that services are being provided, that the well being of the children
are being addressed, and that there is a realistic plan to move toward
permanency.
The Review Board volunteer's work doesn't end when they leave the
review. Volunteers actively advocate for system changes. They identify
system problems during the review process and then do something about
it. One example of this came in Iowa. Through their review of cases in
which the termination of parental rights had been appealed, the Iowa
Citizens Foster Care Review Board [2] identified significant
delays. As a result of the review board's observations and
recommendations, changes in the Court rules were implemented,
eventually reducing the length of the appeals process from 13.2 months
to 4 months, a difference of nearly a year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[2]\ [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While Oregon was one of the states that pioneered the concept of
involving families in case planning through Family Decision Making, the
philosophy was not routinely incorporated into actual case practice.
The review board [3] conducted a study of the use of Family
Group Decision Making and found the process was being used in only 30%
of the cases. The program wrote and advocated for legislation mandating
the inclusion of families in case plan development, and as a result,
Family Group Decision Making is standard practice in almost all child
welfare cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[3]\ www.ojd.state.ore.us/osca/cpsd/citizenreview/index.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In New Mexico,[4] the review boards found through their
case review process, that over one third of the children they were
reviewing were sex abuse victims. They found that the sex offender/
perpetrator was not being held accountable through treatment and/or the
judicial system. The review boards conducted research and collected
data. As a result, the New Mexico legislature in the Fall, 2003 special
session legislated and funded a statewide New Mexico Sex Offenders
Management Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[4]\ www.nmcrb.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Arizona,[5] the review boards were instrumental in
revamping the dependency court process. Through their active advocacy,
legislation was passed that set strict timeframes in which court
hearings were to be held. Review boards have worked with the Arizona
State Supreme Court to pass a mandate that every new judge rotating
onto the dependency bench must attend an accredited Dependency
training. The review board also has developed an extensive data system
that tracks all aspects of the review process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[5]\ www.supreme.state.az.us/fcrb
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are times when volunteers realize that children may have some
needs that the agency or government can not address. When a child is
placed in foster care and wants to take piano lessons or go to football
camp, additional funds will not likely be available. Volunteers in
Arizona came together to form The Arizona Friends of Foster Children
Foundation,[6] an organization dedicated to providing extra
things that many foster children would do without.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[6]\ www.affcf.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Care Review Boards are an effective way to provide oversight
as children go through the foster care system. Community volunteers
step forward to ensure the safety and improve the lives of these
compromised children. The problem however is that there are not enough
review boards, and that many of the programs that do exist face serious
under funding or even closure.
Montana discontinued its review board programs last year due to a
cut in state funding. Florida has seen two of their programs close due
to cut backs in state funding. Utah program funding was cut in half
last year. These are a few examples of the many programs that have been
affected by deep budget cuts.
The National Association of Foster Care Reviewers has attempted to
assist states in developing review programs. In collaboration with the
Department of Health and Human Services, we have developed general
review guidelines and training materials. This work will give
communities the flexibility to develop review boards to meet their
needs while following national standards.
In 1997 Congress made sweeping changes to the Child Welfare system
with passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (Public Law 105-89).
Although this act addressed many issues facing children in foster care,
it failed to change the basic requirements surrounding the six-month
reviews. Section 475 (5) (b) of this act states ``a review of each
child's status is made no less frequently than once every six months
either by a court or by an administrative review . . .'' NAFCR wants to
be the national voice for administrative review. We would like to see a
requirement that these reviews be independent reviews. We have
thousands of volunteers and review staff ready to assist and make this
possible. We urge you to establish review boards in all jurisdictions
and fund them through NAFCR. Our volunteers stand ready to make a
difference. They ask for your assistance to make Foster Care Review a
reality for every child in out-of-home placement.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Stanton. Mr.
Bell, I note that in your testimony you mentioned that the
number of children who are in foster care in New York City is
down significantly compared to prior years.
Mr. BELL. Yes.
Chairman HERGER. Can you go into why that is?
Mr. BELL. A major reason for the reduction in the number of
children in foster care has been an overwhelming focus, and our
effort in terms of utilizing Family Group Decision Making as
one of the measures of engaging families early on after
placement. Right now, every foster care placement is followed
by a Family Group Decision Making conference, with the parents
present within 3 to 5 days after that placement, which targets
our efforts around identifying the needed services, and moving
aggressively to get children out of foster care.
It has also been aided by our increased focus on adoption--
looking at streamlining the adoption process, and ensuring that
children who have been identified as unable to go back home to
their parents can move to permanency quickly. As I indicated,
we have completed over 27,000 adoptions since 1996. Each year,
when you look at the percentage of children available to be
adopted versus the ones who are, that number is increasing. In
1998, we only adopted about 44 percent of the children who were
available for adoption. Last year, we adopted over 66 percent
of the children who were available for adoption. We have also
moved to a neighborhood-based environment, where we are keeping
children in their communities. We are engaging all of the
providers in those communities, including faith-based
institutions, to wrap a network of services around vulnerable
families where they live, as opposed to calling on government
to be the parent for children.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much. That is very
impressive. Do you believe, then, that part of our goal should
be to keep children out of foster care unless absolutely
necessary?
Mr. BELL. I think, given the trauma that occurs when
children are separated from their families, that every effort
must be made to complete a quality assessment up front--to make
sure that out-of-home placement is absolutely necessary to
protect that child. I think it is equally critical, though,
that we ensure that if we leave a child in their home, we also
have the kind of services wrapped around that family to ensure
that the child is going to be safe in their home. One of the
things that we have done over the last 8 years has been to
increase the utilization from our child protective staff in
terms of their referrals to supportive services in the family's
home. We have a wide array of preventive services in the city.
We have moved from our child protective staff only making 30
percent of the referrals that actually go to those services
each year, to making over 55 percent of the referrals that
actually go to those in-home services today.
Chairman HERGER. Do you feel that our current system,
including its financial incentives, does a good job of
encouraging this?
Mr. BELL. I think that one of the reasons I have asked for
greater flexibility in terms of the utilization of title IV-E
funding is that I don't think there are enough services
available to support the families. One of the issues is that
there are restrictions on how title IV-E funds can be used--
largely being used for out-of-home maintenance as opposed to
in-home support. I think that is a critical element in terms of
our ability to continue to deliver services to families in
their home. One of the critical concerns I have, is that there
is an actual clause which says that counseling services are not
going to be covered by the title IV-E dollars, when that is one
of the most critical services in remedying the issues that
brought children into foster care in the first place.
Chairman HERGER. So, you feel, then, that more flexibility
would assist you?
Mr. BELL. Absolutely. I believe that more flexibility is
required. I also think that if we go down a pathway where
flexibility is being provided at the expense of Federal
participation, that would raise a considerable concern. We have
lived under a block grant in New York State since 1995, and as
a result, we have seen the amount of State participation in the
funding of services for children in New York City decrease
tremendously. New York City represents over 70 percent of the
foster care population in New York State, but much of this
reform effort that we have funded over the last 8 years has
been largely covered by contributions from New York City.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Bell. Mr. Cardin?
Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank all of
you for your service in this area. It is a difficult field, and
I very much appreciate the leadership that you have brought to
taking care of our children. First, let me say that there are a
couple of themes that come through all of your testimonies. One
is that more flexibility is needed in title IV-E funding--and I
want to assure you that I agree with you. I think we need to
give the local governments more flexibility in creating the
type of programs that work in their community. Second, most of
you have mentioned the fact that the eligibility for title IV-E
funding doesn't make a lot of sense with the look back
provision. You can hear from my comments that I fully agree
with that, and I would hope that we would be able to correct
that now.
The third issue that each of you have raised in different
ways is that we need more resources for funding. You used the
phrase ``tight budgets,'' or not enough resources, and I agree
with that. We are not providing the type of resources necessary
to deal with the problems that, Ms. Ashby, you pointed out in
regard to turnover and training dollars, and so forth. Ms.
Nelson, I haven't looked at Iowa's budget recently, but I don't
believe the State is providing you with a lot of additional
money in order to do your job. Mr. Bell, I compliment what you
have been able to do in New York. You have made tremendous
progress. I also agree with your statement where you question
whether a capped entitlement is the answer to this. I happen to
agree with you. If we don't increase the size of the Federal
pot, and keep the dollars fixed--in fact, limited so there is
no growth if caseload goes up--and provide you all the
flexibility you want, it seems to me that your State
legislatures aren't going to be providing you with additional
resources. Are we really going to get salaries increased for
social workers? I haven't seen too many proposals where they
are being singled out for pay raises, for recruitment dollars,
or for training dollars. Are we really going to get the
additional resources made available by local government if all
we do at the Federal level is provide additional flexibilities?
Is the money going to be there, Mr. Bell?
Mr. BELL. You raise a very important question. In my
written testimony, I actually talked about some of the concerns
that I have in terms of the larger jurisdictions, urban
jurisdictions, and their ability to make some independent
decisions and still have access to resources. I think one of
the statements that I have made, in terms of looking at what
has to occur to turn around the system, is that there have to
be clear principles and standards that are set. While I
absolutely agree with Dr. Horn when he says the Federal
Government can't review every single case, I do believe that
when we think about standards that need to be set, the Federal
Government has to weigh in on what those standards might be. I
think that one of the issues or concerns that we have is that
we have had to bear the brunt of a larger percentage of funding
necessary to change the system in New York City. I would add
that it is absolutely important for us not to just say that
money is the answer, because----
Mr. CARDIN. I agree with that. If we were to fix the
Federal dollar amount--that is, it is going to be that way, but
giving you much more flexibility with overall Federal
accountability standards, do you have confidence that resources
will be made available locally?
Mr. STEVENSON. Not at all. As I said, we are a county-
delivered, State-supervised system. In our budget, about 42
percent is Federal, and that includes a sizeable portion of
TANF dollars. About 42 percent is funded by State cash, and
then the remainder is matched by the local county. County
commissioners are struggling mightily to deal with their own
budgets. Some of our counties are nearing bankruptcy. They
can't come up with additional matching funds. Certainly, the
State is struggling with its own budget woes. To expect them to
fill in the gap in funding as the growth continues, and as we
try to target better services and expanded services so we can
get better outcomes--the money is just not there.
Mr. CARDIN. Ms. Ashby, I really appreciate your comments
here. You point out that there is some flexibility in the title
IV-B funds that could be used for these purposes--the Part 1
funds. So, I am just curious, if we eliminate the categorical
aspect of the title IV-E funds, would that do much on the
caseworker numbers, the retention of caseworks, or the pay of
caseworkers? Is there anything that you see which would give us
hope if we did that--that we would see much progress in that
area?
Ms. ASHBY. Well, I can't answer your question directly
because we haven't done the work that would allow me to do
that. I will say that there is no indication that there is
excess funding for foster care maintenance. So, if more
flexibility were applied to title IV-E, you would presume that
less money would go to foster care maintenance, and more money
would go to prevention, family supports, and other things. I
will say that with regard to flexibility, we have not said
anything in our statement, I don't think, that directly
addresses that, other than to point out that there is a great
deal of flexibility in title IV-B right now. Yet, title IV-B,
of course, is a limited pot of money. It is $700 million versus
$6.1 billion in title IV-E. With respect to Part 1 and Part 2,
and with respect to title IV-E, also, we think decisions, even
in a flexible environment, should be driven by research and
knowledge about what is needed, and decisions about the
relative merits of the needs based on information and data.
Mr. CARDIN. I have just one observation. You would assume
that the title IV-E moneys that are being used for
administrative--that States would need more money if they are
going to deal with the caseworker retention. So, I am not
exactly sure what we accomplish through the block grant
approach in dealing with the core problems that have been
mentioned. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Cardin. I understand, Mr.
Bell, that you are going to need to leave soon.
Mr. BELL. Yes.
Chairman HERGER. I would like to recognize the gentleman
from Washington, Mr. McDermott, to ask a question before you
have to leave.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome
you all here, and thank you for your work. In looking over the
material that you brought from New York, Mr. Bell, it is a
remarkable record.
Mr. BELL. Thank you.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Now, the question is, if you could rank the
things you did that made that happen, what would you put at the
top? Is it simply cutting caseloads from 26 down to 10.7, or
are there other things that you did in the process which made
that system work more efficiently--if you want to put it that
way?
Mr. BELL. In terms of the testimony, there is a listing of
about 10 items in there. I think, the way they are laid out,
that the first one is committing the political will. I think
that there is an incredible need in all of our systems for the
leader of that jurisdiction, whether it is a city, a State, or
a county, to indicate that they are absolutely responsible and
accountable for their child welfare system, and to elevate the
system that supports vulnerable children to a level of
prominence in government, so that everybody recognizes the
importance of serving vulnerable children. I think that was the
first step that took place in New York City. That was then
followed by bringing in competent leadership at both the
executive level in the organization, and at the mid-management
levels in the organization. That was followed by----
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Did you actually fire people, lay people
off, or transfer them somewhere else in the city?
Mr. BELL. Well, the next step in that process, which was
looking at the frontline, actually resulted in almost 10
percent of our staff being redeployed from the agency. We
elevated the requirements of who could become a child
protective worker, who could become a child welfare worker, to
require that people have either a social work background, or a
background in some related field in human services. When ACS
was created, someone with a degree in banking could come in and
investigate child welfare cases, and work on those cases. So,
it is critical to ensure that you have the most qualified staff
on the frontline.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Did you----
Mr. BELL. We increased the salaries of the staff who were
there. Then we did a comprehensive evaluation of who was going
to serve on these cases, and if people did not meet the
standard, they were redeployed.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Did you run into trouble with your unions,
or with civil service requirements of the City of New York, or
whatever?
Mr. BELL. There were absolutely civil service requirements,
and we were absolutely sued by the union when we did this. Yet
we won, and it was held that what we were doing did not violate
any civil service requirements. We did not break the law in any
way, and we did not deprive unionized employees of their
rights. What we did was create a foundation on which we could
build the kind of program that has produced the successes that
are in that document that you are looking at.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. So, you are really positing that this could
happen in any situation where the leadership went to work and
played by the rules--they could make the kinds of changes you
are talking about in spite of whatever the system is presently.
Sometimes people say that we have to get rid of the unions, and
have to get rid of all that, but it is not, in your opinion,
necessary?
Mr. BELL. I don't think it is necessary. I think that
unions have been created to protect employee rights, and they
should be there to do that. I think that what has happened in
many jurisdictions over the years is that the child welfare
agency has been dropped to the lower level of the totem pole.
When something goes wrong, the response has been to fire a
commissioner or a director, to fire caseworkers and
supervisors, and not to deal with the content of the entire
organization. What we have done is completely change the entire
organization--to set standards, to describe what is quality. We
made sure that every worker who comes in is trained on
understanding what they should be expected to do, and that they
have a strong system of data that monitors and manages what is
going on on a regular basis, and feeds that information back
into the system so that we can hold people accountable for what
they are doing.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. One of the things that seems inherent in
what you are talking about is something that we did in the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110), and that is to
require that every schoolteacher have training in the field in
which they are teaching. Yet we didn't put the money out there
with it. Are you suggesting that national standards are useful
without additional money? When you say money is not the
question, it sounds like you are saying that the States can
handle it if you simply leave us alone and give us a little
more flexibility. I am interested in what your view of that
whole thing of national standards----
Mr. BELL. I am not saying that money is not the question. I
am saying that money is not the only answer to the question.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Okay.
Mr. BELL. I think money will always be a question, because
if I say that I want a Cadillac version of a system, then I
cannot give--I don't want to insult anybody so I won't say Kia
money to pay for that Cadillac----
[Laughter.]
If we are going to design a system that has a certain level
of caseloads, that has a certain quality of employees
delivering the services, that has a certain kind of
administrator who is running the program, and that has the kind
of data system that can tell us what is absolutely going on--it
is going to cost money, and we have to be willing to put that
money there. That is why I say political will is vitally
important. If I am the leader politically, then I make the
decisions about where the resources are going to be spent. If
we have the political will to do what is right for vulnerable
children, then we are going to have to put more resources
behind that.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Is there one or two things that the Federal
Government does that gets in your way and that you would like
to get rid of? If you had your wish list, you had a magic wand,
and you would just reach into the Federal Register and take
certain things out, what would you take out?
Mr. BELL. What would I take out of the Federal Register to
support what we are doing?
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Yes.
Mr. BELL. I think it is a question of what would we
collectively take a look at in terms of where we--because you
don't want to just take something away without analyzing the
impact of removing it. I think that everybody has talked about
flexibility, which is absolutely necessary.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. That is what I am asking.
Mr. BELL. Right.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. What is flexibility?
Mr. BELL. Flexibility really means that if you tell me I am
going to give you an open-ended entitlement for title IV-E,
then if I say that you can only get that by looking back at the
standards for a program that was done away with in 1996 when
TANF came in--but I am still using a 1996 measure to tell you
who is eligible to get that government funding today--there is
a question about that. When you say that I want to hold you to
a standard----
Mr. MCDERMOTT. What would you----
Mr. BELL. A standard of production in terms of the ASFA,
and you don't fully fund what is necessary to do that, or you
say that the money that I am giving you in title IV-E, you
can't use it for counseling when counseling is one of the most
vital services in helping families overcome their issues, then
the government is not fully putting the money behind it. When
you put into ASFA that kinship guardianship or subsidized
guardianship is a permanency option, but there is no money
appropriated to support that permanency option, and you still
require the termination of parental rights in order to get the
money that is contained in the adoption subsidy environment,
then the government is not fully putting the money behind it.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. We are saying one thing and doing something
else, or saying two things at the same time.
Mr. BELL. You are saying two things at the same time. Do
it, but I am not going to support it financially.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Bell, for your outstanding
testimony, and the great example that you and your team are
setting there in New York City----
Mr. BELL. Thank you.
Chairman HERGER. In this incredibly crucial area of
protecting those most vulnerable--our children. I do understand
that you need to leave, so if you need to leave, you are
excused.
Mr. BELL. Thank you.
Chairman HERGER. Ms. Ashby, I have a question for you, if I
may. In your testimony on page 12, you note, ``Some of the
caseworkers we interviewed told us that they spend between 50
and 80 percent of their time completing paperwork, thereby
limiting their time to assist children and families.''
Meanwhile, we know other industries, manufacturing,
telecommunications, and shipping, have undergone revolutionary
changes, allowing them to produce far more with fewer workers.
Nonetheless, we are constantly being told that child welfare
agencies need more workers just to handle the same--or now a
declining--national foster care caseload. My question is, can
you tell us what efficiencies, improvements, or improved uses
of technology, have occurred in child welfare casework in the
last decade, and what additional changes are yet to take hold
that might improve practice efficiency and effectiveness?
Ms. ASHBY. The child welfare profession certainly has at
its disposal many of the same technological tools that other
areas of our economy have. For example, use of laptops,
handheld computers, and cell phones can certainly be an aid to
the caseworker out in the field. For example, a caseworker who
has a cell phone can call a supervisor if he or she needs
assistance or needs guidance as to how to handle a particular
incident. Data can be entered from a field location into a
central database if the caseworker had a laptop, for example,
or a handheld device in some instances. So, certainly, the
technology is used in some States and some localities, but it
is not used widely enough for a number of reasons. As we talked
about in the last hearing we had on this topic about the data
system, SACWIS, many of the States have systems in various
degrees of development, but very few States have systems that
are totally complete and that can link the various systems
within the State that need to be linked, or with the county
levels, in order to allow some of these things to occur. In
addition to technological advances, however, there are other
things--telecommuting, for example. A caseworker, rather than
having to go into a central office, and then leave to make a
home visit, could make the visit directly from his or her home,
if that made sense logistically.
The computer systems that are available, SACWIS, could have
prompts that make it easier to enter data. Caseworkers could be
involved in the actual development of the systems, which would
make them feel more comfortable to use, and give them more of a
feeling of ownership of the data systems. One of the
difficulties we found in looking at the use of data systems, or
looking at the development of SACWIS, was that caseworkers
didn't feel in some cases comfortable with using the system, or
with entering certain data into the system. Training is another
issue. In order to use the data systems, in order to take
advantage of some new approaches, the caseworkers have to be
trained, and sometimes they have to be trained in things that
change their position culturally. There are various other
things. Management, for example, could set aside a period of
time--a number of hours, a day of the week--where the
caseworkers are to devote their time to entering information
into the system. One of the difficulties we encountered in
looking at the data systems was that caseworkers complained
that they had difficulty balancing putting data into the system
versus visiting the homes and making recommendations for
services, and so forth. So, maybe management has to step in and
say, all right, a certain period of time has to be devoted to
this. Perhaps in the system of accountability for the child
welfare workers, there could be something built in that would
cause or encourage the workers to use some of these
efficiencies--certainly by entering data. For example, awards
systems and appraisal systems could be one method. So, yes,
there are a number of ways that there could be efficiencies.
Some of these are being used. Others are not. States are
working toward developing their SACWIS, but they have a ways to
go.
Chairman HERGER. Just to follow up on that, to what degree
would you say that States are focused on making their current
workers maximally effective through the use of better
technology as opposed to just adding more workers?
Ms. ASHBY. I think the States--and I can't give you a
precise percentage here--are at the point that they realize
they are going to have to find some other ways of doing
business. As we have been talking about this morning, there
isn't a whole lot more money available from either the Federal
Government, or from the State and local governments, that are
going to provide a lot more workers. Perhaps some more. There
needs to be a combination, I think--and States recognize this--
of increased efficiencies, as well as additions to the
workforce. I guess a major issue is adding to the workforce,
but also keeping workers who are in place. Turnover is a big
problem. So, to the extent that the current workers can be
retained, their training is not wasted; they get better over
time because they have practiced their discipline, so to speak.
That would also be helpful. I do think States recognize that
they are going to have to do some things differently.
Chairman HERGER. Ms. Nelson, would you like to comment on
this, as well?
Ms. NELSON. Sure, and what I might do is speak about some
of the things that we have done in Iowa. We do have a fully
functioning SACWIS. We very much engaged our frontline staff in
the development of that system, and on an ongoing basis. We
routinely get input from our staff regarding how the system
could work more efficiently for them, and we set aside
resources specifically to implement ideas that come from our
frontline staffs. Again, the system is continually improving in
response to their ideas of how it can be more helpful. We have
built into our system alerts that help them manage their
workload--they alert them to when things are due, so that they,
again, can better manage their time. We are also working on
sharing information between our SACWIS and other systems,
again, so that workers have more access to information, and
don't have to enter as much information in.
One of the things that we are working on in particular,
right now, is enhancing the capacity of our system to provide
information to frontline staff which actually informs their
practice and gives them feedback about their cases. Which types
of cases are, in fact, the ones where we have a repeat
maltreatment? What is the profile of cases where children are
reentering care? We have been feeding that back to our workers,
and then training our frontline staff and frontline supervisors
regarding how to use the data system for that purpose. We have
been training them regarding how to go in and take a look at
how their caseload and their outcomes compare to others, what
kinds of cases seem to be having better outcomes, and then
using that, again, getting them more comfortable with that so
they can use that to inform their own practice. I think one
thing I would want to emphasize is, it is not an either/or. It
is not improve technology or have an adequate number of
workers. I think both are really important. The last thing I
might mention is that for us, the idea of adding handheld
computers is not something that we are in a financial position
to do. So, there are things that we think probably have some
merit, and we would be interested in doing those at some time,
but we are not in a position to make that kind of investment at
this time. So, we put our energies into how to use the SACWIS
that we have, and make it the optimum tool for our frontline
staff and managers.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HERGER. Yes?
Mr. MCDERMOTT. May I ask a question--a second one?
Chairman HERGER. Yes.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you. I just want to ask what Ms. Ashby
is talking about--the whole question of how you use your
workers. I suspect that her inability to get data is because
every one of your States is using a different set of papers.
What effort is being made by the organizations, the national
organizations, to come up with a uniform form to be used by
every State, so that you could get national data--so you could
actually compare what is happening in various States? The
question sort of buried in that, I guess, is, if you had that
kind of thing, would you have the ability to protect kids? You
can have a three-line form that will be the same everywhere in
the United States, but it would not deal with the situations
which happen in every State at some point. You have some kid
that gets in a situation, and they are killed or die, or
whatever, and then there is all this hand-wringing and finger-
pointing and everything. I realize that a lot of the data
gathering that is done is really done as a defensive mechanism
against that event. There is some line between getting enough
data, and giving a method by which you can evaluate cases, and
over-papering, which it seems to me is often our response in
these kinds of situations. So, I would like to hear what you
have done both locally, and, then, is there a national effort
to do anything comprehensive so you all would be using the same
form?
Mr. STEVENSON. Let me just speak to the national
perspective on that. Pennsylvania, by the way, does not have a
SACWIS. We made an effort to develop one, and we found the data
bleeding from one case record into another case record, which
was making it even more unsafe for kids in Pennsylvania. So, we
have crashed that system, and we are starting over. There are
not that many, as was pointed out, federally approved SACWIS
programs in place. I have actually had staff in those States
that do have federally approved systems doing CFSR, case record
reviews, and have reported back to me that even those systems
that are federally approved were crashing on a regular basis.
So, technology is not necessarily the answer. Nor do I think
that the cost neutrality requirement under SACWIS can be
achieved by reducing staff. That just isn't going to happen. I
support what Ms. Nelson was saying there.
I would have to go back to the point I made earlier about
funding. I think that because child welfare is a patchwork of
funding, much of the paperwork is tied to determining
eligibility, documenting allowable services, and that nature of
things. I think that is really a critical issue. If we can get
one ongoing funding stream that is an entitlement for kids,
that would reduce a great deal of the paperwork, time, and
effort. With regard to another aspect of technology that I
would offer, most States are moving to an evidence-based
strategy for delivering services. So, we are using technology.
We are using social work technology, political science
technology, and psychology technology. We are applying the most
effective service delivery models that are in place, and we are
only funding those. We are moving in that direction. I am
sorry, I took your definition and broadened it a little bit. I
think that we are using technology, but in a very broad way.
You are going to be hearing from the National Association of
Public Child Welfare Administrators later today. They have a
national working group that is working on data, and looking at
how data can be drawn together, streamlined, standardized, and
made more accurate and comparable between States. You might
want to ask that question later.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. In sum, are you saying that data is mostly
for funding----
Mr. STEVENSON. No, I am saying a good----
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Justification rather than for following the
case and the problems of the kid?
Mr. STEVENSON. I am saying a good bit of it is, yes.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Okay. The balance is what, at this point?
Mr. STEVENSON. Is documenting the services----
Mr. MCDERMOTT. No, but is it 60 percent for billing and 40
percent for kids, or----
Mr. STEVENSON. Well, it is all for accountability, but
automating the case record is a critical thing. It does save
some time, and particularly if you use mobile technology, so
that you can interact with it wherever you are.
Ms. NELSON. I might mention, just briefly, a couple of
things the National Association of Public Child Welfare
Administrators is doing. We do have a work group, a task force
focused on technology and data and how it can better inform our
work. We are working on a common framework for how we look at
our data, bringing up the floor across States of capacity
building, and the ability to use the data that they have. One
of the challenges, I think, of trying to standardize the data
across States, is that data is based on how your system works
and what your State laws are. For example, how do you define
child abuse in your State? What is the standard of evidence?
So, I don't know that we could input data exactly the same way
across the States, as long as States set their own laws on what
the definition is, and what the standards of evidence are. On
the other hand, I think what we are focused on--and we work
with the Child Welfare League of America on that, as well--is
building that common capacity and common framework for how we
look at data, so that we are looking at it comparably.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HERGER. Again, I want to thank our panelists for
testifying before us today, and helping us on this very
important issue. As I mentioned earlier, we will now break for
lunch and return at 1:30 p.m. With that, the hearing stands in
recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman HERGER. Good afternoon. I would like to welcome
back our witnesses and continue the hearing. I would like to
invite our next panel to have a seat. This afternoon, we will
be hearing from the Honorable William Frenzel, a former
Representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota, and
Chairman of the Pew Commission on Foster Care; Shay Bilchik,
President and Chief Executive Officer for the Child Welfare
League of America; Monsignor Kevin Sullivan, Executive Director
and Chief Executive Officer of Catholic Charities USA; and
Thomas Atwood, President of the National Council For Adoption
(NCFA). Before we begin, I would like to express my condolences
to Mr. Atwood and his colleagues on the recent passing of
William Pierce, the founding President of NCFA. I know Bill did
a lot of work with Members of this Subcommittee over the years.
As current Chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources, I
would just like to say how thankful we are for his dedication
and work on behalf of children. Mr. Frenzel to testify.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BILL FRENZEL, CHAIRMAN, PEW
COMMISSION ON CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE
Mr. FRENZEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I request unanimous
consent that my statement be made a part of the record----
Chairman HERGER. Without objection.
Mr. FRENZEL. I will proceed extemporaneously. Mr. Chairman,
I am accompanied by the Staff Director of the Pew Commission,
Ms. Carol Emick, and two other members of my staff. They have
been working with your staff and are anxious to continue to do
so. The Pew Commission's charge is a simple one--to improve the
system--and we are vigorously involved in trying to produce
recommendations for your Committee. Going over to page 2 of my
printed testimony, where there are some enumerations of what we
are trying to do, I need to say first that the Commission has
not finalized recommendations, and probably won't for another
couple of months. So, this testimony is going to be short on
specifics--as the Subcommittee knew when we were invited. I
don't dare out-guess my Commission. They are all smarter than I
am, and they know a great deal more about the subject than I
do. I am mostly the traffic director rather than the determiner
of policy.
Thus far, our Commission is zeroing in on the areas that
are delineated beginning on page 2. In our recommendations on
financing for children in foster care, the financing system
needs to give the States greater flexibility in how they can
use Federal funds to serve maltreated children. It is an
obvious statement. How to do it is something that we haven't
determined yet, but we have a lot of ideas, and we are
proceeding. Second, while that flexibility is being achieved,
we would like it to be accomplished with greater accountability
by States for the outcomes for children. There are questions
that need to be asked. Are fewer children entering foster care?
Are greater numbers leaving? Are adoptions from foster care and
family reunification increasing? What is the percentage of
children returning to foster care? How are the children who
have been in foster care for the longest time getting along?
There needs to be more accountability, we believe. The CFSR is
a good start, and Congress was correct when it mandated such
accountability--but there are ways to improve it.
Thirdly, with respect to the financing structure, we think
it should encourage States to build the full continuum of
services for abused and neglected children--from prevention to
post-permanency. We believe that caseworkers and judges should
be able to tailor services to a child's or family's specific
needs, especially if doing so avoids the need to place the
child in foster care, or allows a child to leave foster care
safely, as soon as possible. The system has to encourage all
participants; and we think that can be improved. Fourth, we
think that Federal financing should encourage the States to
test and evaluate new services and practices. I suppose spelled
another way, it is w-a-i-v-e-r. We think the waivers have
yielded some good results, but we think the program can be
improved; we are anxious to make recommendations in that
regard.
Fifth, we believe that any reordering of how the Federal
Government provides funding to the States has to maintain risk
sharing between the State and Federal Government, and avoid
cost shifting to the greatest extent possible, either by the
States or by the Federal Government. Title IV establishes a
shared responsibility. Neither side of that partnership can
stand to see erosion of their responsibility. Now, the
Subcommittee is also working in the area of court reform. Much
of what we will recommend there is eventually going to go to
State legislatures, to Supreme Court chiefs, and to various
other court systems--but nevertheless, there will undoubtedly
be some incentives which might be provided by the Federal
Government. We are looking at coordination between child
welfare services and courts, better sharing of information, and
more emphasis on the child and family court system. We are a
long way from home. We have been at work for 9 months. We
expect to be able to report back to you, Mr. Chairman, perhaps
as early as May if we are lucky. We are looking forward to that
meeting; we hope it will be a profitable one. Thank you very
much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Frenzel follows:]
Statement of the Honorable Bill Frenzel, Chairman, Pew Commission on
Children in Foster Care
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cardin, members of the Subcommittee, thank you
for your invitation to testify today.
For the last nine months, I have been privileged to chair the Pew
Commission on Children in Foster Care, a task I share with my
colleague, former Representative Bill Gray. This independent,
nonpartisan commission, funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts, includes
some of the wisest and most experienced individuals in the field of
child welfare. You heard from one of them this morning, New York City
Commissioner William Bell. The other members of our Commission are no
less impressive.
Like this Subcommittee, we want to see the nation take better care
of children who have been abused or neglected. We want to reduce the
number of children who need to enter foster care. We want to help
children leave foster care for a permanent family as soon as they
safely can. We also recognize that this is a responsibility shared by
the Federal Government and the states, as well as by courts in every
state.
The Pew Commission's charge is to develop practical, fiscally
responsible, policy recommendations to reform federal child welfare
financing and strengthen court oversight of child welfare cases. Every
problem in child welfare cannot be attributed to federal financing or
to the courts, but many have roots there. Federal dollars flow
relatively easily to pay for foster care for poor children, but they
are much less available for other services that may avoid the need for
foster care or shorten the time a child must stay in care. And while
courts are critical decision-makers for every child in foster care,
judges are often hampered by crowded dockets and unnecessary
bottlenecks in the court system.
By late spring of this year, we expect to offer policy
recommendations that can be embraced by bipartisan leaders, including
this Subcommittee, at the federal and state levels. This is no easy
task, but our Commission members have accepted the challenge with
enthusiasm. They see much common ground, beginning with fairly
universal dissatisfaction with the current structure of federal funding
for child welfare services.
Our optimism is also based on knowledge that some states and
jurisdictions have made great improvements. Illinois cut its foster
care population in half since 1997, more than doubled adoptions from
foster care, and--under a federal waiver--implemented a cost-effective,
subsidized guardianship program. New York City cut its foster care
population almost in half between 1996 and 2003. Chief justices in
Michigan, California, New York, Utah, Minnesota and other states have
made improving outcomes for children in abuse and neglect cases a top
priority. They are seeking ways to ensure that children do not languish
in foster care. Imagine the progress that could take place with a more
rational financing structure and better-performing courts.
While the Commission has not finalized any recommendations, we have
agreed that any financing recommendations should include several key
elements:
First, it should give states greater flexibility in how they can
use federal funds to serve maltreated children. Children who have been
abused and neglected have a wide range of needs. Some may be better
served by early, in-home intervention; others by intensive services
that pave the way for reunification or support the transition to an
adoptive home. Yet our current federal financing structure largely
encourages a one-size-fits all response by directing the great majority
of federal dollars to foster care, and providing only a relatively
small amount to other important services.
Second, greater flexibility must be accompanied by greater
accountability by states for outcomes for children. Are fewer children
entering foster care and are greater numbers leaving? Are adoptions
from foster care and family reunifications increasing? What percentage
of children return to foster care? How are the children who have been
in foster care the longest faring?
The Child and Family Services Reviews have made a good start at
measuring states' progress. Congress was right when it required such
accountability. Independent experts and state administrators have told
us that the reviews have been helpful, while also suggesting ways to
improve the process. Our Commission is looking carefully at how to
build on this strong start, so that states and the Federal Government
can more accurately measure how children are faring.
Third, we think that any financing structure should encourage
states to build the full continuum of services for abused and neglected
children, from prevention to post-permanency. We believe that case
workers and judges should be able to tailor services to a child or
family's specific needs--especially if doing so avoids the need to
place a child in foster care or allows a child to leave foster care
safely as soon as possible.
Fourth, we think federal financing should encourage states to
carefully test and evaluate new services and practices. The child
welfare field needs continued rigorous investigation into what works
for vulnerable children and troubled families. In this regard, the
child welfare waivers have yielded promising results. HHS' recent
guidance has made the waiver process somewhat easier and more
attractive for states that want to experiment. Our Commission wants to
continue to encourage innovation and creativity in this field.
Fifth, any reordering of how the Federal Government provides
funding to states must maintain risk-sharing between the federal and
state governments and avoid cost-shifting to the greatest extent
possible--either by the states or by the Federal Government. Title IV
establishes a shared federal-state responsibility for abused and
neglected children. Neither side of that partnership can stand down.
As the Subcommittee examines the question of how to improve federal
and state oversight of child welfare, I urge you to remember the
critical role of the courts. No child enters or leaves foster care
without a judge's consent. Judges are responsible for ensuring that
states have made reasonable efforts to reunite children and parents,
and that the ASFA timelines are met in every case.
Yet state and local courts face many challenges that hinder
effective oversight of these cases and can unnecessarily prolong
children's stays in foster care. The handful of courts around the
country that have the ability to track and analyze cases have decreased
the average length of time a case is open and have identified
populations, such as infants, whose special needs might otherwise go
unnoticed. Our Commission is looking for ways to strengthen juvenile
and family courts, to engage state courts in the development and
implementation of state plans, and to develop policies to improve court
performance and oversight.
Thank you for your attention this afternoon and for your commitment
to this critical area. The Pew Commission looks forward to returning to
you in a few months with our best suggestions, and to working with you
to achieve real progress.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Frenzel. Now, Mr.
Shay Bilchik to testify.
STATEMENT OF SHAY BILCHIK, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, CHILD WELFARE LEAGUE OF AMERICA
Mr. BILCHIK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to address this Committee on behalf of the 1,100-
member agencies of the Child Welfare League of America--both
public and private nonprofit agencies. What I believe is very
clear at this point of the hearing, Mr. Chairman, is that there
are many forms of oversight that are actually built into the
child welfare system at every level of operation. They are
greatly impacted by both quality of practice, and the
resources, as you have heard over and over again this morning--
needing to support them and make them meaningful. Some are
complementary, others are simply different in terms of focus
and purpose. What they do have in common, however, is that none
of these forms of oversight have been fully developed. Each is
limited, either by lack of time, information, authority,
funding, or other factors.
In theory, the child welfare system is intended to be one
of the most thoroughly scrutinized public activities in our
society. Multiple layers of oversight functions have been
created. However, it is not clear that any particular oversight
mechanism has been implemented which is sufficient to achieve
anything beyond sporadic localized success--for example, what
you heard about today in New York City. The bottom line is that
effective oversight is entirely dependent on sound information.
Regardless of the location or scope of a particular oversight
mechanism, it relies on four principal sources of information
that can be more broadly categorized as community-based,
externally based, part of case management, or regulatory
function.
These four sources are individual and family case records,
resulting from an investigation, in casework context, and
clinical and court activity. Second, direct reports from people
who are served by the system, or who work in the system. This
includes administrative reviews, quality assurance interviews,
testimony, research, and evaluation. Third, they come from
formal reports of aggregate information about children,
families, and interventions--part of what you began to probe
this morning. This includes management information systems,
research, and evaluation. Fourth, statements of intent,
expectation, or standards, that are part of formal plans,
policies, and regulations. This includes budgets, policies,
reports, and issue briefs. The unfortunate reality, Mr.
Chairman, is that the information generated within these areas
is often inconsistent, incomplete, and years behind. In order
for any of the existing mechanisms to achieve a higher level of
effectiveness, basic information from all four sources must be
used in a more integrated, consistent manner.
If one looks at the more common oversight mechanism, two
conclusions are obvious. One, the basic concept behind most
mechanisms is generally well conceived, and given adequate
investment, would create the potential to enhance the overall
strength of the system. Two, oversight mechanisms usually do
not function at a fully developed level, and fall short of
realizing their potential. So, while there appears to be no
dearth of efforts to provide child welfare oversight, these
efforts are neither integrated nor funded in a manner that
allows them to be as effective as they can possibly be. The
Subcommittee should make its decisions on how to improve
oversight based on a critical understanding of answers to the
following questions. One, does each function have good access
to complete information from each of the four principal sources
to help draw sound, long-term conclusions about the performance
of the system? Does it have the capacity to analyze that
information? Does it have the authority, or access to
authority, to act on those findings? How does each mechanism
combine access to the system with appropriate objectivity? How
do existing mechanisms support each other? Are they
complementary, or are they competitive?
Then we must also pay attention, while asking these
questions, to the fact that nearly all States have undergone
their CFSRs. Now it remains to be seen how States will
implement their PIPs, which are likely to require more rather
than fewer resources. In other words, what we should be looking
for is an incentived funding plan to support and further
motivate successful implementation of the States' PIPs, not a
punitive, escalating approach that ultimately hurts those we
wish to serve and protect--our children. We urge Congress to
comprehensively review and take action on what is truly needed
to build the system of care, so that children are protected. We
urge Congress to focus on the current CFSR as its primary
focus. To be an effective system, that system of review must
have clear measures that can tell you about the quality of
service being delivered, and must be able to measure the
soundness of outcomes for children. That information must be
consistent across State lines and jurisdictions. Finally, the
system must have a way to enforce accountability, but enforce
accountability in a way or in a manner that ensures greater
safety and permanence for our children. Mr. Chairman, Mr.
Cardin, we look forward to working with you in this effort.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bilchik follows:]
Statement of Shay Bilchik, President and Chief Executive Officer, Child
Welfare League of America
My name is Shay Bilchik, I am the President and CEO of the Child
Welfare League of America (CWLA). CWLA welcomes this opportunity to
offer testimony on behalf of our 1,000 public and private nonprofit
child-serving member agencies nationwide for the hearing to review the
oversight systems designed to prevent abuse and neglect of children,
including those under State protection. This hearing represents an
important opportunity to review the existing federal, state, and local
oversight mechanisms in place and to take a look at what needs to be
done to ensure that all children in this country are protected from
abuse and neglect.
Existing Child Protection Oversight Mechanisms
There are many forms of oversight built into the child welfare
system at every level of operation. Some are complementary. Others are
simply different. None have been fully developed. Each is limited by
lack of time, information, authority, funding, or other factors.
The child welfare system may, in theory, be one of the most
thoroughly scrutinized public activities in our society. Multiple
layers of oversight functions have been created. However, it is not
clear that any particular oversight mechanism has been implemented with
sufficient depth or breadth to achieve anything beyond sporadic,
localized success. Therefore, we currently work within a system that
depends on the poorly coordinated actions of a variety of inadequately
staffed overseers who must carry out their duties with often inadequate
information and insufficient authority to implement corrective actions.
The best course of future action is to select a small set of
complementary core mechanisms and concentrate on developing each
element to a more complete level of effectiveness.
Effective oversight is entirely dependent on sound information.
Regardless of the location or scope of a particular oversight
mechanism, it relies on four principal sources of information:
Formal reports of aggregate information about children,
families, and interventions. This includes management information
systems, research, and evaluation.
Individual and family case records resulting from
casework, contracts, and clinical and court activity.
Direct reports or commentary from people who are served
by the system or who work in the system. This includes administrative
reviews, quality assurance interviews, testimony, research, and
evaluation.
Statements of intent, expectations or standards that are
a part of formal plans, policies, regulations. This includes plans,
budgets, regulations, policies, reports, and issue briefs.
The information generated within each of these areas is often
inconsistent, incomplete, or years behind current dates. The data from
each element are usually not universally available within the full
range of oversight mechanisms and, even when widely available, may be
presented or organized with considerable variability. In order for the
any of the existing mechanisms to achieve a higher level of
effectiveness, basic information from all four sources must be used in
a more integrated, consistent, and balanced manner. In general, an
inadequate investment is made in the basic tools and activities
necessary to provide this information.
The wide range of existing oversight mechanisms can be best
understood by placing them within three broad categories: Community/
External; Case Management Process; and Regulatory.
Community/External
Community-based or external oversight mechanisms include a wide
variety of elective and appointive, policymaking, review and comment,
monitoring, and planning bodies that are mandated to exercise some
degree of scrutiny and to maintain accountability from the child
welfare systems.
Examples include:
Governor's Offices of Children
Ombudsman
State Legislative Committees
City and County Boards
Appointed Commissions
Citizen Advisory Groups
Gubernatorial or Legislative Task Forces or Panels
Public Advocates
Court Appointed Monitoring Panels
In addition to these state and local efforts, every state also has
some form of child fatality review process that includes a review of
every child death when the child either died while in agency custody or
within 6 months of leaving custody. Some states require that these
fatality reviews be conducted on every child who dies in the
jurisdiction (city or county), regardless of whether they were in
agency custody at the time.
Case Management Process
The core child welfare process includes a set of standard
authorities, functions, and review procedures that are inherently
intended to provide ongoing oversight at all stages of the case
management process.
Examples include:
Supervision
Courts
Administrative Reviews
Citizen Case Review and Foster Care Review Boards
Quality Assurance
Utilization review
Contract monitoring
Fatality Review and Critical Incident Review
Multi-disciplinary Teams
Certification and Eligibility
Regulatory
Regulatory functions are used within child welfare to establish
standards against which capacity or performance is measured and rewards
or penalties are imposed. Federal law or programs require many of
these.
Examples include:
Child and Family Service Reviews (CFSR)
Program Improvement Plans (PIP)
Title IV-E (of the Social Security Act) Audits
Title IV-B (of the Social Security Act) State Plans
Adoption Foster Care Analysis Review System (AFCAR)
State Automated Child Welfare Information Systems
(SACWIS)
Other State Plans--such as Medicaid state plans
Licensing and Certification
Voluntary Accreditation
If one looks critically at the more common oversight mechanisms two
conclusions are obvious:
1. The basic concept behind most mechanisms is generally
well conceived and, given adequate investment, would create the
potential to enhance the overall strength of the system.
2. Oversight mechanisms usually do not function at a fully
developed level and fall short of realizing their potential.
A quick review of a few of the most important oversight functions
helps to illustrate these points.
Oversight Mechanism Weaknesses
Legislative Committees Dependent on
relatively old aggregate
information
Insufficient time
to integrate and analyze
information
Casework Supervision Workloads prohibit
consistent, detailed
reviews
Inconsistent access
to consumers
Often questionable
data from automated
information systems
Quality Assurance Some states lack
formal systems
Often don't have
adequate resources to
select adequate samples or
to gather information from
consumers
Federal Child and Family Service Reviews Inadequate case
(CFSR) sampling
Aggregate
information is compromised
by inconsistent definitions
and reporting among states
Virtually all existing oversight mechanisms are only partially
developed and inadequately funded. It would be advisable to reduce the
number of functions, many of which are duplicative, to concentrate on a
core of more reliable oversight mechanisms. It would be important to
make decisions based on a critical understanding of answers to
questions like those that follow:
Does each function have good access to complete
information (not solely based on one data source or perspective) from
each of the four principal sources to draw sound long term conclusions.
Does it have the capacity to analyze the information?
Does it have the authority (or access to authority) to
act on findings?
How does each mechanism combine access to the system with
appropriate objectivity?
How do existing mechanisms support each other?
Are they complementary or competitive?
There appears to be no dearth of efforts to provide child welfare
oversight. However, these efforts are neither integrated or funded in a
manner that allows them to be as effective as possible
Impact of State Budgt Cuts
A discussion of how to improve oversight of the child welfare
system cannot ignore the reality that the best oversight cannot make up
for a lack of resources and needed services. A system that can detect
inadequacies does little good if those inadequacies cannot be
corrected.
In 2003, CWLA surveyed states to determine the impact of recent
state budget cuts on their child welfare systems. CWLA's survey
revealed that virtually every state has developed spending or reduction
plans for their child welfare agencies over the past three years. Forty
states reported formal spending reduction plans and two states reported
informal plans. The average percentage cut is approximately 8%, with a
range of 0-3% to over 20%.
As a result of these financial constraints:
States have made significant reductions in staffing and
services within their own agencies.
Child welfare agencies are limiting their services to
only those traditional core services related to child protection. Many
states indicated that they now focused on their ``core'' mission,
defined as child protection (investigation, removal, and placement).
Programs that do not serve children in this population are being
reduced or eliminated, such as homeless youth programs, child care
subsidies, before and after school programs, teen parent counseling,
and youth in transition.
There is strong evidence that preventive and early
intervention services are diminishing across the country. Consequently,
state have been providing more expensive services (even if this
conflicts with the original objective of reducing expenses).
Over two-thirds of the states have plans to reduce or
eliminate contracts with private agencies and to eliminate or cancel
specific service program areas. Program areas affected include: in-home
services, day treatment, family support prevention programs, foster
care training, after-school programs, supervised visitation programs,
emergency shelter programs, child care, domestic violence, family
preservation services, and family resource centers.
States are reducing or eliminating adoptive and foster
parent recruitment and support. These changes conflict with the
legislative permanency requirements.
In light of these actions, we have to evaluate the impact on the
child welfare system. We are confident that states are making every
effort to implement changes that enable them to continue to protect
traditional services for children. However, we asked many states what
their thoughts were on the implication of these spending reductions on
services for children. In the long run, they see:
Decreasing capacity to provide all services;Increasing
caseloads and waiting lists for services;
Decreasing preventive services, which may result in a
need for more expensive future treatments;
Decreasing in-home support services, resulting in more
out-of-home care (even as states report the desire to turn to more in-
home services);
Decreasing support to foster parents, which may result in
fewer foster parents in the system
Longer lengths of stay for children in foster care;
Decreasing permanency options for kids;
Decreasing ability to record information into information
systems in a timely manner; and
Cuts in other state agencies, including mental health,
substance abuse, and Medicaid, will likely result in cost shifting,
with children moving among jurisdictions to seek services.
If deficits continue, we will likely see even further reductions in
states' abilities to provide services. Given that nearly all states
have undergone the federal Child and Family Service Reviews, it is also
unclear how states will implement their Program Improvement Plans which
are likely to require more, rather than fewer, resources.
CWLA's Call for Comprehensive Child Welfare Reform
CWLA urges Congress to comprehensively review and take action on
what is truly needed to build the system of care so that children are
protected. CWLA recognizes that the child welfare system, as currently
constructed, cannot protect all children adequately. Failures occur.
They are not limited to any single state. These failures will continue
to occur until we put into place a comprehensive child protection
system. We are overdue in implementing an improved and strengthened
system. True child welfare reform will hinge on an improved system of
shared financing responsibilities among federal, state, local, and
tribal governments.
The national child welfare system continues to be in need of:
A reliable, responsive, and predictable method of
guaranteed funding, for a full range of essential services, as well as
placement and treatment services.
A means of maintaining consistent focus on safety,
permanency, and well-being as outcomes for children.
Rigorous standards combined with strong federal and state
accountability mechanisms.
Recruitment and support of adequately trained child
welfare professionals, foster and adoptive parents, mentors, and
community volunteers.
Resources that enable parents to provide adequate
protection and care for their own children.
Without all of these elements in place the well-being of many of
our country's children will continue to be lacking.
New Investments Needed
Increase Support for Prevention and Early Intervention Services
Resources are needed for primary prevention services that can
prevent many families from ever reaching the point where a child is
removed from the home. Prevention and early intervention services play
a vital role for children and families in communities. Family support,
home visiting, and in-home services enable many parents to gain
competence and confidence in their parenting while addressing other
family concerns. Child care, housing, and job training/employment are
services that enable families to stay together to the fullest extent
possible. These and other preventive services need to be much more
available to families early on, as well as when a crisis occurs.
Community-based child protection programs have demonstrated that
many families can be helped before there is a need for protective
intervention with the family. Often, the family can identify what is
needed and be connected to resources--and contact with the formal child
welfare system can be averted. Often, after a formal report has been
made, a child can be maintained safely at home with sufficient
supports, clear expectations, and monitoring. At all points in the
continuum, however, ongoing, targeted assessment must be taking place.
Both the initial child protective services investigation and placement
prevention services require appropriate immediate assessments of the
family, the child and the community. CWLA supports the Act To Leave No
Child Behind (H.R. 936) that would allow states to claim reimbursement
under the Title IV-E foster care program to address these needs.
Increase Funding for Promoting Safe and Stable Families
CWLA supports increased funding to $505 million for the Promoting
Safe and Stable Families program (PSSF). States use these funds for
family support, family preservation, adoption and family reunification.
Since 2001 when this program was last reauthorized, Congress has had
the ability to add $200 million to the $305 million in mandatory
funding. Despite the best efforts of members of this Subcommittee,
Congress had never approved more than $405 million for PSSF.
Restore Funding for the Social Services Block Grant
CWLA again calls for the restoration of funding to $2.8 billion for
the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG, Title XX of the Social Security
Act). In 2000, SSBG represented 17% of all federal funding for child
welfare services. While SSBG funds can be used for an array of social
services, such as child care or services for the aging, states chose to
spend these funds on child welfare services more than any other service
area. In federal FY 2001, child protection and child foster care
services each accounted for 22% of SSBG expenditures; 43 states used
SSBG funds to address child protection services; and 35 states used
SSBG to fund foster care.
As part of the 1996 TANF law, SSBG funding was to be restored in FY
2003. That commitment has never been fulfilled. Restoring full funding
to $2.8 billion for SSBG would fulfill a congressional promise and
provide needed resources to states in these difficult budget times.
Support the Adoption Incentives Fund
CWLA supports full funding of $42 million for the Adoption
Incentives Fund. This is an important fund that provides resources to
the states to encourage the adoption of children. Increased funding is
especially needed to help states reach the new target of facilitating
the adoption of older children. Congress, led by the work of this
Subcommittee, reauthorized the Adoption Incentives fund just last year.
Despite that effort, the 2004 funding does not provide the full $42
million.
Implement Program Improvement Plans
Many states have now undergone their federally mandated Child and
Family Services Reviews. States are now putting together Program
Improvement Plans that outline what improvements are needed to better
ensure that children are protected. Many states will struggle to
implement these plans unless resources are provided.
Legislation pending before the Subcommittee sponsored by
Representative Benjamin Cardin (H.R. 1534) offers an innovative
approach that would target funds to assist states in the implementation
of their Program Improvement Plans. H.R. 1534 would provide grants to
states to help implement program improvements and would provide an
additional bonus for the most successful states.
Adopt Strategies to Better Support the Child Welfare Workforce
A well-trained, reliable, and experienced workforce is a critical
element to making children safer. Legislation pending in this
subcommittee introduced by Representative Pete Stark (H.R. 2437), as
well as H.R. 1534 mentioned earlier, includes a number of workforce
strategies including expanded access to training for new and current
child welfare workers. In the U.S. Senate, Senator Mike DeWine has
sponsored legislation (S. 407) that expands college loan forgiveness to
this part of our nation's workforce.
Change the Eligibility for Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption
Assistance
To ensure child safety, permanency, and well-being, federal funding
should be provided for all children in out-of-home care. Congress has
mandated legal and permanency protections for all foster and adopted
children, however, federal funding is only available to pay for the
costs of children who are eligible for Title IV-E of the Social
Security Act. The current law links Title IV-E eligibility to archaic
standards that each state had in place under their 1996 AFDC
eligibility standards.
Since AFDC no longer exists, this continues to be an administrative
burden on the states. Even more critical, however, is the fact that as
time goes by, fewer and fewer children will be eligible for federal
support. Data gathered by the Urban Institute indicates that as of
2000, approximately 57% of all children in out-of-home placement were
eligible for Title IV-E funding. Some states may be able to serve less
than one-third of their children in out-of-home placement through the
use of Title IV-E foster care fund. If the current eligibility link
remains, fewer and fewer children will be eligible for federal foster
care and adoption assistance.
Expand Family Reunification Services
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. Forty-three percent
(239,552) of children in care on September 30, 2000, had a case plan
goal of reunification with their parents or other principal caretaker
while 57% (157,712) of the children who exited care during FY 2000
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, at a minimum. The Act To Leave No Child Behind (H.R.
936) would allow states to claim reimbursement under the Title IV-E
foster care program to address these needs.
Support Kinship Permanency and Guardianship
One area that can serve as an important tool in providing children
with a safe and permanent setting is the use of guardian kinship care
arrangements. Some states have used various resources to fund this
permanency option. A few states have utilized federal Title IV-E funds
to support guardianship through the use of Title IV-E waivers.
CWLA supports a federally funded guardianship permanency option
available through Title IV-E to allow states to provide assistance
payments on behalf of children to grandparents and other relatives who
have assumed legal guardianship of the children for whom they have
committed to care for on a permanent basis. Kinship guardianship
assistance agreements and payments would be similar to the adoption
assistance agreements in that they would take into consideration the
circumstances and the needs of the child.
Kinship care, when properly assessed and supported, has been shown
to provide safe and stable care for children who remain with or return
to their families. Twenty-five percent of children in care are living
with relatives, some of who will not be able to return to their
parents. States vary in their use of relative homes for foster care
even though federal regulations state that there is a preference for
relative placements. States are challenged to provide the financial,
social, and legal supports that are needed to ensure safety and
permanency in kinship placements. Generally there is a lack of case
management and support services made available to relative and legal
guardian providers.
Conclusion
CWLA believes that important and necessary reforms must be enacted
to ensure a consistent level of safety and care for all of America's
children. We look forward to working with this subcommittee to develop
a comprehensive child welfare reform proposal that meets all the needs
of America's the most vulnerable children and families and ensures that
every child is protected. A part of that reform must include
improvements to oversight systems designed to ensure the safety of our
children.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Bilchik. Now to testify,
Monsignor Kevin Sullivan.
STATEMENT OF MONSIGNOR KEVIN SULLIVAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CATHOLIC CHARITIES, ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW
YORK, NEW YORK
Monsignor SULLIVAN. Good afternoon, and thank you for this
opportunity to testify--sadly--on behalf of half-a-million
vulnerable children in these United States, who tonight will
sleep in foster care homes, not their own homes. I am the
Executive Director of Catholic Charities USA, the Archdiocese
of New York. We have more than 100 agencies serving New York
City and the lower Hudson Valley--a full, comprehensive range
of services. Today, I want to focus on just one of these
critical services: foster care. My goal is to demonstrate how
important it is to provide the funding that can help prevent
the foster care tragedies that so appall us when they make
front-page news.
Each year in New York, we provide foster care and group
care for more than 7,000 children and adolescents. In addition,
we provide for thousands of services to those in preventive
services, also. We agree with, as so many of the other
panelists today have spoken of, the need for increased
resources in preventive care, adoption services, and
reunification. However, those resources cannot be provided at
the expense of the foster care component of the child welfare
system. If you will pardon me--we can't rob Peter to pay Paul.
We can't continue to under fund a system that has children in
significant danger. We are talking about children placed in
foster care because they have been burned, because they have
been beaten and starved--children that might never have been
read to, children who have never been held. We have to keep
faith with those half-million children in foster care. We need
to make sure that the funds are available to provide enough
social service professionals, to provide sufficient
supervisors, to ensure that they are in a safe haven where
growth and learning are possible. We need to make sure that the
foster parents are reimbursed to ensure that they can provide a
decent home.
The reasons are simple. Children are in foster care because
some judge has determined that they have been so badly abused
or neglected that they cannot remain safely in their own homes.
The foster care component of the system makes a simple,
difficult, and arrogant assertion. It says, we the people can
provide better care for these children than their parents.
Ladies and gentlemen, if we don't provide the resources to make
that happen, then we open ourselves to similar charges of
neglect. The foster care system needs additional reimbursement
to guarantee the safety of children in care, and to ensure that
we provide the remedial services needed to rebuild their
already damaged lives. Permit me to focus on two areas where
Federal leadership is critical. The first is ensuring
consistent quality of staffing and foster care parents. The
current system creates instability. Resources--I can speak most
about New York State--are woefully inadequate. Some residential
care facilities and foster care agencies have closed because
they could not retain or attract quality staff. Staff turnover,
as you have heard in some of those agencies, is as much as 40
percent. Foster care parent recruitment is troublesome, and
turnover high, at least in part because of low reimbursement.
Complicating these problems, and intensifying the need, is
the fact that our agencies report that 50 percent of the
children in foster care have special medical, psychological,
and educational needs. These needs must be assessed, addressed,
and monitored by caseworkers who are carrying minimum caseloads
of 25 families, and all for a starting salary well under
$30,000 a year. Foster parents must handle these problems in
their homes, and facilitate those needs being met by various
practitioners, all for about $20 per day, per child. The second
area for Federal leadership concerns the funding mechanism,
which others have spoken about. Unfortunately, there is a
misperception that the extension of block grants to foster care
is the silver bullet of greater flexibility and targeting
resources. In New York, we have had an experience with foster
care--and they don't work. At the end of the day, the
flexibility which theoretically exists is de facto undermined
by the lack of resources. In New York City, funds were diverted
from foster care to other services, leaving a strapped system
even more pressed for critical resources. Unfortunately, block
grants in foster care will have a far greater resemblance to
snake oil than silver bullets. Finally, I thank you for this
opportunity to speak on behalf of that particular component--
foster care--which can't be overlooked for those half-million
children whose lives have already been damaged and need to be
rebuilt so that they can live in greater dignity in the future.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Monsignor Sullivan follows:]
Statement of Monsignor Kevin Sullivan, Executive Director and Chief
Executive Officer, Catholic Charities, Archdiocese of New York, New
York
Good afternoon. Thank you for allowing me to testify on behalf of
the most vulnerable children and families in our nation.
I am Monsignor Kevin Sullivan, Executive Director and CEO of the
Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of New York. More than 100
Catholic Charities agencies serve ten urban, suburban and rural
counties in New York City and the lower Hudson Valley. We provide a
comprehensive range of services to people of all religions and
ethnicities who are in need. We are the oldest and one of the largest
providers of child welfare services in the US.
Our focus today is one of these critical services: foster care. My
goal is to demonstrate how important it is to provide the funding that
can help prevent the foster care tragedies that so appall us when they
make front-page news.
Every year New York Catholic Charities agencies provide foster and
group care for more than 7000 children and adolescents. While we agree
that more resources are needed for prevention, reunification, and
adoption, foster care cannot be allowed to falter. We cannot continue
to under fund a system that responds to children in significant danger.
We are talking about children who have been burned, beaten, and
starved--children who have never been held or read to. We must keep
faith with the half-million children in foster care. We must make sure
funds are available to provide enough social service professionals and
sufficient supervision to insure that these children are in a safe
haven where growth and learning are possible. We must also make sure
that foster parents are adequately reimbursed to provide a decent home.
Can anyone in this room disagree about the importance of our
responsibilities to and for children in foster care?
The reasons are simple: children are in foster care because a judge
has determined they have been so badly abused or neglected that they
cannot remain in their own home. The foster care system makes a very
difficult, yet arrogant assertion: We, the people, can take better
care of these children than their parents. Ladies and gentlemen, if we
do not provide the resources to make this happen, we open ourselves to
similar charges of neglect. The foster care system needs additional
reimbursement to guarantee the safety of children in care and to ensure
remedial services needed to rebuild their damaged lives.
Permit me now to focus on two areas where federal leadership is
critical to ensuring adequate resources to a strained system.
The first area for leadership is insuring the consistent quality of
staffing and foster care parents. The current system creates
instability. Resources in New York State are woefully inadequate. Some
residential care facilities and foster care agencies have closed
because they could not attract nor retain qualified staff. Foster
parent recruitment is troublesome and turnover high at least in part
because of low reimbursement. Staff turnover can be as high as 40% in
some agencies.
In addition, our agencies report that 50% of the children in foster
care have special medical, psychological and educational needs. These
needs must be assessed, addressed and monitored by caseworkers who
carry minimum caseloads of 25 families, all for a starting salary well
under $30,000 a year. Foster parents must handle those problems in the
home and facilitate those needs being met by various practitioners--all
for $20 per day per child.
The second area for leadership concerns the funding mechanism.
Unfortunately, there is a misperception that the extension of block
grants to foster care is a ``silver bullet'' of greater flexibility and
targeting resources. In New York we have an experience with foster care
block grants that I believe tells another story. Initially, the NYS
block grant to counties showed some promise of more investment in
prevention and rehabilitation services to natural parents. After a few
years, however, as state and county budget problems worsened, these
bright promises dimmed. In NYC funds were diverted from foster care to
other services, leaving a strapped foster care system even more pressed
for critical resources. Theoretical flexibility was undermined by de
facto lack of resources. Block grants for foster care will bear a far
greater resemblance to ``snake oil'' than ``silver bullets.'' They
utilize a funding mechanism that cannot be counted on to provide
consistent financial support for the stability our foster children
need.
Positive strides have been made in enhancing prevention services
and encouraging timely permanency planning. More needs to be done.
Allow me to commend this committee for looking at ways to do this. I
strongly urge you not to do anything--even if well intentioned--to make
the foster care system more precarious. I would be remiss to go no
further. I plead that you find a way to enhance the funding to this
system that often serves an average of two years as the home of last
resort for our damaged children. During those two critical years, the
system must not allow children to languish; rather it must restore and
rebuild those lives. Thank you the opportunity to share these ideas.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Monsignor Sullivan. Now to
testify, Mr. Thomas Atwood.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS C. ATWOOD, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA
Mr. ATWOOD. I thank you, Chairman Herger, and Mr. Cardin.
Founded in 1980, NCFA is an adoption research, education, and
advocacy nonprofit. Chairman Herger, I thank you for your kind
words about William Pierce. Indeed, there are quite literally
tens of thousands of children and adults today who are enjoying
loving, permanent families because of Bill Pierce's work. To my
testimony--ASFA's encouraging results suggest three valuable
lessons for the Subcommittee's policymaking: first, the
importance of standards and measures; second, the importance of
incentives and accountability; and third, the importance of
flexibility for States. These lessons are elaborated in NCFA's
written testimony. According to reports, the Jackson children
were subjected to inexcusable and hideous treatment by their
adoptive parents. One case of cruelty which the Jackson
children suffered is one too many. It is important to keep in
mind, however, that the main problem facing our child welfare
system today is the suffering of children languishing in foster
care--not the rare case of abusive adoptive parents. It is
statistically predictable that in a population of 1.7 million
households with adopted children, there would be some examples
of horrendous abuse. Unfortunately, child abuse and neglect is
a tragic fact of life in some families, whether adoptive or
biological.
However, NCFA cautions against enacting extraordinary new
measures which impose requirements on adoptive parents that are
not expected of biological parents. Adoptive parents are as
attentive to their children's needs as biological parents are.
Congress should be reticent to enact a policy that treats them
differently. The average age of children waiting to be adopted
out of foster care is 8.3 years, and they have been in
continuous foster care for an average of 44 months. The average
age when the waiting child was removed from his or her family
is 4.7 years. The average American hears these numbers and
rightly wonders, how can it take so long for the child welfare
system to determine that these children's biological parents
cannot or will not parent them. In our testimony, NCFA suggests
five policy ideas regarding how Federal and State officials can
address these problems more effectively through the oversight
of child welfare programs. First, through performance-based
measures and incentives for courts. Perhaps the biggest problem
with the child welfare system today is dysfunctional family
courts that entrap children in never-ending hearings and
technicalities that effectively doom them to miserable
childhoods. A major part of the problem is the lack of
performance measures and incentives for family courts, that
policy makers and the public can use to praise courts for good
performance, and hold them accountable for poor performance.
Our written testimony suggests steps for establishing
accountability--including specific performance-based measures.
Second, through flexible funding for States. Present law
regarding how States spend their foster care funding is too
restrictive. States should have the flexibility to customize
their funding to the specific challenges of their respective
foster care populations and systems. We support the concept
contained in President Bush's child welfare program option.
Third, through ASFA enforcement. Some judges simply ignore
ASFA's 15/22 rule, for example. In effect, they deny children
loving, permanent families through adoption, often in the name
of family preservation, even when it is apparent that there is
no real family to preserve. Federal and State officials should
require courts to follow the 15/22 rule and to comply with
ASFA's speedier hearing schedules. Fourth, through caseload
standards. In many tragic stories of the foster child who dies
or is abused, the social worker was carrying too large a
caseload. States should have appropriate caseload standards,
and meeting caseload standards should be a high priority in
social service department budgets.
Fifth, and last, through collaborations with the private
sector to recruit and prepare adoptive parents. There are 471
married couples for each foster child waiting to be adopted,
and many potential single parents, too. There are three places
of worship for each child waiting to be adopted and every major
faith calls its believers to care for orphans. This year, the
Children's Bureau funds a demonstration project to develop a
national network of adoption advocacy programs that recruit
adoptive parents from faith-based communities. Federal, State,
and local officials should work with communities of faith to
recruit adoptive parents. Private adoption agencies are another
resource. The public system already turns to private agencies
for home studies. Adoptive parent preparation is another way
private adoption agencies can help relieve the very stretched
public system. Chairman Herger, I refer you to NCFA's written
testimony for further details on today's topic, and I thank you
for the opportunity to work with you to achieve better results
for America's deserving foster children.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Atwood follows:]
Statement of Thomas C. Atwood, President and Chief Executive Officer,
National Council for Adoption, Alexandria, Virginia
Chairman Herger and Members of the Subcommittee:
My name is Thomas C. Atwood. I am president and CEO of the National
Council For Adoption. On behalf of the National Council For Adoption, I
submit this testimony on the subject of federal and state oversight of
child welfare programs.
The National Council For Adoption (NCFA) is an adoption research,
education, and advocacy nonprofit whose mission is to promote the well-
being of children, birthparents, and adoptive families by advocating
for the positive option of adoption. Since its founding in 1980, NCFA
has been a leader in promoting adoption and child welfare policies that
promote adoption of children out of foster care, present adoption as a
positive option for women with unplanned pregnancies, reduce obstacles
to transracial adoption, make adoption more affordable through the
adoption tax credit, and facilitate intercountry adoption.
Observations Regarding Recent Policies
It is useful to note at the outset several observations about
recent developments in adoption and foster care policymaking. These
experiences provide valuable lessons and insights for the issue of what
federal, state, and local officials can do and should be doing to
ensure the safety, permanency, and well-being of children:
Success of ASFA: The results of the Adoption and Safe Families
Act of 1997 (ASFA) have been encouraging. Since its enactment,
adoptions out of foster care rose from 31,000 in 1997 to 51,000 in
2002. From 1998 to 2002, an average of more than 13,000 additional
children per year--more than 65,000 additional children in all--were
adopted than would have been otherwise. Over the same five-year period,
more than 230,000 foster children were adopted, about the same number
as were adopted in the previous ten.
Importance of Standards and Measures: ASFA proves that in order
to improve the performance of the child welfare system, federal and
state officials need to establish specific standards and then regularly
measure and report actual performance relative to these standards. The
most important standards and measures established by ASFA include:
states' baselines for the number of children adopted out of foster
care; the requirement to initiate proceedings to terminate parental
rights for children who are in foster care for 15 of the previous 22
months; the aggravated-circumstances exception to family-reunification
requirements; and the requirements for earlier permanency hearings and
concurrent case planning.
Importance of Incentives and Accountability: ASFA also proves
the effectiveness of ``carrot and stick'' policies that reward good
performance through such policies as the Adoption Incentives payments
to states for exceeding their baselines for children adopted out of
foster care, and exercise accountability for poor performance through
possible reduction of funding. Congress was right to pass the Adoption
Promotion Act of 2003, reauthorizing the Adoption Incentives and
increasing the incentives for adoptions of foster children and youth
ages nine and up.
Importance of Flexibility: Finally, the success of ASFA shows
the importance of allowing states the flexibility to address the
particular concerns and needs of their respective foster care
populations and systems. Under ASFA, the Federal Government established
standards, measures, incentives, and accountability. But ASFA largely
left it to the states to determine the best ways to achieve the
standards, given their respective needs and circumstances. While it is
constructive for the Federal Government to work with the states in
setting standards and incentives for the child-welfare system's
performance, it would not serve the best interests of children and
families for the Federal Government to dictate a one-size-fits-all
operations plan for our diverse 50 states.
Other Positive Policy Developments: Other initiatives that are
helping, and will help, to promote safety, permanency, and well-being
of children in foster care are: education and training vouchers for
youth who age out of foster care; the Children's Bureau's test project
to develop a national network of adoption advocacy programs that
recruit adoptive parents from faith-based communities; funding
increases to Promoting Safe and Stable Families, which funds adoption
promotion and support services; www.adoptuskids.org, the Children's
Bureau website, profiling children in foster care waiting to be
adopted; and the national public service advertising campaign featuring
First Lady Laura Bush and Bruce Willis, and other public education
campaigns at the state and local levels.
Fairness for Adoptive Families
Before moving on to policy suggestions, please consider one other
general comment. The case of the Jackson children in New Jersey has
appropriately come to the attention of this Subcommittee. According to
reports, the Jackson children were subjected to inexcusable and hideous
treatment by their adoptive parents. One case of the cruelty the
Jackson children suffered is one too many. If proven guilty, the
Jacksons and the officials who oversaw their adoptions should be
punished severely. It is important to keep in mind, however, that the
main problem facing our child welfare system, by far, is the suffering
of children languishing in foster care, not the rare case of abusive
adoptive parents.
According to the Census Bureau report, Adopted Children and
Stepchildren: 2000, in the census year there were 2.1 million adopted
children living with their parents in 1.7 million households, 1.6
million of those children under the age of 18. Sadly, there are abusive
adoptive families, just as there are abusive biological families. It is
statistically predictable that in a population of 1.7 million
households there would be some examples of horrendous abuse.
Unfortunately, child abuse and neglect is a tragic fact of life in some
families, whether adoptive or biological.
However, the National Council For Adoption cautions against leaping
to dramatic new conclusions about adoption, or adoption policy, based
on the aberrant Jackson case. Adoption is an extraordinarily successful
social institution in promoting child welfare. It is indisputable that
children adopted out of foster care fare better than those who languish
there. The benefits of adoption for children include higher scores on
measures of family adjustment, emotional and developmental functioning,
and self-esteem. Adopted children are more likely to attend college and
less likely to abuse drugs. Adoption into their own family gives
children security, well-being, and love that foster care cannot.
One of the chief reasons adoption has been so successful in meeting
the needs of children is that law and society have respected adoptive
parents as the real parents and treated them essentially the same as
biological parents. NCFA cautions against enacting extraordinary new
measures that impose requirements on adoptive parents that are not
expected of biological parents, such as requiring adoptive parents to
provide medical information and submit their child to post-adoption
medical examinations. Adoptive parents are as attentive to their
children's needs as biological parents are. Congress should be reticent
to enact a policy that treats them differently. Treating them
differently creates a second-class status for adoptive parenting, which
would violate children's best interests. The time to examine adoptive
parents' suitability as parents is prior to adoption.
Policy Recommendations
The average age of children waiting to be adopted out of foster
care is 8.3 years. The average age when the waiting child was removed
from his or her family is 4.7 years. The average American looks at
these numbers and wonders how it can take so long for the child welfare
system to determine that these children's biological parents cannot or
will not safely and responsibly parent them. To ensure child safety,
permanency, and well-being, federal, state, and local officials should
redouble their efforts to free foster children for adoption at younger
ages, as well as make special efforts to encourage adoptions of older
foster children and youth.
The greatest obstacles to child safety, permanency, and well-being
today include: family courts that do not keep timely schedules or
comply with the mandates of ASFA; excessive social worker caseloads;
inadequate parent recruitment and preparation efforts; and lack of
experience with effective models for post-adoption services, as well as
for services to foster children and youth with case goals of
emancipation or long-term foster care. Following, for the
Subcommittee's consideration, are policy suggestions regarding how
federal and state officials might oversee child welfare programs in
ways to address these problems:
Performance-Based Measures and Incentives for Courts: Perhaps
the biggest problem with the child welfare system today is
dysfunctional family courts that entrap children in a never-ending
process of hearings and legal technicalities that effectively doom them
to miserable childhoods, and even danger in unsafe households. A major
part of the problem is the lack of performance measures and incentives
for state courts and court systems that policymakers and the public can
use to praise courts for good performance and hold them accountable for
poor performance.
To address this problem, the federal and state governments
should take steps to establish an effective accountability system for
state courts including: (1) defining clear performance standards to
apply to family courts and court systems; (2) measuring court
performance according to these standards; (3) reporting these
performance measures to policymakers with authority over the courts and
to the general public; and (4) developing incentives and accountability
systems, at the state and federal levels, that promote improved
performance.
The courts themselves should use this information to target
areas for improvements, and policymakers and child welfare advocates
should use them to monitor the courts and hold them accountable. States
and the Federal Government should use these data to develop incentives
and regulations that improve courts' processing of foster care cases.
Among the data regarding family courts for which HHS and states should
develop standards and publicize performance are:
Average length of time between review hearings.
Percentage of review hearings that are postponed.
Numbers of placements children experience while in
foster care.
Numbers of review hearings children experience while in
foster care.
Percentage of children in foster care 15 out of the
last 22 months who are exempted from initiation of proceedings to
terminate parental rights, and the reasons given for these exemptions.
Lengths of time from entry into foster care until
termination of parental rights.
Numbers of disruptions of placements, by type of
placement.
Flexible Funding for States: Present law regarding how states
spend their IV-E foster care funding is too restrictive. States do not
have the flexibility to customize their child welfare systems to the
unique needs of their children, youth, and families. The National
Council For Adoption supports the concept contained in President Bush's
flexible funding proposal, the Child Welfare Program Option. This
option would allow states to maintain the federal funding of their
foster care program as is, or to receive these funds as a flexible
grant over five years, to support a range of child welfare services,
such as parent recruitment and training, family counseling and post-
adoption services, and vocational counseling, job placement, and
mentoring for foster youth.
The proposal's flexibility offers states the opportunity to be
timely and effective in addressing the specific challenges of their
respective foster care populations and systems. This approach is
consistent with the proven model for federal-state partnerships
discussed in ``Importance of Flexibility'' in this written testimony.
Part of the flexible funding plan should be protections against
negligence of states' foster care populations by requiring states to:
adhere to the child safety protections mandated by ASFA; maintain
existing levels of investment in their child welfare programs; and
continue to participate in the Administration for Children and Family's
Child and Family Service Reviews. Besides allowing more strategic
targeting of foster care resources, greater flexibility would encourage
the discovery of creative, new ways to promote child welfare.
ASFA Enforcement: The Federal Government should enforce state
compliance with ASFA in certain key areas. Influenced by ``family
preservation'' ideology, some judges simply ignore the ASFA requirement
to initiate proceedings when the child has been in foster care 15 out
of the previous 22 months. This ideology, which asserts that the
biological connection must be maintained at almost all costs, denies
children loving, permanent families in the name of ``family
preservation,'' even when it is apparent that there is no real family
to preserve. Using ASFA's ``stick,'' the Federal Government should
require states to follow the 15/22 rule.
The Federal Government should also target for enforcement
states' compliance with hearing schedules. Considering how long it
takes the child welfare system to free children for adoption, it is
clear that problems with hearing schedules continue. Finally, the
Federal Government should evaluate whether ASFA's aggravated-
circumstances exception from reasonable efforts to reunify families has
been adequate to protect children. Given aggravated circumstances,
perhaps states should be required to initiate proceedings to terminate
parental rights, rather than only being allowed not to make reasonable
efforts.
Caseload Standards: Whenever there is a tragic story about a
foster child who dies or is abused, almost invariably, part of the
report is that the social worker was carrying an unmanageably large
caseload. Federal, state, and local officials responsible for the child
welfare system should do everything in their power to ensure that
foster care and adoption workers have appropriate caseloads, so that
children in public care receive the professional attention and
protection they deserve. Social workers and their supervisors should
have clearly established, appropriate caseload standards. The standards
should be highly public, as should the child welfare system's actual
performance measured against these standards. Meeting caseload
standards should be a high priority in evaluating supervisors'
performance and in social service department budgets.
Collaborations to Recruit and Prepare Adoptive Parents: Federal,
state, and local officials can collaborate more effectively with the
private sector to recruit parents to adopt children out of foster care.
According to HHS's most recent information, there are nearly 117,000
children waiting to be adopted out of foster care. Though that number
is trending down, it is still tragically large. But here is a larger
number: There are 55-million married-couple US households, 471 married
couples for each foster child waiting to be adopted. There are many
single Americans who can be part of the parenting solution for foster
children, too, especially for older children. If federal, state, and
local officials continue to promote adoption, there are more than
enough loving American families to provide permanent homes for these
deserving children.
Communities of faith present an excellent opportunity for
adoptive parent recruitment. There are nearly 400,000 places of worship
in the United States, three for each child waiting to be adopted, and
every major faith calls its believers to compassion and admonishes them
to care for orphans. This year, the Children's Bureau funds the first
year of a five-year demonstration project to develop a national network
of adoption advocacy programs that recruit parents from faith-based
communities to adopt children out of foster care. This concept has
tremendous potential to benefit foster children through adoption.
Federal, state, and local officials should move ahead with communities
of faith to explore this creative opportunity.
Private adoption agencies are another resource for promoting
adoptions out of foster care, through their ability to provide parent
preparation services. As parents are recruited, the public system will
be further stretched to provide the parent training necessary for
foster care adoptions. The public system already turns to private
agencies to assist with home studies. As the child welfare system does
a better job of recruiting adoptive parents, parent preparation is
another way private adoption agencies can help relieve the already very
stretched public system.
Chairman Herger, in recent years there has been significant
progress made in finding loving, permanent families for America's
foster children. But there is much more to be done through improved
federal and state oversight of child welfare programs. The National
Council For Adoption looks forward to continuing to work with you and
the Subcommittee to achieve still better results for America's
deserving foster children.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Atwood. I would like to ask
you a question, if I could. In your testimony, you discussed
the importance of accountability for the courts in the child
welfare system. In your opinion, what are some of the biggest
problems courts face in protecting children and ensuring timely
hearings? What are some of the more important measures Congress
might consider to make State courts more accountable?
Mr. ATWOOD. The measures that we refer to in our written
testimony are the average length of time between review
hearings, the percentage of review hearings that are postponed,
the number of placements children experience while in foster
care, the number of review hearings children experience while
in foster care, the percentage of children in foster care
during 15 out of the last 22 months who are exempted from
initiation of proceedings to terminate parental rights and the
reasons given for those exemptions, the length of time from
entering into foster care until termination of parental rights,
and the number of disruptions by type of placement. This is a
lot easier said than done, I realize, but the mandate is there.
It has to happen. It is clear that when you look at the
performance of the executive branches of the States in response
to the ASFA, you can see how measures, incentives, and
accountability can be quite productive. We have had tremendous
increases in the number of children adopted out of foster care
as a result of these incentives that were put in place. We need
to find a similar mechanism for the courts. The courts have not
kept pace with the responsiveness of the executive branch
agencies. So, I don't have all the answers, but I certainly
would suggest that these points that I listed contain some of
them.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much. The gentleman from
Maryland, Mr. Cardin.
Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, let me just
compliment all of you for your testimony--but also for the work
that you are doing. My only regret is that this isn't being
covered by C-SPAN, because I think this is the type of message
America needs to hear--what is happening with children. Mr.
Frenzel, we appreciate your continued public service. I know
your report will be coming out in the spring; we hope it will
be as early as possible. You may not be aware, but this is an
election year----
[Laughter.]
So, we are going to try to get our work done a little bit
earlier this year. If we can get Bill Frenzel and Bill Gray
together on a report, I know it is going to be fiscally
responsible, accountable, and compassionate--so we look forward
to your recommendations. I think it could be extremely helpful
to us as we go through our work here, and we have had a chance
to chat. I think you are moving in the right direction, and we
really are looking forward to your work; we thank you for your
continued leadership.
Mr. FRENZEL. Thank you, Mr. Cardin. Schedule us for the
first week in May.
Mr. CARDIN. Good. We appreciate that. Mr. Bilchik, I always
appreciate your work and the work of your organization. I think
you really should underscore the point of your survey that
revealed that virtually every State has developed spending or
reduction plans for their child welfare agencies over the past
3 years. That shouldn't shock us. It just points out the fact
that if we think that the States are going to have the
political or the financial will to come forward with additional
resources, it is not going to happen.
Mr. BILCHIK. The survey that we did of all the States and
the District of Columbia in mid-year 2003 did reveal that
virtually every State planned on cutbacks, and narrowing the
scope of services back to child protection, foster care,
adoption, and eliminating perhaps some services that normally
prevent families from entering the child welfare system, or
support them once they have left. So, if we are looking at the
CFSRs, and we are seeing that virtually every State is
struggling with being rated in a way to show they are really in
compliance with the standards, then we need to be looking to
how we create a formula to make it work. Relying too much on
the States, if the Federal Government says we are going to cap
what we do here, is going to be a formula for disaster, because
the States aren't going to have the resources to do it
themselves. It truly needs to be a partnership.
Mr. CARDIN. I agree with you. That is why I would just
urge, as we look at the reform of the Federal role in this
regard, it has to be mindful of the realities of what is
happening to the States. So, if we develop how we want child
welfare reform nationally, we have to recognize the fact that
these are difficult times for our States with regard to
budgets. Frankly, there have been very few times, even during
good times, that States have significantly increased their
investments in this area. So, we need to develop a national
policy. Monsignor Sullivan, Ranking Member Rangel warned me
about you--that you would be very inspirational to our
Committee--and you were. You made a point that I really want
people to stop and think about: it is by our orders that we are
basically the parents for children that are in the foster care
system.
Mrs. Johnson--when she was Chair of this Subcommittee--
worked with me on a bill dealing with children aging out of
foster care, between 19 and 21 years of age. What we said at
that time is that if you were a parent, you wouldn't give up
your child at 18 years of age. You still support your child.
You still provide help for your child. I dare say today that
for American parents, as they look at schools to send their
children to for part of the day, or look at summer camps that
they are going to send their children to during the summer,
would not tolerate the type of supervision that we have in
foster care if it was their children--and that should be the
test. We should be willing to make the investment necessary to
protect these most vulnerable children, and I think you have
given us the standard that I hope we will use as we evaluate
what we should be doing at the Federal level on our policy
regarding the child welfare system. So, I really want to thank
you for at least planting in our minds the roles that we need
to play.
Monsignor SULLIVAN. Mr. Cardin, thank you very much. The
reason why I think it is critical to focus on that foster care
component, is because it is the unique part of the system. All
the other stuff is absolutely critical--the preventive service
and the reunification. Kids are in that foster care system for
around an average of 2 years. For 2 years, we have that
responsibility, because we have said they have to be there, and
the choice is whether we let them languish for those 2 years,
or during that period of time we provide the resources so that
they begin to rebuild those damaged lives. So, I thank you for
highlighting that.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Atwood, I want to join the Chairman to
compliment the work that you have done in this area. So many
lives have been affected by your work in a very positive way;
we are very proud of what we have been able to accomplish, and
what you have been able to do with changes in the policies.
Thank you.
Mr. ATWOOD. If I might just offer one or two thoughts on
the funding aspect--NCFA does, indeed, also support the full
funding of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families amendments of
2001, as the Bush Administration proposed. Again, I refer to
ASFA. The power of ASFA was standards, measures, incentives,
and accountability. There was some money in there with the
adoption incentive payments for States, but it was tied to
performance. So, if we are going to talk about funding
increases, I would suggest that we tie them to incentives, and
that we look for incentives for the courts, most specifically,
to improve their performance.
Mr. CARDIN. I would just point out, there are proposals
here that would offer a bonus incentive based upon performance
that I would urge you to take a look at, because they are aimed
at just what you are talking about, by providing carrots,
incentives, for States to respond--particularly as it relates
to training and supervision of their caseloads, and reducing
their caseloads. I think that is the right way to proceed. On
the money, the additional funding, we are suggesting mandatory
funding for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families amendments
of 2001. It would be a lot easier than fighting that battle
every year.
Chairman HERGER. I thank our witnesses for being here, and
would like to invite our next panel to come forward to testify.
Mr. BILCHIK. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HERGER. Yes?
Mr. BILCHIK. I have some information. The panel this
morning talked about the comparability of data, and I brought
forward some reports that might help the Committee.
Chairman HERGER. Without objection, we will submit that for
the record.
Mr. BILCHIK. Thank you very much.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Issue Brief
Child Welfare League of America October 2003
Can States Be Compared Based on Child Welfare Data?
State and county agencies run the nation's child welfare systems,
providing a wide range of services including child protection, family
preservation and support services, foster care, adoption, and often
juvenile justice and mental health services. Over the last 10 years the
child welfare field has seen a significant growth in the availability
and use of data to help understand and administer child welfare
programs.
On a national level, the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data
System (NCANDS) and the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting
Systems (AFCARS) have become important sources of information about
children in the child welfare system, providing a national picture of
child maltreatment and foster care. Moreover, the Federal Government is
using the data from these systems to inform the Child and Family
Service Review process. With these national data sets available, the
question often arises: What do the data show us about how states
compare in their ability to ensure the safety, permanency, and well-
being of children in the child welfare system?
Comparisons among states based exclusively on national child
welfare data sources can be misleading and should not be used to judge
the effectiveness of one state versus another. While the national data
sets provide good national estimates, they lack reliability for
interstate comparisons due to variations in state laws, policies,
definitions, and data collection processes. The reliability of the data
increases when each state establishes a baseline and monitors itself
over time. Also, the reliability increases when states with
similarities in their child welfare systems, such as those serving both
child welfare and juvenile justice populations, are grouped together
for a comprehensive analysis. The Federal Government is currently
addressing some areas of variation among the states' data. Following
are just a few examples that show why data cannot be compared across
the states without additional information and analysis.
Child abuse and neglect--Each state and the District of
Columbia defines child abuse and neglect differently in their state
statutes and policies. While there are similarities among these 51 or
more definitions of child abuse and neglect, the differences prevent
reliable comparison of the data. For instance:
Some states capture categories such as abandonment and
emotional or mental injury in their laws, while others do not.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information.
Statutes-at-a-Glance. Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect.
(Retrieved September 2003 from: http://www.calib.com/nccanch/statutes/
define.cfm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some state laws include threatened harm in the
definitions, while others do not.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Ibid
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some states investigate educational neglect, while others
do not. Some states investigate fetal exposure or addiction to alcohol
or other harmful substances, while others do not.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Utah Division of Child and Family Services. (2003). Child
Protective Services Allegation Survey Report. Salt Lake City Utah:
Author.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States require different levels of evidence to
substantiate a report of abuse or neglect.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on
Children, Youth and Families. (2003). Child Maltreatment 2001.
Wahington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Child abuse and neglect fatalities--A child death may be
counted as a maltreatment fatality in one state, but not in another. A
few of the factors that limit the reliability of the maltreatment
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
fatality data include the following:
About half the states investigate incidents that appear
to be accidents (such as swimming pool drowning) to determine whether
abuse or neglect played a role in the death, while other states do
not.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Child Welfare League of America. (July 2001). National Working
Group Highlights: Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities: Clarification
Survey Results. Washington DC: Author.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some states incorporate the numbers from their child
fatality review teams, while others do not. Also, the composition of
the child fatality review team, the role of the team in reporting child
deaths, and the extent of the review or investigation when a death
occurs, varies considerably from state to state.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CWLA National Data Analysis System Issue Brief
Child maltreatment in foster care--There are nuances in
the child protection and foster care data that make it difficult to
accurately compare data across states. The Federal measure on child
maltreatment in foster care uses the foster parent and facility staff
perpetrator categories from NCANDS and the foster care population in
AFCARS. In this measure:
When a child is abused or neglected by a relative foster
care provider, the incident is captured differently among states. Since
the care giver is both a relative and a foster care provider, the
relative relationship may be captured in the perpetrator data in some
states (not the foster care relationship), which is not part of the
Federal measure on child maltreatment in foster care.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Child Welfare L eague of America. (October 2002). National
Working Group Highlights: Child Maltreatment In Foster Care:
Understanding The Data. Washington DC: Author.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential facility staff are counted as perpetrators of
maltreatment in most, but not all, states. The victims in these cases
are not always in foster care, and thus the measure of maltreatment in
foster care in these states has the potential to be inflated.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Ibid.
Placement stability--Data on placement stability contains
several discrepancies in how states count the number of children's
placements, and reflects considerable variation in the populations
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
served by the child welfare agencies. For instance:
A child in foster care may spend a short time outside of
his or her foster home (or other placement), receiving services in a
hospital or detention or incarceration placement. States vary as to
whether they count these as placement changes. In 2000 59% of states
counted medical hospital stays, 65% counted detention or incarceration
placements, and 76% counted placements in psychiatric hospitals. There
were also differences in circumstances and timeframes in which these
placements were counted.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Child Welfare League of America. (April 2002). National Working
Group Highlights: Placement Stability Measure and Diverse Out-of-Home
Care Populations. Washington DC: Author.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some child welfare agencies serve the juvenile justice
population, and some juvenile justice youth are included in the
national data.\10\ Since placement issues are different in juvenile
justice, the placement stability data may be affected. Therefore, when
analyzing placement stability data it is important to group states that
serve similar populations or limit the data to just the child welfare
population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Ibid.
Relationship between outcomes--The child welfare field is
just beginning to study how measured outcomes correlate and interact
with one another. There is evidence that performance in one outcome
area affects performance in another, adding another complexity to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cross-state comparison. For example:
Analysis of Federal outcome data demonstrated a
relationship between high percentages of reunification within 12 months
and high re-entries within 12 months. Likewise, states with low
reunification tended to have low re-entries within the 12-month
periods.\11\ Therefore, when assessing reunification outcomes it would
be critical to evaluate data and policies relevant to re-entries, and
perhaps other areas, at the same time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration
on Children, Youth and Families. (2003). Safety, Permanency, Well-
being. Child Welfare Outcomes 2000: Annual Report. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
The child welfare field lacks crosscutting standards and
definitions that would allow reliable comparison among states. The two
Federal data sources provide important national information as well as
a basis to work toward more comparable data. Relevant policy guidance
begins to add clarity, but clear, common operational definitions are
needed to enhance inter-state reliability in the data. Also, additional
research is needed to understand the relationship between different
performance measures.
Much can be learned by comparing state child welfare programs,
allowing states to share their successes and challenges in ensuring the
safety, permanency and well-being of children. Data play an important
role in such comparisons, but significant time and resources must be
invested in understanding the nuances of the data. NDAS helps present
some of the variations through footnotes, text-based tables, and
National Working Group Highlights bulletins. Further information about
data nuances and data quality may be gathered directly from the states
of interest.
Prepared by Kristen Woodruff, Project Manager for the National Working
Group To Improve Child Welfare Data, [email protected].
Chairman HERGER. Again, I would like to invite our next
panel to the table. We will be hearing from Curtis Mooney,
President of DePelchin Children's Center in Houston, Texas,
here today on behalf of the Alliance for Children and Families;
Mr. Thomas Birch, Legislative Counsel for the National Child
Abuse Coalition; Courteney Holden, Executive Director of Voice
For Adoption; Jack Trope, Executive Director of the Association
on American Indian Affairs; and Christopher Klicka, Senior
Counsel for the Home School Legal Defense Association. Mr.
Mooney to testify.
STATEMENT OF CURTIS C. MOONEY, PH.D., PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DE PELCHIN CHILDREN'S CENTER, HOUSTON,
TEXAS, ON BEHALF OF THE ALLIANCE FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
Mr. MOONEY. Mr. Chairman, I am here today on behalf of the
Alliance for Children and Families, an organization in which my
nonprofit agency is a member. The Alliance for Children and
Families is a nonprofit membership association representing 320
child and family service organizations in North America. By
training, I am a social worker, and for the past 28 years, I
have devoted my life to working with children who have been
abused and neglected in the private sector. I am the President
of DePelchin Children's Center in Houston, Texas. DePelchin
provides a full array of services for children and families,
including prevention services, mental health services, foster
care, adoption, emergency shelter, residential treatment, and
post-adoption services. There is a growing consensus among
national advocacy groups, child welfare providers, as well as
many State officials and policy makers, that the current
mechanism for funding the Nation's child welfare system needs
revision and must be revamped. The Alliance for Children and
Families believes that the following major topics need to be
reflected in the discussions that lead to the framing of a
meaningful child welfare reform.
Child safety cannot be measured by physical safety alone.
The physical scars of trauma heal much faster than the
emotional ones. There must be a common definition for child
safety that is consistent throughout the States, which includes
not only physical safety, but behavioral and emotional well-
being, as well. Once this common definition has been
established, it is vital that resources are dedicated to the
training of staff, judges, and mandatory reporters--every
child, every time. Any refinancing of the child welfare system
must assure that standards of care, caseload and supervisory
ratios, and expectations for child welfare outcomes do not get
reduced in large urban, often poor areas across the country--
or, as in West Texas, across vast areas of land with little
population. Safety, permanency, and well-being measures should
be a child's everyday experience in the child welfare system--
not just ultimate system outcomes. To achieve this, we must
have a system that invests in and expects quality, and places
the highest value on assuring that the adequate case management
supervision and services are there for children.
Prevention, family based services, and successful
reunification of families must be our highest priority, and
over time, a focus on these areas will reduce the number of
children in out-of-home care. To provide these programs as we
transition from a system that has focused on out-of-home care
will require a sustained effort and additional resources over
at least a 3- to 5-year period of time. The children in our
system today often have serious and severe physical,
behavioral, and emotional needs. When their needs cannot be met
through a family centered, in-home service, we must assure that
the first placement is the best placement. Oftentimes, these
children experience repeated failed services and placements
that have had devastating results on them. To accomplish this,
we need funding specifically directed to recruitment, placement
development, training, oversight, and ongoing support and
services. The current Federal commitment to a shared
partnership of research institutions, Federal and State
agencies, and community-based service providers is outstanding.
Any system changes may continue the incentives States now have
to conduct research and evaluation.
Continuous quality improvement works. The child welfare
system, including contracted service providers, must be funded
and required to have the internal capacities for continuous
quality assurance and improvement. Improvement should not be
driven by high-profile cases or audits alone. The child welfare
system is comprised of many partners, agencies, and funding
streams. Future success for this system requires both the
Federal and State governments to identify the agencies and
funding streams that must work together for the sake of the
children and families, and ensure that those entities adopt a
common set of child and family centered outcomes and values and
are accountable for them. The deteriorating state of the child
welfare workforce can no longer be ignored. In fact, we have
reached a crisis point, needing both Federal and State
response. Adequate education and training, continued
competence, quality of supervision, pay, benefits, and
caseloads of critical frontline staff must be addressed. A
clear connection between poverty and family violence must be
addressed, as well. Safety, permanency, and well-being of
children must include an assessment of the family's ability to
assure the child's needs can be met, or identify what must be
done so that those needs can be met.
The Federal Government should--if changes are made to title
IV-E funding--be considered for poverty as the funds are
distributed. The outcomes of the title IV-E demonstration
project and waivers should guide the way for child welfare
reform. They have allowed us to test out what works and what
doesn't. Let us begin our reform there, and in the future when
we have something that works well and is cost neutral, all
States should be able to implement it without a waiver. As a
provider of services in Texas for many years, and as a
representative of the Alliance for Children and Families' 320
agencies, I can tell you that the nonprofit sector takes
seriously our mission to provide services to people in need.
Our communities are generous, and give us resources to help
children and families beyond those covered under State and
local contracts. However, we too often find ourselves having to
use these precious resources to supplement State and local
contracts which should be paying for the services they purchase
in full. I want to thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity
to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mooney follows:]
Statement of Curtis C. Mooney, Ph.D., President and Chief Executive
Officer, DePelchin Children's Center, Houston, Texas, on behalf of the
Alliance for Children and Families
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Subcommittee, I am
testifying here today on behalf of the Alliance for Children and
Families, an organization of which my nonprofit organization is a
member. The Alliance for Children and Families is a nonprofit
membership association representing 320 child and family serving
organizations in North America. Member organizations, such as DePelchin
Children's Center, provide an array of community-based programs and
services to all generations, and serve close to 8 million people each
year in more than 6,700 communities. Motivated by a vision of a healthy
society and strong communities, the Alliance's mission is to strengthen
the capacities of North America's nonprofit child and family serving
organizations to serve and to advocate for children, families and
communities.
I have spent the past 28 years working at four agencies in three
states with children who have been abused and neglected. I am a social
worker by training with a Masters in Social Work from Washington
University in St. Louis and a Ph.D. in Social Work Administration from
the University of Texas in Arlington, Texas. For the last 7.5 years I
have served as the President and CEO of DePelchin Children's Center in
Houston, Texas. One of Houston's oldest charities, DePelchin provides
some 30 different programs in the three broad areas of a) prevention of
child abuse, b) children's mental health services, and c) child welfare
services including foster care, residential treatment and adoption
services. My agency provides services to over 20,000 individuals
annually. We are funded via United Way, individual contributions, state
and federal grants, and contracts with the state of Texas for child
welfare services and health insurers for mental health services.
By holding this hearing, the Subcommittee has taken up a timely
topic that merits our individual attention. There is a growing
consensus among national advocacy groups, child welfare providers, as
well as many state officials and policymakers that the current
mechanism for funding the nation's child welfare system needs revision,
and must be revamped. Child welfare funding has eroded, and scant
attention has been paid to maintaining adequate funding for children in
the foster care system, who often have severe physical and
psychological needs. It is imperative that any proposed changes promote
and invest in increased prevention and early intervention, while
assuring the protection, permanency and wellbeing of our country's most
vulnerable children.
The Alliance believes that the following major topics need to be
reflected in discussions that lead to the framing of meaningful child
welfare reform:
Through experience, trauma research, and neuroscience, we
now have a clearer understanding that child safety cannot be measured
by physical safety alone. There must be a common definition for child
safety that is consistent throughout the states which includes not only
physical safety but behavioral and emotional wellbeing as well. It
should be noted that research has shown that neglect in boys is more
harmful to their developing brain than physical abuse.
Any refinancing of the child welfare system must respond
and be responsive to every child regardless of where a child lives. We
must assure that standards and expectations for child welfare outcomes
do not get reduced in large urban (often-poor) areas across the
country. Quality standards in relation to caseload size, supervisory
ratios, and minimum standards of practice should be funded and expected
for all children.
Safety, permanency, and wellbeing are often only
considered as ultimate system outcomes. These measures should mark a
child's experience in the child welfare system and should be expected
and achieved in every day practice. To achieve this we must have a
system that invests in and expects quality and places the highest value
on assuring adequate resources for maintaining reimbursement rates to
assure highly competent and professional staff services and placement
resources.
Prevention, family-based services and successful
reunification of families should be our highest priority. It should be
noted that to build the necessary capacity needed in these areas will
take a sustained one-time effort of additional resources over at least
3-5 years before the system will begin to see a steady and real
decrease of children in placement and a realization of those savings
for reinvestment in the front-end of the system.
We must recognize and respond to the often serious and
severe physical, behavioral, and emotional needs of children in the
system today. The Federal Government should continue an entitlement
funding mechanism for children with these special needs, to ensure that
family centered services, including residential care and treatment, are
available and effective. Too often, these children experience repeated
failed services and placements due to lack of quality assessment and
placements that do not meet their needs.
Currently, the federal commitment to facilitating a
shared partnership of research institutions, federal and state agencies
and community-based service providers is outstanding. Any system
changes must continue the incentives states now have to conduct
research and evaluation.
The child welfare system, including the agencies holding
city and state contracts for provider services, must be funded to
possess the internal capacities for continuous quality assurance and
improvement. The federal Child and Family Service Reviews are but a
starting point for achieving quality assurance within the system. The
ability for child welfare systems to improve themselves should not be
based on the latest high-profile case or audit. Instead, a portion of
federal and state funding should be dedicated to internal quality
improvement within child welfare organizations.
In order for a child welfare system to be successful, we
must interact on a daily basis through both policy and funding with
multiple federal agencies and funding streams as they play out at the
local level. Both the Federal Government and state governments need to
clearly identify these agencies and funding streams and assure that we
are working together to adopt and achieve a common set of child and
family-centered outcomes and values that will guide them in their daily
work and accountabilities. For instance, it is time that Medicaid and
the child welfare system work together in a concerted way to assure
that the unique physical and behavioral health needs of children in the
child welfare system are being met.
The deteriorating state of the child welfare workforce
can no longer be ignored, and in fact is at a crisis point needing both
federal an state response. Adequate education and training, continued
competence, quality of supervision, pay and benefits of critical front-
line staff must be addressed. The Alliance supports legislation such as
Representative Cardin's bill (H.R. 1534) that works to reduce the many
substantial barriers to maintaining a qualified and effective human
services workforce.
It is time that we address the clear connection between
poverty and family violence. Safety, permanency, and wellbeing of
children must include a family's ability to assure the needs of a child
can be met and work with these families to improve their economic
security. Since we now know clearly that there is a correlation between
the stresses of poverty and the neglect and abuse of children, these
families simply are at a higher risk.
The outcomes of the IV-E Demonstration Projects and
Waivers should guide the way for child welfare reform. Before
significant reform policies can be crafted, an analysis of those states
using flexible funds with current IV-E dollars should be conducted. The
challenges and lessons learned from these states can be used
effectively to revamp the current child welfare system to better serve
children, families and communities. In the future, once a demonstration
program has proven success through outcomes and cost neutrality, all
states should be able to implement the program without a waiver.
Alliance Key Concerns Regarding the Administration's Flexible Funding
Proposal
The Administration has attempted to respond to the needs of the
child welfare system with a proposal that would dismantle the current
entitlement system and restructure the Title IV-E foster care program.
While legislation has not yet been introduced, many aspects of the
Administration's proposal have been revealed through congressional
testimony and public conversations with Administration officials.
The Alliance for Children and Families and its member agencies have
many concerns about reform of the child welfare financing mechanism.
Any such reform must provide states with guaranteed federal funds and a
long-term partnership necessary to both meet the varied needs of
vulnerable children and their families as well as systematically reform
a system long overlooked by the Federal Government. Service delivery
systems as complex and critical as child welfare cannot be reformed
overnight by simply extending flexibility to a dwindling pool of
resources.
The ``look back'' provision for foster care streamlines the IV-E
process, but maintaining the provision for Adoption Assistance
accomplishes just the opposite. An assessment of the child's household
income at removal is required at time of adoption; a IV-E determination
would have to be completed regardless. If the eligibility
determinations remain a part of the foster care process, the ``look
back'' must be corrected to reflect current Temporary Assistance to
Needy Families (TANF) eligibility standards. If eligibility
determinations are eliminated from foster care, the ``look back''
provision should be eliminated from adoption determinations as well.
State flexibility, while desirable, transfers a greater share of
responsibility and risk for the child welfare population to the states.
The partnership between the Federal Government and states in providing
services to abused and neglected children must be maintained and states
should be discouraged from diminishing their investment in the child
welfare system once receiving federal dollars. Additionally, Congress
should create appropriate and minimum standards in areas such as
caseload size, and give guidance to participating states to ensure the
progress of child welfare reform. A continued federal match opportunity
for states will leverage additional resources from state legislatures.
Conclusion
As a provider of services in Texas for many years, and as a
representative of the Alliance's 320 nonprofit family service agencies,
I can tell you from experience that the nonprofit sector takes very
seriously our mission to provide service to all people in need.
However, we are increasingly finding that our contracts with state and
local agencies do not provide adequate funding for the expectations for
which they carry. We stand ready to be full partners with you, the
state, and our communities but that partnership must go both ways. As
an independent sector, we have demonstrated the knowledge, experience,
and commitment to work with you as a partner in developing any changes
necessary in policy, minimum standards and practices in the child
welfare system.
The Alliance for Children and Families would welcome the continuing
opportunity to share the voices of America's service providers with the
Subcommittee as it deliberates on the child welfare system.
I would like to thank the Subcommittee for giving me the
opportunity to testify, and would be happy to answer any questions at
this time.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Mooney. Mr. Thomas Birch to
testify.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS L. BIRCH, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, NATIONAL
CHILD ABUSE COALITION
Mr. BIRCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Tom Birch, and I
am here as the Legislative Counsel of the National Child Abuse
Coalition, which is a collaborative effort of some 30 national
organizations to bring focus to the issues of prevention of
child welfare abuses and provision of treatment and services
for abused and neglected children. I very much appreciate the
opportunity to testify here today, and also the efforts of this
Subcommittee to constantly work toward strengthening our
response regarding preventing abuse and protecting children. At
this point in the hearing, I realize that the messages that I
bring have been brought to you already, but I would like to
provide some kind of framework, and talk about the need to
invest in preventive services, and to look at closing the
spending gap in services to protect children who have been
abused and neglected. When we look at how we as a nation spend
on child welfare services, we see that we are actually
investing in an outcome that no one wants--the placement of
children in foster care. We are spending well over $16 billion
each year in Federal, State, and local dollars to subsidize the
foster care and adoptive placements of children who have been
so seriously abused and neglected already that they are in
danger of no longer being safe when left at home. By contrast,
a fraction of that amount is spent on prevention of abuse and
neglect, and on intervention services to protect children from
abuse.
No one would argue that we should not be paying to protect
the children who have been the most seriously injured. Far less
attention in our policy, our funding, and our discussion is
directed at preventing harm to children from ever happening in
the first place. Let me give you a sense of how the Federal
dollars work out here. When we look in the current fiscal year
with title IV-E, over $7 billion is being paid for out-of-home
placement. By contrast, funds coming from title IV-B and from a
share of title XX, a small amount contributed from the Child
Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA, P.L. 93-247),
together add up to less than $900 million for preventive and
interventive services. For every Federal dollar we spend on
foster care and adoption subsidies, we spend less than 13 cents
of Federal child welfare funding on preventing and treating
child abuse and neglect. We will never stop the flow of
children into our Nation's foster care rolls unless we put
together additional resources to help States and communities
build their capacity to support preventive services and
treatment services, as well. Putting dollars aside for
prevention is sound investing, not luxury spending.
We looked at what we should be spending to improve child
protective services, and to support preventive services, and we
discovered a spending gap in this country of almost $13 billion
in prevention and protection. Spending in Federal, State, and
local dollars in preventive and protective services amounted to
only about $2.9 billion of the estimated $15.9 billion total
cost of what we ought to be spending on those services. We
looked at the Urban Institute's most recent report on child
welfare spending. States reported spending $20 billion--that is
in Federal, State, and local dollars--on child welfare in 2000.
Of that, they could categorize a little over $15 billion in
terms of how they had spent it. Some $9.1 billion was for out-
of-home placements for foster care, $1.8 billion on
administration, $1.9 billion on adoption, and $2.9 billion on
what was called ``all other services.'' That is the piece that
I am talking about--prevention and intervention. We looked at
the cost to Child Protective Services first--what we ought to
be spending on investigating the reports of child abuse and
neglect, and then what we ought to be spending on providing
some basic services. We came up with a total cost of $5.9
billion, and again, when we compare that with the actual
dollars spent, the gap shows that Child Protective Services
funding comes up nearly $3 billion short.
When we considered the cost of preventive services, we
looked at what it would mean to provide preventive services to
the 3 million children--the victims of maltreatment identified
by the national incidence study. About $10 billion is what we
ought to be spending there, so we are way short on what we
need. What does the spending gap mean in terms of the child
welfare workforce? Well, 90 percent of States report having
difficulty in recruiting and retaining child welfare workers
because of low salaries, high caseloads, insufficient training,
and high turnover of child welfare workers. When we look at
caseloads for child welfare workers, the average is double the
recommended caseload amount. Our present system is overworked
and inadequate to the task--we need to reorganize our current
child protection system to come within the framework of a
broader family support system. I will stop there. I look
forward to working with you and the Members of this
Subcommittee to come up with solutions. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Birch follows:]
Statement of Thomas L. Birch, Legislative Counsel, National Child Abuse
Coalition
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Thomas
Birch and I am the legislative counsel for the National Child Abuse
Coalition, twenty-five national organizations working together to focus
attention on the protection of children and the prevention of child
maltreatment.
I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation for the
opportunity to testify and for the ongoing efforts of this subcommittee
to strengthen the federal response to the protection of children and
the prevention child abuse and neglect. Today I would like to address
the need to invest in preventive services to curb the occurrence of
child abuse and to close the spending gap in services to protect
children who have been abused or neglected.
Child Welfare Spending: A Moral Failure to Invest
When we look at federal, state and local government spending on
child welfare services, we see that we are investing in an outcome that
no one wants--the placement of children in foster care. We are spending
well over $16 billion each year to subsidize the foster care and
adoptive placements of children who have been so seriously abused and
neglected, so injured and in such danger that they are no longer safe
to be left at home with their parents. A fraction of that amount is
spent on prevention and intervention services to protect children from
such severe harm.
No one would argue that we should not be paying to protect the
children who have been the most seriously injured. But the fact is that
the United States spends billions of dollars on programs that deal with
the results of our failure to invest real money to prevent and treat
child abuse and neglect.
Because our system is weighted toward protecting the most seriously
injured children, we wait until it gets so bad that we have to step in.
Far less attention in policy or funding is directed at preventing harm
to children from ever happening in the first place or providing the
appropriate services and treatment needed by families and children
victimized by abuse or neglect.
In 2004, looking at the federal child welfare budget for Title IV-
E, the Federal Government pays out over $7 billion for out-of-home
placements. Contrast that with funds from Title IV-B, a share of Title
XX, and a small contribution from the Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act authority which together add up to less than $900 million
for prevention and intervention services to children and their
families. For every federal dollar spent on foster care and adoption
subsidies, we spend less than thirteen cents in federal child welfare
funding on preventing and treating child abuse and neglect.
It is not enough for the Federal Government to provide services
only for foster care and adoption; we have to put together additional
resources to help states and communities build their capacity to
support preventive services and treatment services as well. But until
we reorder our overall budget priorities and begin allocating
significant resources to prevention, we will never stop the flow of
children onto our nation's foster care rolls. Putting dollars aside for
prevention is sound investing, not luxury spending.
The Spending Gap in Child Welfare
When we look at what we should be spending to improve the child
protective service system and support community-based programs for
preventing child abuse and neglect, we discover an enormous spending
gap in prevention and protection.
We have a spending gap in this country of almost $13 billion in
services to prevent child abuse and to intervene on behalf of children
known to the child protection system. In 2000, spending in federal,
state and local dollars for child protective services and preventive
services amounts to only about $2.9 billion of the estimated $15.9
billion total cost of what ought to be spent on those services.
According to the Urban Institute, states reported spending $20
billion on child welfare in 2000, and they could categorize how $15.7
billion of the funds were used.[1] Of that amount, $9.1
billion was spent for out-of-home placements, $1.8 billion on
administration, $1.9 billion on adoption, and $2.9 billion (about 18
percent) on all other services, including prevention, family
preservation and support services, and child protective services. (Of
the $20 billion, states spent $7.9 billion in federal funds, $7.9
billion in state funds, and $2.2 billion in local funds). There were
some increases in state and local child welfare spending in 2000 over
1998, when the Urban Institute last looked at these numbers, but that
was when states were feeling flush. It's not the case now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[1]\ Bess, R. (2002). The Cost of Protecting Vulnerable Children
III: What Factors Affect States' Fiscal Decisions?. Washington, DC.
Urban Institute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, consider the cost to child protective services of 1)
investigating the reports of child abuse and neglect that were accepted
in 2000 and 2) providing some basic services to the victims of child
maltreatment in that year. When we look at the expense of investigating
the 1.726 million children who were screened in for further assessment,
plus the expense of providing services to the 879,000 substantiated
child victims and to the 385,000 children in unsubstantiated reports
who also received some services, we come up with a total cost of $5.9
billion.
We should not, here, overlook the unacceptable fact that nearly
half the victims of child maltreatment in fact receive no services at
all. One of the great tragedies of our system for protecting children
is the hundreds of thousands of children--over 392,000 (45%) victims of
child abuse in 2000--who received no services whatsoever: suspected
abuse reported, report investigated, report substantiated, case closed.
A recent analysis of unsubstantiated reports of child abuse and
neglect found that a perceived lack of services would influence a
caseworker's decision to unsubtantiate a report of abuse, often
resulting in a recurring report and continuing harm to a
child.[2]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[2]\ Fluke, J.D. (2001). Dynamics of Unsubstantiated Reports of
Child Abuse and Neglect. American Humane Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CPS spending shortfall amounts to a failure to invest in a
system that could successfully protect children from abuse and neglect.
When examining the actual dollars spent, the gap in CPS funding--a
spending shortfall of nearly $3 billion--must be held accountable for
many of the barriers to the adequate protection of children. Failing to
invest in a working child protection system results in a national
failure to keep children free from harm.
Second, consider the cost of preventive services--$10 billion if
offered to the three million child maltreatment victims identified in
the HHS National Incidence Study III [3]--and I am not even
talking about cost of offering voluntary, universal preventive services
to families. That's a total cost of $15.9 billion. Yet, in 2000, states
spent only $2.9 billion in federal, state and local funds on protective
and preventive services for children. Our national child welfare policy
represents a morally unacceptable failure to invest in this system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[3]\ U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (2002). Child
Maltreatment 2000,. Washington, DC. U.S. Government Printing Office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are conservative cost figures. When adjusted to account for
inflation, data indicate that investigations by child protective
service agencies cost approximately $990 per case. The cost per case to
provide basic in-home services such as homemaker assistance or family
counseling is $3,295.[4] These costs are low to start with.
Pay scales in child welfare are generally low and noncompetitive--
significantly lower, for example, than salaries for teachers, school
counselors, nurses and public-health social workers [5]--
which brings these costs in at an unrealistically low level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[4]\ Courtney, M.E. (1998). ``The Costs of Child Protection in the
Context of Welfare Reform''. The Future of Children, Vol. 8, No. 1.
\[5]\ U.S. General Accounting Office (2003). HHS Could Play a
Greater Role in Helping Child Welfare Agencies Recruit and Retain Staff
(GAO-03-357).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What does the spending gap mean in terms of the child welfare
workforce? Ninety percent of states report having difficulty in
recruiting and retaining child welfare workers,[6] because
of issues like low salaries, high caseloads, insufficient training and
limited supervision, and the turnover of child welfare workers--
estimated to be between 30 and 40 percent annually
nationwide.[7] When we look at caseloads for child welfare
workers, the average is double the recommended caseload, and obviously
much higher in many jurisdictions.[8]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[6]\ U.S. General Accounting Office (1995). Child Welfare: Complex
Needs Strain Capacity to Provide Services (GAO/HEHS-95-208).
\[7]\ U.S. General Accounting Office (2003). HHS Could Play a
Greater Role in Helping Child Welfare Agencies Recruit and Retain Staff
(GAO-03-357).
\[8]\ Alliance for Children and Families, American Public Human
Services Association, Child Welfare League of America (2001). The child
welfare workforce challenge: Results from a preliminary study. Dallas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Case for Prevention
Our present system of treating abused and neglected children and
offering some help to troubled families is overworked and inadequate to
the task. We need to reorganize the current child protection system to
come within the framework of a broader family support system. Hundreds
of thousands of children are currently identified as having been
abused, but receive no services to prevent further abuse. We must focus
attention on children and families known to the system in order to
prevent reoccurrence of abuse, as well as provide services to families
earlier, before problems become severe.
For more than twenty years, the Federal Government's attention has
concentrated on a restricted approach to child abuse and neglect, in
many ways preventing the development of a major federal attack on the
problem. As a result, the prevention of child maltreatment of children,
which lies at the root of many of this nation's social ills, has been
marginalized.
We know that child abuse prevention fights crime, because research
has shown us time after time that victims of child abuse are more
likely to engage in criminality later in life, that childhood abuse
increases the odds of future delinquency and adult criminality overall
by 40 percent.[9]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[9]\ C.S. Widom (1992). The Cycle of Violence. Washington, DC:
National Institute of Justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We know that preventing child maltreatment helps to prevent failure
in school. Typically abused and neglected children suffer poor
prospects for success in school, exhibiting poor initiative, language
and other developmental delays, and a disproportionate amount of
incompetence and failure.[10] Ensuring that children are
ready to learn means ensuring that children are safe at home with the
kind of nurturing care that all children deserve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[10]\ S.R. Morgan (1976). The Battered Child in the Classroom.
Journal of Pediatric Psychology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We know that preventing child abuse can help to prevent disabling
conditions in children. Physical abuse of children can result in brain
damage, mental retardation, cerebral palsy, and learning
disorders.[11]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[11]\ H.P. Martin & M.A. Rodeheffer (1980). The Psychological
Impact of Abuse in Children. In: G.J. Williams. Traumatic Abuse and
Neglect of Children at Home. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Groundbreaking research conducted by the Centers for Disease
Control in collaboration with Kaiser Permanente shows us that childhood
abuse is linked with behaviors later in life which result in the
development of chronic diseases that cause death and disability, such
as heart disease, cancer, chronic lung and liver diseases, and skeletal
fracture. Similarly, the CDC research shows that adult victims of child
maltreatment are more likely to engage in early first intercourse, have
an unintended pregnancy, have high lifetime numbers of sexual partners,
and suffer from depression and suicide attempts.[12]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[12]\ V.J. Felitti, R.F. Anda, et al. (1998). Relationship of
Childhood Abuse and Household Dysfunction to Many of the Leading Causes
of Death in Adults. The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We know that women who suffered serious assaults in childhood
experience more episodes of depression, post-traumatic stress, and
substance abuse, demonstrating a relationship between childhood trauma
and adult psychopathology,[13] as well as links between
childhood neglect and later alcohol problems in women.[14]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[13]\ R.D. Duncan, et al. (1996). Childhood Physical Assault as a
Risk Factor for PTSD, Depression, and Substance Abuse: Findings From a
National Survey. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. Washington, DC:
National Institute on Drug Abuse.
\[14]\ C.S. Widom, et al. (1995). Alcohol Abuse in Abused and
Neglected Children Followed-up: Are They at Increased Risk? Journal of
Studies on Alcohol. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, looking at the consequences of child maltreatment, we find
that among homeless people, many of them, especially homeless women,
reported serious family problems or a history of sexual or physical
abuse as children that predisposed them to homelessness as
adults.[15]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[15]\ S. Davies-Netzley, et al. (1996). Childhood Abuse as a
Precursor to Homelessness for Homeless Women With Severe Mental
Illness. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An analysis of the costs of child abuse and neglect in the United
States looking at the direct costs of hospitalizations, chronic health
problems, mental health care, child welfare services, law enforcement
intervention, and the judicial process totals over $24 billion
annually. When we add the indirect costs from special education,
additional health and mental health care, juvenile delinquency and
adult criminality, as well as lost productivity, the total annual cost
of child abuse and neglect in the United States amounts to more than
$94 billion.[16] We cannot sustain this drain of human and
financial capital when we know how to support families and prevent
abuse from occurring in the first place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[16]\ Fromm, Suzette (2001). Total Estimated Cost of Child Abuse
and Neglect in the United States. Prevent Child Abuse America, Chicago.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preventing child abuse is cost effective. Over ten years ago (1992)
a report by the General Accounting Office looking at evaluations of
child abuse prevention efforts found that ``total federal costs of
providing prevention programs for low-income populations were nearly
offset after four years.'' [17]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[17]\ U.S. General Accounting Office (1992). Child Abuse:
Prevention Programs Need Greater Emphasis (GAO/HRD-92-99).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community-based, in-home services to overburdened families are far
less costly than the damage inflicted on children that leads to outlays
for child protective services, law enforcement, courts, foster care,
health care and the treatment of adults recovering from child abuse. A
range of services, such as voluntary home-visiting, family support
services, parent mutual support programs, parenting education, and
respite care contribute to a community's successful strategy to prevent
child abuse and neglect. To be eligible for federal child welfare
assistance, states should be required to develop a prevention plan
including effective programs identified to carry out the prevention
work of community-based programs serving families and children.
In 2002, the deplorable state of child protective services was a
visible issue in the gubernatorial races in three states: Florida, New
Jersey and Maryland. Public officials were called to respond to the
deplorable state of child protection in their states, and the public
demanded more attention to improving the capacity of community-based
services to support parents and prevent abuse, and to treat the victims
of abuse and neglect. It is our collective responsibility and our duty
to America's children and the nation's future to work toward that goal.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Birch. Now we will hear
from Courteney Holden. Ms. Holden?
STATEMENT OF COURTENEY ANNE HOLDEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, VOICE
FOR ADOPTION
Ms. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much for
the opportunity to testify. My name is Courteney Anne Holden,
and in addition to volunteering as a court-appointed special
advocate in my home State of Washington, I am also the
Executive Director of Voice For Adoption. Voice For Adoption is
a membership organization. We speak out for the Nation's
126,000 waiting children in foster care. First and foremost,
the adoption community wants to thank you for all your hard
work on the reauthorization of the adoption incentive program
during last year's session. Voice For Adoption applauds the new
focus on moving older children into adoption. In my short time
this morning, I want to touch briefly on five areas included in
my written statement that Voice For Adoption believes need the
attention of Congress and the Federal Government in order to
help ensure the promise of adoptive families for every child.
The first is post-adoption services. If we truly want to
ensure that children get permanent families, much more must be
done to provide post-adoption services. The grief and the loss
that foster children experience does not disappear once the
adoption is finalized. A proven way to avoid adoption
disruption is by providing services, such as respite care,
family support groups and counseling, and adoption competent
mental health services. Post-adoption services and support is a
way for States to ensure that adoptive placements are
successful. As a first step, we recommend that States be
required to support adoptive families by reinvesting their
incentive dollars on post-adoption services. This is especially
important with the new focus on older children. The older a
child is when he or she is adopted, the more likely the
adoption is to disrupt. Congress should also take steps to
ensure that States are spending, as required by Federal law, at
least 20 percent of their Promoting Safe and Stable Families
program funds on adoption promotion and support. We urge you to
explore other strategies, as well, in your broader discussions
of child welfare financing.
Second, we urge you to take steps to make sure that all
children adopted from foster care are eligible for title IV-E
adoption assistance. The adoption assistance program is an
extremely effective program that helps move thousands of
waiting children into permanent families. As we all know,
adoption is cost effective. The typical administrative costs
associated with foster care, such as ongoing training, agency
supervision, and periodic case reviews, disappear once the
child is adopted. Unfortunately, due to an outdated AFDC
eligibility requirement, not all children adopted from foster
care qualify for assistance. Congress can help support foster
care adoptions by eliminating the administratively burdensome
requirement in Federal law that makes only children removed
from poor families eligible for adoption assistance.
Third, we ask that you eliminate the disincentives to
adoption by requiring that adoption assistance payments be at
least equal to the foster care payments for which the child
would have been eligible. When foster care payments are higher
than adoption assistance payments, as they are in some States,
it creates a disincentive for foster parents to adopt children.
States should provide adoptive children with at least the same
level of support and benefit, including therapeutic and
specialized rates, that they would have received in family
foster care. This change in the adoption assistance program
would help move waiting children to adoptive homes. Fourth,
continued improvements are needed to address inter-
jurisdictional barriers to children being adopted. The special
needs adoption community is excited about the new Federal
adoption website. This multifaceted media tool will help
highlight waiting children and recruit other families across
the country. Yet inter-jurisdictional barriers to adoption need
to be addressed to help aid the website's success.
Several years ago, adoption workers, advocates,
researchers, and families, including many Voice For Adoption
members, convened in Chicago to strategize about solutions and
overcoming barriers to inter-jurisdictional placements. I am
happy to provide the Committee with a copy of the report from
the meeting, which includes a number of recommendations to
address these barriers. Finally, as you consider reforms in
adoption and other aspects of child welfare, Voice For Adoption
asks that you take steps to address the racial disparity in the
child welfare system. There is a disproportionate number of
minority children in care today. This inequity needs to be
addressed. Recruitment of families who reflect children in
State custody is imperative. Many children of color are
entering Caucasian homes through adoption, and parents need to
be prepared to deal with race-related issues by training
families when trans-racial placements occur, in order to
prepare families to handle the unique responsibilities in
trans-racial parenting. I thank you for this opportunity to
testify.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Holden follows:]
Statement of Courtney Anne Holden, Executive Director, Voice For
Adoption
Chairman Herger, Ranking Member Cardin and distinguished members of
the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to testify on federal
and state oversight of child welfare programs. My name is Courteney
Anne Holden. In addition to volunteering as a court appointed special
advocate in my home state of Washington, I am also the Executive
Director of Voice for Adoption or VFA for short.
VFA is a membership advocacy organization. We speak out for our
nation's 126,000 waiting children in foster care. VFA members recruit
families to adopt special needs children and youth. Our members also
provide vital support services both before and after finalization to
help adoptive families through challenges they often face. We, like
you, are dedicated to finding permanent loving homes for every waiting
child in foster care.
First and foremost, the adoption community thanks you for all your
hard work in reauthorizing the Adoption Incentive program during last
year's session. VFA applauds the new focus on moving older children
into adoption. However, it is important that states support these
adoptive families by reinvesting their incentive dollars on post-
adoption services.
Research shows that the older a child is when he or she is adopted
the more likely the adoption will dissolve. The grief and loss that
foster children experience does not disappear when the adoption is
finalized. A proven way to avoid adoption disruption is by providing
support services such as respite care, family support groups and
counseling, and adoption competent mental health services. Post-
adoption services and support is a way for states to ensure that
adoptive placements are successful.
Also, many states do not take full advantage of the ability to fund
post-adoption services through the adoption promotion and support
provision of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) program.
State should spend at least 20 percent of their PSSF flexible funds on
post-adoption services and support.
Another extremely effective program in moving waiting children to
permanency is the Adoption Assistance program. This program provides
adoptive families with monthly subsidies to cover costs such as
adoption camps, tutoring, and extraordinary health care costs due to
the child's special needs. Of the 50,000 children adopted from foster
care in 2001, 88 percent received state or federal assistance. As we
all know, adoption is cost effective. The typical administrative costs
associated with foster care such as ongoing training, agency
supervision, periodic case reviews and judicial hearings disappear.
Thousands of children and families have benefited since the program's
inception in 1980.
However, financial barriers to foster care adoptions still exist
and the Adoption Assistance program needs to be modernized. Due to an
outdated AFDC eligibility requirement, not all children adopted from
foster care qualify for the assistance. Congress can help support
foster care adoptions by eliminating this administrative burdensome
requirement.
Moreover, levels of support that children receive can vary, often
foster care payments are higher, in effect creating a disincentive to
adopt the child. States should provide adopted children with at least
the same level of support and benefits (including any therapeutic or
specialized rates) they would have received in family foster care.
Nationally, payments made on behalf of an eight-year-old child average
$14 per day, a fraction of what the Department of Agriculture suggests
is needed to raise an average child, let alone a child with serious
disabilities. Making these few changes to the Adoption Assistance
program would go a long way in moving waiting children into permanent
homes.
The special needs adoption community is excited about the new
federal adoption website. This multi-faceted media tool will help
highlight waiting children and recruit forever families across the
county. Yet, interjursidictional barriers to adoption need to be
addressed to help aid the websites success.
Several years ago, adoption workers, advocates, researchers, and
families including many VFA members convened in Chicago to come up with
solutions to overcoming barriers to interjursidictional placements.
Which state pays for the adoptive home study and the varied home study
fees were just some issues that where addressed. I am happy to provide
committee members with a copy of the report from the meeting.
Additionally, last week the Children's Bureau at HHS convened a
workgroup on the identical subject. VFA is thrilled that Majority
Leader Tom Delay's staff, Dr. Cassie Bevan and Susan Smith with
Illinois State University Center for Adoption Studies are
participating. However, there are some notable absences on the
workgroup, including adoption exchanges and agencies that specialize in
the placement of African American and Latino children. Also absent are
grantees that focus on overcoming geographic barriers such as Oregon's
Team Work for Children. This group has an Adoption Opportunities grant
to finds collaborative ways to overcome barrier and is working with
states such as Washington, Idaho and California. There are three other
states with AO grants on this topic including Texas, Colorado and
Alaska. This past fall, VFA awarded the Adoptions Across Boundaries
recognition to Oregon for their commendable work in overcoming barriers
to cross-jursidictional placements. VFA urges the Children's Bureau to
expand the workgroup before their next meeting.
VFA is not the only organization that places priority on addressing
geographic barriers. Organizations like the American Academy of
Adoption Attorneys (Quad A) and the American Public Human Services
Association (APHSA) are working within their membership to address this
issue too. It is VFA's hope that all groups and the Children's Bureau
can work together to find consensus and help improve adoptive and
foster care placements across state lines.
There are a disproportionate number of minorities, 45 percent are
Black non-Hispanic and 12 percent are Hispanic, in the child welfare
system. This inequity needs to be addressed. Recruitment of families
who are reflective of children in state custody is imperative. Many
children of color also enter Caucasian homes through adoption, and
parents need to be prepared to deal with race-related issues. Training
families when transracial placements occur is crucial in order to
prepare families to handle the unique responsibilities of transracial
parenting.
VFA also looks forward to the release of the Pew Commission's
Report on Youth in Foster Care. We truly appreciate that focus on child
welfare that the Commission has brought. We also look forward to
today's Packard Foundation briefing on a report and survey of foster
care.
Waiting children are languishing too long in state care. These are
just a few issues that will help eliminate barriers and accelerate
adoptions. The 126,000 children and youth who cannot safely return to
their birth parents are depending on us.
On behalf of waiting and adopted children and their families, thank
you again for this opportunity to address the subcommittee. I am happy
to answer any questions members might pose.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Ms. Holden. Now Mr. Jack Trope
to testify.
STATEMENT OF JACK F. TROPE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION ON
AMERICAN INDIAN AFFAIRS, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND
Mr. TROPE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before the Committee. The Association on
American Indian Affairs, of which I am the Executive Director,
is an 80-year-old Indian advocacy organization. We have a
broad-based program, one part of which is in the field of
Indian child welfare. We have been involved in child welfare
for decades. We were instrumental in obtaining the enactment of
the Indian Child Welfare Act (P.L. 95-608), and since its
enactment, we have worked on policy with tribes to negotiate
tribal-State agreements, and we have provided training to,
among others, State employees and officials on Indian child
welfare. We have also had a longstanding interest in the issue
of adequate funding for tribal child welfare programs, having
testified before this Committee as far back as 1990 on these
issues. We applaud the Subcommittee for its efforts to
continually look at these issues, because they are vitally
important.
Obviously, the perspective that we have to offer has to do
with our work with Indian children, and we have some specific
recommendations about that--but I think some of our
observations are more broadly applicable to all children
involved with the system. First of all, I would like to say, in
terms of Indian children and the safety and well-being of
Indian children, we believe, like many others, that increasing
the resources available to children in need, and families in
need, is essential. One way in which this can be done for
Indian children that is different than other children is to tap
into tribal resources. As you probably know, Mr. Chairman,
tribal governments are separate governmental entities from
States. They provide child welfare services to children within
their own communities, but they also have a vital interest in
those children that are involved with State systems. We have
worked with tribes to negotiate tribal-State agreements that
cover a whole variety of items, including things like joint
planning, decisionmaking and service delivery, early notice to
tribes, maximum support to families to adjust to placements and
to deal with particular cultural needs, training exchanges, and
so forth. We believe that one way in which more resources can
be brought to bear for Indian children is through encouraging
tribal-State agreements that provide Indian children and
families who are in the State system with access to tribal
resources, tribal families, and tribal communities.
We would note, however, that in order for tribes to
effectively participate in those kinds of agreements, they also
need resources. Once again, I would remind the Committee that
many Indian children are not under State systems. They are
under tribal systems and under tribal jurisdiction, and we do
have Federal programs--most specifically the title IV-E foster
care program--that do not provide for direct funding to tribes,
and that is an oversight that this Committee, we hope, will
address. Congressman Camp is sponsoring legislation to do that,
and we applaud him for that. We know that this issue is being
considered on the Senate side--and that this legislation might
be part of the welfare reform reauthorization passed by the
Senate. If that is the case, we hope that Members of this
Subcommittee will advocate for it in conference. In addition,
for tribes and States to really work together effectively in a
partnership for Indian children, it is very important that
States have a commitment to the unique needs, circumstances,
and legal framework that pertains to Indian children. Right
now, the Indian Child Welfare Act is a unique law that applies
to Indian children, and there is no Federal oversight of the
implementation of that law. We urge you to designate a Federal
agency to do that.
More broadly, I want to talk about a couple of things that
I think are applicable to non-Indian children. One is based
upon something that is very typical in Indian communities--
namely, strength-based family healing systems. These are
systems where families come together with extended family,
community members, tribal employees, and whoever is
appropriate, to develop plans to deal with troubled families.
It is a concept very similar to what Mr. Bell talked about in
his testimony, when he talked about his Family Group Decision
Making, and bringing neighborhood resources and neighborhood
supports in for families. We think anything that can be done to
encourage these types of approaches would be very positive. The
other thing I would mention is that when we think about
permanency from a tribal perspective, permanency isn't just
about moving a child from one nuclear family to another. It is
about maintaining that child's connections with community, with
extended family, and with culture. This idea ties into the
notion of Family Group Decision Making, and is a way to
effectively deal with these problems outside of the legal
system. In conclusion, I would like to mention one thing a
family court judge once told me. She said that she felt like an
emergency room doctor. She said she patches up families, and
makes profound decisions in their lives based on inadequate and
conflicting information. Thus, I think that whatever we can do
to provide supports for families and keep these problems out of
the legal system, is a good thing for all children. I want to
thank you again for having us here, and I hope as you go
forward you will include us and other organizations that are
familiar with the needs of Indian children in developing your
legislation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Trope follows:]
Statement of Jack F. Trope, Executive Director, Association on American
Indian Affairs, Rockville, Maryland
Chairman Herger, Ranking Minority Member Cardin and other members
of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting us to testimony before the
Subcommittee.
The Association on American Indian Affairs is an 80 year old Indian
advocacy organization located in South Dakota and Maryland and governed
by an all-Native American Board of Directors. We have been involved
with Indian child welfare issues for decades and played a key role in
the enactment of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. We have not only
developed policy and been involved in legal proceedings, but also
worked with tribes to negotiate tribal-state partnerships to better
serve Indian children and have provided training to state employees and
officials about Indian child welfare. We have also had a long standing
interest in the issue of adequate funding for tribal child welfare
programs, having testified before this subcommittee about this issue as
far back as 1990.
We applaud the subcommittee for holding this oversight hearing and
allowing non-governmental organizations and individuals to offer
testimony on how state systems might better protect the safety and
well-being of children and promote permanency.
Obviously, the perspective that we have to offer has to do with our
work with Indian children. There are many recommendations that we could
present to the subcommittee. However, in part because of the short time
frame that we have had to prepare this testimony, we will focus upon
only a few--those least likely to be identified by other witnesses.
Some of the recommendations that we will offer will be applicable only
to Indian children. However, we believe that some of our
recommendations will also have broader applicability.
Safety and Well-being
There are several principles with which everyone involved in child
welfare agrees: children should remain with their families wherever
possible; if a child is in imminent risk of harm, it is appropriate to
remove the child from his family to ensure that the child is safe; and
if removal has taken place, reunification of the child with his or her
family is in most cases the first option that should be considered.
We believe that an important way to accomplish these goals is to
increase the availability of support services for families in crisis.
In the context of Indian children, we believe that this means
increasing the possibility that Indian families involved with the state
or county systems will have access to tribal services and resources, in
addition to those provided by the state or county.
An effective way that we have found to accomplish this end has been
through the negotiation of tribal-state agreements that specify how the
state will handle Indian child welfare cases and provide for tribal
involvement in that process. The agreement between the tribes in
Washington and the state of Washington, which we helped negotiate, is
an example of such an agreement. That agreement, among other things,
provides for joint planning, decision making and service delivery,
early notice to tribes and cooperation, maximum support to children and
families to adjust to placements, maximum support and services to care
providers regarding cultural needs, training exchanges and some state
funding for tribal programs.
In order for tribes to effectively participate in such agreements,
however, they need to have resources. Currently, tribes struggle to
maintain child welfare programs through a patchwork of funding--some
BIA money, extremely limited funds through Title IV-B, tribal resources
which are also usually limited and, in rare circumstances, state
support. Through an oversight when the law was enacted, tribes are not
eligible for the Title IV-E foster care/adoption assistance entitlement
program. It is important to remember that tribal governments are
distinct from state governments and tribal nations exercise their own
inherent sovereignty. Even aside from negatively impacting the ability
of tribes to productively contribute to state efforts to protect Indian
children, it must be emphasized that the lack of resources impacts the
tribe's ability to adequately serve Indian children living in Indian
country under tribal government jurisdiction. These children suffer
high rates of poverty and abuse and neglect, but yet are virtually left
out of this federal program. It is tragic that we have a federal
entitlement program to assist abused and neglected children who must be
removed from their homes, but have limited it to state governments and
the children under their jurisdiction.
We urge the subcommittee to rectify this problem and specifically
wish to thank Representative Camp of this Subcommittee for introducing
and seeking the enactment of H.R. 443 that would provide direct tribal
funding under the existing Title IV-E program. We understand that the
Senate is still considering whether to include this provision in its
Welfare Reauthorization bill. If it is included, we urge the members of
this Subcommittee to advocate for the provision in conference.
In addition, for these state-tribal beneficial partnerships to
develop fully, the state must have a commitment to proper
implementation of the Indian Child Welfare Act. Currently, no federal
agency takes responsibility for overseeing whether states are complying
with the ICWA. We believe that if Congress were to mandate that a
specific federal agency or agencies audit states for ICWA compliance,
this would help protect Indian children.
Finally, there are some lessons to be learned from Indian tribes
that might have a positive impact upon all children. One of the most
ubiquitous elements found in tribal codes on child welfare are
alternative dispute resolution provisions. These provisions typically
provide for informal conferences with the family and tribal employees
and/or community members that seek to develop a plan to remediate the
problem and obviate the need for court action. Many tribes also have
mechanisms for developing plans after a petition has been filed--a
consent decree with the family or something similar. The focus is to
heal everyone in the family as the best way to ultimately provide for
the well-being of the child. It builds upon the strengths that are
normally present even in troubled families, strengths can often best be
identified through involvement of extended family members or other
community members in such processes.
We believe that these strength-based family healing systems can
have application beyond Indian children. Having been involved in family
court proceedings as an attorney, I can state unequivocally that the
adversarial process is not well adapted to child abuse and neglect
situations. One family court judge of my acquaintance once likened
herself to an emergency room doctor--often trying to make difficult
decisions having dramatic impacts upon families with only limited and
often conflicting information available. It seems to us that promoting
conflict resolution systems that build on strengths and that pull
together all possible supportive parties and resources in pursuit of a
solution would improve the safety and well-being of all children.
Obviously, there are certain egregious abuse cases where such an
approach would not be feasible and we are not suggesting this type of
process would be appropriate for all situations. But severe abuse cases
are a small percentage of the overall child welfare caseload; many more
cases involve allegations of neglect and inadequate parenting. We
believe that a family/community non-adversarial process would be highly
feasible in most of these cases.
Permanency
We believe that child welfare systems and Congress must look at
permanency in an expansive way. Too often, permanency is thought of as
replacing a dysfunctional nuclear family with another functional
nuclear family. We think that this is too narrow of a view.
In almost all Indian cultures and communities, a child is thought
of as belonging not only to his or her parents, but to his
grandparents, uncles, aunts and other members of his extended family.
Where there is a clan system, that can also be an important source of
identity. Moreover, a child also has a broader sense of belonging to
the child's tribe and his or her culture as well.
This is reflected in many tribal codes. Tribes frequently recognize
the rights of extended family, grandparents and traditional custodians
to participate in judicial and informal proceedings and continued
visitation with such individuals is frequently mandated by tribal
courts or codes even where parental rights have been terminated.
Extended family is defined in many codes to include a large number of
people beyond those typically included in non-Indian definitions--
people such as clan and band members, individuals who traditionally
assist with parenting, any person viewed by the family as a relative,
first cousins of parents (defined as aunts and uncles), step-family and
godparents. Concepts such as grandparents may include brothers and
sisters of the child's lineal grandparents.
I experienced the importance of these connections first hand when I
was Director of the Western Area Office of the Save the Children. We
worked closely with a number of tribal communities, including Navajo
communities. When we would hold youth summits, we would usually start
by having the teenagers introduce themselves to each other. Most of the
Navajo youth would automatically introduce themselves through reference
to their clan and extended family relationships.
For most Indian tribes, any concept of permanency that would sever
a child's relationship with important family and community members who
are capable of providing love and support to the child (or that would
sever a connection with the tribe, tribal culture or, where applicable,
clan) makes no sense. We believe that this is true for many non-Indian
children as well--certainly, at a minimum, there are other ethnic
groups that have a similar sense of family and community. Maintaining a
child's non-parental connections, unless they are demonstrably harmful
to a child, promotes a child's well-being and sense of permanency in
the larger sense. Many states have been expanding the use of kinship
care, which we believe to be a positive development. In thinking about
child welfare issues, we hope that Congress will define permanency to
include the network of relationships that can benefit a child, and not
just focus upon the nuclear family.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we recommend the following:
Indian-specific recommendations
Encourage tribal-state agreements on Indian Child Welfare
Act compliance
Provide tribes with adequate resources for child welfare
programs, particularly by making tribes eligible for the Title IV-E
Foster Care Adoption Assistance program, as proposed by Rep. Camp in
H.R. 443
Mandate federal audits of state compliance with the
Indian Child Welfare Act
General recommendations
Encourage the development for certain types of child
welfare cases of alternative dispute resolution systems that involve
extended families and communities in a strength-based, non-adversarial
problem-solving process
Define permanency to include a continued connection
between a child and his or her extended family and community
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony and to
appear before the subcommittee.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Trope; we will do precisely
that. Now I would like to turn to Mr. Christopher Klicka for
his testimony.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER J. KLICKA, SENIOR COUNSEL, HOME SCHOOL
LEGAL DEFENSE ASSOCIATION, PURCELLVILLE, VIRGINIA
Mr. KLICKA. Thank you very much. It is a great privilege to
be here, and I hope I can add some good thoughts to child
welfare reform. I am coming from a fairly unique perspective. I
have been Senior Counsel of the Home School Legal Defense
Association for 18 years, and I have dealt with over 1,000
social worker situations where families, innocent families,
were turned in by anonymous tipsters. These anonymous tipsters
a lot of times had prejudice against the home schoolers because
they were teaching their children at home, and they tended to
fabricate many allegations to get the family in trouble. Other
situations where it is simply a relative--maybe it was a
religious thing where they didn't like it because it was a
Christian family. For about 95 percent of these 1,000 or more
allegations that I have dealt with, the source has been an
anonymous tip. This hasn't always been the case--where social
workers at the local level pursued anonymous tips in such a
thorough and complete manner. What their normal mode of
operation is, regardless of whether the tipster is identified
or not, they seek to come into the family's house, and they
seek to interview every member in the family--including the
children--and many times they like to do that separately.
Sometimes they like to just do a strip search. It is very
traumatic for the families. I have given in my written
testimony many, many examples of situations that have occurred,
and what happened to the families.
Now, the two solutions that I am recommending--because what
I am hearing from many of the panelists is that there really
isn't enough money being spent to fight child abuse. There are
cutbacks--Shay Bilchik said 8-percent cutbacks--and the
caseloads are meanwhile getting bigger and bigger. In my
experience, I see that one of the areas in which social workers
are wasting their time is with anonymous tips, because they
tend to be false. So, I am recommending that Congress require
some sort of changes throughout the States in order to get
their Federal funds to require tipsters to reveal their
identity when they call in. Of course, their identity would be
kept confidential by the social worker, but then the
consequences of giving false testimony or a false tip should be
made very clear. I believe that this will curtail tremendously
these false allegations on which social workers are wasting
their time, spinning their wheels, and traumatizing innocent
families in the process. The second suggestion would be to
require some sort of statutory mechanism where victims of
intentionally false allegations would be able to pursue their
tipsters with criminal charges.
Real abuse is taking place, and children are being hurt and
even killed. We need a child welfare system to investigate,
stop, and prosecute this horrible abuse--like what happened
recently in New Jersey. By limiting the investigation of
anonymous tips and penalizing false tipsters, social workers
will have far fewer cases to investigate, and the referrals
will be far more accurate. This way, they can give the
requisite time and attention to real child abuse cases instead
of being spread thin pursuing anonymous tips that usually turn
out to be unfounded. I give a lot of statistics on how for over
half of all the people who are investigated for child abuse,
the information turns out to be unfounded--and there is a large
percentage of those that are anonymous tips. I have found that
if people have to identify themselves, they are going to be a
lot more careful about using the system to hurt people. Also, I
have talked with many social workers one-on-one. There was a
social worker in Georgia who confessed that 90 percent of all
her cases turned out to be unfounded, and she felt like she was
just spinning her wheels. In Alabama and Florida, I met two
social workers who now are home schooling their children, and
they said 60 to 70 percent of their cases were unfounded.
Thousands of families are being hurt by this process.
Just to give you one example of the many that I document in
here, there is a family in Wisconsin, a home-schooled family,
and this was the tip that the anonymous tipster gave. The
caller was concerned because the children were all thin, and
thought that removal of food was a possible form of discipline.
The caller thought this discipline may have been a practice of
the parents' religion, which is thought to have been born-again
Christian. The caller thought that these parents give a lot of
money to the church and spend little money on groceries. The
caller's last, somewhat passing concern, was that the mother
was home schooling her children. The tip turned out to be
bogus. The only true thing was that they were actually home
schooling. I think this Committee should take a look at the
possibility of having some compliance procedures that States
would follow that would enable their investigations to go much
smoother, and not have to waste so much time pursuing false
allegations.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Klicka follows:]
Statement of Christopher J. Klicka, Senior Counsel, Home School Legal
Defense Association, Purcellville, Virginia
My name is Christopher J. Klicka, and I serve as Senior Counsel of
the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA). Since 1985, I have
counseled and legally represented nearly a thousand home school
families who were harassed by social workers investigating child abuse
tips they received from their child abuse hotlines. Ninety-five percent
of the tips were anonymous. The other attorneys in our organization
have handled a similar number of these legal conflicts.
I have seen first hand the trauma innocent families have
experienced at the hands of social workers pursuing anonymous tips.
The Home School Legal Defense Association is a nonprofit legal
advocacy organization dedicated to protecting parental freedom
generally and promoting the right to home school. At this time, we
represent over 76,000 member families (i.e. approximately 250,000
children and 150,000 parents.)
Over these last 18 years, I have drafted state legislation on child
welfare reform, lobbied on this issue before state legislatures and the
Congress, and written and spoke extensively on the abuses of families
by the present child welfare system. As a constitutional attorney who
has represented hundreds of families involved in child welfare legal
conflicts, investigations, and court cases, I have been exposed to many
abuses in the child welfare system.
What happens when anonymous tips are allowed to be used to justify
entry into a home or private interviews with children is that enemies
can phone in a tip. People who are disgruntled with the family can
phone in a tip. People who don't like the fact that a particular family
is homeschooling can call in a tip and turn that family's life upside
down.
The purpose of my testimony is to offer some possible solutions to
real abuses that I have encountered over the years. By incorporating
these reforms, Congress and the states can save money and encourage
states to enable their child welfare workers to better stewards of
their time.
The two solutions I recommend are:
1. Require all tipsters to reveal their identity and address to
the social worker. The social worker will keep this information
confidential but warn them of consequences of giving intentionally
false information. This will prevent the majority of bogus allegations
that anonymous tipsters give who use the system to get back people.
2. Require all states to have a statutory mechanism for victims of
intentionally false allegations to pursue the tipsters with criminal
charges.
Real abuse is taking place. Children are being hurt and even
killed. We need a child welfare system to investigate, stop, and
prosecute this horrible abuse of children. By eliminating the
investigation of anonymous tips and penalizing intentionally false
tipsters, social workers will have far less cases to investigate and
the referrals will be far more accurate. This way they can give the
requisite time and attention to real child abuse cases instead of being
``spread so thin'' pursuing anonymous tips that usually turn out to be
unfounded. Eliminating investigation of anonymous tips will largely
stop tipsters from using the system to harass people they do not like
or are prejudiced against. Eliminating anonymous tips will also better
protect innocent families parental and 4th amendment rights.
Pursuing False Allegations Reduces Time and Attention to Investigating
Real Abuse Cases
I have talked with over 1,000 social workers over the last 18
years, many whom have indicated that they waste much of their time
pursuing anonymous tips that turn out to be fabrications. After
resolving a false allegation with a particular Chicago social worker
over the phone, the social worker informed me that well over 50% of all
referrals, most of which are anonymous, to her child welfare agency are
``unfounded.'' Unfortunately, she complained, many of the cases are
deemed unfounded after families are broken apart and children are put
in foster homes.
A social worker in Georgia, after we resolved a fabricated
allegation concerning a homeschooler, confessed that 90% of all the
cases of alleged child abuse she handled turned out to be
``unfounded.'' She explained that she spent most of her time ``spinning
her wheels'' pursuing anonymous tips. She felt the number of false
allegations coming into her office were on the rise.
In Alabama and Florida, I met two former social workers who were
now home schooling their children. Both admitted that intimidation was
a routine procedure which they were taught and which they always used
to get their way. Their goal, in fact, was to get into the house and
talk with the children, no matter what the allegation. Both of these
social workers admitted that 60% to 70% of their cases were
``unfounded'' and mostly anonymous.
Since so many social workers are ``spinning their wheels'' pursuing
anonymous tips that often turn out to be false, they waste much money
and time their time. It would be far more effective to find the real
child abusers if anonymous tips were prohibited. Requiring tipsters to
identify themselves to the social worker would virtually completely
prevent social workers from having to investigate false allegations. Of
course, the tipster identification would be protected by the social
worker until the conclusion of the case. This way, the social workers
could spend their time pursuing real allegations and catching real
child abusers.
Thousands of Innocent Families are Traumatized Over Anonymous Tipsters
Using the System to Hurt People
I can provide much-documented abuses of social workers using
anonymous tips and how families were traumatized. For example, in
Wisconsin, a home school family was reported by an anonymous tipster. I
secured a copy of the report by the social worker which said:
``The caller was concerned because the children were all thin and
thought that removal of food was possibly a form of discipline. The
caller thought this discipline may have been a practice of the parents'
religion which was thought to have been Born Again. The caller thought
that these parents give a lot of money to the church and spend little
money on groceries. The caller's last, somewhat passing concern, was
that [the mother] home schools her children.''
As usual, the anonymous tip was bogus. It is apparent from the
report that the caller was biased against both the fact that the family
was home schooling and that they were born again Christians. The social
worker insisted on entry into the home and interrogate the children.
One family had recently moved to Florida. Within weeks, they were
visited by a truant officer who questioned the legality of their
schooling. The truant officer left and reported them to the Health and
Human Services department. A few days later, an HHS agent appeared at
the door and demanded to interview the children within 24 hours or he
would send for the police. The allegations were that ``the children
were home during school hours and the children were sometimes left
alone.'' I explained the legality of their home schooling and denied
the ``lack of supervision'' charge. (The family only had one car and
the father took it to work leaving the mother at home). I then called
his bluff and refused to have the children interviewed. After talking
with the parents, we allowed him to come by the door and see the
children only from a distance. He finally closed the case because he
had no evidence except an anonymous tip.
A really outlandish investigation involved a home school family in
New Jersey. In the first visit, the agent from the Division of Youth
and Family Services accused the mother of kidnapping some of her
children because she had so many children. The mother produced birth
certificates to prove the children were hers. The following year,
another agent came by and said that someone called and reported that
the ``children were seen outside during school hours.'' She demanded to
enter the house but, under my instruction, the mother refused. Although
she knew it was only an anonymous tip, the agent then said she would be
back with the police. She never came back that day, showing that she
was only bluffing.
In California, a single mother was contacted by a social worker
with allegations that ``children were not in school, mother was
incapacitated, and caretaker was absent.'' I talked with the social
worker and she admitted the allegations were based solely on an
anonymous tip. However, she insisted on talking with the children
separately. When I objected, she said she would get a police officer
and that she did not need a warrant. We held our ground and she settled
for a meeting with the mother and a witness only.
One of our member families had just moved into Alabama two weeks
earlier and had not really met anyone in their neighborhood yet.
However, the Department of Human Resources agent received an
``anonymous tip'' that the children had ``bruises'' and demanded a
``strip search!'' When I refused to allow a ``strip search,'' the agent
became upset and stammered, ``No one else ever refused a strip search
before!'' She also implied the family had something to hide.
The above comment of the social worker in Alabama is a common
response which I hear from social workers frequently concerning all
kinds of demands. They are personally offended that we would refuse to
let them into the home or interview the children. Many of them
insinuate the family must be guilty even though they have nothing but
an anonymous tip.
In Appendix I, I relate more true accounts of social workers
harassing innocent parents over the last few months. All these examples
simply demonstrate the desperate need for consistency in applying a
constitutional standard in the all the state child welfare codes.
Court Precedent: the Fourth Amendment and Anonymous Tips and Social
Workers
The 4th Amendment applies to all 50 states. It guarantees:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue,
but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.
Yet social workers do not believe it applies to them and they
pursue anonymous tips to the detriment of innocent families 4th
amendment rights.
It is time for the Congress to take the lead to protect these
precious 4th Amendment rights of the over 1 million innocent parents
being abused by the state child welfare systems, largely by anonymous
tipsters..
Below are some of the key cases that define how the 4th Amendment
applies to social workers.
The Home School Legal Defense Association won its first significant
case in this area in 1993, when the Alabama Court of Appeals construed
the term ``cause shown'' in a state child abuse investigation statute
to mean ``reasonable or probable cause to believe that a crime is being
or about to be committed,'' since any other reading might conflict with
the Fourth Amendment. H.R. v. Dept. of Human Resources, 609 S.E.2d 477
(Ala. Civ. App. 1993). In H.R., HSLDA represented a low-income home
school mother who was contacted by a social worker over some
allegations of child abuse and educational neglect. Under counsel from
HSLDA, the family refused to allow the social worker to come into the
home or to interrogate the children. In order to muscle this family,
charges of child neglect were brought based on no evidence whatsoever:
only based on an anonymous tipster who admitted she did not have
personal knowledge of the family's situation.
However, a hearing was held on whether an anonymous tip was enough
to require the social worker to enter the home and interrogate the
children. The lower court agreed that it was and issued a search
warrant.
HSLDA appealed the decision to the Alabama Court of Appeals on the
basis that the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution requires government
officials to have ``probable cause'' (some kind of reliable evidence)
to enter individuals' homes. The Alabama Court of Appeals reversed:
We suggest, however, that the power of the courts to permit
invasions of the privacy protected by our federal and state
constitutions, is not to be exercised except upon a showing of
reasonable or probable cause to believe that a crime is being or is
about to be committed or a valid regulation is being or is about to be
violated. . . .
The `cause shown' [in this case] was unsworn hearsay and could, at
best, present a mere suspicion. A mere suspicion is not sufficient to
rise to reasonable or probable cause.
H.R. v. Department of Human Resources, 609 So. 2d 477 (Ct. Civ.
App. ALA 1993)
In the years since 1993, court after court has rejected the myth
that social workers are exempt from the requirements of the Fourth
Amendment.
In Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 1999), for example,
a case we litigated, the unconstitutional strip search took place on
October 27, 1994. The federal district court denied the social worker's
summary judgment motion for qualified immunity, and the Ninth Circuit
affirmed that ruling on Aug. 26, 1999.
The Fourth Amendment rights case was originally filed February 24,
1995, by HSLDA on behalf of Robert and Shirley Calabretta in the
Eastern District of California federal court, after a Yolo County
policeman and social worker illegally entered the Calabretta home and
strip searched their three-year-old daughter. The policeman and social
worker forced their way in the home over the objections of the mother
based simply on an anonymous tip. The tipster merely said she heard a
cry in the night from the Calabretta home, ``No Daddy no!'' After the
coerced entry, interrogation of the children, and the strip search of
the three-year-old, no evidence of abuse was found and the officials
ended the investigation. The police officer and social worker said
``thank you'' and left.
The Ninth Circuit came down hard against the social workers for
violating the 4th Amendment:
We held, years before the coerced entry into the Calabretta home,
that even in the context of an administrative search, ``[n]owhere is
the protective force of the fourth amendment more powerful than it is
when the sanctity of the home is involved. . . . Therefore, we have
been adamant in our demand that absent exigent circumstances a warrant
will be required before a person's home is invaded by the
authorities.'' 189 F.2d at 817, quoting Los Angeles Police Protective
League v. Gates, 907 F.2d 879, 884 (9th Cir.1990).
The reasonable expectation of privacy of individuals in their homes
includes the interests of both parents and children in not having
government officials coerce entry in violation of the Fourth Amendment
and humiliate the parents in front of the children. An essential aspect
of the privacy of the home is the parent's and the child's interest in
the privacy of their relationship with each other. 189 F.2d at 820.
The precedent is very clear. The 4th Amendment does apply to social
workers. This landmark decision of Calabretta v. Floyd, makes it
perfectly clear that social workers are bound to obey the U.S.
Constitution when investigating child abuse cases. With respect to the
Fourth Amendment, the Ninth Circuit settled the social worker question
once and for all. No longer can social workers enter a home without
either a warrant or probable cause of an emergency. It is a myth that
Child Protective Services agencies are exempted from the Fourth
Amendment's prohibitions against illegal searches and seizures.
In another case in California, on Tuesday, May 18, 1999, at
approximately 3:00 p.m., two social workers from Child Protective
Services arrived at the DeSantis home to investigate an anonymous
complaint of child abuse. The social workers insisted upon entry to
investigate allegations of physical abuse, to examine the utilities,
and to make certain that the children had adequate food and clothing.
``You do not have my consent to enter, but the gate is open,'' Mrs.
DeSantis told the workers. Despite the mother's objections, Debbie
Mulvane and Sandy Knabb pushed through the gate and marched into the
house.
Once inside, they strip-searched the two younger children and
subjected the seven year old to a traumatizing private interview. As
the social workers left, they stated that the referral was a hoax and
the case would be closed.
On March 2, 2000, HSLDA filed a civil rights lawsuit on behalf of
the DeSantis family against the social workers for violating the
family's Fourth Amendment right against entry without a warrant.
After long negotiations, the social workers finally agreed to pay
Mr. and Mrs. DeSantis $40,000 to avoid a trial.
In another HSLDA case, Marsh v. Bellanca, based on anonymous tip,
officials entered a home without consent. On February 1, 2001, HSLDA
filed a civil rights suit against the Riverside County child welfare
agency. A social worker visited one of our member fathers in Riverside,
California, and advised that he was investigating child neglect and
abuse because the son was not registered in public school. Even though
it was July 20, 2000, and school was not in session, the father
explained that his son was enrolled in a private school. The social
worker admitted the report was anonymous.
Nevertheless, the worker insisted that the child needed to be
interviewed. The father objected, but the two uniformed officers
accompanying the worker pushed their way past him. Mr. Marsh advised
the officers that they had entered against his will and that he was
going to contact his attorney. The social worker inspected the child's
sleeping quarters and then interviewed the child out of the presence of
the father. Mr. Marsh gave the social worker the name and phone of the
private school, as well as the birth dates of himself and his wife. The
officials left, but indicated that the investigation may not be over.
In addition to the 4th Amendment rights, parents also have ``the
fundamental right to direct the education and upbringing of their
children'' as guaranteed under the 14th amendment of the U.S.
Constitution. The United States Supreme Court made it clear that these
are, in fact, fundamental federal rights. In Troxel v. Granville, 530
U.S. 57 (2000), the Court struck down a Washington state statute that
allowed juvenile courts to order third party visitation without any
showing of parental unfitness or harm to the child. The Court ruled
that this statute deprived parents of a federally protected liberty
interest without due process of law.
This affirms a long line of U.S. Supreme Court case starting with
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), Pierce v. Society of Sisters,
268 U.S. 510 (1925), Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), and
Parham v. J.R., 442 US 584 (1979). The treatment many parents are
receiving at the hands of social workers pursuing anonymous tips,
violates parent's fundamental rights to direct the upbringing of their
children.
Solutions to Reform the Child Welfare System
I offer two solutions to prevent unnecessary trauma to families
while saving state and Federal Governments millions of dollars in
following ``wild goose chases.''
1. Anonymous Tips: As a condition of receiving federal funds,
states should be mandated to require all reporters of child abuse to
give their names, addresses and phone numbers. This will curtail false
reporting and end harassment using anonymous tips. The appropriate
legislation should be amended by adding a requirement that ``each state
must establish provisions and procedures to assure that no reports
shall be investigated unless the person making such a report provides
such person's name, address and telephone number and that the
information is independently verified.''
2. False Reporting: As a condition of receiving federal funds,
states should be required to make it at least a class C misdemeanor to
knowingly make a false report. ``States shall establish penalties for
any individuals who knowingly or maliciously makes a false report of
any type of child abuse or neglect that includes a provision stating
that such persons shall also be liable to any injured party for
compensatory and punitive damages and a provision requiring that all
reporters be informed of the penalties for false reporting and that the
call is being recorded.''
Seventeen (17) states have penalties for false reports in their
child welfare code.
Conclusion: Congress Needs To Free Social Workers to Pursue Real Abuse
Cases
Real abuse is taking place. Children are being hurt and even
killed. We need a child welfare system to investigate, stop, and
prosecute this horrible abuse of children. By eliminating the
investigation of anonymous tips and penalizing intentionally false
tipsters, social workers will have far less cases to investigate and
the referrals will be far more accurate. This way they can give the
requisite time and attention to real child abuse cases instead of being
``spread so thin'' pursuing anonymous tips that usually turn out to be
unfounded. Eliminating investigation of anonymous tips will largely
stop tipsters from using the system to harass people they do not like
or are prejudiced against. Eliminating anonymous tips will also better
protect innocent families parental and 4th amendment rights.
______
APPENDIX I
True Accounts of Social Workers Wasting Time Pursuing Anonymous Tips
and Traumatizing Innocent Families.
Michigan: ``What Is the Fourth Amendment Again?''
Mr. and Mrs. A* were enjoying an extended out-of-state trip with
their family. While checking their answering machine, they discovered a
message from a local child protective services worker. Mr. A called CPS
to find out what was going on. Apparently, an anonymous person had
alleged that Mr. A's children were being ``beaten'' and that one had a
black eye. The charges were completely false, but the CPS worker
insisted that, as soon as they arrived back from their trip, he come
into their home and interview each child, including their three year
old.
Upon my advice, the family submitted a statement from their doctor,
giving the family a clean bill of health and several character
references.
However, the CPS worker still insisted that the law required him to
come into the house and interview the children. When I challenged him
that this was not in the law, he was not able to produce any authority
to the contrary.
When I told the CPS worker we simply wanted to protect the family's
Fourth Amendment rights, he asked ``What is the Fourth Amendment
again?'' This man has been a social worker for 20 years, and yet he did
not know what the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says! The
Fourth Amendment is the key Due Process protection that every law
enforcement officer must follow.
I reminded the social worker that he had no right to enter the home
and interview the children without a warrant or court order signed by a
judge. The anonymous tip he had received was false and did not rise to
the level of probable cause. After 30 minutes of discussion, the
situation was finally resolved to the satisfaction of the parents, and
the social worker determined that allegations were unfounded.
Kentucky--Social Worker Says Home Schooling Without Certified Teacher
Illegal
Pendleton County, Kentucky--Two of the most common legal
difficulties home schoolers face are anonymous tips to social services
by people who are not familiar with all the facts of a situation or
government officials who do not know the law. Last week, a single
mother in Kentucky faced both problems during an unpleasant social
services investigation.
Mrs. T, who home schools her three children, was making
preparations to move out of her house. As part of these preparations,
the electricity was turned off. Unfortunately, the house she was
planning to move into was not immediately available, so she and her
children temporarily moved in with her mother, who lives close by.
An unknown person reported the T family to the Kentucky Department
of Children and Families, claiming that the children were living in a
house without any electricity and were not attending school.
When a social worker came to Mrs. T's door while the family was
packing, Mrs. T explained the circumstances. However, the social worker
demanded entry to talk to the children about their schooling. Claiming
that home schooling is illegal in Kentucky unless the teacher is state-
certified, she threatened to remove the children from the home.
Mrs. T called HSLDA, and HSLDA immediately informed the social
worker that Kentucky law allows parents to teach their children at
home, and that Mrs. T was in full compliance with the law. After the
local public school confirmed that Mrs. T had indeed sent in her notice
this year, the social worker agreed to drop all of the allegations.
Nevada--Family Successfully Handles Hostile Investigation
NEVADA--Mrs. P was at the library around lunchtime with several of
her children, who began telling her that they were ``starving.''
Evidently, someone overheard them and called in an anonymous tip to
Child Protective Services, claiming that the children were ``starving
and dirty.'' This complaint resulted in an aggressive investigation.
A few days later, a social worker visited Mr. and Mrs. P at home.
They explained the situation at the library and brought the children to
talk to him, so that he could see they were well fed. But that wasn't
enough--the social worker then demanded to enter the home, which Mr.
and Mrs. P respectfully denied.
When the P family told HSLDA about the investigation, HSLDA
contacted the social worker and explained that the Fourth Amendment
protected our member's right to deny his entry without a warrant or an
emergency.
Several weeks passed. Suddenly, the social worker showed up on the
family's doorstep, again demanding entrance. Mr. and Mrs. P called
HSLDA and handed the phone to the social worker. After HSLDA reiterated
the family's rights and the family showed the official that they had
food on hand, he yelled at Mrs. P and left.
The next day, the social worker's supervisor called Mrs. P and,
after vigorously complaining that the family had been
``uncooperative,'' informed her that the case was unfounded.
Missouri--HSLDA Defends Family from False Allegations
The W family in Missouri, Home School Legal Defense Association
members, was visited by a social worker investigating allegations that
their children were not in school.
When the social worker arrived at their door, Mr. W immediately
called HSLDA. We talked to the social worker to discover the specific
allegations from the anonymous tipster and then explained Mr. and Mrs.
W's constitutional rights.
In response to the allegation of truancy, we told the social worker
that the W family was home schooling in compliance with Missouri law.
While she quickly dropped that claim, as required by state law, she
still insisted upon investigating other allegations, including that of
physical neglect and unsafe living conditions.
We advised Mr. and Mrs. W to have their children examined by their
family pediatrician. The doctor gave them all a clean bill of health
and wrote the social worker a letter to this effect.
In addition, we were able to find a friend of the W family who was
a police officer. He examined the house and reported to the social
worker that there were no unsafe conditions.
After we supplied the social worker with all this information, the
W family had no further contact from her.
Indiana--Social Workers Refuse to Disclose Allegations
Based on only an anonymous tip of ``possible child neglect,''
social workers from the Jackson County Office of Family and Children
contacted Mr. and Mrs. Bailey* demanding to enter their home to
interrogate their child. When the Baileys asked about the allegations
against them, the social workers refused to provide them with any
information.
The Baileys immediately contacted Home School Legal Defense
Association for assistance. When we talked to the social workers, they
refused to reveal the allegations either, even though a newly-passed
federal law states that social workers are supposed to explain what the
allegations are when they first contact the family. Attorney Tom
Washburne of HSLDA followed up with several letters to the attorney who
represents the Office of Family and Children, but they still refused to
cooperate.
Finally, the social workers laid down an ultimatum--either
surrender the child for an interview on the still-unknown allegations,
or face court action. The Baileys decided to stand on their Fourth
Amendment rights, so the social workers' attorney filed a motion with
the court to force an interview with the Baileys' child. However, even
in this motion, the Office of Family and Children never disclosed the
content of the anonymous allegations.
HSLDA quickly opposed this motion, since the court would have to
rule blindly on whether to grant a warrant. We argued that the
constitutional right to due process requires that parties be informed
of the factual basis for allegations against them before a hearing so
that they may be able to prepare. Indiana law has long recognized that
parents have a right to know the nature of the allegations against them
before a hearing. Under state law, when the attorney filed the motion
with the court, he was supposed to also file a statement of facts
explaining the allegations. In addition, under Indiana law, anonymous
tips are not sufficient for a court to issue a warrant.
Apparently realizing that this was a losing battle, the social
workers' attorney finally called HSLDA and told us the nature of the
anonymous tip.
After discussing the matter with the family, we discovered that a
stranger had misinterpreted some perfectly innocent behavior. Armed
with the facts, the Baileys were then able to resolve the matter with
social services quickly.
Texas--Neglect Case Dismissed
The Wilson family in Longview, Texas was surprised to be contacted
by the Child Protective Services based on an anonymous tip that their
children were being neglected. The parents wisely refused to let the
social workers talk to the children. A week later, the social worker
returned escorted by a deputy sheriff.
The allegations were ``children are malnourished, they used
homeopathy, had home births, no social security numbers for the
children, homeschooled, unsupervised near lake, sores on children, and
14-month old was not fed any solids.''
HSLDA was able to prove that these allegations were completely
false.
The social worker demanded to interview the children. HSLDA offered
to allow an interview as long as a third person was present. Instead of
responding, the social worker obtained a court order to gain entry into
the family's home. Providentially, the Wilson family was on vacation
and the summons was never delivered.
Upon review of the allegations in the social worker's affidavit to
obtain the court order, HSLDA discovered that the social worker had
misstated the facts. We reached the social worker's supervisor and
worked out an understanding to withdraw the court order if the social
worker interviewed the children with the parents present. The
supervisor found no evidence of abuse and stated: ``This has been a
mistake.'' The investigation has been closed and all allegations have
been dismissed.
A formal complaint has been issued against the social worker who
obtained the court order.
Texas--Education Neglect When School's Out?
In July, the Lewis family was turned into the Child Protective
Services by an anonymous tipster. One of the allegations was that the
family homeschools their six year old child. The tipster indicated that
the child cannot read. The fact is that the child can read, at the
level of a six year old. Furthermore, this allegation is truly absurd
as school is not in session; therefore, no educational neglect can
occur.
To show the extent that some anonymous tipsters will go to try to
get a family in trouble, they asserted that the children swim in a
``feed trough.'' The family lives in the city and has no close
proximity to any feed troughs, which simply demonstrates that the
tipster was malicious. HSLDA has communicated with the CPS worker that
she has no right to enter into the home, nor to talk to the children
separately. We believe that this situation will resolve quickly.
Florida--Homeschoolers Face Aggressive Child Protection Investigators
The Wilkins family was homeschooling their children in Palm Bay,
pursuant to the Florida home school law. Little did they know their
life would turn upside down when the Dad was seen lightly spanking
their two-year old on the diaper in a parking lot.
The anonymous tipster called the police who met the homeschool
father at the home when he returned. The father showed the police the
2-year old and they were satisfied that there was no injury. However,
the incident was referred to the Florida Department of Children and
Families. A social worker came to the home and talked at length with
the parents and children. Although the social worker found no evidence
of abuse, she demanded that the parents: 1) take 22 weeks of parenting
classes through the County, 2) have a social worker visit once a month
for an indefinite period of time to see how they are doing, and 3) sign
a statement of release allowing the social worker to get documents and
medical records from any source they choose. Then she indicated that
they would seek a court order if the family did not cooperate.
At this point the family contacted Home School Legal Defense
Association because they did not believe that the law required them to
fulfill the demands of this social worker.
HSLDA Attorney Chris Klicka contacted the child protective
investigator who at first did not want to back down from her demands.
She indicated that the family was at risk. When Chris Klicka asked why,
she told him the Wilkins have a large family (four children), they
homeschool and have a low profile in the community, and they do not
have daily contact with trained people who can detect child abuse, such
as those who run the local public school. She also admitted that the
children look fine and there was no marks on them, nor any concerns
that abuse was actually taking place.
After much discussion on the phone, the social worker insisted that
she would need to get a court order if her earlier demands were not
satisfied. HSLDA immediately responded with a 4-page letter explaining
that the Florida statutes say ``corporal discipline of a child by a
parent--for disciplinary purposes, does not constitute abuse when it
does not result in harm to the child.'' This statute further explains
that corporal punishment would only be abusive if there were clear-cut
injuries (sprains, dislocations, or significant bruises). Furthermore,
Mr. Klicka pointed out that in order for a child to be taken from a
family, or a court order issued, there must evidence that the children
are under substantial risk of eminent abuse or neglect.
In this case, the fact that they have a large family homeschool,
and no contact with daycare centers or public schools, is not
sufficient evidence to constitute a substantial risk of abuse.
Mr. Klicka ended the letter by establishing the constitutional and
statutory right of a family to homeschool and the fact that if her risk
factors were applied, every homeschool family in the state of Florida
would be guilty of abuse.
The social worker finally withdrew her demands and the family is
able to continue homeschooling without further harassment.
Florida--Social Worker Attempts to Intimidate Family with Police
The Morris family in Orlando was homeschooling, but the parents
decided to separate for a time due to some marriage issues. When the
family returned to the home where the father was still staying, they
were surprised to be met by a child protective investigator.
Apparently, an anonymous tip came from someone out-of-state, who
invented a false story about the father. The family immediately called
HSLDA after the social worker came back a second time. The social
worker demanded to interview the children and demanded entry to the
house. HSLDA Attorney Chris Klicka argued with the social worker over
the phone for thirty minutes while she waited on the doorstep. Finally,
in exasperation, after getting one police officer, she said, ``I will
get four more police officers.'' Attorney Klicka responded, ``You can
get a whole army of police officers, but you still cannot come into the
home without a warrant.'' An anonymous tip is not sufficient evidence
to get any type of court order.
This homeschool family had restored their relationship, but it was
nearly broken asunder by the harassment of the social services. Finally
the child protective investigator and the police left the house without
gaining entry and interviewing the children. At this time, a family has
been left alone.
Michigan--Several Contacts
An anonymous tipster told the Empire Child Protective Services that
Mr. and Mrs. Frankfurt's daughter was not being properly socialized and
was ``isolated'' by homeschooling. This Home School Legal Defense
Association member family contacted our office for help.
HSLDA Senior Counsel Christopher Klicka explained to the social
service agent that these allegations were false and supplied references
who could vouch for the parents' responsible care of their child. The
girl was thriving in her homeschooling program and was active with a
local weekly science class, 4-H club, church, and other youth-related
activities. She had just taken two trips during the last two weekends
to other states.
In the face of clear evidence disproving the allegations, the
social workers dropped the case.
No Interview Needed
Macomb Child Protective Services contacted the Johns family in
Macomb County, concerning anonymous allegations that the father had a
serious kidney illness and was not receiving sufficient care. On our
member's behalf, HSLDA attorney Chris Klicka explained to CPS that Mr.
Johns was not only receiving good care, but could care for himself.
Suspicious that the daughter was caring for her father rather than
homeschooling, CPS insisted on interviewing her privately. HSLDA
established that the allegations were false, providing documentation
and a letter describing the law and the Fourth Amendment limitations of
CPS. CPS finally closed the case.
False Allegations
In Dowagiac, an anonymous tipster accused the Marris family of
having a messy home, using drugs, and neglecting the medical condition
of their daughter. After CPS attempted several times to visit the home
to enter and interview the child, the Marris asked HSLDA for
assistance. HSLDA provided alternative evidence that the allegations
were false and CPS closed the case as ``unfounded.''
Colorado--Allegation of ``Small'' Child
Mr. and Mrs. Stein of Parker County, Colorado, were quietly
homeschooling their four children when a Child Protective Services
(CPS) worker contacted them with an anonymous allegation that one of
their children was ``small'' and that they were neglecting medical
attention to this child.
The family contacted Home School Legal Defense Association for
assistance. We demonstrated to the social worker that the allegation
was false and provided a letter from the ``small'' child's pediatrician
that gave the child a clean bill of health. Based on this
communication, the CPS worker declared the allegation had ``no
validity,'' and the situation was resolved.
* Names of families changed to protect privacy.
______
APPENDIX II
Unfounded Cases are Artificially Increasing Child Abuse Statistics
While Parents' Rights Suffer
Here are a few statistics showing the great percentage of cases
that are unfounded. Many of the unfounded cases are results of
anonymous tips.
In a single representative year (1986) the American Humane
Association (hereafter, ``AHA'') reported 2,086,112 allegations of
abuse or neglect.[1] Unfortunately, most of these
allegations turned out to be either false or trivial. After
investigation, only 737,000 of these cases of reported abuse or neglect
were found to be valid. The other 1,349,000 were unsupported by
evidence.[2] AHA's percentage of substantiated cases are
generally consistent from year to year.[3]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[1]\ American Humane Association, Highlights of Official Child
Neglect and Abuse Reporting 1986, p. 10.
\[2]\ Id., at 11.
\[3]\ More than 65 percent of all reports of suspected child
maltreatment in 1978 turned out to be unfounded. U.S. National Center
on Child Abuse, National Analysis of Child Neglect and Abuse Report 36
(1978), Table 28 (DHEW 1979), at 18, table 5. Another study reported in
over half of the cases investigated parents never mistreated their
children. U.S. National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, National
Study on the Incidence and Severity of Child Abuse and Neglect 11,
(DHHS 1981), at 16, Table 3-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other studies have consistently shown similarly low levels of
validity for child abuse and neglect allegations. One study involving
an actual review of every case for a 20-year period from one county
determined that only 39 percent of all reported cases of abuse or
neglect were substantiated.[4]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[4]\ Dean K. Knudsen, Ph.D., Department of Sociology and
Anthropology, Purdue University, Child Protective Services, Discretion,
Decisions, Dilemmas, Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, Springfield,
Illinois, (1988), p. 81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While 737,000 is still a large number of abused and neglected
children, even this figure bears further analysis to avoid overstating
the problem. AHA offers the following breakdown by type of abuse or
neglect.
Major Physical Injury 21,000
Minor Physical Injury 115,000
Other Physical Injury 84,000
Sexual Maltreatment 132,000
Deprivation of Necessities 429,000
Emotional Maltreatment 71,000
Other Maltreatment 34,000 [5]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[5]\ Id., at 23. Because of the use of different data sources, the
numbers in the AHA study vary from chart to chart. This particular
chart totals 784,000 cases of maltreatment while at page 10, AHA uses
the number of 737,000 of confirmed cases.
In New Hampshire, the Department of Child and Youth Services (DCYS)
data shows that in 1991, there was 6,434 abuse reports. Believe it or
not, 5,524 of those reports turned out to be false! This means 86.2% of
all child abuse reports were false. The statistics over the last eight
years show that the number of founded cases is dropping and yet the
number of false child abuse reports is rising. In 1984, 54% of the
child abuse reports turned out to be false. There were 3,855 abuse
reports of which 1,814 were founded and 2,041 were false. In 1990, 86%
of the child abuse reports were found to be false. There were a
shocking 5,616 abuse reports with only 709 which were proven to be
founded or legitimate abuse allegations and 4,907 turned out to be
false child abuse reports! [6] The system is out of control.
Many thousands of innocent families are being abused by the system.
Furthermore, Representative Gary Daniels of New Hampshire has federal
statistics that demonstrate that approximately 62% of children taken
from their homes were taken without justification.[7]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[6]\ ``Is DCYS Running Out of Abusers?'' Christian Home Schooling
News, Vol. 2, No. 4, April/May 1992, Manchester, New Hampshire, p. 3.
\[7]\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An important book was published in 1990 that confirms much of
reports above and provide important documentation of the frequent
abuses of the modern child welfare system: Wounded Innocents, by
Richard Wexler (1990).[8]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[8]\ Richard Wexler, Wounded Innocents: The Real Victims of the
War Against Child Abuse, (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In his book, Wounded Innocents, Wexler warns:
The war against child abuse has become a war against children.
Every year, we let hundreds of children die, force thousands more to
live with strangers, and throw a million innocent families into
chaos.[9]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[9]\ Wexler, Wounded Innocents, p. 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
He demonstrates further that the hotlines, used often by anonymous
tipsters, have become a ``potent tool for harassment.'' He states,
through the state child abuse laws, ``We have effectively repealed the
Fourth Amendment, which protects both parents and children against
unreasonable searches and seizures.'' He shows the child welfare system
often denies due process to the ``accused'' child
abusers.[10]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[10]\ Ibid., p. 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wexler also confirms the AHA statistics above. In actuality, number
of approximately 2 million abused children represents only the number
of cases reported by tipsters. In actuality, over half of the reported
cases are false. In fact, in 1987 alone there were 1,306,800 false
child abuse reports. Sexual maltreatment, which is commonly argued for
the need to increase the power of social workers, only makes up 15.7 of
all reports. Minor physical injury constitutes only 13.9 percent and
severe physical injury only constitutes 2.6 percent.[11]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[11]\ Ibid., p. 86-88.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This means for every 100 reports alleging child abuse:
at least fifty-eight are false
twenty-one are mostly poverty cases
six are sexual abuse
four are minor physical abuse
four are unspecified physical abuse
three are emotional maltreatment
three are ``other maltreatment''
one is major physical abuse.[12]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[12]\ Ibid. p. 87.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After he shows that the ``child abuse panic'' is a myth and an
excuse to give unconstitutional powers to the social service agencies,
he documents the terrible abuse children receive in foster homes and
juvenile homes. The true accounts and statistics are sobering and
shocking. In Kansas City, a study was done showing 57% of children in
foster care to have been placed in ``high risk of abuse or neglect''
situations.'' [13]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[13]\ Ibid., p.198.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Klicka. I noticed
in your written testimony, as well as your oral testimony, you
do make reference to a number of anecdotes and personal stories
about individuals who have been harmed by false reports of
abuse or neglect. Do you have any national data that would
support your suggestion that this is an increasing problem?
Have there been any studies on this point, including any
discussion of the amount of caseworker attention and resources
across States or the Nation devoted to pursuing false reports?
Naturally, not all reports will turn out to be accurate, so a
certain number of reports will not result in a finding of abuse
or neglect, but what actual data is there that would suggest we
should be concerned about this growing number of false reports,
and the impact that it has, not just on the families involved,
but on others of need?
Mr. KLICKA. When CAPTA was reauthorized, I testified at
that hearing a year and a half ago, and Congressman Hoekstra's
Committee asked specifically if we could get some data on that.
They were going to put into the bill a requirement that new
data be kept regarding anonymous tips--and it didn't happen.
That didn't get added into the legislation. So, to my
knowledge, there isn't real clear recordkeeping on which of
them are anonymous and which are not anonymous, but I am still
doing some deeper research in that area.
Chairman HERGER. Okay, thank you. Mr. Birch, in your
experience, what types of prevention activities have proven
most successful in preventing the placement of children in
foster care, and do you know what the cost of these programs is
compared to the cost of placing a child in foster care?
Mr. BIRCH. There are a range of services which are
available to a community that has a really successful strategy
for prevention. The service that probably has recieved the most
attention and the most positive results is the nurse home
visiting program, which is being implemented in four or five
communities around the country. More broadly, home visiting is
a service that has existed for decades--it is common practice
in Great Britain, and it is one that has been the subject of
hearings on Capitol Hill in past years. So, that is one that I
certainly would call to your attention. I would also add to
that, parenting education, parent support groups, respite care,
family support, and family resource centers. There is not one
single approach, because families are different; those
approaches need to be available broadly. When we looked at the
costs and the spending gap that I talked about in my testimony,
we looked at an expense of about $3,250 a year for a simple
kind of home visiting service for a family--much cheaper than
what we are paying otherwise to support children in foster
care.
Chairman HERGER. Very good. Again, I want to thank each of
our witnesses for testifying. I would like to release you at
this time, and call up our final panel today. I would like to
welcome those individuals who have traveled here today to
provide us firsthand knowledge on the child welfare system.
Your perspectives will provide important information for us to
consider as we work to ensure that these systems better protect
children from abuse and neglect. We will now be hearing from
Cathy Burge from Naples, Florida; Lisa Gladwell from River
Edge, New Jersey; and Marie O'Hara from Barnegat, New Jersey.
Ms. Burge?
STATEMENT OF CATHY BURGE, NAPLES, FLORIDA
Ms. BURGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this
opportunity. I feel that my case represents only one of
thousands where the States do not monitor vulnerable children
in custody battles. As a frame of reference, I would like you
to read what U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan said
about the family. It ends with, ``Contemporary life offers
countless ways in which family life can be fractured and
families made unhappy. The children who increasingly live in
these families are entitled to the chance to sustain a special
relationship with both their fathers and their mothers,
regardless of how difficult that may be. No society can assure
its children there will be no unhappy families. It can tell
them, however, that their government will not be allowed to
contribute to their pain.'' Members of this Subcommittee, our
child welfare program is a broken system, and the biological
parent and child relationship is not being protected--many
families like mine are in pain. I would like for you to feel
the pain we have endured. My custody case, my most recent
custody case, began in California in 2000. I immediately and
illegally lost custody of my 2 sons, ages 9 and 11 years, who I
had raised as a single mother for 6 years. I had been a mother
for 18 years. Child Protective Services in California assisted
the angry, vindictive father of my sons to legally steal my
children and deny them of any further relationship with their
mother.
Months before, the father promised my sons that with the
help of his big law firm, Higgs, Fletcher & Mack, LLP, they
would be living full-time with him. They were taught to keep
many secrets. In 1995, when my sons were much younger, their
father refused to return them after a 1-week visit. The judge
in Illinois found him to be guilty of wrongfully withholding
them, and immediately ordered that my sons return to California
with me. My sons were permanently affected by what common
people call kidnapping. For 18 months after the most recent
custody battle, I spent thousands of dollars on legal fees,
forensic psychologists, and testing, yet Child Protective
Services stood by their initial support of the father even
though our trial in 2001 showed that none of these allegations
were substantiated. Meanwhile, 14 months had passed and I had
only seen my children a couple of hours per week during
supervised visits. After the trial, the judge ordered that I be
reunited with my sons, and we were ordered to reestablish our
50-50 parenting time. Child Protective Services and the judge
did not admit any mistakes in this 14-month litigation. After
the trial, the father stated to my sons that they would never
live with their mother again--and they have not. They believed
him. They feared him. The father controlled their thinking.
One of my sons contacted Child Protective Services in 2002
and declared to them that he had lied for his dad, and he just
wanted to be with his mama. They said many times to him that
the abuse he described in his dad's house was not bad enough to
change custody. Was that a decision that Child Protective
Services should make, or should they have investigated to find
the truth? Were the same standards applied to me in 2000, or
were they protecting themselves? Judge Judith Stern in the San
Diego family court system did not protect my children's rights,
as Justice Brennan said, to a relationship with both parents.
She did not even enforce her own rules. Child Protective
Services never protected my sons, and they never investigated
the source of the complaint. Not one professional, friend,
neighbor, medical doctor, or teacher supported the father's
complaints. In fact, it was shown in the trial that our court-
appointed, independent evaluator was a business partner with
the father's therapist. Who is responsible for the trend in
California of fathers being successful in gaining custody,
according to the California National Organization for Women? A
devoted mother like me should never suffer a parentectomy, as I
have, and no children like my sons should ever lose their
mother at such a tender age.
My sons are now 13 and 15 years old. Every day, I long to
see them, listen to them, fix their favorite meals, shop for
and wash their clothes, share my thoughts with them, laugh and
play with them, and just spend the family time with them that I
had taken for granted. I long to see all three of my children
together, and especially for my mother to have time with them.
I want my sons to know our extended family the way my daughter
does. I would like my parental rights and my custody restored
as soon as possible, and I request that this Committee
investigate the abuse and injustice that has occurred to my
family and thousands more, so that this pattern will not be
repeated. Divorce will not decline in our lifetime, so our
courts must protect the rights of children when the two parents
divorce, and one parent cannot tolerate the other parent's
involvement in the children's lives. Our constitutional rights
need to be protected. When you consider the foster children,
adopted children, and all the children in the system, please do
not forget the children whose biological parents are fighting
over them. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Burge follows:]
Statement of Cathy Burge, Naples, Florida
I feel that my case represents only one of thousands.
As a frame of reference, I would like you read to you what U.S.
Supreme Court Justice Brennan said about the family ending with . . .
``Our society's special solicitude for the family reflects
awareness that it is through the family that we inculcate and pass down
many of our most cherished values, moral and cultural . . . As a result
we have long recognized that the freedom of personal choice in matters
of family life is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the
Fourteenth Amendment.
A fundamental element of family life is the relationship between
parent and child. The intangible fibers that connect parent and child
have infinite variety. They are woven throughout the fabric of our
society, providing it with strength, beauty, and flexibility. It is
self-evident that they are sufficiently vital to merit constitutional
protection. . . . We have thus been vigilant in ensuring that
government does not burden the ability of parent and child to sustain
their vital connection . . .
Contemporary life offers countless ways in which family life can be
fractured and families made unhappy. The children who increasingly live
in these families are entitled to the chance to sustain a special
relationship with both their fathers and their mothers, regardless of
how difficult that may be.
No society can assure its children that there will be no unhappy
families. It can tell them; however, that their Government will not be
allowed to contribute to their pain.''
Members of this Committee, our Child Welfare Program is a broken
system and the parent and child relationship is not being protected and
many families like mine are in pain. I would like for you to feel the
pain that we have endured.
Background:
My custody case began in California in 2000. I immediately and
illegally lost custody of my two sons, ages 9 and 11, whom I had raised
as a single mother for 6 years; I had been a mother for 18 years. CPS
in California assisted the angry, vindictive father of my sons to
``legally'' steal my children and deny them of any further relationship
with their mother. Months before, the father told my sons' that with
the help of his big law firm (Higgs, Fletcher, and Mack) they would be
living full-time with him. They were taught to keep many secrets.
In 1995, when my sons were much younger, their father refused to
return them after a 1-week visit. The judge in Illinois found him to be
guilty of ``wrongfully withholding them'' and immediately ordered that
my sons return to CA with me''. My sons were permanently affected by
what common people call kidnapping.
For 18 months after the most recent custody battle, I spent
thousands of dollars on legal fees, forensic psychologists and testing;
yet, CPS stood by their initial support of the father, even though our
trial in 2001 showed none of his allegations were substantiated.
Meanwhile, 14 months had passed and I had only seen my children a
couple hours per week during supervised visits.
After the trial, the judge ordered that I be reunited with my sons
and we were ordered to re-establish our 50/50 parenting time. CPS and
the Judge did not admit any mistakes in this 14-month litigation. After
the trial, the father stated to my sons, that they would never live
with their mother again. They believed him. They feared him. The father
controlled their thinking.
One of my sons contacted CPS in 2002 and declared to them that he
had lied for his dad and he just wanted to be with his Momma. They said
many times to him that the abuse he described in his dad's house was
not bad enough to change custody. Was that a decision that CPS should
make or should they have investigated to find the truth? Were the same
standards applied to me in 2000 or were they protecting themselves?
Judge Judith Stern in the San Diego family court system did not
protect my sons' rights to a relationship with both parents. She did
not even enforce her own rulings. CPS never protected my sons and they
never investigated the source of the complaint. Not one professional or
friend or neighbor or medical doctor or teacher supported the father's
complaints. In fact, it was shown in trial that our court-appointed
``independent'' family evaluator was a business partner with the
father's therapist.
Who is responsible for the trend in California of father's being
successful in gaining custody, as documented by CANOW?
A devoted mother, like me, should never suffer a Parentectomy, as I
have, and NO children, like my sons, should ever lose their mother at
such a tender age.
My sons are now 13 and 15 and every day I long to see them, listen
to them, fix their favorite meals, shop for and wash their clothes,
share my thoughts with them, laugh and play with them and just spend
the family time with them that I had taken for granted. I long to see
all three of my children together again and especially for my Mother to
have time with them. I want my sons to know our extended family the way
my daughter does.
I would like my Parental Rights and my Custody restored as soon as
possible. I request that this committee investigate the abuse and
injustice that has occurred to my family and thousands more so our
children will not repeat this behavior.
Divorce will not decline in our lifetime. Our courts MUST protect
the rights of children when the 2 parents divorce and one parent cannot
tolerate the other parent's involvement in their children's lives. THIS
MUST BE STOPPED! Our constitutional rights need to be protected.
When you consider the foster children, adopted children, and all
children in the system, please do not forget the children whose
biological parents are fighting over them. Initiate the measures to
insure their constitutional rights to a relationship with both of their
parents and their family.
I tried to defend myself against cruel charges and I tried to
protect all three of my children's right to their family, as they had
always known it. I learned that the Family Court System does not have
the Child's Best Interest in mind. Further,
1. They do not protect the children.
2. They do not preserve the relationship with both parents.
3. They are not monitored or held accountable by the system.
4. They do not enforce their own rulings.
5. The system is designed to protect itself, not the children.
6. It is a gravy train for the individuals working in the system.
7. There seems to be no education in such important matters as
Parental Alienation, Brainwashing Children, and the ability of a parent
(usually the father) to buy the system.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Ms. Burge. Ms. Gladwell?
STATEMENT OF LISA E. GLADWELL, RIVER EDGE, NEW JERSEY
Ms. GLADWELL. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and Members of
the Subcommittee. It is an honor to be asked to speak to you
about my family's tragic experience at the hands of the New
Jersey child welfare system, and my pursuit of assistance and
justice from Federal and State agencies, including the
Children's Bureau, State legislators, law enforcement, the
Governor of New Jersey, New Jersey Administration of the Court,
the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark, the civil rights
community, and advocacy groups, and so forth. My name is Lisa
Gladwell. I am a corporate professional, homeowner, taxpayer,
churchgoer, volunteer, and neighbor--a hardworking, productive
asset to my community. In 2000, I was a doting mother to two
beautiful 2- and 3-year-old boys. I, unfortunately, like
millions of other mothers in this country, was also afflicted
with the disease of alcoholism. I was a binge drinker--not
enough to affect my employment, but certainly enough to have
consequences in my personal life. I was a loving, nurturing
mother. I never abused my children. Yet by virtue of my
disease, when active, I placed them in a position of
endangerment.
On April 30, 2000, my husband and I sought my family's help
for my alcoholism. This was not the first time; I had been in
recovery once previously. The path we chose that day, asking
for assistance, was the beginning of a terminal journey for my
family. Shortly thereafter, my family of origin filed for
permanent custody of my sons, because alcoholism will not be
tolerated in my family. After entering a program, marital
counseling, and the restabilization of my recovery and home
life, the family court ordered my children to return home. The
Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) immediately filed
for legal custody. It quickly became painfully obvious DYFS's
only goal was termination. The DYFS strongly advised my husband
to leave our marriage and ``become autonomous,'' claiming it
was his only chance to reunite with his children. Fully
compliant, we were bewildered that, despite laws to the
contrary, under no circumstances was reunification considered--
nor was the best interest of my sons. During our legal
pummeling by DYFS, the agency utilized and rewarded lying and
stealing, and illegal, unethical, and damaging tactics in order
to terminate our parental rights. This New Jersey goliath
blatantly violated all the rules in his battle with us. I wrote
every organization, Federal and State agency, and individual
and politician, for assistance and guidance on what was
happening, as well as what was not--no legally required
reasonable efforts, criminal and unethical contact on the part
of the State as well as the foster parents, neglect, and
psychological abuse of my children. The DYFS did nothing to
shield their intent to terminate my family from the beginning,
which by virtue of my family's position today, was supported by
the court. The foster parents have forbidden us any contact
with our children. My sons' great-grandmother died last
Christmas without holding her great-grandchildren for over 3
years. All my children's paternal relatives have been severed
from their lives.
The well-intentioned foster care and adoption system
functions on simplistic laws of supply and demand. The basic
flaw in its application to New Jersey's child welfare system is
that children are not commodities. Statistically, all adoptions
are positive key performance measures for the State--bonus
points, bonus dollars. On the other hand, reunification of
children with their families earns no bonus moneys. For high-
demand, easily adoptable children, family reunification is not
an option. It is considered an unnecessary expense, a drain on
resources, costing the State thousands of bonus dollars, and is
statistically unfavorable. My children were targeted before
they reached the system. The foster mother, my biological
sister, through corrupt connections within the State, sought
and received the State's assistance in her mission to adopt my
children after failing in her attempts without DYFS's
involvement. Her reward? The foster parents have been receiving
and are slated to receive support, services, allowances, and
special subsidies until my now 6- and 7-year-olds reach
adulthood. They will receive community standing, moneys, and
services for years, and the State receives Federal support
bonuses and a few pats on the back--a win-win situation, right?
Only if children were commodities. Legal guardianship and
kinship care was dismissed because the financial compensation
was less than foster care, and the arrangement was not
permanently guaranteed. Instead, the foster parents of my two
young sons were receiving thousands of dollars in support from
my husband and I, while also collecting full compensation and
benefits from the State. Although identified as criminal fraud,
this investigation sits inactive in the Burlington prosecutor's
office, awaiting cooperation from DYFS.
The DYFS cries of insufficient funding. Their cries of
insufficient funding ring hollow in the wake of their support
of foster and adoptive parents who defraud the system and
benefit financially from vulnerable children. These State-
sanctioned, criminal parents are the people paid for and
charged with raising children to be responsible, virtuous human
beings. Are all DYFS foster placements and adoptions bad? No.
Are there foster and adoptive parents out there who are truly
motivated by compassion, benevolence, and love? Yes. Well-
intentioned caseworkers, foster parents, service providers, and
advocates become demoralized and discouraged when the corrupt
overshadow the charitable works they struggle daily to perform.
To use Federal funds to finance State-sanctioned kidnapping and
support fraud is iniquitous. Most importantly, to not do right
by our children when afforded the opportunity to make a
difference is to turn our back on humanity. The DYFS could not
operate in its corrupted form if it weren't for the blessings
of the New Jersey judiciary. The agency by itself would not
have succeeded if not supported by a judiciary who ignored its
responsibility to ensure that laws are upheld. Through
submission, the New Jersey judiciary has given DYFS permission
to behave unethically and illegally. Regrettably, the Federal
Government and children's rights groups have had to intervene
where the judiciary fell short. Thank God, because their
actions gave my incredible nightmare credibility. The public
won a glimpse into the horror hidden for years under a cloak of
confidentiality and unchecked power.
The federally-ordered reforms taking shape within New
Jersey are a source of future hope. What is to happen to us--
those of us who have and are still being victimized by the
corrupt child welfare system? Just as taxation without
representation was the driving force behind the birth of our
Nation, funding without accountability is irresponsible, and
this tyranny must stop. Money thrown at corrupted bureaucracies
is not responsible, and taxpayers' hard-earned dollars being
utilized to destroy children, families, and to reward
criminality, is reprehensible. It is time the government did
what it was created to do--govern. Based on my own tragic
experience, we need not create new bureaucracies, but establish
some enforceable Federal accountability by every State
receiving Federal funds. Through my journey, I could not find
one organization with the fortitude, tenacity, willingness, or
ability to investigate--let alone assist in my family's plight.
Harsh, maybe, but please understand that this is my family that
is being annihilated by a corrupt bureaucracy, supported by
resources bestowed by the Federal Government. I have been in
recovery for well over 2 years--1 day at a time, despite DYFS's
efforts. New Jersey's corrupted child welfare machine has
nearly bankrupted me emotionally, financially, professionally--
but not spiritually. New Jersey may have illegally terminated
my family, but I am and always will be Colin and Dillon's
mommy.
I know God will not allow my children to remain victims,
and their paternal family to be made martyrs. I yearn for my
family to be the poster family for reunification--part of the
solution, not a discarded carcass of absolute power corrupting
absolutely. From the State of New Jersey, victims deserve
acknowledgement of responsibility and amending actions--
fundamental prerequisites for change. Until New Jersey's
leaders take action to reverse the injustice and repair damage
done to the victims, there will be no reform. From the Federal
Government, the U.S. taxpayers deserve some assurances that the
States receiving their moneys are held accountable and
responsible for upholding what is truly in the best interest of
children and families. Until that time, illegal kidnapping and
family executions will continue. Thank you for your hope and
help. I anxiously await the opportunity to be part of the
solution--to support, preserve, and cultivate healthy families
so that they may protect and nurture our most priceless
resource, our children. May God bless your work. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gladwell follows:]
Statement of Lisa E. Gladwell, River Edge, New Jersey
Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,
It is a contentious honor to be asked to speak to you about my
family's tragic experience at the hands of the ``NJ child welfare''
system and my pursuit of justice and assistance from the federal and
state agencies (including the Children's Bureau), state and federal
legislators, federal and state law enforcement, the Governor of New
Jersey, New Jersey Administration of the Court, the Catholic Church,
U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops, The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of
Newark, the ACLU, civil rights groups, community groups, advocacy
groups, family, attorneys, and the Lord.
My quest has opened my eyes to the frightening reality of the
bureaucratic value of the dollar over ethics and principles. . . .
Where truly good intent is eclipsed by the evil it attracts . . . And
how absolute power corrupts absolutely . . .
My Family's Story
I am a logistics professional: I have worked for over twelve years
for one of the largest consumer product corporations in the world. I am
a homeowner, taxpayer, churchgoer, volunteer and neighbor: a hard
working, productive asset to my community and those I encounter.
In 2000, I was a doting mother to two beautiful, 2- and 3-year-old
boys and a dedicated wife to their dad. I, unfortunately, like millions
of other mothers in this country, was also afflicted with the disease
of alcoholism. I was a binge drinker, not enough to have an affect on
my employment but certainly enough to have consequences in my personal
life and relationships. I was a loving and nurturing mother. I never
abused my children, but by virtue of my disease when active, I placed
them in a position of endangerment.
On April 30, 2000, my husband and I sought my family's help for my
alcoholism. This was not the first time, for I had been in recovery
once previously. The path we chose that day, asking for assistance, was
the beginning of a terminal journey for my family. Shortly thereafter,
my family of origin filed for permanent custody of my sons, for
alcoholism will NOT be tolerated in the family.
After entering a program, marital counseling and the re-
stabilization of my recovery and home life, the family court ordered my
children to return home. DYFS immediately filed for legal custody.
Initially we maintained some guarded hope that the best interest of our
children would be paramount to the state and family preservation was at
the very least, an option. Despite our full cooperation, it quickly
became painfully obvious the Division's only goal was termination.
During our legal pummeling by DYFS the agency used and rewarded
lying, stealing, illegal, unethical and damaging tactics in order to
terminate our parental rights. The ``Goliath'' of New Jersey (DYFS)
blatantly broke all the rules (policies) in his battle with David
(vulnerables-other families and us ``in the system'').
I wrote every organization, federal and state agency, individual
and politician I found about our unfolding nightmare. I wrote and
wrote, for assistance and guidance on what was happening as well as
what was not: no reasonable efforts, criminal and unethical conduct on
the part of the state as well as the foster parents, neglect and
psychological abuse of my children, etc. The Division did nothing to
shield their intent to terminate from the beginning which, by virtue of
my family's position today, was supported by the court.
DYFS strongly advised my husband to leave our marriage--``become
autonomous''--they claimed it was his only chance to reunite with his
children. Fully compliant, we were filled with anger, sadness,
frustration and bewilderment discovering that under no circumstances
was reunification considered. Nor was the best interest of my sons.
The foster parents have forbidden us any contact with our children.
MY sons' great grandmother died last Christmas without holding her
great grandchildren for three years. All my children's paternal
relatives have been severed from their lives.
Foster Care/Adoption
The well-intentioned foster care and adoption system functions on
simplistic laws of supply and demand. The basic flaw in the theoretical
application of rudimentary economics to New Jersey's child welfare
system is that children are NOT commodities . . .
States receive reward monies from the Federal Government when
children are adopted. Statistically, all adoptions are positive key
performance measures for the state: bonus points/bonus dollars. On the
other hand, reunification of children with their families earns no
bonus monies. For ``easily adoptable'' children, family reunification
is often not an option: it is considered an unnecessary expense, a
drain on resources, costs the state in thousands of dollars in bonuses
and is statistically unfavorable.
My children were targeted BEFORE they reached the ``system.''
Although healthy and young, they are classified as ``hard to place,''
being siblings. The foster mother, my biological sister, through
corrupt connections, sought and received the state's assistance in her
mission to adopt my children after failing in her attempts without
DYFS's involvement. Her reward? The foster parents have been receiving
and are slated to receive support, services, allowances and special
subsidies for each until my now six and seven year olds reach
adulthood. They will receive community standing, monies and services
for years and the state receives federal support, bonuses and a few
pats on the back. A ``win-win situation,'' right? Only if children are
commodities.
Legal guardianship and Kinship Care were dismissed because the
monies were less than foster care and the arrangement was not
permanently guaranteed. Instead, the foster parents of my two young
sons were receiving thousands of dollars in support from my husband and
me while also collecting compensation from the state.
The Commissioner of Human Services has identified this as against
policy. My county's prosecutor characterized this as criminal. And
since then it has resided, inactive, in the prosecutor's office
awaiting cooperation from DYFS. Fraudulent? Criminal? Illegal?
Certainly unethical.
DYFS/Human Services cries of insufficient funding ring hollow in
the wake of their support of those foster and adoptive parents who
defraud the system and benefit financially from vulnerable children.
And, these state-sanctioned parents are the people paid for, and
charged with, raising children to be responsible, virtuous human
beings.
Are all DYFS foster care placements and adoptions bad? Of course
not. Are there foster and adoptive parents out there who are truly
motivated by compassion, benevolence and love? Thank God many are! Is
New Jersey unique? I doubt it.
Unfortunately, the bad taints the good. Well intentioned
caseworkers, foster parents, service providers, advocates all are
disheartened, disparaged and discouraged when the corrupt overshadow
the charitable and beneficial work they struggle daily to perform.
To use federal funds to finance state-sanctioned kidnapping and
support fraud is iniquitous. Most importantly, to not do right by our
children when afforded the opportunity to make a difference,
individually and/or collectively, is to turn your back on humanity.
The Judiciary--Credit where Credit is due
DYFS could not operate in its corrupted form if it weren't for the
blessing of the New Jersey Judiciary. The agency by itself would not
have succeeded if not supported by a judiciary who ignored its
responsibility to ensure laws are upheld. It is the judiciary that has
the authority and obligation of ensuring all parties are held
accountable and responsible: to protect rights while rendering justice.
Through submission, the New Jersey judiciary has given DYFS permission
to act unethically and illegally.
Regrettably, the Federal Government and child advocacy groups have
had to intervene for enforcement of law where the New Jersey judiciary
fell short. Thank God, for their actions gave my INCREDIBLE nightmare
credibility. The tenacity of Children's Rights, on behalf of vulnerable
children won the public a glimpse into the horror hidden for years
under a cloak of confidentiality and unchecked power.
I am hopeful that the newly created Office of the Child Advocate
will have sobering impact on the bureaucratic operations and thus,
positively impact the children of New Jersey. But, this office alone is
not and can not be the only safeguard against a landslide of
corruption, crime and gluttony by the public servants charged with NJ
child welfare.
The federally ordered reforms taking shape within New Jersey are
great and a source of future hope. But what is to happen to those of us
who have and are still being victimized by the corrupt ``child
welfare'' system?
Responsibility, Accountability and Hope for Vulnerable Children and
Families
Just like the resistance to taxation without representation was the
driving force behind the birth of our nation, funding without
accountability is irresponsible and this tyranny must cease.
If the Federal Government is truly for the people, if Human
Services is truly HUMAN SERVICES, it is time they stood up and took
responsibility. Money thrown at corrupted bureaucracies is not
responsible. And taxpayers' hard earned dollars being utilized to
destroy children, families and reward criminality is reprehensible.
It's time the government did what it was created to do--govern.
Based on my own tragic experience, we surely need not to create new
bureaucracies, but to establish some enforceable federal accountability
by every state that receives federal funding. I could not find one
organization with the fortitude, tenacity, willingness and ability to
investigate, let alone assist in my family's plight.
Harsh? Maybe, but please understand that this is MY family that is
being annihilated by a corrupt bureaucracy supported by resources
bestowed by the Federal Government.
I know God would not allow my children to be victimized and their
paternal family to be made martyrs in vain. I speak from my heart, and
through my pain, that of my family as well as countless other
vulnerables maimed and destroyed by an easily manipulated system devoid
of principles, accountability and safeguards.
I have been in recovery for well over two years--one day at a
time--DESPITE DYFS's efforts. New Jersey's corrupted child welfare
machine has nearly bankrupted me emotionally, financially and
professionally, but, not spiritually. New Jersey may have illegally
LEGALLY terminated my family, but I AM and ALWAYS WILL be Colin and
Dillon's mommy.
I yearn for my family to be the ``poster family'' for
reunification, part of the solution--not another discarded carcass of
absolute power corrupting absolutely.
From New Jersey, victims deserve acknowledgement of responsibility
and amending actions, fundamental prerequisites for change. Until New
Jersey's leaders take action to reverse the injustice and repair the
damage done to the victims, there will be no reform. And, from the
Federal Government, those financing the system, the United States
taxpayers deserve some assurances that states receiving their monies
are held accountable and responsible for upholding what is truly in the
best interest of children and families. Until that time, illegal legal
kidnapping and execution will continue.
Thank you for your hope and help. I anxiously await the opportunity
to be part of the solution: to support, preserve and cultivate healthy
families so that they may protect and nurture our most priceless
resource, our children. May God bless your work.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Ms. Gladwell. Ms. O'Hara?
STATEMENT OF MARIE C. O'HARA, BARNEGAT, NEW JERSEY
Ms. O'HARA. Congressman Herger, ladies and gentlemen, thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of
my children, and the children of the United States of America.
My name is Marie O'Hara. I am a divorced mother of four young
children. My experience with the child welfare system and the
State of New Jersey over the past few years has brought me here
before you today. I would like to begin by suggesting that
more, indeed, than increased funding, quality information
systems, and additional cell phones are needed to ensure the
safety and well-being of our Nation's most valuable and most
vulnerable resource, our children. An agency which truly
focuses on the physical, mental, and emotional safety and well-
being of our youth must be founded on compassionate service.
Two years ago, based on an investigation initiated by the Ocean
County Prosecutor's Office in Tom's River, New Jersey, and
simultaneously investigated by the DYFS, it was determined and
confirmed by a Child Protective Services psychologist that my
3-year-old daughter had, quote, ``experienced inappropriate
sexual contact with her father while at visitation.''
Without enough evidence to proceed, and my unwillingness to
let my young children testify, the prosecutor's office did not
pursue the case further. Via subsequent court-ordered
mediation, I agreed to a supervised visitation schedule for my
young daughter and her father without overnight privileges. The
following November of 2002, based on an allegation made by my
abusive ex-husband and eldest son, all four of my children were
abruptly removed from my custody and care by a DYFS special
protective response unit worker, and subsequently placed with
their father. Although there was no justification for removal,
and DYFS acted on sketchy evidence, I have not seen or spoken
to my 2 oldest boys--who at the time were 11 and 9 years old--
since. It has been 15 months. Six months later, my third son,
age 7, stopped coming to visit. The last time I saw my
daughter, now 5 years old, was this past December. Nothing is
being done to resolve this. As the employees of the Preferred
Visitation and Foster Care Services of New Jersey informed me,
they are not allowed to ask my children why they no longer want
to visit me--nor are they allowed to physically handle my
children.
Based on my ex-husband's allegations, our local police
department filed charges of child abuse and neglect. I was
arrested and paid $5,000 in order to post $50,000 bail. I spent
an evening in jail. Shortly thereafter, the unfounded charges
were administratively dismissed by the prosecutor's office--but
DYFS did not stop there. Prior to their removal, my children
and I enjoyed a close and loving relationship. I had been a
stay-at-home mom, volunteering in each of their schools,
participating in their extracurricular activities, and teaching
their religious education classes. My children have since been
denied this privilege, as I have been cut off completely from
their lives, and unable to attend even a school function. As
child support ended abruptly with the children's removal, and
after a year of surviving on a small income supplemented by
excess student loan money and the charity of friends and
family, I have been forced to sell our home. My legal costs are
already in excess of $40,000, while my ex-husband enjoys a free
ride that is being funded by our State and Federal Government.
Prior to, as well as after, my children's removal, DYFS never
performed an investigation of our family. They never even saw
my home, never interviewed a teacher, and never interviewed a
pediatrician, a dentist, an eye doctor, a neighbor, or a school
psychologist--no one. The DYFS has used precious dollars to act
as the vehicle for the complete severance and alienation of my
children from me.
Even though New Jersey's courts have emphatically ruled
that children cannot be removed from a parent charged with
abuse unless the court conducts a thorough evidentiary hearing,
makes specific factual findings, and follows the rules of
evidence, this has not been so in my case. We are just in trial
now, 15 months after their removal. In order for our country's
human resources to serve our children and families more
effectively, they must be held to a higher standard. Everyone
else in our country who regularly is involved in the lives of
children must be highly qualified--as is so clearly defined in
this Administration's No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Yet
DYFS caseworkers, having fewer credentials than teachers and
school psychologists, have more power--and they are abusing it.
More funding is not the issue. My experience proves that funds
intended to protect our Nation's most vulnerable and most
valuable children in crisis are being squandered on vindictive
custody litigation--litigation perpetrated by individuals adept
at manipulating our system. No one is driving the bus. My
children are at the mercy of a system that is governed by laws
that no one has the power or courage to enforce. The
individuals who are charged with the well-being and welfare of
children hide behind a veil of secrecy. This confidentiality,
actually intended to protect our most vulnerable from further
harm, oftentimes serves to prevent them from being justly and
expeditiously free from the bondage of incompetent child
welfare agencies.
Based on my experience, I offer you the following
suggestions for State child welfare programs: solicit
investigations and reports from all professionals who touch the
lives of children of suspect parents. Higher qualifications,
and increased training for all human services workers,
including family court judges and lawyers. Limiting the power
of caseworkers and their supervisors in their ability to make
life-altering decisions on behalf of children without proper
procedure, training, and investigation. Expediting court
proceedings. Preservation of family financial security. Working
more closely with educators and community members. National
standards need implemented for investigation procedures. The
imposition of fines for those who use the system for personal
gain. Implementation of ongoing training in domestic abuse--and
how it affects parent-child relationships. Accountability of
caseworkers to follow court orders. Many of the court orders
issued in my case were not followed through on. Those that
were, occured only after several certified letters were sent,
and only by my personal efforts. Greater emphasis on family
preservation and reunification. Combining State child welfare
agencies to increase accountability. Audio or videotaping all
supervised visitations. Participation in counseling and therapy
for all family members.
I am sorry that I have gone over time. I would just like to
say that one of my ideas is that education already has many,
many of the things that we need in place to protect our
children--they are already doing that job. Therefore, we need
to combine efforts so that child welfare workers work more
closely with educators. In addition, child welfare workers need
to be certified; this could be accomplished by working with our
State universities. Presently, child welfare employees are not
even social workers, yet they have the ability and the
decisionmaking power to take our children. My children are
already poisoned against me. They have experienced something
called parental alienation. The last visit with my 5-year-old
daughter took place during the last week of December. I am not
even allowed to look at her. I have no contact with any of my
children. The visitation supervisor, when I asked her why my
daughter wouldn't come, said she couldn't ask her why she
wouldn't come, but that she had looked down and said, ``I never
want to see my mommy again.'' She was looking at the floor. I
brought pictures of my family. I love my children. Thank you
very much for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Ms. O'Hara follows:]
Statement of Marie C. O'Hara, Barnegat, New Jersey
Congressman Herger and committee members, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of my children and the
children of the United States of America.
My name is Marie O'Hara and I am a divorced mother of four young
children. My experience with the child welfare system in the state of
New Jersey over the past few years has brought me here before you
today.
I would like to begin by suggesting, that more indeed than
increased funding, quality information systems, and additional cell
phones, are needed to ensure the safety and well-being of our nations
most valuable and most vulnerable resource, our children. An agency
which truly focuses on the physical, mental and emotional safety and
well-being of our youth must be founded on compassionate service
My experience is as follows: Two years ago, based on an
investigation initiated by the Ocean County Prosecutors Office and
simultaneously investigated by the Division of Youth and Family
Services, it was determined and confirmed, by a Child Protective
Services psychologist, that my three-year-old daughter had,
``experienced inappropriate sexual contact with her father while at
visitation.''
Without enough evidence to proceed and my unwillingness to let my
young children testify, the Prosecutors Office did not pursue the case
further. Via subsequent court ordered mediation, I agreed to a
supervised visitation schedule for my young daughter and her father,
without overnight privileges.
The following November of 2002, based on an allegation made my
abusive ex-husband and eldest son, all four of my children were
abruptly removed from my custody and care by a DYFS Special Protective
Response Unit worker. As the worker informed me that further
investigation would be necessary, I agreed to sign an informed consent
placing the children in the custody and care of my former mother-in-law
and which included a provision for immediate communication and
visitation. The SPRU worker assured me that the investigation would
take only a few days and that a visit would be set up immediately.
Although there was no justification for removal and DYFS acted on
sketchy evidence, I have not seen nor spoken to my oldest two boys
since, who were eleven and nine at the time.
Within twenty four hours, the boys were placed with their father
and a short time after that, Elizabeth was placed in his unsupervised
custody as well. When questioned about why the children were placed
with their father while he was still under supervised visitation
status, the SPRU worker said that the appearance of his name on this
list was ``a mistake.''
Based on my ex-husbands allegations, our local police department
filed charges of child abuse and neglect. I was arrested and paid
$5,000 in order to post $50,000 bail. Shortly thereafter, the unfounded
charges were administratively dismissed by the Prosecutors Office.
Despite daily attempts, my first contact with my youngest two
children was during a supervised visit nearly five weeks after our
separation. My oldest two children, based on the first caseworker's
communication with their father, did not want to see me. Six months
later my third son stopped coming to visits and the last time I saw my
daughter, now five, was the last week in December. Nothing is being
done to resolve this as the employees of Preferred Visitation and
Foster Care Services inform me that they are not allowed to ask my
children why they do not want to visit with me, nor are they allowed to
physically handle the children.
Prior to their removal, my children and I enjoyed a close and
loving relationship. I had been a stay-at-home-mom, volunteering in
each of their schools, participating in their extra-curricular
activities, and teaching their religious education classes. My children
have since been denied this privilege as I have been cut-off completely
from their lives and unable to attend school functions. The state
contracted psychologist who diagnosed my daughter's abuse at the hands
of her father, is now the psychologist treating the children. She has
vehemently denied me information on the frequency of their visits or
their progress, sighting HIPAA restrictions. In addition she has defied
a court order to reintroduce the children to me.
As child support ended abruptly with the children's removal, and
after a year of surviving on a small income supplemented by excess
student loan money, and the charity of friends and family, I have been
forced to sell our home. My legal costs are already in excess of forty
thousand dollars while my ex enjoys a free ride that is being funded by
our state and federal taxes.
My children were excellent students who often received academic and
behavior recognition. I was responsible for making and keeping their
doctor, dental and eye appointments and, as our oldest son suffers from
acute allergies and asthma, I persevered through alternate treatments
and months of weekly and bi-weekly, allergy injections. The DYFS case
workers ignored my requests for their father to attend to these
important parental responsibilities. Only recently, after several
certified letters, did a case worker contact my ex and request that he
do so.
I persevered in taking the children to counseling, although their
father did everything he could to prevent the children from talking to
anyone. The children were taught by him to be secretive, to spy, and to
be afraid of me. They were told repeatedly to call DYFS or police in
order to undermine my parental authority and ultimately steal custody.
Each time our family was investigated, as a result of these calls, they
found no evidence of abuse. Although I explained this to the DYFS
caseworkers, that my ex was abusing the system and poisoning the
children against me, all of my concerns have been repeatedly ignored.
Prior to, as well as after my children's removal, DYFS never
performed an investigation of our family they have simply taken my ex-
husband's word on everything. Our long-time family pediatrician, who is
highly reputed in our area, attempted numerous times to contact DYFS
and was ignored. When he finally did reach someone he was given the
impression that they had already made up their minds despite what
anyone had to say; they ignored his qualified professional observation
that he had never suspected any abuse.
DYFS has used precious dollars to act as the vehicle for the
complete severance and alienation of my children from me. It has been
nearly fifteen months since this nightmare began, and although the
criminal charges against me for the same alleged incidents have been
dismissed and expunged, I have still not even had a phone conversation
with any of my four children. We are just now going through the fact
finding.
Even though New Jersey's courts have emphatically ruled that
children cannot be removed from a parent charged with abuse unless the
court conducts a thorough evidentiary hearing, makes specific factual
findings, and follows the rules of evidence, this has not been so in
our case and, although I trusted DYFS to follow the law and to do the
right thing, when my attorney pointed this out in a motion last summer,
DYFS did not even bother to respond to the motion. None of my
complaints or legal arguments was ever denied. Yet, I still have no
contact at all with any of my children.
In order for our country's human services to serve our children and
families more effectively, they must be held to a higher standard.
Everyone else who regularly is involved in the lives of children must
be ``highly-qualified,'' as is so clearly defined in this
Administration's No Child Left Behind Act. Everyone else in our country
who touches the lives of children are ``held to a higher standard,''
yet DYFS case workers, having fewer credentials than teachers and
school psychologists, have more power, and they are abusing it.
It is my contention that more funding is not the issue, it is my
humble observation that funds intended to protect our nations most
vulnerable, children in crisis, are being squandered on vindictive
custody litigation, perpetrated by individuals adept at using the
system.
No one is driving the bus. My children are at the mercy of a system
that is governed by laws that no one has the power or courage to
enforce and whereby the individuals who are charged with the well-being
and welfare of children hide behind the veil of secrecy which is in
place for the protection of our children yet often times serves to
prevent them from being justly and expeditiously freed from the bondage
of incompetent child welfare agencies.
Based on my experience, I offer you the following suggestions for
state and federal Child Welfare Programs.
Mandatory investigations/reports, from all professionals
who touch the lives of children of suspect parents
Higher qualifications and increased training of all human
services workers including family court judges and lawyers
Limiting the power of case workers and their supervisors
in their ability to make life altering decisions on behalf of children
without proper procedure and investigation
Expediting court proceedings
Preservation of financial security
Working closely with educators and community members
National standards for investigation procedures
Imposition of fines on those who ``use the system for
personal gain.''
Mandatory and ongoing training in Domestic Abuse and how
it affects parent/child relationships
Accountability of case workers to follow court orders
Greater emphasis on family preservation/reunification
Combining state child welfare agencies to increase
accountability
Mandatory audio/video taping of all supervised visitation
Mandatory participation in therapy for ALL family members
Mandatory and regular follow-up of all placements outside
of the residential home
Greater accountability for ensuring that children who are
removed are receiving care that is equal to or greater than that
received in the environment from which they were removed
Immediate and mandatory assignment of family advocate
I am not alone, due to carelessness, poor training, failure to
follow proper procedures, and law, DYFS case workers along with the
human services agencies they work with, are acting in ways that too
often damage the families they are charged with protecting.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Ms. O'Hara, and each
of you for your moving testimonies. I want to thank you, Ms.
O'Hara--you had a number of suggestions for us. I would be
interested if any of you have any further suggestions which we
at the Federal level might implement to improve the child
welfare system--that might help it to work better. In your
opinion, an area that you feel is the biggest flaw, and that
you think--yes, Ms. Burge?
Ms. BURGE. I heard a lot of discussion about more data,
more forms--information technology. I am a demographer by
training, so I mentioned that the divorce rate is not going to
decline for populations like ours. The divorce rate is about 70
percent right now, so you can apply that number to the number
of children who are going to be part of a custody case. It
isn't about more forms. I work in information technology. It is
easy to automate this process. It is about education. It is
about the ridiculous things that judicial officers--first of
all, the caseworkers have no knowledge of parental alienation,
brainwashing, and what one vindictive parent can do against the
other. These children are suffering at the hands of a parent
that wants to punish the other parent. That is one of the
outcomes of divorce. So, I don't think it is about data. I
think it is really about education.
Ms. GLADWELL. During my nightmare with the New Jersey child
welfare system, I had gotten in touch with the Children's
Bureau. I spent a lot of time, I sent a lot of documentation to
them, and so forth--both Dr. Wade Horn, Dr. Orr, and the people
in her department. After doing that for about a year and a
half, and asking what could be done, knowing that millions and
millions of dollars were flowing into the State of New Jersey,
who has--not all parts of it are corrupt. Not all people in it
are corrupt. The system itself is broken, and they have
admitted that. Millions of dollars are still going into New
Jersey. The response from the Children's Bureau was, ``There is
nothing we can do. We do audits''--which New Jersey just
failed, and one of the ways they failed was on the basis of
family reunification. There is no accountability there at all.
In New Jersey, at the end of September, the Governor just
appointed an Office of the Child Advocate. I have hope for that
office, but that is not the do-all and end-all in New Jersey,
or for other children in the country who may be experiencing
the same thing. There has to be some type of justice, and a way
to get through this system when it is corrupt and broken.
Everyone I have talked to, including Children's Rights, who had
won the lawsuit, said, ``This case is absurd,'' but no one can
do anything. This is my family--my family. ``Oh well, I am
sorry,'' doesn't cut it. ``Oh, yes, we are going to do this in
the future based on what happened to your family.'' I don't
want to be a victim any longer. I don't want my children to be
either. I want my family back, and I want my children to be
afforded the opportunity to enjoy their parents, and vice-
versa, and grow up in a healthy family. Thank you.
Ms. O'HARA. I would just like to offer briefly, as I said
in my testimony, no one is driving the bus. Actually, I have
been having a recurring nightmare about my car accelerating and
leaving without a driver. I finally figured out what that
meant. My children are on a bus with no driver. The judge has,
in fact, made several court orders that DYFS--as I have already
said, but I just think this is so important--does not have the
ability to enforce. They cannot enforce them. They will tell
the judge--they will make lame excuses for it, but I don't
believe they have the education or the qualifications to
actually follow through. Then the judge says, ``Well, I don't
know what I can do,'' because the judges are relying on the
expert opinions of the child welfare workers who are not
experts. That is the best way to put it. We really need help
quickly, because my children--it has been 15 months, and all 4
of my very young children are poisoned against me. Getting a
child back from parental alienation is nearly impossible. I am
not going to give up, but once this has happened, once the
mother-child bond is severed, this is--it has become a
nightmare. I don't know how to impart that upon you. My
children already don't want to see me. They say that they hate
their mother. They no longer love me. I can show you
photographs. You can talk to the schoolteachers, the
psychologists, and everyone else in our lives--my community
members. We had a beautiful, loving relationship, and it is
gone. Thank you.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you. Mr. Cardin?
Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank our
witnesses for being here. We look at the statistics, we look at
the numbers, we look at what is happening out on the streets--
and you all put a face on it. I know it is not easy for you to
be here, and I appreciate very much your willingness to present
this testimony. I think it helps us to try to get a complete
picture of the tragedies that occur within our current system.
Child custody, visitation issues, are difficult issues. One
thing that I have learned over my years as an attorney and as a
legislator, is that you can't pass a law that takes care of the
circumstances of a family that requires a system, people who
are trained, judges who are willing to spend the time necessary
to make decisions that are in the best interests of the child
and family, and that is consistent around the country. So, we
are struggling to figure out what is the appropriate role for
children who are vulnerable. How can we help to make sure that
families are kept together, and that the child's interest is
maintained? Clearly, the relationship with their parents is
what we always envision as the preferred route. It is by law
the preferred route. We want family reunification where
possible, and I am afraid there are people who get hurt.
Sometimes we say, well, maybe there are not that many--but if
it is one, it is a tragic situation, and I think your testimony
here today points out how people's lives are affected and
ruined as a result of decisions that are made within our
system. Although we must do what we can to protect the
interests of the child, we need to do a much better job in
having a system that is compassionate for all interests. I
thank you all for giving that dimension to our hearing.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Cardin. Again, I want to
thank each of you for your moving personal statements, and for
taking the time, trouble, and expense to come here today. In
any hearing like this, we hear from a number of government
officials and representatives of associations and agencies, but
it is always tremendously useful to hear firsthand from people
like yourselves who have actually been involved with programs,
and live with the consequences every day. That has been your
role today, and you all filled it well. We will keep your
experiences and the many families who no doubt share your
experiences in mind as we consider ways to try and improve this
system. Again, many thanks for your thoughtful testimony and
for joining us here today. At this time, I would like to thank
all of the witnesses for their testimonies today. This series
of hearings we have held since we first learned about the
alleged abuse of the four boys in New Jersey has been very
informative. Our witnesses today have provided useful
information for us to consider as we contemplate what our next
steps may be to better ensure that children are safe. I look
forward to continuing to work with each of you as we continue
our oversight of the child welfare system. With that, the
hearing stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:08 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Submissions for the record follow:]
Statement of Edith J. Beauchamp, Greenbelt, Maryland
Chairman Herger, Congressman Cardin, and other distinguished
members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for your consideration of my
written testimony for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing to
Review Federal and State Oversight of Child Welfare Programs. My name
is Edith Beauchamp, and I am an adoptive mother of two siblings, whom I
adopted just over a year ago from the Department of Children and
Families in Miami-Dade County, Florida after being their foster mother
for a year and a half. I am also a senior-level IT executive, having
held the role of Chief Information Officer with four different
organizations. My testimony today will bring together these unique
perspectives on Oversight of Child Welfare Programs.
______
Achieving safety, security and permanency for our most vulnerable
children depends on the people assigned to care for them 24/7. Yet
assignment of temporary foster parents as well as possible pre-adoptive
parents--the function of placement--is an OPTIONAL activity for states
to undertake in automating their child welfare systems.
In addition, as I discovered in my own path to parenting, we
arbitrarily limit the possible choices of homes for foster children, so
that in regions like Miami-Dade County we have high concentrations of
children in shelters because ``there aren't enough homes'' and
simultaneously high concentrations of potential adoptive parents with
foster care training who wait with ``empty homes.'' How is it possible
to have both high supply and high pent-up demand to adopt children and
not be able to achieve equilibrium?
High supply and unmet demand to adopt children is not just a
regional issue; it is a national crisis. How else can we explain that
close to 130,000 children a year [1] in this country await
permanent homes, which is one and a half times the annual total of all
private and foreign-born adoptions in the US? [2] Yet the
public perception is that there aren't enough children to adopt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[1]\ From HHS' AFCARS website, chart entitled, ``Trends in Foster
Care and Adoption as of 11/01/02'' with the subtitle ``(FY 2000 and FY
2001 estimates will not be revised before Spring 2003)''.
\[2]\ From US Census and INS data: approximately 50,000 private
adoptions and 30,000 adoptions of children from other countries in
2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So these are the topics that I want to share with you today:
1. The critical nature of the placement process and just how
broken it is in this country;
2. The path to parenthood for an adoptive foster parent; and
3. Why and how the mechanisms that HHS and the individual states
have established for oversight should be changed.
The Critical Nature of the Placement Process and A Path to Parenthood:
Caseworkers may visit with the children once a month for a half
hour, but foster parents make critical decisions regarding their care
every day: what they will eat, which pediatrician to see and when,
which day care or school to enroll them in or to home school them, who
they can play with, whether they get new clothes or toys, and how often
they are hugged.
Thousands of children in the United States are ``warehoused'' in
shelters and group homes, not even placed in family settings. Often,
when a child is taken into custody by the state, sometimes in the
middle of the night, a temporary placement is made to a shelter.
``Temporary'' sometimes stretches into weeks, months and even years. I
found my children in a shelter, as related below, and to this day, my
daughter remembers her three-week stay there as terribly frightening.
It was almost three years ago now, and she was only three then, but the
stay is etched in her mind. With minimum-wage workers coming and going
throughout the day and night, and a large dormitory-style room full of
cribs and cots, she remembers this place the way most adults would
probably remember a stay in the hospital: hard to sleep, and
institutional. Shelters are no place to keep children warehoused, no
matter how well run and clean. We have to have a process to rapidly
move children into loving homes, and as my experience and that of my
friends may illustrate, recruitment is not so much the problem in
finding enough homes as is the lack of an adequate placement mechanism
to reduce the wait times and help the staff with the matching process.
My husband and I were among the one in five couples of childbearing
age that are infertile, or 5 million couples according to the Center
for Disease Control. The infertility industry is a $5 billion a year
industry in this country, and completely unregulated--``self-
regulated'' they call it. The treatments are expensive, physically
debilitating, and can be life-threatening. A friend of mine, undergoing
the same treatments as I, was induced into a five-day coma in the
intensive care unit to relieve the fluid build-up in her lungs as a
result of the infertility drugs. According to this month's (February
2004) issue of ``O'' Magazine, Oprah Winfrey's enterprise, you are more
protected by oversight getting a tattoo than undergoing infertility
treatments.
What I want you to understand is the pain and the lengths and
depths to which couples will go to achieve parenthood, and the latent
demand for adoption, because as with us, adoption is usually turned to
as a solution after one has exhausted the infertility treatment
options. The lack of access to effective adoption strategies in this
country, particularly across state lines, has left many couples
believing that they must simply give up on the dream of being a parent
if medical treatments are unsuccessful.
In our case, there wasn't an ``us'' anymore after a nine-year
marriage and going through four years of the treatments, but it didn't
dampen my desire to be a ``Mom.'' As I researched adoption, I learned
of several agencies in South Florida that sheltered children for the
State, and which advertised adoption on TV. What I learned is that each
had different criteria for placing children in their care, and each
worked only with the parents whose home studies they completed, and the
children were limited to that group of parents. The children were
limited to a small pool of possible parents instead of all the hopeful
couples (and singles) in the state, or just the county even, as
possible homes.
In fact, this limiting of placement to those parents each agency
has worked with directly appears to be universal. The limitations can
be within the same agency to a particular shelter. For example, the
Children's Home Society in Miami has a significant number of children
in its care at any point in time, yet the Children's Home Society in
Minnesota has as its sole mission to facilitate Russian adoptions. How
can we have over 130,000 children a year in the US waiting for
permanent homes and no coordinated ``distribution mechanism'' for
locating and placing them with prospective parents? There is no central
database of all parents in each state interested in adoption. There are
no objective standards even within finite geographic regions for the
process of conducting home studies and background checks. As I learned
in Miami, there wasn't even a better system than a whiteboard.
Florida has the third highest concentration of children in foster
care, with the exception of California and New York. Miami-Dade County
had 16% of the state's total, or 5,000 per year. I wondered what were
the forces that prevented these children from being adopted by parents
in other states with lower populations of foster children? I was soon
to learn that even in a county with a large concentration of foster
children, the placement process itself was a barrier to timely
placements, favored ``those we already know'' over people who have
never fostered before, and was a highly manual process.
Through word of mouth, I learned of an option to adopt directly
from the State of Florida and applied to the state's Department of
Children and Families in the fall of 1999. I had already decided that I
wanted to adopt siblings, preferably a boy and a girl or two girls, so
that they would have a better sense of family, and because siblings
were harder for the state to place together. After completing an
extensive series of background checks and training courses, and visits
to my home by several caseworkers, I was approved for four children
because of the size of my home. I respectfully asked that they reduce
this to two, because as a single, working mother, I felt it would not
be fair to the children to take in more. Two children with one parent
require four times the attention of a single child with two parents who
can share the effort.
I asked that I be designated as a ``strictly adoptive'' home,
because with all the losses in my life, I did not wish to be in a
position to give back a child I had loved. I wanted to be considered
for children that had already been terminated from their parents.
That's when my licensing counselor told me that they didn't have a
computer system for ``strictly adoptive'' homes, but she would give my
name to the county's adoption counselor. That's when my real wait
began. I didn't realize that by not accepting the foster care
designation, I would not get a permit to receive children in my home,
which would actually prevent an adoption placement, even for children
with TPR.
I lost the placement of a 5 year old boy and his 7 year old sister,
two children who had been on the state's waiting list for at least two
years, because when the caseworker called to move them to my home as a
pre-adoptive placement and learned I did not have a foster license, she
had to find a temporary home that was licensed, and then when they were
happy in that home, she was reluctant to move them again. So I
contacted my home study caseworker, and told him I was rethinking my
classification and wanted to find out more about being a ``foster
resource parent''--a classification for foster parents who wish to
adopt the children if the biological parents' rights are eventually
terminated from the children. Some paperwork had to be updated, but
eventually I was issued my foster license in March of 2001--a year and
a half after I had first applied to adopt. Still I waited with an empty
home, and there were many other couples and singles like me in the
county, designated as Foster Resource homes, but without children.
Despite now having my foster license, even volunteering to work at
the shelters to read to children or hold babies proved difficult. At
the direction of the District Director for DCF, whom I had met at a
volunteer mentoring group for foster-adoptive parents, I was given a
list of eight shelters with state contracts by the placement office,
and of those, only one director would allow me to visit. I met my
children there, met their caseworker with the help of the shelter
director, but had to write a petition letter to actually have the
placement finalized with me. The placement office didn't have these
children on their ``radar'' yet, because they were in Protective
Services as abuse and neglect victims, and had not yet been officially
transferred to ``foster care.'' Then the ``preferred placement'' was to
be to a home that already had four children, requiring a waiver to
accept two more, because one of the children had been placed there for
two months the year before. Ultimately, due to my petition, in May 2001
the placement was re-reviewed by both the Protective Services and
Foster Care departments and unanimously moved to me. My children were
only in the shelter three weeks, but may have languished there far
longer had it not been for the unusual set of circumstances that
allowed me to meet them and work around the normal processes. The TPR
took a year and a half, and it was December 2002, when the adoption was
completed--three years after my initial application to the state. My
friends who introduced me to this option gave up on it, and privately
adopted a little girl from Haiti through the INS.
Why And How The Mechanisms That HHS And The Individual States Have
Established For Oversight Should Be Changed.
The Why:
You heard testimony from Dr. Wade F. Horn, Assistant Secretary for
Administration of Children and Families at the Department of Health and
Human Services that the timely achievement of permanency outcomes,
especially adoption, for children in foster care is the weakest area of
State performance. Judging from HHS tables of the annual number of
children in foster care in each state, and total annual number adopted
by state, this appears to range from a low of 4% to a national average
of 9.5% per year adopted by non-relatives. My two were counted in the
2,206 adoptions reported from Florida in 2002.
Dr. Horn testified that AFCARS, one of the ``principle mechanisms
for Federal oversight'' collects case level information on all children
in foster care and those adopted, and it also includes information on
adoptive and foster parents. However, this data is demographic only,
and aggregate at best, and with data reported only twice per year, it
takes HHS as long as two additional years to validate the data. This is
hardly timely, and certainly not useful in tracking successful outcomes
for children that can be responsive. With all due respect, I would
hardly deem this ``oversight.''
The data structure required for submitting AFCARS data, designed in
1993, is available on the ACF website. It asks no question about
whether the children have siblings and whether those siblings have
separate placements. This not only might be, but also should be, a
factor in their foster placement and adoption. My children have three
older siblings. There is no provision to determine the number of other
children in the foster care setting, although ``group home'' as a
classification is defined as from seven to 12 other children. Although
it asks whether an adopted child has moved to another state, it is in
the format of a Yes/No answer, which fails to provide information on
which state the child has moved to. We've moved twice since the
adoption, and I can tell you that it has averaged three months each
time to transfer into the new state system for Medicaid. I mean this
facetiously, but what is the point of asking, ``Date of Placement in
Current Foster Care Setting,'' when we are still validating data two
years after the fact? Hopefully the child has been adopted by then.
The GAO reported that many states have different interpretations
for answering: ``Number of Placement Settings?'' This is a very
different question if your system is designed to track whereabouts,
which are necessary for safety and security reasons, versus specific
foster care assignments. All systems should be designed to track both.
A child might be given to a different foster parent over a weekend to
provide respite time for the foster parent of record, for example. At
least under Florida law, babysitters are not allowed unless the sitter
is another licensed foster care parent. The respite home may be the
current whereabouts, but not the current assignment to a foster parent.
Foster parents MUST be compelled to report the whereabouts of a child
at any point in time, and the States should have a method for recording
this information electronically. Hopefully both questions can be
recorded separately so that the data purposes are not commingled.
There are many deficiencies in the design of AFCARS; these are just
a few examples, and the design of AFCARS is under review. However, I
contend that the whole approach to the system for AFCARS, along with
SACWIS, requires a complete redesign and not just a ``tweaking.''
Over the last decade, $2.5 Billion has been spent automating state
child welfare systems (SACWIS), and the best we can do is report data
on 500,000 children two years after the fact? Further, only 29 states
have operational systems, and of those, only 5 have been fully
accredited by HHS. Without mincing words: that is an abysmal track
record after a decade of effort and that level of spending. The GAO has
written numerous reports pointing out these failures and has indicated
that HHS failed to define the problem to be automated but rather
suggested the states attempt to solve it on their own, with HHS telling
them when they ``got it right.'' Throwing money at a problem without
defining the problem is not a solution.
I informally interviewed several state IT staff on an ad hoc basis,
and as examples learned:
1. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, not counted in the
``operational'' group, spent $65 million on an effort to automate its
child welfare system and was told by HHS to go back to the drawing
board, an effort slated to begin again next summer.
2. The State of Maryland has spent over $20 million, and is only
now nearing operational readiness with the software, although PC's were
purchased for each caseworker close to four years ago which up to now
have been used for email. The concern is that the hardware, running the
Windows NT operating system, may be obsolete for this rollout.
Both of these states have in common that their child welfare
systems are administered at a county level with state oversight. In
Pennsylvania there are 67 separate counties, each with its own methods
and procedures. A Pennsylvania state adoption clearinghouse told me
that there are 67 different versions of home study forms used, for
example, because every county does it differently, and ``individual
family court judges want different questions asked.'' I suspect that
Pennsylvania is not the only state with this problem, and that it is
far more likely to be prevalent not just in every state but also with
every privatized agency in every state, as I learned about in Florida.
In total, AFCARS is designed to receive information from 3,230
counties, including US Territories. It is incomprehensible to believe
that the demographics and legal systems are so different that we
require 3,230 different system designs.
It is not surprising then, with so many different approaches and a
lack of standards, that the Interstate Compacts for the Placement of
Children across states are still wholly manual processes, and rarely
used for foster care placements except for transfers of children to
other relatives, or where large urban cities border other states, such
as the District of Columbia with Maryland and Virginia. Your colleague
in the Senate, Senator Larry Craig, stated in the magazine Adoption
Today that there are ``more hurdles in adopting in this country,
especially if it is an out-of-state adoption'' than adopting
internationally.
Dr. Horn concluded by stating that States would continue to be
required to:
a. Adhere to ``requirements for conducting criminal background
checks and licensing foster care providers'';
b. Obtain ``judicial oversight over decisions related to a child's
removal and permanency'';
c. Meet ``permanency timelines'';
d. Develop ``case plans for all children in foster care''; and
e. Prohibit ``race-based discrimination in foster and adoptive
placements.''
I recommend that those five mandates should form the basis to
establish a National Child Welfare IT Task Force to create a Program-
Management Office and Global Architectural Approach to designing a
comprehensive national child welfare tracking system. The mission of
the Task Force would be to: Create a streamlined nationwide system of
placing, tracking, counting, classifying, protecting and coordinating
children and service delivery to children in the foster care system
that can be easily implemented at the local, county, state and federal
level to unify the delivery of care to children and yet also enable
community-based efforts to care for children.
The real key is to facilitate data interchange among all the
jurisdictions and organization involved in the process. We need to
define and create a national infrastructure that is at once centralized
(the data) and distributed (some data and processes).
I'd also like to add one more mandate, or rather supplement Dr.
Horn's list:
f. Provide a national ``interstate'' system for matching foster/
pre-adoptive homes with waiting children (the 130,000 annual average
since 1998), not just those desperate few (3,700 currently) already
TPR'd without a permanency solution.
The need also to monitor case management metrics, such as timely
abuse and neglect investigations and regular visits to children in
their homes is also an ongoing requirement, and perhaps a subset of d).
The How:
Economies of scale in system design and cost of implementation can
be achieved when commonalities and best practices are recognized and
shared, rather than completely separate efforts. National guidelines
and directions would go a long way to reducing the rework as each state
and many counties develop wholly separate systems. Ideally several
states could take advantage of similar software modules, the way that
software modules or custom packages are ``vertically marketed'' to
like-businesses.
With many states facing fiscal crises, state funding for developing
appropriate information systems has been cited as a significant barrier
to timely completion of their SACWIS projects. This is all the more
reason to have clear established guidelines for the future. More
importantly, process efficiencies can be achieved when data exchange is
standardized, and counties and states can effectively and efficiently
transfer child welfare information.
Every state is different in demographics, population size and laws
affecting children in foster care. California has very different needs
than Vermont, and the cities of Los Angeles or Chicago or Philadelphia
each has greater automation needs for foster care than some entire
states. However, standards for information can be established
recognizing differences in scope, scale and processes. For example:
``What is a case?'' differs from state to state. Is it a single child
or a single legal case representing several children in one family? Of
course it is possible in establishing standards also to establish
conversion tables that allow for necessary state or regional
variations.
In the 35 states with county-administered systems, developing these
standards is critically important. There are too many computer efforts
that begin by automating in the same fashion what had previously been a
manual process, rather than re-engineering the process to take
advantage of the new efficiencies of the computer architecture. Another
common design mistake, when lots of focus groups are gathered, is to
fail to differentiate between what is desired because of habit, versus
what is a true processing or data need in the intrinsic nature of the
work. In particular, if the variations occur simply in the format and
semantics of a form that each county prefers, then creating 67 (e.g.
Pennsylvania) separate programmatic versions of what is in essence a
similar process that could be database driven for the essential and
required variations in content, is highly wasteful and expensive to
maintain in an ongoing fashion. Poor design leads to high cost.
A significant number of caseworkers were provided with systems that
have simply converted what used to be manual forms into online forms
that they now must type into the computer. Rather than relieving their
burden, this process adds to it, because with so much of the data
gathering happening in the field, it is difficult to carry around a
laptop and type the data in the presence of the foster family, assuming
the jurisdiction had money for laptops or even PDA's. The caseworker
should be focused on interacting with the family and children and
observing. My caseworker reported having to go into the office on her
days off on Saturdays to re-enter her forms just to keep up with the
paperwork requirements of the new Florida computer system. Clearly,
design guidelines are needed that take into account these ``human
factors.''
Today's computer technology is highly scalable. ``Open systems''
standards for software and hardware, as well as internet/intranet
technologies, are being adopted by many governmental Chief Information
Officers (CIO's) for their jurisdictions and agencies, making standards
around hardware and software more flexible and ``inter-operable'' than
when AFCARS was conceived in 1993. The same software will run on many
varieties of computers and operating systems.
The states arelooking to the Federal Government for guidelines. In
the absence of any other legislative mandate or regulation, however,
HHS has no choice but to carry on the programmatic directives of the
past, and the States to attempt to comply.
The technical assistance furnished by HHS to the states has been
focused on helping them to implement the current reporting
requirements, the AFCARS requirements from 1993, which is like a
``finger in the dike,'' rather than a proactive Program Management
Office and Global Architectural role which would facilitate consensus
on national standards. Placement is largely ignored by these efforts.
Rather than looking at developing standards as strictly a Federal
requirement, however, it should be looked at as a necessary
collaborative process, which all levels of government have a stake in.
Further, this mandate must come at a policy-setting level, and
therefore cannot be left to mid-level state staffs to ``work out.''
Many industries have developed information exchange standards,
beginning in the early 90's with invoice and ordering information, a
set of structures and processes known as EDI, or ``electronic data
interchange.'' Today, far more information than strictly financial
transactions is exchanged among businesses due to industry standards-
setting committees that established the formats for the information. My
recommendation is to mandate a similar standards development process
for information exchange in child welfare among all agencies involved
in service delivery to children and their families and monitoring of
outcomes.
With 500,000 children in foster care and approximately 40,000
caseworkers nationwide, we are not talking about an extensive amount of
data by comparison with other Federal requirements. The trick is not
the size of the system, but the design, and in getting everyone to
agree to data standards for exchange among all the different
jurisdictions, and on the appropriate process flows to move children
into permanency, whether through reunification or out-of-home
placement. Reducing the waiting time and the number of waiting children
is the goal. This will be the real work of the Task Force.
Does this mean every entity and jurisdiction must operate the same
way? Certainly not. If anything, it will enable innovation. No two
stores always operate the same way, unless they are part of the same
chain, and certainly retail vendors selling completely different goods
operate differently. Data interchange between suppliers and stores is
in widespread use in retail, however. What they must agree on is the
standards for the information they must exchange in order to work
together effectively. This is precisely the goal we need to enable
private/public partnerships, community-based family services,
cooperation between Foster Care Review Boards and the family court
system, the mental health providers, and linkages among various
jurisdictions and agencies, etc. This is what developing national
standards is all about.
To draw on another example from business: many companies today have
established systems to help them keep track of the information on all
their interactions with their customers, and to manage those
relationships. After numerous mergers and acquisitions, large companies
discovered their customer information was fragmented across numerous
operational and financial systems. In the IT industry we call it a
``data warehouse'' which allows you to generate specialized reports and
views of information by pulling it together from all your operational
and financial systems.
Child welfare demands a focus on the children and their families
and on processes that will rapidly highlight deviations or delays that
hinder successful outcomes. With so many jurisdictions and agencies
involved in service delivery, it is critical that there be a method to
bring this data together. Let me give you a personal example: After my
children were adopted, I sold my home in Miami and moved to a suburb of
Philadelphia. I called the Adoption After Care unit of Florida's
Department of Children and Families to let them know my new address.
They had to use email to send a note to someone in the Miami-Dade
County finance office to change my address in their accounting system's
``vendor'' file. How much more fragmented can a process get?
Once the mandate for a standards setting process is agreed to, the
first step in establishing effective standards is to study the
variations in policies and practices among the target organizations, in
this case specific states and counties. However, rather than pore over
manuals and legal regulations, the easiest and most efficient way to
study these differences is to let the computer do the comparing.
For example:
1. Developing national standards on home studies: By collecting
electronic copies of the home study form from as many jurisdictions in
every state as possible, and from privatized agencies as well, we can
electronically convert the questions and upload each question into a
database tagged by source, which we can query for keywords and phrases
to identify questions in common to most, and questions that are unique.
In this fashion we can develop a result set showing the number of
occurrences of a particular question or topic, and in which
jurisdictions they originate. Then a cross-functional committee could
evaluate the reported findings, with representation from independent
associations, state agencies, or others that should or wish to be
involved in establishing the standards.
2. For criminal background checks for foster parents: Although
perhaps disconcerting to some to create linkages to Justice Department
information, for background checks, there certainly is an overlap. The
work just completed by the Global Justice Information Sharing
Initiative with help from the National Association of State CIO's for
Homeland Security may prove a useful source for information about
current state IT infrastructures and a starting point for streamlining
this function.
3. For the data structures: Most states have at least started to
develop SACWIS systems, and it is important not only to develop
standards for the future but also a migration path for each State to
``get there,'' which requires understanding the starting point. By
extracting the ``data dictionaries'' (file formats, layouts and
relationships) from their existing systems, we can do a comparison
electronically and develop data mapping reports and definitional
documentation.
Here are examples of possible additional benefits from developing
data interchange standards and a national or regional ``data
warehouse(s)'' of child welfare information:
Certain functions could be ``web-enabled'' so appropriate
individuals would have direct access to update information, reducing
the data entry load on the caseworkers.
With appropriate standards for privacy and security and
``need to know'' access, records on the children could be stored in an
accessible format, such as health records (with appropriate HIPAA
compliance), so that caseworkers don't have to spend time chasing these
down and can more easily print them out for foster parents to have
ready access to immunization records, allergies, and other vital
information on special needs children, which is essential in the first
week of placement for school enrollment, doctors' visits, etc. and
often difficult to come by.
Research data would be more robust and could be
aggregated from the specific records, keeping private the information
on individuals. For example, knowing the specific drugs used by parents
(methamphetamines, crack cocaine, OxyContin, etc.) is useful to the
court preparation for a TPR, but aggregated at a county level, and
mapped using Geographic Information tools, could demonstrate
dramatically the specific patterns of drug use across the country and
in specific regions, and correlated with other family service data
could demonstrate the highest concentrations of need for planning
purposes, without a lot of effort.
CONCLUSION:
The 10-year effort to automate child welfare by leaving it to each
individual state has done little to streamline the complex process of
managing case loads and ensuring successful outcomes for children in
the child welfare system, as the data on adoptions demonstrates.
Oversight at a Federal level has been hampered by the lack of completed
state efforts.
Solving the problem of a high number of children waiting for
adoptive homes, as well as matching them with the large number of
Americans interested in adopting children requires:
A national mandate to establish the design of a national child
welfare information system infrastructure that is standardized, and can
be integrated and distributed among all the jurisdictions and agencies
at a state, county and local level.
Every child should have a family.
Statement of Patricia de Santos, Claremont, California
I wish to convey my research and experience dealing with the
children's welfare system. My perspective is especially important
because despite the enormity of the legislature's efforts and policy
writings the ultimate policy must be able to affect the proposed
intent. The children, my great nephews, and myself I have cared for
over the past ten years are the people this children's welfare policy
affects. Therefore, I hope my perspective will be of interest to you.
BRIEF BACKGROUND
In 1994, I took in a sibling group of three infant boys. These
brothers had been placed in three separate fosters homes, two in the
State of Hawaii and one child in the State of California. I am the
boys' maternal great aunt and the placement of the children with me
achieved unification of the three brothers. Over the following eight
years I worked diligently not only providing support for the
reunification services, which ultimately failed, but also for the boys
special needs as all were later diagnosed with psychological problems
(ADHD) and mental health disorders (Bipolar). These were extreme needs
and I was never wavered in my efforts for the children or my intent to
adopt all three children.
Nevertheless, in July of 2001, our family was ``blown-up'' by our
social workers. What is more disturbing is that a false report
regarding my care of the children was generated and used to prohibit
the return of the children to me. When the two older boys, then 8 and 9
years old, were deported by the County of Los Angeles back to their
jurisdictional State of Hawaii, Hawaii investigated. The investigation
determined that the allegations in the false DCFS report were
``unfounded.'' I obtained custody of my two older boys in December of
2001. Unfortunately, Los Angeles County has not and will not return
custody of my youngest son, which effectively has separated the three
brothers.
PURPOSE OF THE SUMMARY
I bring my story to you because in my search to understand what
happened to my children and me in July of 2001, I necessarily initiated
legal proceedings. Through these legal processes I reviewed, for the
first time, the social workers' reports. Although, for many years the
reports of my care of the children was favorable it was not complete.
In fact, the over-simplification of my extreme efforts in caring for
three special needs children from infancy was an egregious omission of
the facts necessary to fully evaluate our situation. Moreover, when our
last social worker began her relationship with us her representations
and information to me were false based on her reports to the court AND
her reports to the court were misrepresentations of the truth. Attached
to this summary are two documents: 1) my research thesis with my
findings overlaid on my own experiences, entitled, Disrespecting
Children: Disclosing the Adverse Effects of Children's Public Policies.
An Autobiographical Case Study, and 2) a copy of a letter addressed to
Robert R. Walmsley, a children's attorney, describing a chronological
summary of the events that transpired during my family's relationship
with our social worker.
In further research of the problems I was encountering with the Los
Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services I began to
uncover horrendous accounts of vile behavior by social workers and the
children's welfare system. Who would believe that the benevolent
positions of protectors of children would behave in such ways? Until I
researched this enigma I had no idea of the autonomous power social
workers and children's welfare implementers possess. Until I reviewed
hundreds of case records I did not understand the full extent of
absolute immunity. Until I pursued public policy in my graduate work I
did not realize the inherent government failure connected with
children's public policies. I came to realize the difficulties of
implementing children's public policy but most importantly, I saw why
there is such a distortion within the children's welfare system and the
protection of children.
The most devastating failure of the children's welfare system is
that the funding bureaucracies within the system are in direct
contradiction with the best interest of the child. Social services is
in a position of serving two masters, the money stream which comes from
legislators, and, doing what is best for the kids. In any bureaucratic
system it must remain solvent and therefore social services look to
these veins of income to remain self-sufficient. Unfortunately, when a
decision is made based on funding it is inherently done against the
best interest of the child because you don't put the child first. In
order to do what is in the best interest of the child the child must be
first and foremost. Double-talking this pursuit leads to a murky grave
of this system. Clearly, the purpose of your sub-committee is a
reflection of this failing.
A SUMMARY OF DISRESPECTING CHILDREN
My thesis is a dissection of three specific children's policies, 1)
The Special Education System, 2) The Foster Care System (Dependency),
and 3) the Juvenile Delinquency System. Although this sub-committee is
looking specifically at the children's welfare system, I believe, you
cannot effectively address a problem in one system without affecting
another system. These systems are the links of a child's life and they
cannot be addressed in isolation. To do so would be like fixing a
broken arm while allowing the body to be ravaged by cancer. It is a
daunting task, to step back and look at the enormity of the effort, but
if it is not done correctly and completely, the problems you are
addressing in this hearing are doomed to be repeated with horrendous
and continued social consequences. The goal is to help and protect
children. My research, my findings, and my experience determined that
the bureaucracy itself is also part of the problem.
The Special Education system is a support system where a majority
of children placed in Foster Care need to be. Nevertheless, this system
is burdened and therefore excluding of as many as can be determined to
fall above the very low standard for learning disability. Children in
the foster care system often decline in their educational performance,
but stay at borderline. Not enough to get them special education
services, but receiving a minimal education at best. And if a foster
parent were inclined to pursue special education services on behalf of
the child, the process is delayed (despite statutory requirements) and
the current Foster Care System is notorious for moving children
multiple times. If by some luck the child stays in the same home for
more than one year, the uphill bureaucracy of getting a borderline
child are impossible as many children who fall below the standard are
continually declined special education services, procedurally or
effectively.
[This segment is a description of the wall of obstacles in the way
of children in the foster care system to find support for their
educational needs.]
The Foster Care System is inherently a brutal system. Children are
continually removed from a home with little or no evidence. Those
families who attempt to fight Child Protective Services are immediately
portrayed as deviant, dysfunctional, combative, or worse. Yet the
natural instinct for any parent is to protect your child without
concern for yourself. Many of the families that react in this
instinctive manner are characterized as abnormal. When an intrusion
enters the Constitutionally protected domain of the home, there must be
safeguards to these psychological dynamics. Otherwise, the abuses that
occurred to my family and me and to many families whose stories are
told and untold will continue to the detriment of the children the
system is designed to protect.
Now, add in the enormous and autonomous power social workers have
acquired over the years in implementing children's welfare policy. In
an effort to protect children legislators have provided social workers,
(fallible human beings) an immune license to tear up, split apart, and
destroy families without accountability. Why does this happen? Because,
it is allowed to happen. The basic rule of law is that no one should
have the absolute power of authority over anyone else without a check
and balance. The children's welfare system has lost this check and
balance.
But most important is the life of the child in foster care. It has
been well established that children are inherently placed at great risk
once put in the children's welfare system and they are subjected to
enormous cruelty while in the child welfare system. Talk to anyone who
has lived inside the system. The reason for this are many, but one
major factor is simply that once in the system the child becomes
anonymous. There is no one who knows the child, (e.g. history, moods,
problems, fears), that can effectively understand the child's reactions
and behaviors while in foster care. Psychological care providers do not
live with the child. And the attention a child is rationed is cruelty
beyond belief.
Children are complicated beings and to diminish their individuality
to the need for food, shelter and school is to ignore the entire basis
for this Congressional inquiry. And children live life minute by
minute. The slow moving wheels of the juvenile court system, not to
mention noteworthy Congressional hearings and public policy-making,
will leave a child slowly suffering a fate they do not understand. For
this reason, as this issue is again on the table, please put the time
in to do a complete job so children will not needless have to suffer
the waiting of another tragedy to occur to convene another
subcommittee.
To understand what is needed from legislators, legislators must
first re-evaluate the basic structure of what has grown into an
enormous bureaucratic system, children's welfare. Consider it
renovation, if you will. This system as it was designed in the middle
of the 20th Century no longer stands tall in light of recent
knowledge of social behavior and social public policy. In an effort to
protect children we, as a society, have made them prisoners. What other
victim is taken and incarcerated in a strange location, incommunicado?
What other victim's voice is muted by those assigned to protect them?
[This segment is a recount of the malicious and false information
used by our social workers to affect their goal of removing a child
from a safe and loving home, against statutory prohibitions, for the
purpose of punishment and personal gain. Please also see attached
letter to Mr. Robert R. Walmsley, children's attorney.]
The Juvenile Delinquency System is the last stop before the
criminal justice system completely swallows up the life of another
individual. Sometimes it is justified, sometimes it is a road that one
lacks the skills to get off of, and sometimes it is both. But for those
children that come from the Foster Care System, it is an abhorrent
testament of the children's welfare system. The child does not fail,
the system fails the child.
[This segment is the result of the failure of the special education
and foster care systems.]
CONCLUSION
I am an educated woman who, through a series of circumstances,
found herself a single mother of three special needs children. The
children and I formed a family, by design and direction of the
Department of Children and Family Services. We lived together for eight
years. These three children who were injured by their biological
parents at infancy were later brutalized by their social workers and
the system designed to protect them. To what end? It was proven that
the social worker report was false and I was guilty of no wrongdoing.
My children suffered and continue to suffer from bureaucratic abuse.
AND, MY STORY IS NOT UNIQUE.
In the summer of 2001, our social workers portrayed me as a
negligent, non-caring, self-serving caregiver/mother. At that time
anyone looking at our case and at the depictions of me by the social
workers would not have known of the deceptions being waged. It has
taken over two years to bring these malicious acts by the social
workers and the system to light. This is in part because the system
itself refused to acknowledge its own actions.
To first determine the problem is you must examine the credibility
of the system. No human being or system is infallible. The system that
is currently allowing abuses of the authority over children and
families is also not infallible. In addressing the problems connected
with the problems in the care of the children in New Jersey look to the
system and the players as a whole. Any one story is only a symptom of
the whole system.
My thesis is my research and my experience based on an academic
format. I would be willing to stand up to any further scrutiny of the
facts of my story. I welcome any interest.
Pompano Beach, Florida 33064
January 28, 2004
Chairman Wally Herger
Subcommittee on Human Resources
Committee on Ways and Means
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Sir,
I have but one voice, one pen, but let it be known to you and your
committee that my words are uttered in the hearts of every member of my
family and every generation of family to come ``that we will never
experience the joy, the laughter, the hope of two wonderful children
that were ripped from our lives and lineage by the Department of Social
Services in Massachusetts''.
If I fail to communicate to you the how this intrusion touches
their lives and ours, then you sirs, are equally responsible. They have
not only taken from us our anticipated and expected right to pursue
life, liberty and happiness, they have taken from us our right to love.
I ask that you not think of my grandchildren as you read my letter to
you, I ask only that you think of your own.
Six years ago, I called to the Department of Social Services. My
daughter is an addict and for her sake, and the sake of her daughter, I
called this Agency for help. The records will show that Department of
Social Services spent nine of their ten days investigating the reporter
and after one three hour visit to the reported, determined the report
vindictive in nature. A few months later, a second report was filed and
substantiated. The child remained in the custody of her mother for the
next 5 years during which time a second child was born. During her
pregnancy and under the ``born alive'' statutes in Massachusetts, I
attempted to get protection from the courts for this unborn child but
my petition was denied. Three months later this child was born
prematurely and with chronic asthma due to Placenta Abruption
associated with drug use. He was then taken into custody by the
Department of Social Services. My daughter entered several Drug
Rehabilitation Facilities with her children and in spite of the chronic
non-compliance and continued drug use, they remained in her care for
the next five years under the watchful blind eye of DSS. My daughter
was terminated from one facility for drug use, another for threatening
a caseworker. She was put out and put up in a hotel in the middle of
December with two children in tow. She spent the better part of a year
in several shelters with her children. The incidents that occurred from
1998 to 2003 included, domestic violence, drug use, rape, threat of
bodily harm with a weapon (gun), physical abuse, mental abuse and
abandonment. These incidents are documented in the files and at no time
was anything done to protect the children. The Agency protected it's
decision. Compounding the issue of drug use, my daughter was finally
diagnosed with serious mental disorders yet the Department of Social
Services having no knowledge of this, once again, returned the children
to her care and custody. In the process and relying upon the outcome of
the original complaint and diluted reports of a drug addict, this
family has had no contact with these children in almost six years. Had
the Department attempted to contact family members to secure assistance
with respect to the intervention and care of these children, none of
this would have happened.
This Agency continues to stand firm with respect to it's decisions
regarding the safety and well being of these children. This Agency
stands firm in spite of the fact that it did not meet six of the seven
safety and well-being requirements of the Federal Government. This
Agency is given license, without recourse, to help or harm. This is
unacceptable.
The Department will submit that lack of funding, communication and
data systems is responsible for the problems. There was no lack of
communication in this case. One should ask, ``How often does this type
of response happen?'' You won't hear about it or read about it because
the children didn't die, but they very well could have. It will be
recorded as another ``success'' story because ultimately the children
were ``adopted''.
The problem sir, is this Agency depends upon the ability of human
beings to handle situations, that for all purposes, was never intended
to be their responsibility. A State cannot function like a family. They
are disposed to extreme prejudice and inflated opinions. These
prejudices and opinions are unavoidable and at no cost to them. With
this in mind, it can no longer be a matter of ``fixing or correcting''
a system that is destined to fail, no matter how much funding,
computers and data system you provide. The Government, if it intends to
help at all, would better serve these children by first alerting
family, keeping in mind that is not and never should be a family's
obligation to live up to the State's definition of family. Some
families are poorer than others, but rich in love. Some family's in
spite of a States preoccupation with size of rooms, and ability to send
them to college, are more than able to provide these children with what
they need most, ``familiarity and LOVE''. The State does not love the
children in their care and no one knows that better than the children
they serve. The State(s) are rapidly earning themselves a reputation of
marketing children, sanctioning abuse and held above the law when
through neglect or omission children are beaten, raped, starved and
murdered. NOT ONE CHILD should ever be threatened by a system that is
supposed to protect them. More and more children are dying and it is
nothing new. The public and the Government have been and continue to be
aware of the statistics. It has been happening for years, ten maybe
twenty and all the hearings in the world are not going to change it.
If we are going to have to endure this intolerable system than at
least, at minimum, make them accountable. If they were held responsible
for the decisions they make, no matter what the ``excuse'', I can
assure sir, that their performance would change dramatically. If
rewards (Adoption Bonuses) are available then it stands to reason that
there must be consequence and accountability. The qualifications and
experience of those who control the quality of care for the children
would miraculously improve. There is no greater persuasion than risk.
I hope my voice rings true in your ears for a long time to come and
the next time you see a picture of a dead child in a newspaper, you
will either pat yourself on the back for trying to be part of the
solution, or hang your head in shame.
Respectfully,
Judith G. Evans-Baxter
Voice Application Specialists International, Inc.
Woodstock, Georgia 30189
February 6, 2004
The Honorable Wally Herger
2268 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman,
I am writing this letter today to introduce our company Voice
Application Specialists (VAS) International, Inc. a Georgia based voice
biometrics company who has developed an application we believe will
greatly enhance the accountability and overall protection of our
children nationwide.
I recently viewed the testimony from your January 28th
2004 Subcommittee meeting you held with respect to some of the issues
regarding the Child Welfare problems in this country, and am sending
this letter as per the instructions for submittal of written
statements, and sent a similar letter to Mr. Shay Bilchik.
As we all know the issues around our children's safety are
paramount and the purpose of this outreach is to provide a solution we
developed around our technology, offering some tremendous relief for
our at-risk children.
VAS's software application TrueStudentID uses a person's voiceprint
to verify them, in the same manner as other biometric technology. The
accuracy rate is over 99.99967% and sadly to write there are some
children as young as ten years old using this in the State of Florida
(through our partner Voicevault the world leaders in voice
verification) but shows how easy and flexible the system is.
With TrueStudentID the child is enrolled in the system by simply
dialing into a toll free telephone number asking to speak their name
and to repeat the numbers 1-10. The whole process takes about 65
seconds, and the child's voiceprint is enrolled in the voice vault,
that has the highest security related hardware and software in the
world.
In cases where children may be at risk in a home or foster family,
and where a state Division of Family and Children's Services has placed
them in one of the ratings assigned by the state, voice verification
can also be used to check on a child in the interim period. Again,
nothing replaces the on-site visit by the caseworkers, but is another
verifier.
We have gone one step further in this verification process and that
is with the caseworker. As we know, some caseworkers either from sheer
overwork or from forgetting to stop by and see an at-risk child, have
written down on a log that they did in fact visit the child at the
home, only to find out later they did not but no matter what the case,
a better control and daily verification process is needed.
TrueStudent enrolls the caseworker the same as we have done for the
child, then dials out to the child's home during the day (whether it
was a pre-determined time to meet or just a drive-by) asks for the
caseworker by name and ask him/her to repeat a set of 4 numbers
randomly given and changed by the algorithms each time the user is
asked their name.
Once they have been asked to provide the name and numbers the
caseworker is either positively identified within less than one second,
and if they are not who they ``say'' they are, an instant notification
is sent back to a pre-determined number (by telephone, fax, pager, or
e-mail) to a supervisor in the form of an alert management overview.
We are currently working with one of the major cell phone
distributors with their use of camera technology to be able to take a
picture of the child, upload it to a database and send it along with a
voiceprint. If the child's parents do not have a telephone, the
caseworker simply dials into the toll free number and the child is
asked to repeat his name, and a set of numbers.
Either way we have a voiceprint of the child who can be accurately
identified by a caseworker (or a police officer), and by calling out to
the child's home and using Automatic Numbering Identification (ANI) we
can also see if the call was trying to be call-forwarded to another
number or a cell phone.
This application is used as a trust by verify role, and in the
event a caseworker has a problem getting to a house, the supervisor
will have an almost immediate notification, and if needed a third level
notification can be sent to a local supervisor.
There is also a latchkey application for the child who may be
arriving home who may not have a parent/guardian nearby. In this
instance TrueStudent would dial out to the home during a pre-set time
period ask for verification of the child, and the parent would then
receive a notification either through a phone, pager, fax or e-mail of
the status of the call (and would continue to call up to four times if
needed until the parent arrived home).
How do we know this works? We have been working in the voice
applications business since the late 1980's and wrote some of the
functional specifications for a very similar application used in home
detention based environments for low risk prisoners who currently
number over 170,000 nationwide. We designed TrueStudentID to secure the
safety of some of the at-risk children and to provide an additional
layer of accountability.
This enrollment system uses a tool free number, so a child who has
been enrolled in one state, who moves to another (due to a parents
transfer etc. . .) will then be enrolled in the new state without any
problems. The only change would be in the telephone number being dialed
and the new caseworker.
Clearly, our intention with the enrollment process in all the above
cases is to provide further documentation AFTER a caseworker has
visited a child's home, and a verification that those parents/guardians
who may want to try and continue to abuse these at-risk children, that
there is another verification tool, and random check of the child than
can be verified within less than a second, and an alert management
system designed to have a call placed to a local police officer for a
``drive-by'' if the child's voice does not match the voiceprint.
Sadly, Mr. Chairman one of the reasons for your meeting was due to
the recent case in Collingswood, New Jersey, and we presented this
application to the Speaker of the House of New Jersey 6 months BEFORE
this case, due to the other problems the state of New Jersey was
having, and believe could have helped those children as well as to
verify the caseworker's claims of when they were there.
What is the cost for this? Since this is a secure hosted
environment, and no hardware or software is needed, we charge a flat
$5.00 per day for each person who is verified (with a maximum of four
in-bound of out-bound calls). The initial enrollment phase can be a
pilot program of where we would take a high problem area and implement
a program there, and the $5.00 per day is ONLY spent when calls are in
fact placed.
Chairman Herger, I am not trying to sell you anything, but to present a
proven application that can assist every state agency throughout
the U.S. and could be a deterrent to those who continually want to
harm children.
We plan on sending a similar letter to Secretary Tommy Thompson to
seek funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and other
institutions, and would welcome any others you may feel can assist.
Lastly, Chairman Herger, my husband who is the chief architect of
the TrueStudentID will be in DC during the second week of March, and
after reading this if you or members of your staff would like to meet
with him please have someone from your staff reach me directly at 770-
591-3400.
Sincerely yours,
Maricriz Nolan
CEO/Chairman of the Board