On June 9, the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources held a hearing on the administration’s proposal to reform the financing of federal foster care programs. In a press advisory announcing the hearing, Chair Wally Herger (R-CA) stated, “We have repeatedly heard over the past few years how children have been left at risk in the current child protection system. Everyone should expect better outcomes, starting with our primary focus and utmost priority, ensuring these vulnerable children are well cared for and safe. I look forward to learning more at this hearing about how current funds are being spent, and how funding is related to outcomes experienced by children.”
Assistant Secretary for Children and Families at the Department of Health and Human Services Wade Horn addressed the following “weaknesses” in the current funding structure: 1) Determining Title IV-E eligibility has become “burdensome” for states; 2) Different claiming practices result in wide funding disparities among the states; 3) The current funding structure has not resulted in high quality foster care services; 4) Spending on foster care services is not linked to permanency outcomes; 5) The program structure is inflexible and emphasizes foster care over solutions that would prevent a child’s removal from the home; and 6) The current financing structure has not kept pace with best practices in the child welfare field, including “the growing role of kinship foster care, the significant extent to which parental substance abuse often underlies the abuse and neglect of children, and the field’s increased emphasis on permanency planning for children in foster care.”
Highlighting the Bush administration’s proposal to reform foster care financing, Secretary Horn said that the Child Welfare Program Option would provide states “with greater flexibility so they can design more effective ways to strengthen services to vulnerable children and families,” adding, “States that choose the Program Option would be able to use funds for foster care payments, prevention activities, permanency efforts, training for child welfare staff, and other service-related child welfare activities…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, including requirements for conducting 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.”
Adrienne Hahn, vice president of public policy for Casey Family Programs, stated that any changes made to the financing of foster care programs “should not reduce the federal fiscal resources now available, or make administration of programs more complex for states. Casey recommends that the entitlement be continued and that more flexibility be added, particularly to assist relative caregivers and to provide prevention services to families.” She offered a number of recommendations for the subcommittee to consider such as preserving the current Title IV-E funding structure instead of initiating a block grant as proposed by the administration; allowing Title IV-E funds to be made available to children needing services in their own homes; making funds available to all children removed from their homes, including those placed with a relative caregiver or in subsidized guardianships; holding state child welfare agencies accountable for meeting federal standards concerning child safety and well-being; and ensuring that child welfare agencies are provided with adequate resources to meet federal standards.
Ms. Hahn also expressed her concern that children of color are overrepresented in the foster care system, but have the worst experiences and outcomes. She said that Casey Family Programs “recommends that a [Government Accountability Office] GAO study be done to examine the entire continuum of care with respect to children of color, with a focus on how states can reduce their disproportionate representation in the system and improve outcomes,” adding, “The study should look at how responses differ to reports of abuse, removal from home into foster care, prevention and treatment offered the family, length of time in care, and adoption rates, compared with the general child welfare caseload.”
