On May 13, the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources heard testimony on state efforts to comply with federal Child and Family Service Reviews. This hearing is the fourth in a series of briefings to examine the child welfare system. Previous hearings were held in January 2004 and November 2003 (see The Source, 1/30/04, 11/21/03, and 11/7/03).
Chair Wally Herger (R-CA) explained that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) determines whether state child welfare programs meet federal standards and requirements through Child and Family Service Reviews (CFSRs). “As of April 2004,” he said, “all of the states have completed their Child and Family Service Review. No state has passed this federal review, although states vary in the extent to which their programs meet some federal standard.” Rep. Herger noted, “While many of us are disappointed with the results of the reviews, the process is working as it was intended…Because of this process, efforts are underway in every state to improve the delivery and quality of child welfare services.”
“We can and must do more to protect these very vulnerable children,” Ranking Member Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) declared. He cited instances of failure in Texas and Maryland and pointed to the need for more funding. “We can pass all the laws we want in Washington,” he said, “but we need to recognize that actual decisions affecting the lives of individual children are being made by caseworkers who are too often underpaid, under-trained, and over-burdened with too many cases.”
HHS Assistant Secretary for Children and Families Wade Horn summarized the main conclusions of the state reviews: states perform better on safety outcomes than on permanency and well-being outcomes; one of the weakest areas is the timely achievement of permanency outcomes; frequent caseworker visits with children are linked with positive findings in other areas; and states need to improve assessment methods for case development plans. Mr. Horn said that 33 state Program Improvement Plans designed to address shortcomings have been approved. He added, however, that “more funding and greater flexibility in the use of federal funds” are needed. Mr. Wade urged Congress to support the administration’s FY2005 funding requests for two key child abuse programs and the Child Welfare Program Option, which would give states a “flexible, alternative financing structure.”
Testifying on behalf of the General Accounting Office (GAO), Cornelia Ashby provided information from the April 2004 GAO report on CFSRs, administered by the HHS Administration for Children and Families (ACF). Ms. Ashby highlighted state concerns with the accuracy of data used in the review process. She said, “The majority of states agreed that CFSR results are similar to their own evaluation of areas needing improvement. However, without using more reliable data and in some cases, additional data from state self-assessments to determine substantial conformity, ACF may be over- or under-estimating the extent to which states are actually meeting the needs of children and families in their care.” Ms. Ashby also noted that “the PIP development, approval and monitoring processes remain unclear” in some instances. To improve the CFSRs, Ms. Ashby said the GAO recommended that the secretary of HHS “expand the use of additional data states may provide,” and “clarify guidance on the PIP process.”
Details of the current New Jersey child welfare system were provided by Mr. Edward Cotton of the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services. Mr. Cotton began his testimony by assuring the subcommittee that the four children who were treated for malnourishment in October 2003 are doing well (see The Source, 11/07/03). “Since that time,” he stated, “New Jersey has undertaken significant reform measures.” He noted that placement assessments for children in foster care have been initiated, substance abuse services have been expanded, 158 front-line caseworkers, case aides, and supervisors have been hired, and a mobile response system for children in crisis has been implemented in three of New Jersey’s largest counties.
Mr. Cotton described the “long-overdue” plan for restructuring the New Jersey child welfare system, part of a court-approved settlement reached last summer in a lawsuit filed against the state. “This new system must be one that doesn’t begin working after children have been damaged, but which is literally interwoven into the fabric of the community in which our most troubled families live,” he said. Mr. Cotton reviewed goals of the plan: emphasis on the issues that destroy families and hurt children, such as substance abuse, domestic violence, homelessness, and mental illness; the creation of a centralized hotline to ensure uniform screening and rapid response; and improvement in recruiting and support for resource families, the “heart and soul” of the system.
Mr. Cotton argued that changes should be made in Title IV-E eligibility and funding. He asked the subcommittee “to expand eligibility for protective children to all abused and neglected children,” and pointed out that “Title IV-E funding is not available for many of the most important services that are included in the plan, including prevention, investigations of child abuse or neglect, workforce development, emergency assistance, subsidized guardianship, post-adoption supports, and substance abuse.”
