A proposal for revamping the federal role in states’ child protection efforts was the focus of a July 20 hearing held by the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources.
Subcommittee Chair Nancy Johnson (R-CT), author of the proposal, referred to the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (P.L. 96-272), which implemented several changes to the child protection system in 1980. She described the new system as two separate programs administered by states and overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). “The first program is a capped and appropriated program that provides funds…to prevent or solve problems that lead to abuse or neglect,” she said, adding: “The second program is a series of open-ended entitlement programs that support a system for removing children from their homes.”
Rep. Johnson said that as a result of the divided system, “the service program…has hardly grown in two decades….By contrast, because the maintenance programs were open-ended, they have grown by leaps and bounds.” Although the Adoption and Safe Families Act (P.L. 105-89) sought to remedy some of the problems, Rep. Johnson said she is proposing a pilot program to study more broad-based reforms. The pilot program would include up to ten states, five of which would receive a federal block grant for spending on both types of programs—prevention and maintenance. The other states participating in the pilot program would continue to receive funds in the traditional manner, but they would be allowed to transfer funds between the prevention and maintenance programs.
A major focus of the pilot program would be data evaluation, Rep. Johnson said. Testifying before the subcommittee, General Accounting Office Director Cynthia Fagnoni said it is difficult to evaluate the changes made under P.L. 96-272 and P.L. 105-89 because states “do not have appropriate data systems in place.” For example, she said, some states manually maintain records on foster care and child protection cases. In one state where computers are used, she said, officials use “three separate, unintegrated data systems to track client and service data, and must enter duplicate information into each system and physically locate the three computer terminals side-by-side to ensure consistent data.”
Ms. Fagnoni urged the subcommittee to require states to utilize the Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS). Rep. Jim McCrery (R-LA) echoed her view, stating that 75 percent of the costs for the SACWIS are appropriated by the federal government. “These statewide data systems should be put to use,” he said.
Several witnesses called on the subcommittee to preserve the current entitlement for children who qualify for child protection services. MaryLee Allen of the Children’s Defense Fund applauded the proposed pilot program, but added: “It is critically important that otherwise eligible children remain entitled to receive assistance.” Rep. Johnson offered assurance that her plan would “continue all the entitlements and guarantees for children found in current law.”
In addition, Ms. Allen said current efforts should be supplemented with substance abuse treatment services. “An estimated 40 to 80 percent of the children in the child welfare system are from families with alcohol and drug problems,” she said. Child welfare consultant Charlotte McCullough, who works closely with the child protection system in her state, told the subcommittee, “Less than one-third of the nearly 67 percent of parent caregivers who require treatment currently receive it.”
