U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

70–886 2011

IMPROVING PROGRAMS DESIGNED 

TO PROTECT AT-RISK YOUTH 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 16, 2011

Serial No. 112–HR4 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
ii 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

RICK BERG, North Dakota 

TOM REED, New York 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

DIANE BLACK, Tennessee 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

JON TRAUB, Staff Director 

JANICE MAYS, Minority Staff Director 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Advisory of June 16, 2011, announcing the hearing ............................................. 2 

WITNESSES 

PANEL 1: 

The Honorable Dennis R. ‘‘Denny’’ Rehberg, a Representative from the 

State of Montana .............................................................................................. 6 

The Honorable Karen R. Bass, a Representative from the State of California ................................................................................................................. 8 

PANEL 2: 

The Honorable Bryan Samuels, Commissioner, Administration on Children, 

Youth and Families, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ....................................................... 18 

PANEL 3: 

Patricia R. Wilson, Commissioner, Department for Community Based Services, Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services ............................... 61 

Lelia Baum Hopper, Director, Court Improvement Program, Supreme Court 

of Virginia ......................................................................................................... 69 

Tracy Wareing, Executive Director, American Public Human Services Association ................................................................................................................ 79 

John Sciamanna, Director, Policy and Government Affairs, Child Welfare, 

American Humane Society ............................................................................... 88 

Steve Yager, Deputy Director, Children’s Services Administration, Michigan 

Department of Human Services ...................................................................... 101 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Adoptions Together .................................................................................................. 124 

Child Welfare League of America ........................................................................... 131 

Conference of Chief Justices, Conferences of State Court Administrators ......... 140 

Cook Inlet Tribal Council ........................................................................................ 148 

Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption ................................................................. 151 

Embrace Waiting Children, Inc. ............................................................................. 157 

Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute .................................................................. 158 

Family Design Resource, Inc. ................................................................................. 163 

Zero to Three, National Center for Infants, Toddlers, and Families ................... 166 

Generations United ................................................................................................. 175 

National Association of Social Workers ................................................................. 179 

National Committee of Grandparents for Children’s Rights ............................... 184 

National Family Preservation Network ................................................................. 194 

North American Council on Adoptable Children .................................................. 197 

Northwest Adoption Exchange and Oregon Post Adoption Resources Center ... 201 

NYS Citizens’ Coalition for Children ..................................................................... 205 

Research on Vulnerable Families ........................................................................... 207 

Sacred Authority ...................................................................................................... 210 

Stephanie Trevitz .................................................................................................... 212 

The Adoption Exchange .......................................................................................... 216 

The National Mentoring Partnership .................................................................... 220 

Voice for Adoption .................................................................................................... 223 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

IMPROVING PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO 

PROTECT AT-RISK YOUTH 

THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 2011 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:02 a.m. in Room 

B–318, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Geoff Davis 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

[The advisory of the hearing follows:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
2 

HEARING ADVISORY 

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

Chairman Davis Announces Hearing on Improving Programs Designed to Protect At-Risk Youth 

Thursday, June 16, 2011 

Congressman Geoff Davis (R–KY), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources, Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the Subcommittee 

will hold a hearing on improving programs designed to protect youth at risk of 

abuse and neglect. The hearing will take place on Thursday, June 16, 2011, 

in Room B–318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, beginning at 9:00 

A.M. 

In view of the limited time available to hear from witnesses, oral testimony at 

this hearing will be from invited witnesses only. Witnesses will include a representative from the Administration for Children and Families, the Federal agency with 

oversight over child welfare services programs, along with other experts on these 

issues. However, any individual or organization not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the Committee and for 

inclusion in the printed record of the hearing. 

BACKGROUND: 

The authorizations for two of the child welfare programs under the Subcommittee’s jurisdiction (the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services program and 

the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program) expire at the end of fiscal year 

2011. The last reauthorization of these programs, the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109–288), made significant changes such as requiring 

that foster children be visited at least once per month, ensuring that states consult 

with medical providers in assessing the health and wellbeing of children in care, 

and helping States better address caretaker substance abuse issues. This law also 

extended the authorization of the Mentoring Children of Prisoners program as well 

as the Court Improvement Program. 

The 2006 legislation also provided funds to support monthly caseworker visits and 

to improve outcomes for children affected by a parent’s or caretaker’s substance 

abuse. In addition to these changes, the law also increased accountability by requiring States to report expenditure data for the first time and by limiting the amount 

of child welfare services program funds States could spend on administration. 

In announcing the hearing, Chairman Davis stated, ‘‘This hearing provides an important opportunity to review how key aspects of our nation’s child welfare system 

are working. These two programs are designed to play a significant role in protecting children from abuse and neglect. We need to review recent changes to see 

if they are working to improve the lives of kids in foster care and those at risk of 

entering care. We also need to evaluate these programs to determine whether other 

changes are needed to ensure children are protected from abuse and neglect.’’ 

FOCUS OF THE HEARING: 

The purpose of this hearing is to review recent changes to the Stephanie Tubbs 

Jones Child Welfare Services program and the Promoting Safe and Stable Families 

program, as well as consider whether additional changes should be made in legislation to reauthorize these programs. 

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: 

Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit for the hearing record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing page of the Committee 

website and complete the informational forms. From the Committee homepage, 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
3 

http://waysandmeans.house.gov, select ‘‘Hearings.’’ Select the hearing for which you 

would like to submit, and click on the link entitled, ‘‘Click here to provide a submission for the record.’’ Once you have followed the online instructions, submit all requested information. Attach your submission as a Word document, in compliance 

with the formatting requirements listed below, by the close of business on 

Thursday, June 30, 2011. Finally, please note that due to the change in House 

mail policy, the U.S. Capitol Police will refuse sealed-package deliveries to all House 

Office Buildings. For questions, or if you encounter technical problems, please call 

(202) 225–1721 or (202) 225–3625. 

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS: 

The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing 

record. As always, submissions will be included in the record according to the discretion of the Committee. The Committee will not alter the content of your submission, 

but we reserve the right to format it according to our guidelines. Any submission 

provided to the Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for 

the printed record, and any written comments in response to a request for written 

comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any submission or supplementary item 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 submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in Word format and MUST 

NOT exceed a total of 10 pages, including attachments. Witnesses and submitters are advised 

that the Committee relies 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 submissions must include a list of all clients, persons and/or organizations on whose 

behalf the witness appears. A supplemental sheet must accompany each submission listing the 

name, company, address, telephone, and fax numbers of each witness. 

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. 

Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on the World 

Wide Web at http://waysandmeans.house.gov

f 

/. 

Chairman DAVIS. Good morning. Before we begin the opening 

statement, I would like to note that our line-up on the Republican 

side has changed a bit, due to Mr. Heller’s move over to the United 

States Senate, and his departure from the People’s House. Today 

I would like to welcome Tom Reed from New York, both to the subcommittee and to the committee, for his first hearing. Thanks for 

joining us; we look forward to your perspective. He replaces Mr. 

Smith of Nebraska, who now becomes a distinguished alumnus of 

our subcommittee. 

In today’s hearing we are going to review several programs 

under our jurisdiction that are designed to help ensure the safety 

and well-being of children at risk of abuse and neglect. The majority of Federal child welfare spending is used to reimburse states for 

supporting and overseeing children while they are in foster care. 

However, the two programs we will focus on today, the Child 

Welfare Services program and the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program, are designed to prevent the need for foster care in 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
4 

the first place, as well as to help foster children return home safely 

or be placed with adoptive parents as soon as possible. 

These two programs were last authorized in 2006, and both expire at the end of the fiscal year. The 2006 reauthorization made 

significant changes, such as requiring that foster children be visited at least once per month, ensuring that states consult with 

medical providers in assessing the health of foster youth, and helping states better address caretaker substance abuse issues. 

The purpose of our hearing today is to review the effects of those 

changes, and to consider other changes that may be needed to promote the well-being of children at risk of abuse and neglect. While 

we will primarily focus on these two programs, we should also 

draw attention to the patchwork way in which child welfare programs currently operate. 

In our prior hearing on the program duplication, I noted that this 

subcommittee has jurisdiction over nine different child welfare programs, each with different purposes, spending requirements, and 

funding mechanisms. We need to ensure that these programs help 

and do not hinder states’ efforts to serve families in need. We also 

must make sure we understand how this taxpayer money is used, 

and whether it is achieving its intended purpose. 

Amazingly, until 2006, there was no requirement that states report how they actually spend child welfare service program funds. 

In other words, for that program’s first 70 years, the public had no 

way of knowing how this money was spent, and this is not a way 

to run a government. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses this morning on 

what we have learned from the recent changes to these programs, 

as well as what we can do to ensure more children remain safely 

in their own homes. Joining us today will be a mix of experts from 

Congress, the Administration, states, and outside groups. We look 

forward to all of their testimony. 

And I particularly want to single out one group that is not represented here today, possibly in the room, but one that my wife and 

I have long affiliation with, and that is CASA. I have done a lot 

of work through the years—really, over the last 25 years—with 

families on the edge, and particularly our years of affiliation with 

CASA have been a great blessing. And I appreciate not only 

CASA’s contribution, but all of the advocates, and especially the 

front-line volunteers and folks that are working directly with children, with the families, trying to bring stability and order. 

Without objection, each Member will have the opportunity to 

submit a written statement and have it included in the record at 

this point. And now I would like to recognize our distinguished 

Ranking Member from Texas, my friend, Mr. Doggett. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. We share a 

similar interest in CASA. I have worked with several of the groups 

in the central Texas area, and they do outstanding work with able 

volunteers, as well as some of the other groups that are represented here this morning. And I am hopeful that we share not 

only that interest, but an interest in seeing that we put every taxpayer dollar to the most effective and efficient use possible to provide some of our most vulnerable children the services that they 

need. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
5 

As you have noted, the funding for the Child Welfare Services 

program and the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program will 

expire—the authorization for it—at the end of September, unless 

we take action to renew them. These programs have been renewed, 

and have enjoyed bipartisan support in the past. And I hope that 

we can work together to extend and improve these services. 

The Child Welfare Services and the Promoting Safe and Stable 

Families initiatives provide about $700 million to the states this 

year for early intervention and family services designed to help our 

most at-risk families. These funds are a critical part of the efforts 

to ensure that children are raised safely in their homes. And when 

that is not possible, to find a permanent home with a relative or 

an adoptive family. 

In my home state of Texas, the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program has provided funds to help children in my home town 

in Travis County that are affected by substance abuse in the home. 

This program has enabled our county to develop a flexible, comprehensive continuum of services that is aimed at promoting recovery, and ensuring that children have a safe home free of drug addiction and abuse. 

We know that an investment in front-end services not only saves 

lives, but also can reduce the long-term cost of removing a child 

from a family home and placing them in foster care. We have seen 

in Texas how mindless budget cutting can hurt these same children. In Texas there was a proposal in the State Legislature that 

would have the effect of cutting services to prevent child abuse and 

neglect by almost half in the current legislature. And legislatures 

across the country, whether through the pressures of budgets or indifference, are faced with similar kind of cuts. That is why what 

we do here is especially important this year. 

I am troubled that the original Republican budget resolution considered earlier this year in the House would have cut the Social 

Services Block Grant program by $1.7 billion to the states, eliminating grants that would jeopardize protective services for almost 

2 million at-risk children. 

Mr. Chairman, our committee does have a history of working together on these issues, and I look forward to cooperating and working with you and other Members of the Committee. I am pleased 

we have a couple of colleagues here to offer us insight, along with 

the experts from the field on this today. And I am sure it will be 

a productive hearing. Thank you. 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Doggett. Before we 

move on to our testimony, I would like to remind our witnesses on 

both panels that oral statements are going to be limited to five 

minutes. However, without objection, all of the written testimony 

will be made part of the permanent record. 

On our first panel we will be hearing from two of our distinguished colleagues. First, the Honorable Denny Rehberg, my friend 

from Montana since I have been in the Congress, and the Honorable Karen Bass, who is joining us from California, a long-time advocate on these issues. 

Mr. Rehberg, please proceed with your testimony. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
6 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DENNIS R. ‘‘DENNY’’ 

REHBERG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF MONTANA 

Mr. REHBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appear today 

not only on my own behalf, and as the representative of the State 

of Montana, as the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee, 

called labor, health and human services, and education. 

I have got a long history of interest in these issues, and have 

been in many of your states, both as a Shriner and as a national 

vice president of the Montana and national Muscular Dystrophy 

Association, as well as having co-founded and co-chaired the Baby 

Caucus with Rosa DeLauro, for the specific purposes of looking for 

areas of interest to keep families together, and the struggles that 

are placed in their way for doing that. 

I also want to thank you for the opportunity to talk about an 

issue that is of great importance to me in my home state of Montana, that of addressing the methamphetamine crisis, and the importance of family-based drug prevention treatment. 

Much of my activity in Montana meth is as a result of an individual by the name of Tom Sibel. He had owned Sibel Systems, 

eventually sold to Oracle, and he personally has put, at the last 

count that I was aware of, in the public-private partnership $60 

million of his own money to create meth projects in states like Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Montana, and Wyoming. And those of you who represent those states would recognize the Georgia meth, Montana meth, Arizona meth project. 

All rural areas of our nation have struggled with the devastation 

caused by rampant meth use, and Montana has been no exception. 

I have long supported the efforts of organizations that are in the 

forefront of drug prevention and treatment efforts in our states. In 

Montana, we do have the Montana meth project, an organization 

that does outstanding work conducting research and running statewide multi-media public awareness campaigns aimed at significantly reducing first-time meth use. 

The meth project’s campaign of preventing kids from using meth, 

not even once, has led to a dramatic shift in the perception of meth 

use, and led to a 33 percent decrease in teen use of meth between 

2007 and 2009. The meth project’s campaigns have also led to more 

frequent parent-child communications about the dangers of meth, 

an important component of educating kids on the dangers of this 

addictive drug from a young age. 

While I think we have come a long way in improving efforts to 

combat drug use in the first place, I think we can still improve in 

the way we provide treatment for those who are struggling with 

substance abuse issues. I strongly advocated for family-based meth 

treatment, an approach which dramatically increases the effectiveness of long-term recovery, employment, and educational enrollment. This kind of treatment yields consistently positive outcomes 

in child well-being, family stability, and lower recidivism rates. 

Family-based treatment centers provide essential needs for the entire family, including children, rather than just the parent. 

I appreciate the fact that 2006 reauthorization of the child welfare programs under this committee’s jurisdiction provided dedicated funds for states to work with parents and caregivers with 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
7 

meth and other substance abuse issues. And I am especially thankful that two of those grants went to Montana organizations. 

The bottom line? Families provide the best support systems, so 

making family the center of addiction treatment whenever possible 

just makes common sense. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to evaluate how key pieces of 

our nation’s child welfare system are working. I hope that, as you 

develop and delve into the specific programs under your jurisdiction, like the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program, that 

are designed to address child safety and stability of families face 

substance abuse uses, you will focus on opportunities for familybased prevention and treatment whenever possible. My hope is 

that one day I will be able to report that meth addiction is no 

longer an issue in rural America. 

Until then, I thank the committee for the opportunity to share 

my perspective, and for—and its time on this incredibly important 

issue for families and communities elsewhere. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Rehberg, for your testimony 

on this critical issue, also a big issue in the Commonwealth of Kentucky right now. 

Ms. BASS. You could give your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rehberg follows:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
8 

f 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KAREN R. BASS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. BASS. Yes. Good morning, Chairman Davis and Ranking 

Member Doggett. Thank you for the opportunity to testify here before the committee today. I appreciated hearing your testimony 

about the meth problem. 

Actually, I became involved in the child welfare issue about 20 

years ago. I started an organization in Los Angeles that was addressing the crack cocaine crisis which, if we look at both of those 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1 here 70886.001
9 

drug epidemics, it was certainly when we had a spike in child welfare cases. And, frankly, it is one of the key policy areas that I hope 

to work on while I am in Congress. 

In California, we have made enormous strides with reforming 

our child welfare system. In 1999, there were 140,000 children and 

youth that were removed from homes in California and placed in 

foster care. Today they are 57,000. In Los Angeles County there 

were 55,000 children removed from their homes, and today there 

are 15,000. 

But the fact remains that there is certainly still enormous work 

to do to improve our system to help at-risk children and families 

prevent entry into foster care. By providing help to families to prevent the spiral into abuse and neglect, we would avoid the substantial cost of foster care, avoiding the trauma of removal, and help 

families stay together. 

To the contrary, the current child welfare system, the primary 

focus is on families that have already been identified with child 

abuse or neglect issues. This ends up with families being separated, children in foster care, costly efforts at reunification, and a 

system that has more failures than successes. The fact that title 

IV–E funding cannot be used for prevention or post-reunification 

services has created a significant challenge to achieve better safety 

outcomes and finding permanent homes for children. 

However, in jurisdictions like Los Angeles County, some of these 

challenges have been mitigated because of the availability of Title 

IV–E flexibility. Funding waivers allows the county to implement 

prevention strategies outside of funding constraints and dollars 

chiefly tied to out-of-home removal. 

Given the limited number of IV–E waivers, the Promoting Safe 

and Stable Families, PSSF, funding is essentially the only resource 

currently available that can finance support services to families. 

These funds can be used to provide a continuum of services that 

support families that have entered the child welfare system and 

are working towards reunification, as well as expanding efforts to 

prevent families from entering the system, or diverting them when 

they have been identified. But we know that PSSF funding is not 

sufficient to provide the amount of services necessary to truly affect 

change in existing structure. 

I wanted to mention a couple of promising practices that the 

committee, I am sure, is aware of, but I think should be highlighted at this point in time. We know that there is many examples 

of programs that have been successful, and certainly my colleague 

mentioned a couple. 

One promising practice is the differential response framework, 

which offers a broad set of strategies for working with families at 

the first signs of trouble, based on their level of need or risk that 

is identified. Differential response is an evidence-based approach to 

prevent child abuse and neglect by ensuring child safety through 

expanding the ability of child welfare agencies to respond to reports 

of child maltreatment. 

Because of the effectiveness of the model, in California there is 

an effort to expand this response to families that are at risk of 

being involved in the system because of issues such as substance 

abuse, mental health, and domestic violence. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
10 

Another one is up-front assessments. In 2004 Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services implemented a 

pilot program to address the high number of children in foster care. 

Point of engagement is a process that attempts to engage the family as soon as possible after the referral to the department in order 

to assess the family and provide services that allow the family to 

avoid child detainment all together. 

I want to give an example. There is a program in Los Angeles 

County called Shields for Families, and this is a program that was 

started at the height of the crack cocaine epidemic. I sat through 

one of the point of engagement responses that was done where the 

family members sat around and identified what the weaknesses, 

what the strengths were, and how to intervene in this situation. 

And I think it is an example of where they have been able to reduce the number of children that are in the system, all together. 

In conclusion, I would ask my colleagues to consider, of course, 

that prevention—an ounce of prevention, we all know, is certainly 

worth a pound of cure. As we work to reauthorize the Promoting 

Safe and Stable Families Act, these tried and proven community 

strategies are not only effective, but cost effective. And I encourage 

you to use prevention and early intervention models such as the 

ones adopted in LA County and Shields to inform your decisionmaking. 

Thank you for the opportunity to give testimony today. 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you very much. I would like to thank 

both Mr. Rehberg and Ms. Bass for investing time to come in and 

share their insights. Does anyone have any questions from our colleagues? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you on 

getting the appropriator here, so that he can get an early buy-in 

on our authorization. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman DAVIS. I appreciate the gentleman’s perspective. It 

begs the fellowship—— 

Mr. REHBERG. It—— 

Chairman DAVIS [continuing]. Of the Appropriations and Ways 

and Means Committee, since the ratifying of the Constitution. 

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, in response, I knew I was probably being set up by being here, so—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. REHBERG [continuing]. Duly noted. 

Chairman DAVIS. Great. Thank you both very much. And that 

concludes our first panel. 

[Pause.] 

Chairman DAVIS. For our second panel, we will be hearing from 

the Honorable Bryan Samuels, commissioner of the administration 

on Children, Youth, and Families, Administration for Children and 

Families, from the United States Department of Health and 

Human Services. 

Mr. Samuels, please proceed with your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bass follows:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
11 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2 here 70886.002
12 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 3 here 70886.003
13 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 4 here 70886.004
14 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 5 here 70886.005
15 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 6 here 70886.006
16 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 7 here 70886.007
17 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 8 here 70886.008
18 

f 

STATEMENT OF BRYAN SAMUELS, COMMISSIONER, ADMINISTRATION ON CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES, ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Mr. SAMUELS. Great, thank you. Good morning, everyone. 

Chairman Davis, Ranking Member Doggett, Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today. 

Title IV–B is an essential program in the child welfare system. 

The work of Congress over the last 14 years has made a huge difference in the lives of children. Today there are 25 percent fewer 

children in foster care, 14.5 percent less are entering care, and 7.5 

percent more children are exiting care. And over the last 14 years 

we have seen an increase of 57 percent in the number of adoptions 

achieved through foster care. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 9 here 70886.009
19 

I was the child welfare director in the State of Illinois from 2003 

to 2007. The children of Illinois benefitted greatly from the reforms 

that Congress made. Today, Illinois has 65 percent fewer children 

in out-of-home care than they did just 14 years ago. However, my 

state struggled to meet the social and emotional needs of children, 

both in out-of-home care and in in-home care. 

In order for us to meet the needs of children in the foster care 

system, we need a strategy that is more trauma-informed and developmentally focused. In my experience, the four categories of Safe 

and Stable Families are the right ones. Children and families are 

served well by family preservation, family support, reunification, 

and adoption. 

I have seen the value of consistent case worker visitation, particularly the value it has for ensuring safety. In 2010 nearly 75 

percent of children were visited by their case worker each month. 

We expect these improvements to continue, and we will monitor 

them through the child and family services review. 

The Federal investment in meth also was a critical area of focus 

as the earlier panel discussed. We have seen declines in meth, 

overall, nationally. In Illinois we had a great fear that meth would 

be the crack cocaine epidemic for the 1990s. I am glad to report 

that, during my tenure, that did not occur, and that the number 

of children entering foster care because of meth declined. That said, 

not every community has benefitted from a reduction in meth use. 

More importantly, a recent study of children reared in homes 

where meth was used showed that they had substantially higher 

rates of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and were exposed 

to multiple experiences of trauma and violence. Given the impact 

that trauma has on children and their development, we recommend, through the reauthorization of title IV–B, that you focus 

resources on improving the social and emotional well-being of children. 

In Illinois, 25 percent of children entering care had an elevated 

level of traumatic stress that warranted professional intervention. 

Child welfare research clearly shows that focusing on trauma could 

have a significant impact on the long-term well-being of children. 

Children who are exposed to trauma have learning and language 

difficulties, and they do poorer in school. Trauma creates disturbed 

attachment, aggressive behavior, loss of regulation in areas of 

sleep, food, and self-care, feelings of self-hate, and chronic ineffectiveness. 

The data for older children in foster care have a diagnosis of 

mental illness shows that 14 percent of them are diagnosed with 

PTSD, 20 percent with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder 

(ADHD), 27 percent with major depression, and 47 percent with 

conduct disorder or oppositional defiance at some point in their life. 

Moreover, children who are diagnosed with a mental illness are 

prescribed psychotropic medications at substantially higher rates 

than the general public. Child welfare directors are gravely concerned about this issue. There is an emerging consensus that nonmedical-based interventions, such as cognitive behavior therapy, 

behavioral management, and family skills training are needed, 

sometimes in addition to psychotropic medications. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
20 

As a child welfare director, meeting the social and emotional 

needs of children in foster care was my biggest challenge. Today I 

believe that that is still the biggest challenge across the country in 

child welfare. I urge the committee to take into consideration the 

social and emotional needs of children as you make your decisions, 

going forward. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Samuels follows:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 10 here 70886.010
21 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 11 here 70886.011
22 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 12 here 70886.012
23 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 13 here 70886.013
24 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 14 here 70886.014
25 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 15 here 70886.015
26 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 16 here 70886.016
27 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 70886.017
28 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 18 here 70886.018
29 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 19 here 70886.019
30 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 20 here 70886.020
31 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 70886.021
32 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 22 here 70886.022
33 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 23 here 70886.023
34 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 24 here 70886.024
35 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 25 here 70886.025
36 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 26 here 70886.026
37 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 27 here 70886.027
38 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 28 here 70886.028
39 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 70886.029
40 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 30 here 70886.030
41 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 70886.031
42 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 70886.032
43 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 70886.033
44 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 70886.034
45 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 70886.035
46 

f 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Samuels. Now we 

will turn to questions. First, I would like to ask you a question related to streamlining administrative requirements. 

In April 2011, your agency announced it was reviewing the Child 

and Family Service Review process, which is how states are held 

accountable for the operation of their child welfare programs, including the two programs we are focusing on today. This announcement noted that you would consult with various stakeholders, consider changes to make sure that the reviews make sense, and really help states to make kids safe. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here 70886.036
47 

Several states we have spoken with have told us—and I think 

our expert panel later this morning will address this—that the 

many different child welfare reviews, audits, and plans have become a very large bureaucratic burden on the states. Now, your 

own testimony on page 24 mentions your goal to ‘‘reduce costly and 

unnecessary administrative requirements,’’ and hopefully integrating and streamlining the process to get same critical data. 

What is your agency doing to make sure that Federal oversight 

is useful, and that it holds states accountable for things we care 

about, and that it doesn’t divert state resources from helping children at risk of abuse and neglect? 

In addition, what else is the Agency doing to streamline the way 

child welfare programs are managed? And I was wondering if you 

can consolidate some of the many audits and other administrative 

requirements. 

Mr. SAMUELS. I will start with the child and family service review (CFSR). As you know, that is a regulatory process, by which 

we monitor the overall activities of child welfare systems across the 

country. We are in the middle of soliciting comment on that review 

process. 

Without violating the basic communications around the regulatory process, I can share that we are focused on three areas in 

looking at how to improve the child and family service review. 

The first is around the methodology. It is both cumbersome and 

at times inappropriately used. We are trying to make sure that the 

strategies of reviewing data, reviewing case files, and reviewing the 

performance of states, are methodologically sound. 

Second, we are concerned that the CFSR focuses on too many 

issues. As a result, state agencies are not clear about the most important issues. We would hope to reduce the focal points for the 

CFSR so that states are comfortable in being held accountable, and 

do the work required. 

And third, we think it is important to be accountable. Sanctions 

are one way of encouraging accountability. We think there are 

probably others, and we are actively reviewing all possible examples of oversight that move beyond just sanctioning states. 

We think by doing those three things, and doing those in the context of very active public involvement, we can create a system of 

review that is refined, targeted, and holds states appropriately accountable for their obligation under Federal law. 

Chairman DAVIS. I appreciate you sharing that. We will look 

forward to working with you more on that. One concern that I 

have, having seen both in health care and a number of other issues 

related to this, that every hour filling out paperwork or redundant 

reports by front-line personnel is one less hour they are actually 

spending doing their job, and it has a rather constricting effect on 

capacity for service delivery. 

Are there things that Congress can do to limit this fragmentation, and the administrative complexity, while making sure states 

achieve the performance goals that are laid out for them by the 

Agency? 

Mr. SAMUELS. I think there are a couple of things that could 

be done. First, I think there is great value in accountability. As you 

know, part of the President’s proposal for 2012 was an increase of 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
48 

$250 million, specifically targeting improving the overall performance of states and, secondly, making investments in three specific 

areas. I am going to focus on the accountability issue. 

Under the proposal, we would elevate the expectation around 

performance, using a set of factors, outcome and quality measures, 

that states would be held accountable for on an annual basis. 

As you know, the child and family service review occurs on a 

three-year cycle, with about two years in between one round and 

the next. So, in terms of accountability, the child and family service 

review occurs in states once every five years. We think that should 

be elevated. The measures ought to be reviewed on a more regular 

basis. Our proposal would be to do a targeted review of states on 

an annual basis, and then use the CFSR to really drill down on the 

limited number of outcomes where states aren’t performing well. 

We think continued quality improvement is absolutely essential, 

and we that it should be an annual, and not every five years. 

Chairman DAVIS. Okay, thank you. Mr. Doggett? 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony and your important work. 

There is something of a tension between our desire to give maximum flexibility for innovation and creativity and adapting these 

services, and our need to get accountability and ensure that these 

monies are being spent in the way that the Federal law intends. 

And I don’t think—I know this is true in my state—we can always 

assume that, left without any accountability, that the state will get 

the job done correctly and in the most effective way, any more than 

we would assume we can do without accountability in other areas. 

Let me focus in on promoting safe and stable families, and the 

Administration’s proposal to incorporate an incentive-based structure there to address the social, emotion, and health-care needs of 

children. Why is it necessary to create a separate model to address 

these issues? 

Mr. SAMUELS. When you look at the current use of title IV–B, 

both subpart I and subpart II, there is a limited amount of funding 

that actually goes into service interventions that specifically address the social and emotional needs of children in foster care. 

Again, I think it is important to recognize that maltreatment has 

a significant impact on a child’s ability to function. In many instances, the impact of maltreatment doesn’t rise to the level of a 

mental health diagnosis. Today, if you don’t have a mental health 

diagnosis, states have a limited pool of funds to be able to address 

your needs. 

Trauma is a great example. Traumatic stress in a child has really significant impact. Child trauma is not, in and of itself, a diagnosis. Therefore, most children who would be served in a strategy 

to address their trauma would have to be served through funding 

other than Medicaid. It is our belief that there are insufficient 

funds to drive quality of service improvements needed to achieve 

good outcomes. 

I gave you the example of what we did in the state of Illinois, 

when I was a child welfare director. I was concerned about the developmental issues that children had in foster care, and their trauma. So we introduced an integrated assessment on the front end 

of every child within 45 days of entering care. It was a comprehenVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:08 Dec 17, 2011 Jkt 070886 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\70886.XXX GPO1 PsN: 70886

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
49 

sive review. We were able to know, from the very beginning, what 

they needed. 

In addition, we trained our case workers and our foster parents 

to recognize signs of trauma, and to address them. And we expanded three evidence-based strategies across all age groups, so 

that we could address those needs. I can tell you 6 years ago that 

cost me more than $30 million. 

Mr. DOGGETT. You used somewhat clinical terms. But if I understand what you are saying, if you have a child who has been 

beat up, and beat up a number of times, but they are not to the 

point that a psychiatrist or other health care worker diagnoses 

their having a mental limitation or diagnosis, then there is some 

services you cannot provide to them that would prevent them from 

getting to that more critical level. 

Mr. SAMUELS. I think that is right. I think what we know from 

the literature and the science is that there are interventions that 

make a huge difference. We introduced three of them in the child 

welfare system while I was director in Illinois. 

I even had the opportunity to introduce two of them in the Chicago public schools, when I was the chief of staff there. We had a 

rash of student deaths. Over a two-year period of time we had over 

500 children who were shot, and 85 that were killed, and there 

were lots of young people who were showing up to school every day, 

clearly demonstrating signs of traumatic distress. 

We were able to introduce two group-based trauma interventions 

that were evidence-based into schools throughout the city, because 

we knew that that was going to be the most effective way to reduce 

anxiety, to reduce stress, and to get better performance from children who were extremely vulnerable. Mr. DOGGETT. You mentioned a $250 million increase in your proposal. It is difficult here these days to avoid a $250 million or 

more decrease. Why do you need the $250 million increase? What 

will you do with it? What would be done with that money? Mr. SAMUELS. The President’s $250 million performance-incentive proposal has 2 components to it. The first one, which is critical, is that states would actually have to perform better than they 

perform today to receive any of the funds. So this would be a performance-based distribution. So states would have to, using historical data, improve on an annual basis against themselves. 

We are not comparing one state to another, we are comparing 

states to their historical performance. And what we would be saying is states that demonstrate better performance, receive additional funds so that they can continue to invest in their system. 

States that don’t improve would not have access to those funds. So 

it would be a performance-based strategy. 

In addition to that, there are a range of services that states currently cannot provide. We identify three areas. I will name them 

very quickly. 

Chairman DAVIS. If you could do that in one sentence, that will 

be helpful. 

Mr. SAMUELS. One, social and emotional well-being; two, postpermanency services—children from adopted foster care face a 

struggle long after they leave out of home care and achieve permanency; and third, reducing the number of children who age out of 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
50 

the system. We think if you can move upstream, target those children earlier, we can reduce the sad and troubling effects of a child 

aging out. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you so much. 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you. Mr. Paulsen? 

Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 

Samuels. It is pleasant to hear your passion. Based on your experience, that sounds like some very troubling and difficult situations 

dealing with children that you are trying to protect and give a good 

chance in the future. 

I just have a question because, you know, the last reauthorization was several years ago. And, as we learned in the opening testimony, and as I am just learning as a new Member of this subcommittee, some of the provisions of the law required the visits of 

at least 90 percent of foster children each month. And we have 

seen the data, that almost all the states have certainly improved 

in this measure, and no doubt as a result of this requirement and 

the money specifically provided to help with these visits now. 

But if you look across these states, it sounds like there is a wide 

variation of how they are actually performing, ranging from, like, 

a low of 18 percent all the way up to 96 percent of kids that are 

actually being visited each month. 

What is your agency actually doing to help all the states meet 

the goals for the targeted 90 percent standard? Is there a penalty? 

You talked about sanctions earlier. Is there a penalty if you don’t 

hit the 90 percent standard? Are you recommending one, specifically? 

Mr. SAMUELS. Under the statute, there is a penalty. States that 

don’t meet their goals are subject to a penalty. Goals are established on an annual basis. 

However, states can invest their own dollars back into the system in a way that allows them to forego the penalty. I know of only 

one state that actually had to pay their penalty. 

But let me make two quick points—— 

Mr. PAULSEN. And what is the penalty? 

Mr. SAMUELS. The penalty is between one and five percent of 

their allocation within the Safe and Stable Families allotment. 

You see across the country dramatic changes. There are some 

states that were in the single digits, in terms of the number of children that they visited. And today, 4 years later, you see them in 

the 70 and 80 percent. 

My experience is that if you shine a light on an issue, and you 

tell people that you are actually going to track them and hold them 

accountable, most people step up. That is certainly the case in child 

welfare. We think the child and family service review is the appropriate place to monitor ongoing improvement. States know we are 

watching them, and they have demonstrated that they are going to 

put the resources in place. 

I would welcome the opportunity to come back to Congress on a 

regular basis and report to you the progress that is being made. I 

think there is little doubt that states have figured out how to do 

this, and as long as we hold their feet to the fire, I think they will 

continue to do that. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
51 

Mr. PAULSEN. And let me ask you this, too, because you were 

just testifying just a little bit ago about the increased request for 

additional funds—— 

Mr. SAMUELS. That is right. 

Mr. PAULSEN [continuing]. Of 200-some million dollars. And, 

you know, in a tough budget environment, obviously—— 

Mr. SAMUELS. It is. 

Mr. PAULSEN [continuing]. You have got to justify that. But 

what about the thought of just with existing funds going to that 

performance-based, you know, with level funding, or changes in 

funding structure, going to the performance-based model just in 

itself? 

Mr. SAMUELS. I think part of that would require congressional 

action. 

The work that we have been doing around looking at incentives, 

and particularly the indicators that we would track, suggest that 

there are opportunities to introduce such a system within the child 

and family service review. The downside is simply that we do not 

have funding to support state reinvestments. It is my experience 

that, to get better, you have to invest in your infrastructure. 

Today, if you get better with your infrastructure, you produce 

greater rates of permanency. The results are that you have fewer 

children in care, and therefore, you get less support, federally. We 

need funding for states to invest in their infrastructure, so that the 

quality progress that they have already made, can be continued. 

And the services that they have in place that are producing good 

results can remain in place. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I know, as we look at this 

reauthorization, that is one of our challenges, obviously, is that reform always costs money. And I think we are going to have to look 

at ways of how we are going to bring forward reform, knowing we 

are in tough budget situations to have those resources available. 

Chairman DAVIS. I agree. So much of this is going to be addressing the process and the overhead that is driven by that. 

The chair now recognizes Mr. Reed from New York. 

Mr. REED. Thank you, Chairman. Appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. 

Samuels, for your testimony today. 

I want to follow up on your point that there would be a need for 

an act of Congress to implement this performance-based review. 

What act of Congress are you exactly looking for, or could that— 

be recommending to us to pursue, if we want to implement—— 

Mr. SAMUELS. In the context of the $250 million we proposed 

in the Fiscal Year 2012 budget, funding would be available to address state performance. They could earn the money if they performed well. If they did not perform well, they earn no money, but 

we do not take money from them. 

Mr. REED. That is the additional $250 million? 

Mr. SAMUELS. That is correct. If the suggestion is that we 

ought to implement the performance-based standards by themselves, we could do that. But we could not take any further action 

against states than what Congress has already given us the authority to do. 

I think it would be difficult, in this context, to both say we are 

going to elevate these new performance standards to drive states, 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
52 

but without new authority and new money through which you are 

able to do that. 

I appreciate the need to hold them accountable. Congress has 

given us authority to do that. 

Chairman DAVIS. Would the gentleman suspend for a second? 

Could we either ask the folks in the hallway to be quiet, or close 

the door, one or the other? 

Mr. SAMUELS. So, let me answer the question a different way. 

Mr. REED. Yes, please. 

Mr. SAMUELS. As a former child welfare director, I felt absolutely confident that the Federal Government was using all of its 

authority to hold me accountable. And I think, today, we are. 

So, if you want to push states beyond where they are at today, 

you either need additional resources, or you need additional authority. 

Mr. REED. Well, I guess what I am trying to say, Mr. Samuels, 

is I associate myself with the comments from Mr. Paulsen, in that 

the performance-based mechanism that you are recommending 

with the additional $250 million of additional authorization makes 

sense to me. And as my colleague indicated, these are difficult fiscal times, and the likelihood of getting that type of—— 

Mr. SAMUELS. Absolutely. 

Mr. REED [continuing]. increased funding is probably going to be 

slim to none, in my opinion. But taking the concept of what you 

are recommending as a good performance-based strategy to—the 

expenditure of these funds, I would encourage the Administration 

to continue to pursue that. And if there is anything you need from 

Congress in order to make sure you have the authority to do that 

with the existing funding levels that you have, please know that 

we would be very supportive or interested in those efforts. 

I would like also to ask—you had indicated there was a penalty, 

a financial penalty to states, when they didn’t meet their 90 percent visitation levels for foster care. And then you—in your testimony you had indicated something—you are only aware of one 

state that actually paid the penalty, and states have been able to 

avoid that penalty by engaging in some sort of practice. Could you 

illustrate to me a little bit further as to what you are referring to 

for those states that avoid the penalty? 

Mr. SAMUELS. Sure. 

Mr. REED. What are they doing, and how are they doing it? 

Mr. SAMUELS. Currently, the way a state could avoid paying 

the penalty is simply by raising their level of match. Most states 

match at a rate much higher than required. States are spending 

more money than they are obligated to spend under Federal law. 

As a result, states just demonstrate that they are actually spending 

more money—and are able to avoid the penalty. 

So, it is simply a mechanism where states are putting out more 

money than they are claiming. Because of that, when they do run 

into trouble, they simply put up more money, and they are able to 

avoid the penalty. 

Mr. REED. Okay. So what they are essentially doing is allocating 

more money from their own coffers to avoid paying the Federal 

Government the penalty—— 

Mr. SAMUELS. That is correct. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
53 

Mr. REED [continuing]. That is being assessed by the Federal 

Government. 

Mr. SAMUELS. That is correct. So it is not that they are avoiding the penalty, per se, they are simply raising the rate at which 

they are demonstrating to the Federal Government that they are 

meeting the need. 

Mr. REED. Very good. I yield back. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you, and the chair now recognizes Mr. 

McDermott from Washington. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this 

hearing. And, Mr. Samuels, I want to go to your experience before 

you got in the Federal Government, when you were in Illinois, and 

talk to you about the training of the workers, the front-line workers, how long it takes, how much you spend, what you try and 

teach them. 

And the second part of that is many of these kids are—it is suggested that they be put on pharmaceuticals for a variety of behavioral problems. Who makes the decision about whether the child is 

put on those pharmaceuticals? Is it the parent, the foster parent, 

or is the worker who authorizes—in other words, where is the—— 

Mr. SAMUELS. Sure. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT [continuing]. Informed consent? If it is my 

child, and I take my child to a physician, the physician says the 

child needs pharmaceuticals, I authorize it and take the responsibility. Where does the responsibility lie for the putting of kids on 

pharmaceuticals? 

Mr. SAMUELS. Sure. Currently, states are basically responsible 

for determining who has the capacity and the authority to consent. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. There is no national standard—— 

Mr. SAMUELS. There is no national standard on who has the 

authority to sign off on psychotropics. 

In Illinois, the case worker can sign off on a psychotropic. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Can? 

Mr. SAMUELS. Yes. However, every prescription is reviewed by 

an independent contractor. So, a case worker could go into a doctor 

and a determination could be made that a child needs a psychotropic. They can sign off on that. But then they have to submit 

both the diagnosis, as well as the prescription, to a review process. 

Through that review process, if we determine that there is an inappropriate use of psychotropics, we can intervene, and we can intervene with a doctor who has the authority and the clinical expertise 

to do so. 

We are also, at least in Illinois, were able to monitor children as 

long as they are on a psychotropic. So we have the ability to know 

when they started and when they stopped. That is important, because it is sometimes the case that a child will go to one physician, 

and as a result, get a psychotropic and go to a different physician 

at a different time and receive a second prescription. Those may 

have interaction effects. 

In Illinois, we were able to track every psychotropic that the 

child is on to assure that there is no interaction effect. We could 

monitor issues around the unintended consequences of 

psychotropics. There are side effects to almost every drug. And so, 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
54 

being able to monitor and make sure that the prescription and the 

amount does not have a side effect that creates concern was also 

part of the system. 

And ultimately, what we had is a system where every child had 

a guardian in Illinois. And that guardian can intervene if they believe that psychotropics are inappropriate or ineffective for the 

child that they are representing. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Now, how long does it take to train a frontline worker? You take a young woman or man out of college, they 

have had maybe a social work—at best a social work degree, or 

maybe a history degree or something else, and they take a job at 

the Department of Health and Human Services of the state of Illinois. How long does it take you to bring them up to the point 

where they can operate independently? 

Mr. SAMUELS. In the state of Illinois, a worker would go 

through about a two-month set of training. After that two months 

they would then be paired with an experienced case worker. 

Through that case worker, their progress would be monitored over 

the next six months. And during that six months, there are intermittent circumstances where we bring them in for additional training. 

The experience in Illinois is that if you load up all the training 

up front in a classroom setting, and young people do not have the 

chance to practice and figure out where their strengths and weaknesses are, then you do not get the kinds of impact that you want, 

in terms of clinical competency and understanding of policies and 

programs. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. So, the case load starts at two months—— 

Mr. SAMUELS. That is right. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT [continuing]. After that first sort of educational block—— 

Mr. SAMUELS. That is right. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Then you put them with actual patients? 

Mr. SAMUELS. That is right. It varies from state to state. So 

each state has their own training program for front-line workers. 

Now—— 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Now you have moved up to this Federal 

level. Do we need a national standard that emulates Illinois or 

something similar? Or—— 

Mr. SAMUELS. So the position that I would take on that is that 

what we need is a national standard around the competencies that 

front line workers need to be effective in child welfare, more than 

we need a standard that says, ‘‘Every state has to train every 

worker in the exact same way.’’ But we ought to have a standard, 

and every state ought to meet that standard. 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you very much. The gentleman’s time 

has expired. Mr. Berg? 

Mr. BERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Samuels, again, I 

want to thank you for your passion, and also your experience, really, from the ground up. I don’t really care how big a school district 

is, 85 deaths a year just astounds me. 

But, you know, on the last reauthorization we required states to 

report how they are spending this money for the first time. And I 

am a big believer from learning from our past. What have we 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
55 

learned from that reporting on the states since the last reauthorization on how they spent their money? And what are the—again, 

I look at the states as the laboratory. What are the effective things 

that have come out of that? 

Mr. SAMUELS. To be honest, as a part of the last reauthorization, there was an increased effort to have states report. So, prior 

to the reauthorization, the standard was states had to submit a 

plan that said how they would spend the money. Today they also 

have to submit a plan about how they actually spent the money. 

That is the progress. We don’t just have this kind of general understanding of what they said they would spend it on; they come 

back and actually have to report what they did spend the money 

on. 

Mr. BERG. Well, just so I am clear, so have any of those states 

given us that second part on how they spent the money? 

Mr. SAMUELS. They have. 

Mr. BERG. And then what have we done with that? I mean is 

there a matrix or measurement? Are we—— 

Mr. SAMUELS. Primarily what happens with that information is 

that it is reviewed to make sure that states are using funds appropriately. We are looking at how they actually spend the money in 

accordance with the authority, to make sure that states aren’t inappropriately moving money from one part of the budget to the 

other, one service to the other. 

Mr. BERG. So, really, it is a—is it appropriate, not whether it 

is an effective—— 

Mr. SAMUELS. That is right, yes. 

Mr. BERG. So I guess I am assuming that people are honest 

with these expenditures, and I think we have to, obviously, have 

accountability, I mean, if we are going to get this turned around. 

So, maybe that is my other question. Do we have measures for 

each state? I mean I see some matrixes that you are using. Do we 

have measures, so we can evaluate a state? 

Mr. SAMUELS. We do have measures. Again, those measures 

and requirements are part of the child and family service review. 

And, as a result of that, we look at those measures every five 

years. 

Mr. BERG. Okay. What I would like to see is, if you would, bring 

a chart that would show each state. 

Mr. SAMUELS. Yes. 

Mr. BERG. And on those things that you are measuring—— 

Mr. SAMUELS. Sure. 

Mr. BERG [continuing]. So we can look at each state and understand. 

The other question—I appreciate what you are saying, in terms 

of having accountability, asking states to improve from the prior 

year, and only would receive money if they do improve. You know, 

having said that, I think there is a certain level that we ought to 

expect. And if we have one state that is at the absolute bottom, 

making zero effort, and we have another state that is really doing 

outstanding service, you know, I would hate to see the state that 

is doing outstanding service receive nothing, not any incentive, and 

the state at the bottom just making a casual effort that gets them 

up one step and then another step and another step. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
56 

And so, I just want to—you don’t need to respond to that, I would 

just like to make that noted, that, again, as you are taking about 

that money, we cannot forget that people are out there doing a 

great job, and we need to support those. 

The final question I had really related to—we talked about the 

penalty, the one five percent—again, it is—states are smart. I am 

kind of disappointed that they are getting around this. So my question to you is, how are we going to fix this? I mean, truly, if we 

want them to do what we feel is going to help kids, what is our 

stick, or how are we going to improve that stick to hold them accountable? 

Mr. SAMUELS. I am hesitant to make a proposal today. I certainly would be willing to go back and consider that question and 

give you a more complete answer. What I can say today is simply 

that in a 4-year period of time, you have had about 40 percent of 

them meeting their visitation requirements to now close to 75 percent. Even though they are not actually paying a penalty, states 

are making substantial progress towards that 90 percent standard. 

I would be glad to come back with you to make a proposal. But 

the data clearly demonstrates that, even under the current system, 

progress is being made, and I think it is reasonable to assume that 

if we keep the light shining on this, states will get to that 90 percent, and they will get to it in the near term. 

Mr. BERG. Thank you. I will yield back. 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you. The chair now recognizes Dr. 

Price from Georgia. 

Dr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Samuels, 

for your work. 

Serving four terms in the state legislature in Georgia, we have 

had some significant challenges in our state. And everyone hurts 

sincerely when kids fall through the cracks. And it seems that, 

often times, kids do. So I commend you for the work that you are 

doing. 

As a physician, my gut tells me that often times in these situations we are treating the symptoms and not the disease. So I want 

to address two specific areas of maybe not getting at the right area. 

One is the issue of waste within the system itself. Have you identified—with all the programs that are charged under your charge 

and elsewhere within the Federal Government, have you identified 

any redundancies in charge or in mission of specific programs that 

might be streamlined and better utilized, the limited resources that 

we have? 

Mr. SAMUELS. We are currently going through an internal review process for that exact purpose. As you know, the President 

put out a memo outlining the need to both look at reducing unnecessary activities, at the same time making sure that there are accountability standards. We are actually going through a review 

process now, and the general public has also been invited to identify areas where they think we could reduce administrative burden 

or increase accountability. I would love to be able to come back to 

you in a couple of months and share what we have learned through 

that review, and additional steps that we might take. 

Dr. PRICE. So your time line is a couple months on that report? 

Mr. SAMUELS. I think that is correct, yes. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
57 

Dr. PRICE. And are you—you are pulling in the public. Are you 

pulling in state individuals who are—have identified—— 

Mr. SAMUELS. That is correct. I mean the—a public notice has 

been—a Federal notice has been put out. So folks are actively engaged in reviewing those, and making recommendations. We have 

also reached out to all of the interest groups here, to make sure 

that they know that they can submit ideas that they have about 

reducing the burden of administrative cost. 

And so, we are beginning to see that information come in. But 

I haven’t had an opportunity to review it, and would love to be able 

to come back to you and tell you more, once we have been able to 

analyze that information. 

Dr. PRICE. I look forward to seeing that. The other issue I want 

to touch on is—specifically, is the root cause of the challenge that 

we have in this country. As I say, often times we are treating the 

symptoms when we identify a kid at risk, a child that has been 

abused. We come in and try as best we can to help the child get 

through that situation. 

What is your agency—what are you doing to work with other 

areas of the Federal Government? Or are you working to identify 

the root cause of the challenges that kids have out there? And what 

are we doing to try to address that issue? 

Mr. SAMUELS. I cannot say that we are currently engaged in 

a process that is looking at root cause. What I can say that we are 

engaged in is a process of looking at the intersections between Federal policies across each department. 

So, we have been working closely with the Department of Education to see whether there are things that we can do different in 

order to get better educational outcomes for children in foster care. 

We have been working with SAMHSA and others to see if there is 

science on mental health services that we could learn from and integrate into the system. 

What we have tried to do is to work closely with our sister agencies to get smarter about the most effective strategies for intervening appropriately, both to prevent as well as to deal with maltreatment. But our focus is really on getting better outcomes for 

kids and families, as opposed to drilling down on root cause. 

Dr. PRICE. Is there any entity within the Federal Government 

that is looking at root cause, do you know? 

Mr. SAMUELS. I would have no way of knowing. 

Dr. PRICE. Wouldn’t it be more wise for us, as a society, to, instead of just—instead of concentrating on treatment of the challenge when it arises, to try to prevent it from happening in the 

first place? 

Mr. SAMUELS. I think most would agree that prevention has a 

critical role—it reduces the long-term burden that occurs with the 

development of a mental illness, or a problem from a health perspective. 

While in theory, I can agree with you, I cannot, at this point, tell 

you that there is a way of getting at the root cause the way you 

describe it. I am not sure that there is a process currently in place, 

specifically, to do that. 

Dr. PRICE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
58 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you. The chair now recognizes Ms. 

Black from Tennessee. 

Mrs. BLACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 

Samuels, for being here today. This is an area that is certainly 

near and dear to my heart, serving in the Tennessee state legislature. We have dealt with issues about helping our at-risk children. 

And so, I want to follow up—and almost a thread—with the last 

three representatives asking questions about looking at prevention, 

root cause, evidence base. And those are probably words that those 

back in Tennessee were so sick of hearing me say that, that they 

were fed up with my asking those questions. But what I will say 

is that we finally, after 10 years, saw some real results. And I am 

very proud to say that we are, in your testimony, noted here about 

one of our programs. 

I want to say that there are good programs out there. And I 

would encourage the Department to look at those that do prevention. And I am going to lift one up, a nurse family partnership, 

where we know that if we take these children and put them—or 

take these young mothers and put them with people that can mentor them at the very beginning, that we see good parenting skills, 

healthy children, and a lot of great outcomes. 

So, I would encourage us to take a look in that area, and to start 

saying, ‘‘What can we do on the prevention side, so that we don’t 

have to treat these children for many, many, many years for things 

that are poor outcomes in their homes.’’ So—— 

Mr. SAMUELS. Within the administration we can point out a 

number of areas where prevention and evidence base has been 

combined. 

Certainly the home visiting initiative that is in its first year— it is $100 million, next year it is almost $250 million—specifically 

targeting the prevention of the kinds of problems you have described. I think the home visiting is a good example. 

There is also considerable money invested in teen pregnancy prevention. In the child welfare system we have been working with 

agencies to introduce home visiting related to reducing abuse and 

neglect, which I think moves in the right direction. And we are currently spending some of our discretionary dollars to introduce evidence based trauma informed practice as a means of getting at 

some of those programs you described. 

Mrs. BLACK. Okay, so let me go to—I know I have limited 

time—let me go to my next piece on this, is that you do lift up in 

your testimony, in the PSSF program, where there are a number 

of states that you recognize for programs that they have initiated. 

And I know that one here in North Dakota specifically is an evidence-based program. 

Mr. SAMUELS. Yes. 

Mrs. BLACK. How are you using what is happening in incubators back in these states to be able to help other states to make 

sure that what we are using is evidence-based? Because what I 

have found in our state is that we spent a lot of money on programs that people said, ‘‘Oh, they are nice and they are good,’’ but 

there was not a measurement tool. 

And that may be where I think that we come in, from the Federal level, in whatever the states are doing, to lead them more toVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:08 Dec 17, 2011 Jkt 070886 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\70886.XXX GPO1 PsN: 70886

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
59 

ward evidence-based programs, as opposed to spending money on 

things that maybe, oh, they feel good, or somebody says they work, 

but we cannot measure them. 

So, number one, is what are you doing to use what comes to you 

from other states that is evidence-based and working to get that 

out, nationwide? 

And then, do you do anything to hold states accountable for the 

money that is spent in saying how is it evidence-based, are you 

measuring your programs—not directing them on what they necessarily have to do, because they are incubators, I understand that, 

but to at least say, ‘‘Whatever you are doing, you are spending the 

money on, you have to show that there are results on the other side 

that are measurable.’’ 

Mr. SAMUELS. I would respond in two ways. One is that we certainly have integrated the evidence-based standard into much of 

the discretionary grants that we are currently making. There were 

evidence-based programs that were funded in the 2010 cycle. We 

would anticipate funding additional ones in the 2011 cycle. 

To date, child welfare agencies have not been held accountable 

for how they choose to spend money. They have been held accountable for whether that money produced outcomes that we care about 

in child welfare. So, I think it is hard to say that today we are 

holding them accountable for using evidence-based practices. What 

we are saying is you ought to be using whatever strategies are 

most effective at getting to the outcomes that you are being held 

accountable for. 

So, it is a slightly nuanced answer. We are not requiring evidence-based practices, but we are telling them that, ‘‘We are going 

to hold you accountable,’’ and we are trying to drive them in a direction of selecting and identifying evidence-based programs. 

We have also tried to elevate the presence of evidence-based 

strategies in a number of initiatives we are engaged in. Again, I 

point to trauma as one example, and the mental health services as 

another example where we have been demonstrating to states that 

evidence base can advance their cause. 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you very much. The gentlewoman’s 

time has expired. And last, but not least, the chair recognizes Ms. 

Bass from California. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. Well, first of all, Mr. Chair, thank you for 

allowing me to ask questions, given that I am not in this committee. 

But I just wanted to ask you briefly about what is going on in 

states. Coming from California, a state that is in a terrible economic crisis like so many others, you talked about how states are 

meeting their targets, in terms of requirements, that the Federal 

Government places. Do you find—are you seeing anywhere, given 

the economic crisis in the individual states, that they are going 

backwards? 

And also, are states cutting back on their match? 

Mr. SAMUELS. I am unaware of any instance in which the 

states are cutting back on their match. We would be glad to go 

back and take a closer look at that if you would like, but I am not 

aware of any instances where that is occurring. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
60 

I think certainly we can read about all of the reductions that are 

being made in state after state, and we have concerns around particularly case work ratios. We are concerned that with fewer workers doing those visits, meeting their obligations are harder to 

achieve. But at this point we don’t have any evidence that we can 

specifically point at that says that, as a result of cuts, states are 

unable to meet their obligation. 

But again, our responsibility is to monitor that on a regular 

basis. We are trying to do that. And if we were to find that states, 

as a result of cuts, aren’t meeting expectations, aren’t meeting requirements, we would engage with those states and make clear to 

them what their Federal obligation is, and how we would hold 

them accountable if they fail to meet their obligation. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you very much for investing the time, 

Mr. Samuels, coming here today to share with us. We are looking 

forward to working with you in continuing this dialogue to structure a reauthorization that addresses efficiency in process, but 

most of all works to help get to the root causes and protect kids 

out there on the front lines. 

If Members have additional questions, they will submit them to 

you in writing. And we would appreciate your responses back to 

the committee also, for the record. 

This concludes our second panel, and thank you very much, 

again. 

Mr. SAMUELS. Thank you. 

[Pause.] 

Chairman DAVIS. I appreciate everybody coming for the third 

panel, and also your patience, and also grateful to the powers that 

be that no votes have been called in the midst of this. I think we 

are going to be able to complete this without interruption on this 

critical subject. 

We are going to have five distinguished panelists. For me, in particular, it is very exciting to have our own long-serving front-line 

leader, Patricia Wilson, the commissioner of the Department of 

Community-Based Services from the Kentucky Cabinet of Family 

and Human Services. And most important to me in her extensive 

background is not the long list of accolades or administrative leadership positions that she had, it was her many, many years of 

front-line experience that brings a unique perspective to the work 

that she is doing now in helping children in the Commonwealth. 

I appreciate your being here very much. 

We also have: Lelia Baum Hopper, director of the Court Improvement Program for the Supreme Court of Virginia—thank you for 

being with us; Tracy Wareing, the executive director of the American Public Human Services Association; John Sciamanna, director 

of policy and government affairs, child welfare, at the American 

Humane Association; and Steve Yager, director of the Children’s 

Services Administration from the Michigan Department of Human 

Services. 

Ms. Wilson, please proceed with your testimony. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
61 

STATEMENT OF PATRICIA R. WILSON, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITY BASED SERVICES, KENTUCKY 

CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you, Chairman Davis, Ranking Member, 

Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you so much for this opportunity to talk to you this morning about programs that are of supreme importance to our nation’s children. I am honored to speak 

with you about these two programs that are so critically important 

to our nation’s children: Child Welfare Services and Promoting Safe 

and Stable Families. In Kentucky alone, approximately 50,000 children are touched annually by these two programs. 

Most of my comments this morning are going to focus on the 

three key aspects that were in the last reauthorization: the monthly case worker visits, the regional partnership grants, and working 

with parents with substance abuse issues. 

First, the monthly case worker visits. As Chairman Davis noted, 

I am a former front-line worker and supervisor, something I am 

very, very proud of. I applaud Congress for setting the benchmark 

that every child in foster care should be seen every month. Nothing 

is more important to those children to have that contact with the 

individuals who know their case, who know their families, who 

know what is happening. It is also essential, as we move those children toward permanency. 

However, I would like to note that the method of calculating that 

performance is of concern to just not only my state, but to others. 

The current calculation is child-based, meaning that any missed 

visit to a child within a 12-month period negates all the visits that 

were made to that child. An alternative that could be considered 

would be looking at every visit counting as an event, in and of 

itself. And states would be given credit for all the visits that are 

made to children. States should be held accountable. Sanction is an 

acceptable means of correcting poor performance. But we also believe that states should be recognized for the performance that they 

do make 

Funding to support the case worker visits is much needed to help 

off-set the rising cost of transportation. Again, in a rural state such 

as ours, where children are sometimes placed a distance from their 

home in order to receive the treatment they need, the mileage that 

our staff incur traveling to and from those visits is costly for the 

state, and we appreciate the extra compensation to address that. 

The second aspect, improving outcomes for children with substance-abusing parents or caregivers. Last year in Kentucky, 60 

percent of the children in substantiated reports of child abuse or 

neglect were found to have families exhibiting substance abuse 

issues. It is a tremendous problem in our state. 

I do want to highlight, though, the positive impact of one of the 

regional partnership grants that Kentucky was fortunate to receive. Martin County, in rural Appalachia, has just over 12,000 

residents in the entire county. But it leads Kentucky in the percent 

of the child population in substantiated reports of child abuse and 

neglect. Approximately 61⁄2 children out of every 100 children in 

that county were found to have substantiated reports. That compares to 11⁄2 children per 100 in the rest of the state. Half of those 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
62 

children were ages six or younger. Substance abuse by the parent 

was a driving force in the majority of those cases. 

Prior to the regional partnership grant, there was one substance 

abuse counselor in the entire county who provided one day of outpatient service per week. There was a four-month waiting period 

to even receive one hour of service per week. There were no support groups. 

With the grant, we were able to replicate a—our START program. This program pairs highly-trained parent mentors with specially-trained child protective service workers to provide intensive 

case work services to the families, partners with substance abuse 

treatment professionals to ensure quick access to treatment, and 

partners with the court to identify options for child safety and permanency. 

In the two-plus years of operation, the county has developed intensive outpatient services that are available four days and several 

nights per week. There are now 9 weekly 12-step meetings and a 

Families Anonymous meeting. There is a support group. And, very 

importantly, transportation is able to be provided to those individuals who need help in either accessing services, or—we have found 

through our evaluation accompanying the individual to the first 

four appointments with their substance abuse counselor is one of 

the most effective means of keeping them in treatment. 

To date, more than 40 percent of the parents served, most of 

whom are young marrieds are in their 20s, and have among them 

more than 100 children, have been able to become sober and maintain their children safely at home. Over time, we believe the success rate in Martin County will equal that of the 67 percent success 

rate that we have in the other 3 counties where this program exists. 

Finally, the coordination of health care needs with children. We 

have entered into a cooperative agreement with our commission on 

children for special health care needs to address those needs of 

children in foster care by deploying registered nurses across the 

state. A larger issue, though, as Commissioner Samuels noted, is 

the use of psychotropic medicines. 

We have concerns that children who are taking multiple psychotropic meds may not have regular psychiatric consultation, that 

those medications may be prescribed by someone other than a child 

psychiatrist, and that there are children who are receiving benefit 

of that that could also benefit from alternative methods of behavior 

management. 

In closing, I would offer a general comment about the 20 percent 

distribution, the interpretation across the 4 broad categories in 

Safe and Stable Families. 

Chairman DAVIS. If you could, sum up quickly, please—— 

Ms. WILSON. Yes, sir. 

Chairman DAVIS [continuing]. Your time has expired. 

Ms. WILSON. With 15 years plus of experience, and data to support the assertion, states are finding there is a need to rebalance 

the funding within the service needs of families. Allowing states 

more latitude in determining the distribution of that allotment 

would provide increased opportunity to fully actualize the goals of 

Safe and Stable Families. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
63 

Chairman Davis, Members of the Subcommittee, we appreciate 

your support, we appreciate your concern for children and families. 

We urge reauthorization, and I thank you for the opportunity to 

present the views. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wilson follows:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 70886.037
64 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 70886.038
65 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 39 here 70886.039
66 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here 70886.040
67 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 70886.041
68 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 70886.042
69 

f 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Hopper. 

STATEMENT OF LELIA BAUM HOPPER, DIRECTOR, COURT 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA 

Ms. HOPPER. Good morning, Chairman Davis, Members of the 

Committee. Thanks for the opportunity to discuss funding by the 

Virginia Court System of court improvement program funding. My 

name is Lelia Hopper, and I am director of the court improvement 

program in the administrative office of the courts, under the Supreme Court of Virginia. I have worked with the court improveVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:08 Dec 17, 2011 Jkt 070886 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\70886.XXX GPO1 PsN: 70886

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here 70886.043
70 

ment program since it was first authorized by Congress, and grants 

were made available in 1994. 

The challenge for court improvement programs is to sustain the 

considerable energy that it takes on the part of the judiciary and 

professionals who carry out the reforms daily that you all have instituted. Today, excellent court practice requires that we go beyond 

the basics. Since 2006, when the new CIP grants for training and 

data collection and analysis were made available, we have been 

able to substantially improve upon and energize early system reform efforts. 

Training grant funds since 2006, including those planned 

through the end of this grant year, have enabled Virginia’s court 

improvement program to support 123 local and state training 

events, with more than 12,000 participants. We have also provided 

funding for juvenile court judges, attorneys, child dependency mediators, staff for CASA programs to attend 13 national educational 

events that have enhanced their skills. The large majority of these 

individuals would not have benefitted from these educational opportunities without CIP funding support. 

In Virginia, many juvenile court judges provide leadership in 

their communities to provide—to improve child dependency court 

processes on a multi-disciplinary basis. Their involvement is supported by the best practice court program, instituted by my office 

in 2002, and substantially supported in the past 5 years with training grant funds. 

Today there are 37 active court teams, which account for 60 percent of Virginia’s foster care caseload. These teams have committed—have contributed to a 27 percent decrease in the number 

of children in foster care in Virginia over the past 3 years. This reduction has been accomplished as a part of a transformation of Virginia’s children’s services system, of which the courts have been an 

integral part. 

The data grant. Our office produces 10 court performance measurement reports, utilizing case information that is entered by court 

staff into the juvenile case management system. In 2010 we began 

development of these reports into web-based formats, making them 

more interactive and user friendly. We will complete this project 

this September. 

In 2008, we began making analyses of local juvenile court performance measures available to the courts. This analysis process is 

initiated by the presiding juvenile court judge, includes a written 

report, a meeting, and recommendations to improve court practice. 

To date, we have completed 15 of these court analyses. 

An interface between the courts and the state department of social services is something we have been working on for quite a 

while. Both of our agencies recognize that an interface would improve the ability of the courts and social services to process paperwork and make timely decisions for children in foster care. And we 

are scheduled to begin implementation of the first phase at the end 

of this year. 

Finally, we also have available online to our judges—and it is 

only to judges—something called the active foster care children report. It is updated daily and provides a snapshot of children in foster care identified by locality. It includes demographic information, 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
71 

foster care placement information, funding resources, and critical 

hearing dates. Prior to this electronic transmission, we could only 

provide this information twice a year in a hard copy to the courts. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, Virginia and 

the other court improvement programs across the country are effectively utilizing the court funds that you have provided to improve 

court practice. And we believe we are making a measurable difference for families and children who are under the jurisdiction of 

the court system. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hopper follows:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 44 here 70886.044
72 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 45 here 70886.045
73 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 46 here 70886.046
74 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 47 here 70886.047
75 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 48 here 70886.048 Insert offset folio 49 here 70886.049
76 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 50 here 70886.050
77 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 51 here 70886.051
78 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 52 here 70886.052
79 

f 

Chairman DAVIS. And thank you very much for your good work 

in Virginia. 

Ms. HOPPER. Thank you. 

Chairman DAVIS. Ms. Wareing. 

STATEMENT OF TRACY WAREING, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

AMERICAN PUBLIC HUMAN SERVICES ASSOCIATION 

Ms. WAREING. Good morning, Chairman Davis and Members of 

the Subcommittee. I am Tracy Wareing, executive director of the 

American Public Human Services Association. And thank you so 

much for the opportunity to testify today regarding the promoting 

Safe and Stable Family and Child Welfare Service programs. And 

it is an honor to be sitting here with such a distinguished panel, 

as well. 

The American Public Human Services Association is a non-profit 

organization whose membership includes the Nation’s top governVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:08 Dec 17, 2011 Jkt 070886 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\70886.XXX GPO1 PsN: 70886

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 53 here 70886.053
80 

ment human service executives from across each of the states, the 

District of Columbia, as well as hundreds of human service directors at the local—at the county level. We happen to also house nine 

affiliate organizations, including the National Association of Public 

Child Welfare Administrators, and I speak on their behalf today, 

as well. We are a bipartisan organization whose ideas and direction 

come from the open exchange and deliberation of the expertise of 

our members, two of which are on this panel, as well. 

This morning I would like to address the importance of prevention of child maltreatment, and the support of front-end services for 

children and families at risk, and then share two recommendations 

with you for revisions, as you consider reauthorization. 

As you know, Promoting Safe and Stable Families is one of the 

few Federal funding streams that supports services aimed at preventing children from coming into out-of-home care. In 2009, states 

reported PSSF funding as the single largest source of funding for 

preventative services, covering nearly 30 percent of children receiving preventative services, nationwide. 

Over the past five years, states have successfully reduced the 

number of children in foster care by more than 20 percent, as you 

heard from Mr. Samuels. In that same time period, the national repeat maltreatment rate also declined. By promoting communitybased family support, family preservation, reunification services, 

and adoption support, PSSF has played a critical role in helping 

states alleviate situations that might otherwise lead to children 

being placed in foster care, due to abuse or neglect, or staying in 

care too long. 

We also appreciate the substance abuse and methamphetamine 

grants that were made available to states. These grants have been 

helping states to offer an array of services to address the specific 

needs of these families, and use a range of strategies too prevent 

and treat substance abuse. As you consider reauthorization of these 

programs, we want to acknowledge the importance of these to the 

states, and urge that you continue them. 

However, I think, as we have heard today, the bulk of Federal 

funding for child welfare is directed toward out-of-home care, and 

it comes from a patchwork of funding streams, and it is not directed to prevention. The overall allocation of title IV–E funds, 

compared with title IV–B funds, is about $10 of out-of-home care 

funding for each dollar of in-home funding. We urge this committee 

to address comprehensive child welfare finance reform, and recommend increasing support for preventative and supportive services in directing Federal resources toward the front end, to improve 

the outcomes of children and families. 

While our members support the need for flexibility to deliver on 

an array of services that are responsive to the special needs of 

their community, they also understand the role of the Federal Government in ensuring Federal dollars are spent wisely and correctly, 

and that the outcomes we all desire are met. As our members continuously improve their internal processes, they have also worked 

to develop practical recommendations on streamlining Federal accountability measures under IV–B and IV–E, and have offered 

ideas to the Administration around that. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
81 

But the methodologies for monitoring and measuring must be related to the outcomes we all desire to see. To that end, as you consider reauthorization of Promoting Safe and Stable Families, we 

recommend: one, relaxation of what is sometimes referred to as the 

20 percent rule, which essentially requires equitable spending 

across the four categories of PSSF funding. That spending restriction is too rigid. 

Just to give you one example, California has shared with us that 

many of their smaller counties, some of which may perform no 

more than a few adoptions a month, struggle with utilizing the 20 

percent spending requirement on the adoption promotion and support services. In those communities, the funds would be better directed to community-based family support and preservation. 

Additionally, a colleague on the panel here mentioned the methodology for calculating monthly case worker visits of a child. Our 

members are deeply committed to the best practice of timely, effective, and regular case worker visits, and the role they place in ensuring safety and facilitating reunification and permanency. But 

the fact is, the current methodology is flawed. A case worker could, 

in fact, see a child 20 times a year, but if 1 month was missed, that 

case and those visits are not counted. 

My written statement provides specific recommendations that 

our members believe will result in a much more accurate picture 

of the diligent efforts being made. And let me emphasize this is 

about methodology, not intent. Our members fully support the 

benchmarks set by the 2006 reauthorization. 

With that, I thank you so much for the opportunity to be here. 

We urge reauthorization of Promoting Safe and Stable families and 

Child Welfare Services programs, and would welcome questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wareing follows:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
82 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 54 here 70886.054
83 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here 70886.055
84 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 56 here 70886.056
85 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 here 70886.057
86 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here 70886.058
87 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 59 here 70886.059
88 

f 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you. 

Mr. Sciamanna. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN SCIAMANNA, DIRECTOR, POLICY AND 

GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, CHILD WELFARE, AMERICAN HUMANE ASSOCIATION 

Mr. SCIAMANNA. Thank you, Chairman Davis and Members of 

the Subcommittee. 

Since 1877, the American Humane Association has been a national leader in developing cutting edge initiatives to prevent and 

respond to child abuse and neglect. Our work in research, family 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 60 here 70886.060
89 

group decision-making, differential response, and father engagement are a few examples of our efforts to strengthen families, children, and communities. 

Let me talk briefly about some of the important services under 

PSSF. Reunification services. Once a child has been reunified, access to after-care is limited, since Title E funds provides for support only when a child is in foster care. 

This week we co-hosted a briefing on Capitol Hill focusing on reunification. The compelling stories of the families who were there 

who were reunified with their children provided strong evidence 

that we could do so much more in this area. In 2009, 276,000 children left foster care and 51 percent were reunified with their parents, we feel we can do much more in this area. 

One of our recommendations is that if we can’t enact a comprehensive finance reform this year, then we should extend title 

IV–E entitlement funds to services for reunification, allowing dollars to address the only permanency option not currently funded 

under IV–E. 

We also recommend that the current 15-month restriction under 

Promoting Safe and Stable Families be removed, since we would 

like the dollars to follow the children home into the family. 

Adoption services. This subcommittee was key to enactment of 

the Fostering Connections to Success, and Increasing Adoptions 

Act. That started us towards a comprehensive reform of the finance 

system by eliminating the link to AFDC for adoption assistance. 

We are increasing the number of adoptions annually, and have 

made great success in the last decade. But for a small percentage 

of these families, there is a need for post-adoption services, as 

Commissioner Samuels mentioned today. Recently a coalition led 

by Voice for Adoption held a Capitol Hill briefing, with one of the 

recommendations being that there be specific funding to address 

these post-adoption services, so that states can establish an infrastructure. 

We recommend that the definition of adoption services under 

Promoting Safe and Stable Families be examined to see whether or 

not we could direct more dollars toward post-adoption services. 

We also suggest that when Congress created the de-link, that 

they directed states to reinvest dollars, maintenance of effort into 

Child Welfare Services. Congress may want to look at directing 

those dollars, as some adoption groups have advocated, toward 

post-adoption services as a way to provide a steady source of funding. 

Family support and family preservation are two very critical 

services. We certainly hope that they will continue to be categories 

in this area. There has been some consideration in the past about 

whether or not these categories should be collapsed. But we think 

that they, the four services, address four distinct families. 

The big challenge for all of this funding is that in recent years, 

when this committee has increased mandatory funding, appropriators have sometimes used it as a rational to decrease the discretionary piece of this program. 

The need for substance abuse services. We would echo a lot of 

the comments that have been heard here today. There is growing 

evidence about the importance and the effectiveness of comprehenVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:08 Dec 17, 2011 Jkt 070886 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\70886.XXX GPO1 PsN: 70886

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
90 

sive family treatment. We would suggest, however, that the specification toward methamphetamine be broadened, since there are a 

range of substance abuse issues and problems, depending on the locality and the part of the country, and grants should be based on 

the most effective strategies. 

Workforce development you have also heard a great deal about. 

Case load visits are important. But, as you have heard, there are 

some problems with the data collection. We need to work on that. 

What we don’t want is a system where we are just checking off visits. Instead, we will need to encourage quality visits. We have done 

a number of workforce studies for states to help them with that, 

to establish quality visits. 

We think if the funding cannot be increased, we need to design 

a workforce strategy. Perhaps Congress should look at some sort of 

a race to the top that would allow some states to invest and—provide strategies that could develop a child welfare workforce development plan over several years. 

Court improvement. I won’t go into great detail here, because 

you have heard about the effectiveness of that. So we certainly 

hope that Congress will keep—and, if at all possible—increase 

funding. 

We also want to emphasize that recently we released a report 

with several organizations about maltreated infants and toddlers. 

They are the biggest population coming into contacted with the 

child welfare system. We think there needs to be greater focus on 

this population, not to the exclusion of other populations, but perhaps we can, in the oversight or in the IV–B–1 plan, outline what 

states are doing to address this vulnerable population. 

Finally, in my closing comments, let me just say that if Congress 

cannot complete finance reform in this session, that they look at 

different ways to extend current funding in IV–E, whether it is to 

reunification services, or to doing some up-front services, such as 

differential response, an approach several of the states represented 

here today are implementing. 

In closing, we appreciate the efforts of this subcommittee and 

others to pursue these matters in what has always been a bipartisan and bicameral way. As some of the Members of this committee have pointed out in the past, children in foster care and 

child protective services are, in fact, our responsibility. And we 

need to make sure that we are their good parents until they find 

permanent families. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sciamanna follows:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
91 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 61 here 70886.061
92 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 62 here 70886.062
93 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 63 here 70886.063
94 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 70886.064
95 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 65 here 70886.065
96 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 66 here 70886.066
97 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 67 here 70886.067
98 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 68 here 70886.068
99 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 69 here 70886.069
100 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 70 here 70886.070
101 

f 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Yager. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE YAGER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CHILDREN’S SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 

Mr. YAGER. Good morning, Chairman Davis and Members of 

the Committee. Thank you for inviting me today to testify on child 

welfare reauthorization, specifically the Child Welfare Services program and the Promoting Safe and Stable Families. 

Today I want to hit three areas, as my colleagues have covered 

a couple of other areas. I want to touch on case worker visits, data 

infrastructure, and audits. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 71 here 70886.071
102 

Case worker visit funding is essential, and it has had positive 

impact on the children in Michigan. Michigan has seen a rate of 

case worker visits improved dramatically through the use of funding. Our base line in 2007 showed 14 percent of case workers actually achieving monthly visits with each child. In 2010 that rate increased to more than 70 percent. 

We continue to aggressively pursue training for public and private case workers, courts, in foster and resource families, so not 

only will our rate of visitation improve to 90 percent by the end of 

fiscal year 2011, but also our quality will improve. 

Reauthorization and extension of the case worker visit funding 

will support our initiatives to continue improvement in the rate 

and the quality of home visits. I would concur with our colleagues 

regarding the method of determining compliance for that. It is a 

concern that I would share with them. 

As for substance abuse services, Michigan sees this as a continued need, as has already been stated, and we strongly support reauthorization of that funding. 

Data-driven decision-making. Michigan’s data-driven decisionmaking initiative began out of necessity. Our goal has been to provide central administration and local office management and staff 

with the reports necessary to increase positive outcomes for the 

children and families served in children’s protective services, foster 

care, adoption, licensing, and juvenile justice programs. Our philosophy is to provide the field with data reports so they have the 

knowledge needed to manage the workforce proactively, and focus 

on key areas of practice that have been shown to increase child 

safety permanence and well-being. 

In addition, the data reports provide central administration executives with the ability to review county performance, and the 

same areas of practice across the board. 

Now, for a minute I would like to speak a little bit about audited 

processes. Michigan recommends that all Federal processes be 

streamlined and linked, so the frequent intrusions and required 

corrective action plans resulting from the myriad reporting and review requirements are eliminated. 

For a state like ours that is also operating under Federal court 

consent decree, writing the reports, measuring data in subtle but 

different manners for each process and then participating in Federal reviews, program enhancement activities, leaves us with little 

time to work on implementing meaningful change. 

From 2008 to 2010, Michigan underwent a title IV–E review, 

child and family services review, statewide assessment and on-site 

review, the CFSR program improvement plan, the title IV–E departmental appeals board litigation, the children’s rights lawsuit, 

and SACWIS on-site review, and other reviews of the public assistance side of the department. We do not object to oversight, but to 

the increasingly seemingly constant nature of that oversight. 

Michigan wants strong accountability in the operation of child 

welfare programs, but these divergent reviews and monitoring 

processes are too numerous to be value added, particularly to the 

staff responsible to providing services to families. 

Michigan recommends that current Federal review and planning 

processes for the child family services review and the child family 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
103 

services plan be blended into integrated and coordinated state 

planning processes. The proposal proffered by the American Public 

Human Services Association and the National Association of Public 

Child Welfare Administrators establishes both the manner in 

which this could occur, and the rationale for coordination. The proposal recommends a modified CFSR target of no more than three 

key practice areas. The state would be held accountable for its efforts to achieve sustainable improvement in those targeted areas. 

Assessment data and continuous quality improvement activities 

form the basis of these activities. The proposal would employ qualitative data from the state’s case review system, giving the review 

a real-time value, instead of the historical data profiles employed 

in the current CFSR process. 

Under a coordinated plan, the states could more readily adapt to 

changes in funding, legislative focus, program operation, and external influences, essentially becoming more nimble in response to 

these changes. Currently, the two-year PIP period is counterintuitive to how child welfare really operates. Renegotiation is required 

for these modifications. 

With respect to the commonality of data, we agree that national 

data standards need to be established. However, the child family 

services review data profile and measurement processes confuse external stakeholders, case workers, other agency partners, and the 

consumer community, including the legislature and press. This confusion often unjustly contributes to public disdain for our work, and 

impacts staff morale. 

States should have more control over their individual processes. 

Michigan recommends using longitudinal data to assess our performance. This data modeling has a higher degree of reliability and 

we are able to move more quickly to assess the impact of changes 

in our policies and processes. 

Another key component is—— 

Chairman DAVIS. If you could, sum up quickly, Mr. Yager. 

Mr. YAGER. We need an external review process, and we have 

that in Michigan. Blending the external with our internal processes 

will improve the review system. 

We believe the children’s bureau, through technical assistance, 

can enable us to develop a more effective state-based system and 

would satisfy Federal review. 

Thank you for your time today. I appreciate this opportunity. I 

want to encourage you to reauthorize the Safe and Stable Families. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Yager follows:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
104 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 72 here 70886.072
105 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 73 here 70886.073
106 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 74 here 70886.074
107 

f 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you. Foster care is a shared system between the Federal Government and the states. I would like to start 

with Ms. Wareing. Given the 20 percent decline in the foster care 

caseload in the last 5 years, are states spending less, in terms of 

state dollars, on foster care and related programs? 

Ms. WAREING. Well, I actually don’t—Mr. Chairman, I think 

that they are spending less on foster care. I think that they have 

tried to redirect some of their dollars to in-home services, because 

there is not the Federal support at that level. So, trying to work 

on things where you are promoting children being safe, but before 

they come into the child welfare system, and that requires a large 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 75 here 70886.075
108 

amount of state funding in order to do that because there are limited—only, really, the title IV–B funds are available to support 

those types of programs. 

Chairman DAVIS. I noted a suggestion in your statement, as 

well as by others on the panel today, that there should be more 

flexibility in how Federal foster care and other funds are spent, including for services. Are states leading by example and devoting 

any state foster care dollars no longer needed specifically for foster 

care to services to prevent foster care, placements, and otherwise 

assist families? 

Ms. WAREING. From my experience—and I would certainly welcome colleagues who are closer to the ground—but yes, I think that 

is where states have tried to put their resources into programs that 

allow children to either not come into care or get home quickly. But 

that—you know, that has required a very concerted effort, and it 

does require resources around those prevention programs in order 

to make that happen. 

Chairman DAVIS. Ms. Wilson, would you like to comment, from 

a Kentucky perspective? 

Ms. WILSON. From a Kentucky perspective, we are actually 

spending as much or more money on foster care, the difference 

being that the total expenditure base may not be rising more, but 

the Federal support is declining. So we are spending more state 

dollars. 

We are taking, though, both Safe and Stable Families dollars and 

any other state-appropriated monies that we can redirect into preventative services. We wholeheartedly would like to see the number of children in foster care reduced by a greater proportion than 

what it is. 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you. I would like to open a question up 

for the panel overall, just in my limited time. Earlier in the hearing we heard Mr. Samuels’s ideas about streamlining. He talked 

about oversight streamlining, limiting measures of performance, 

the way the annual audits were approached. I would like to open 

it up for the panel on your thoughts on the proposal, on his ideas. 

Ms. WAREING. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman DAVIS. And then we will go to Mr. Yager next. 

Ms. WAREING. Thank you. I would echo—first I would say that, 

on behalf of the American Public Human Services Association, we 

would acknowledge that Mr. Samuels and his staff have been very 

open to participation from the states. They have asked and reached 

out directly to state administrators and deeper to—for ideas about 

how to streamline the process. 

Our recommendations—and we have formal recommendations 

that we would be happy to share with this committee—would really 

bring together what are, in effect right now, planning, and then a 

review process, and then a monitoring process, and then a come 

back in and monitor again, into one seamless review process that 

would exist under the CFSR. 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you. Mr. Yager? 

Mr. YAGER. I would support what Mr. Samuels had said. I think 

that’s a great approach. 

I think there needs to be a fundamental shift away from multiple 

on-site reviews, often looking at the same cases at different points 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
109 

in time, to looking at the state’s quality assurance system, encouraging a robust state quality assurance system that possibly could 

be certified by the Federal Government. They could then go into information out of the state’s own system, as opposed to duplicating 

reviews across multiple counties. 

Chairman DAVIS. Mr. Sciamanna? 

Mr. SCIAMANNA. Yes, and we would agree that there is a need 

to do some reform for some oversight. 

One that especially is based more on outcomes for children—actually, this committee was, I think, instrumental in the Fostering 

Connections, in that you started to look at some of those outcomes 

in other areas, in terms of health planning, in terms of educational 

outcomes. 

And so, being able to kind of track that, and obviously also what 

is done at the front end, I think would be important—what we 

would like to see is a partnership more between the states and the 

Federal Government, so that that oversight and plan improvements 

can be jointly developed and implemented. 

Chairman DAVIS. I appreciate that. One of the things that we 

have started to work on in this subcommittee with an earlier piece 

of legislation—hope to see follow through every one of the entitlement reauthorizations—is data standardization and data integration that would allow us to bring the Federal Government into the 

21st century, and move away from the old Cobalt-based programs 

of the 1960s and 1970s, make it more like the private sector, in 

terms of both data accuracy, but significantly reduce improper payments and, frankly, pushing redundant measurement programs out 

on you from the different agencies, so we can drill down and get 

that data, and hopefully have a more proactive partnership. 

With that, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Paulsen, for five minutes. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just ask a question of Ms. Wareing. You mentioned—at the end of your testimony 

you talked about one-fifth of the SSBG funding, about 340 million 

of it, was devoted to prevention. I just noticed at the end of your 

testimony. Can you provide some additional background on that 

program, just for the record? 

I guess I am kind of interested in knowing what states spend 

that $340 million specifically on that you said is devoted to prevention. Like what type of prevention services, with at least some description of what those services do, or what they are. 

Ms. WAREING. Mr. Chairman and Congressman Paulsen, let me 

try to broad-brush, and if there are more specific information that 

we could detail you, provide for you with how states specifically 

spend that money, we are happy to do that research. 

But SSBG funding is the second-largest funding source for prevention activities, next to Promoting Safe and Stable Families for 

states. And they are able to leverage those dollars and really direct 

them to community-based services that are really designed much 

more on the prevention side of supporting families and—in the 

hopes that we are able to keep children safe and families well. 

And so, they could be things like some of the same kind of things 

that you might see in Promoting Safe and Stable Families. It could 

be community supports, it could be home visitation. It could be 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
110 

neighborhood parenting types of classes, and those types of things. 

You know, many of them, I think, are evidence-based—some of the 

questions that Congresswoman Black had talked about, in terms of 

ensuring that sort of—that the dollars are actually going to programs that work. 

But I would also say there are very few programs that have the 

kind of flexibility where you can leverage other dollars. And that 

is really what SSBG provides. It allows funds that may not be sufficient for a particular community to really be—to give you that 

extra push that you really need. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Is there a way to identify, like, how many families or people are actually served by this spending on prevention 

services, to get down to that type of data? Can you drive down to 

that? 

Ms. WAREING. Mr. Paulsen, I don’t know, off the top of my 

head, but I would certainly be willing to look at that. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Or even what the average amount, for instance, 

per family or per person is, you know, allocated or is a part of that, 

just to—that would be helpful data, I think, as we are kind of looking at the—sort of the prioritization or the benefits of some of these 

programs, because you did note that in the testimony. 

Ms. WAREING. Yes, absolutely. And it is incredibly helpful funding. I would say it is designed to be flexible funding. And so I am 

not sure, off the top of my head, how precise they can go to the 

dollars spent per family, but we will certainly look at that for you. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Please, Mr.—— 

Mr. SCIAMANNA. Just in regard to the social services block 

grant, there has been a series of surveys of states conducted by 

Child Trends most recently, and Urban Institute every two years, 

asking states what they spend on child welfare services. And SSBG 

has pretty consistently been around—I think it’s 20 percent of the 

Federal funding that states invest. 

It varies by the 50 states. It will be about 300 million in the child 

protective services, nationally, but may also supplement what 

states do in terms of foster care, adoption assistance and support, 

and for youth. So there is a range of services that it does provide. 

But it has been a very critical component of the child welfare funding system. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you. The chair recognizes Mr. Reed for 

five minutes. 

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am hearing kind of a 

consistent theme here from the panel and from testimony that is 

coming across. Essentially, what I am hearing is that we need less 

auditing, more streamline reporting requirements to the Federal 

level. 

But I would note that when I read the testimony I see some successes. I see 27 percent less kids in foster care, I see 20 percent 

over the last 5 years kids in foster care. So, does it not beg the 

question—I would be interested in the panel’s response to—we 

have to be doing something right. And that has—we heard Mr. 

Samuels’s testimony as to previously the requirement on the states 

was to give us a plan, and now it is give us a plan and then give 

us an accounting of how you spent the money. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
111 

So, my gut tells me that that change in philosophy of accountability, it seems to be—being implemented in this area. It seems 

to be working. So, is there any disagreement with that philosophy 

from anyone on the panel? 

[No response.] 

Mr. REED. Okay. So when we recommend less auditing, less accountability, if you would, from the states to the Federal Government, how do we maintain the successes by removing that accountability provision? Mr. Sciamanna? 

Mr. SCIAMANNA. I guess it is not less accountability, but refining it. I think the child family service reviews were an important 

act by Congress in 1994. And I think even some of the states will 

say—they may have problems with what the current process is, but 

it did engage a number of stakeholders. So I think the question is 

more about a refinement of that process, and what is the most efficient way to oversee the states. 

So, I think that is more of the debate, because certainly a number of advocacy groups and states will have different ideas, but we 

do need to have that oversight, because we should be doing a lot 

more for a lot of these families. 

Mr. REED. Okay. Mr. Yager? 

Mr. YAGER. And certainly we would agree with that. The accountability is important. That is not something that we want to 

shy away from. What we would suggest is that—is how they hold 

states accountable is what makes a difference. 

If they come in and do multiple reviews, looking at same sets of 

cases, requiring a lot of our staff to focus a lot of time, and then 

write independent corrective action plans for each of those reviews, 

versus looking at the state’s own data system and encouraging a 

robust data system that can be relied upon to prevent them from 

coming in at multiple points, they could rely on our data, supplement that with some coordinated efforts on site, and then produce 

their reports—— 

Mr. REED. Well, that is good to hear. So no one is really objecting to the accountability. 

Mr. YAGER. No, sir. 

Mr. REED. It is just a matter of getting the information streamlined. 

Mr. YAGER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. REED. And I am interested—and there is a lot of testimony 

in here—about prevention, preventative action. And that, in my 

gut, makes sense. 

I note the court improvement program, Ms. Hopper. You indicated that the court improvement program contributed to the success in Virginia. Can you tell me exactly concrete examples of what 

programs, what preventative measures you took to accomplish 

that? 

Ms. HOPPER. Well, the courts, of course, don’t deliver programs. 

But they monitor the cases as they come in. And I think one of the 

critical components in the work that has been done in Virginia is 

the collaboration across all of the child serving agencies. 

One of the mantras in Virginia is that it is not just social services that is responsible for these children; they are the community’s 

children. And you need to bring together the schools, mental health 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
112 

agency, the health department with Medicaid. All of those agencies 

need to be at the table in supporting local departments of social 

services who hold custody of children in foster care, and are held— 

frankly, all of them need to be held accountable for delivering 

whatever the support is that the child and the family need to get 

them out of foster care, or get them to some other permanent placement. 

So, to some degree, prevention occurs when you are able to engage all of those agencies right at the beginning of the entry of the 

family into care. And one of the things that the courts in Virginia 

have done—and I think is also a hallmark of other court improvement programs across the country—is that the court is sort of a 

disinterested party, has the ability to provide the leadership to pull 

them all together and say, ‘‘Yes, I may make the final decision, as 

the judge, but I need to know that you all are all at the table supporting the family, and ultimately the agency, if they have—if the 

court has to put the child in care in resolving these problems.’’ 

So, that kind of collaboration, which is supported by the child 

and family services review—but it has got to be more than a federally-directed effort. It has really got to be a locally-supported effort 

to be effective. 

Mr. REED. I know my time has expired. I appreciate the testimony, Ms. Wareing. And I did note in your testimony there was a 

study of the nurse initiative out of Elmira, New York, which is in 

my district. I will be reaching out to them to find out how that program is continuing to work. So I appreciate that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you. Mr. McDermott? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I received some 

information from a project in the State of Washington. So I want 

to put mine into the record. The Pierce County Alliance got a regional partnership grant from HHS to administer a promoting safe 

and family services programs like the one we are discussing this 

morning. It is called the Amphetamine Family Services Partnership. And it really is another example—and I think all of these, it 

would be nice if we could get them all—and I ask unanimous consent to put in the record a letter from Dr. Terry Schmidt-Wayland 

along with the evaluation of the program in the State of Washington. 

Chairman DAVIS. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
113 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 76 here 70886.076
114 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 77 here 70886.077
115 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 78 here 70886.078
116 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 79 here 70886.079
117 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 80 here 70886.080
118 

f 

Chairman DAVIS. I think there are a number of very good practices that are out there, and the question is whether we have 

enough money to go further. 

I would say both to Mr. Reed and Ms. Black that the visiting 

nurse business was in the Accountable Care Act. Some of us put 

this in as a part of the whole of the revamp of the health care act. 

I would say also, Mr. Chairman, one thing that I wish we had 

up here—we have got these wonderful people who run these programs, but I think this audience is filled with people who have actually experienced it. 

I happen to know one of them sitting here was taken out of her 

home when she was 12 years old, when her mother was sent to 

prison, and her mother was sent to prison and 8 kids were taken 

into the system. They—when she came out of prison, she was deVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:08 Dec 17, 2011 Jkt 070886 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\70886.XXX GPO1 PsN: 70886

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 81 here 70886.081
119 

ported, although she had a green card. She was deported, leaving 

eight kids here, in the United States. So this young woman went 

through six or seven homes, and then aged out, and managed to 

get herself through college at the University of—or Washington 

State University, and is an intern in my office. 

I would like to hear from you. those of you who are state directors, particularly. What are the problems of the interaction of the 

legal system of taking the parent away and locking them up, and 

leaving the kid in a set of foster homes? 

Because one of the issues that we had here on this sheet of paper 

which I sent around to everybody, which is how much money we 

are spending, you look down here, ‘‘Mentoring children of prisoners.’’ There is nothing. 

And I would like to hear from you what the problems are that 

you see in that particular genre of case, where you have taken the 

kid away and put the parent into prison. You said you had lots of 

it in Kentucky. Here is your opening. 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you. I think one of the greatest concerns 

we have is, particularly with young children, breaking that bond 

between a parent and a child, and how we facilitate trying to do 

visits between children with their parents, when parents are incarcerated. That is certainly something that we struggle with. 

The other issue, then too, is—— 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Is that because the distance to the state prison, or is it the reluctance of the foster parent to take the child, 

or—— 

Ms. WILSON. It is a combination of factors. It is distance. It is 

just the sheer logistics of getting children their prescribed times for 

visits. 

One of the avenues that we have taken to try to work with this 

is we have an organization called Prevent Child Abuse Kentucky 

that actually goes into one or two of our Federal prisons and conducts classes with parents to prepare them for changes in their 

children. Because the other problem that we see is that when parents are released, their children are not the children they were 

when they left. And to help that parent be educated about effective 

parenting, but also about stages in development of children, so that 

when they are reunited they are better prepared to deal with the 

challenges before them that their children will bring. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. What do you find in Virginia and Michigan? 

Ms. HOPPER. With regard to incarcerated parents and their 

children? I was just sitting here thinking one of—the only authority in Virginia in the district courts for bringing prisoner—we’re 

talking district courts, where these cases are handled—for bringing 

prisoners to court, as opposed to circuit courts, is actually in the 

juvenile court with parents who are incarcerated, and are before 

the court in child dependency cases. And our legislature gave us 

that authority. 

And so, we actually encourage the courts to bring parents to 

court when they are having foster care review hearings or permanency planning hearings about their children. 

But the reality of it is, Congressman, that if you are going to 

take a child to a prison to visit their parents, the visitor situation 

is often not very good. It can be very stressful for a child. It can 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
120 

be tough to be in that kind of an environment. You need training 

for the people who take them, to help them make judgements about 

what happened to the child while they were there, and when they 

come back. And often these parents are there for a very long time. 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I would echo your sentiments, having been a prison volunteer for 

eight-and-a-half years in the Kentucky Corrections cabinet. That is 

a fairly traumatic experience for a child, especially if they have got 

some history that they are carrying in there. 

The chair recognizes Mr. Berg for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BERG. Thank you. One of the most difficult things, I think, 

in this whole process is the unintended consequences, where you sit 

around and you—it is probably no more evident than what you are 

dealing with, trying to figure out the best way to help these kids, 

and yet at the end of the day, the practicality of it, it sometimes 

has the opposite effect. 

And so, I just kind of wanted to expand on this. You know, I 

have—you know, the President has reduced the funding in half for 

this prison program. Is anyone familiar with—you know, I have 

heard it said that actually it is kind of detrimental to some of these 

children, because you are establishing a short-term relationship, 

and then you are kind of pulling that away. Is there anyone on the 

panel familiar with that, and could explain that position, if you 

will? 

Mr. SCIAMANNA. I think—yes, what I read on one of the mentoring programs—at least the HHS justification—was that their 

evidence seemed to be that a lot of these mentoringships were ending within six months, and I think a significant percentage within 

three months. And the concern is that, when that happens, then 

you reinforce the sense of abandonment. 

So, I think it is—at least in one of the programs they talked 

about better focusing some of the funding. So I—you know, I don’t’ 

know. You would have to ask the department exactly the details 

in this program. But I think that is one of the concerns that sometimes exists in some of these efforts. 

Mr. BERG. And from my perspective, I just really believe that 

unless you measure things you can’t manage them. And too often 

we are putting money and putting new programs, and they just 

continue on without anyone really saying, ‘‘Hey, wait a minute,’’ 

you know, ‘‘that king doesn’t have any clothes on,’’ or, ‘‘It’s not 

working, and how can we’’—which kind of bring up my other passion, and that is really people at the state level, you know, giving 

them the flexibility to know what works and what doesn’t work, 

and allowing them to make those changes. 

And so, I guess, Ms. Wareing, we talked a little bit about, I guess 

what—I would like to ask you about the waivers, and you know, 

how you see that as a—I think you support that, but explain how 

you see that working. And we did pass a bill here at the end of 

May to encourage the waivers, and I was wondering if your organization was supportive of that, and maybe you can explain how that 

will help. 

Ms. WAREING. Sure. We are absolutely supportive of the expansion, essentially, of what had been the title IV–E waivers, as I 

think other folks have mentioned here, as my colleague at the end 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
121 

of the table, Mr. Yager, mentioned, the—you know, the ability to 

use the IV–E dollars in a way that is beyond the just bringing kids 

into foster care. It is really the idea of what child welfare finance 

reform, in a more comprehensive way, is driving at. 

It allows states to meet the goals we have said they need to 

meet, and be accountable to those goals, but fit it to what their 

community needs are, and communities are different, and states 

are different. And, you know, the ability to do that and take—in 

a very difficult fiscal time for all of us, be able to be flexible with 

those dollars and use them as smartly as possible, we fully support 

that. 

We also fully support examining child welfare finance as a whole. 

But a huge step would be to expand the ability of the waivers to 

reach many more states for an extended period of time. 

Mr. BERG. I will yield back. Thank you. 

Chairman DAVIS. I thank the gentleman. And now the chair recognizes Ms. Black from Tennessee. 

Mrs. BLACK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to follow up on 

the questioning that Congressman Berg just completed, and that is 

the sharing of the information, the good information, because you 

all have—those of you at the state level, you have very good stories 

about what has worked in your state. And certainly that is something that should be shared with others. 

At the same time, Ms. Wareing, I appreciate the fact that each 

community, each state, may be different in its own complexion, and 

why it is so important to give that flexibility and allow something 

to incubate at a state that may really be very successful. 

I would like to hear from each of you, whether you are at the 

state level or an organizational level, how that information that 

may be a good piece from some place else that is doing a good job— 

how do you get that information? How is that shared? 

And we will start with you, Ms. Wilson. I mean, I like a number 

of the things that are in your testimony, and I am going to be calling the people that I know back at our state, and talking to them 

a little bit about that. But how would you both share what you 

have done successfully, and then also hear what other people are 

doing? 

Ms. WILSON. Certainly. And I know some of the people in your 

state, and we would be happy to talk with them. 

We have two avenues, actually, of both receiving and giving information. One of those is, both through HHS, through ACF, and 

through organizations like APHSA, they are invaluable when we 

have the opportunity to share, either via conference calls, to share 

at conferences, make presentations about specific programs. And 

so, in return, we both provide that information and we get that information. 

I think all of us—a common theme that has been expressed this 

morning—I think if you were to look at each of the 50 states individually, what you would find is that one of the things that the 

CFSRs did above all else was really push states to be succinct in 

their data collection, to target that data, and then to use that data. 

And I think that is the key, is using the data to inform the practices. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
122 

So, we look to our national organizations to help us get the word 

out. We look to those organizations also to make states aware of 

practices, promising practices, as well as we do ACF, and to share 

that information among the states. 

Mrs. BLACK. Thank you. Ms. Hopper. 

Ms. HOPPER. The court improvement programs, of course, are 

significantly focused on court processes and relationships with communities. 

And the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 

through their permanency planning for children department, is a 

terrific resource for us. And they cultivate judges across the country with particular expertise—many of them come from your 

states—that are available to us to use in our states to call on as 

resources. 

The National Center for State Courts is also a terrific resource. 

And then, the national resource centers that are funded through 

HHS, the Center on Legal and Judicial Issues and the Child Protection Center are two that we are currently using on training on 

child safety. 

So, the national resource technical assistance that is available 

probably—I look at it a little bit differently than the executive 

branch does, but they help to pull together best practices, and people who are really on the cutting edge of these issues. And we rely 

on them heavily to know what is going on across the country. 

Mrs. BLACK. Do you think other states are relying on them, as 

well? 

Ms. HOPPER. Oh, yes, ma’am. I do believe they are. 

Mrs. BLACK. Okay. Great, great. Ms. Wareing? 

Ms. WAREING. I would just add—and Pat so eloquently talked 

about the way that the associations really play a role. But, you 

know, there is a lot of people in this room, many people, who come 

to work every day thinking about the ways in which we can better 

serve, have better, healthier lives for our children and families. 

And part of what I think has happened in recent years that is 

remarkable in a way that has allowed really good things to happen—and if we didn’t say this, I think other people on the panel 

would agree—Promoting Safe and Stable Families, and including 

some of the things that happened in the last reauthorization were 

very helpful. So, you know, that, I think, is an important thing to 

leave the panel with. 

But there is a real shared governance and leadership that exists 

across national organizations, at all levels of state and local government. And those are the—the more we can make that a dynamic 

relationship, as opposed to a linear relationship, that is the way 

that things get shared. 

Mrs. BLACK. Thank you. 

Mr. SCIAMANNA. Yes. Actually, I hope American Humane Association is part of the solution. We do have a research department, 

based in our Denver office, and we either partner with states or localities, as they implement these practices. Or we do research 

around specific programs or practices, differential response. 

Something that actually the state of Tennessee is implementing, 

it is the way you design your child protective services system. But 

there was extensive work, and it is ongoing work, in terms of the 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
123 

state of Minnesota and their progress, where they have had control 

groups findings on the results of differential response, how it has 

really helped families. 

So, in our case, what we have done is we have gone into states 

like Ohio and now New York, and we help them implement it on 

a county-by-county basis. But it is research-based, and it is similar 

to what we are also doing, in terms of the fatherhood outreach, 

through fathers with children in child welfare. There is a research 

component. 

Mr. YAGER. I would quickly add that the ACF hosts conferences, 

and those conferences are very available to us. They are often funded for us, and we are able to go and share information. But I would 

also add that there is child welfare list servs where we can get on 

in real time and talk with our colleagues across the country and 

share information back and forth about what works and what 

doesn’t work. 

Mrs. BLACK. Thank you very much. 

Chairman DAVIS. I thank the gentlewoman, and I want to personally thank each of our witnesses who have come in today, taken 

the time to—some come from far away, knowing you have got a day 

job waiting for you that is accumulating demands while you are 

here with us. 

We look forward to working with you closely in the future. Any 

additional input that you would like to have, certainly we are very 

open to that and want to craft the most efficient and proactive reauthorization possible. 

And if Members have additional questions, they will submit them 

to you in writing. What we would ask is that you submit your answers also the committee, just so we can insert them in the official 

record, so everyone will have access. 

And thank you all again. And, with that, the committee stands 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:12 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the Record follow:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
124 

Adoptions Together 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 82 here 70886.082
125 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 83 here 70886.083
126 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 84 here 70886.084
127 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 85 here 70886.085
128 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 86 here 70886.086
129 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 87 here 70886.087
130 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 88 here 70886.088
131 

Child Welfare League of America 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 90 here 70886.090
132 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 91 here 70886.091
133 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 92 here 70886.092
134 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 93 here 70886.093
135 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 94 here 70886.094
136 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 95 here 70886.095
137 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 96 here 70886.096
138 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 97 here 70886.097
139 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 98 here 70886.098
140 

Conference of Chief Justices, Conferences of State Court Administrators 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 99 here 70886.099
141 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 100 here 70886.100
142 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 101 here 70886.101
143 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 102 here 70886.102
144 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 103 here 70886.103
145 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 104 here 70886.104
146 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 105 here 70886.105
147 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 106 here 70886.106
148 

Cook Inlet Tribal Council 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 107 here 70886.107
149 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 108 here 70886.108
150 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 109 here 70886.109
151 

Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 110 here 70886.110
152 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 111 here 70886.111
153 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 112 here 70886.112
154 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 113 here 70886.113
155 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 114 here 70886.114
156 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 115 here 70886.115
157 

Embrace Waiting Children, Inc. 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 116 here 70886.116
158 

Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here 70886.117
159 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 118 here 70886.118
160 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 119 here 70886.119
161 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 120 here 70886.120
162 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 121 here 70886.121
163 

Family Design Resource, Inc. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 122 here 70886.122
164 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here 70886.123
165 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 124 here 70886.124
166 

Zero to Three, National Center for Infants, Toddlers, and Families 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 125 here 70886.125
167 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 126 here 70886.126
168 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127 here 70886.127
169 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 128 here 70886.128
170 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 129 here 70886.129
171 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 130 here 70886.130
172 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 131 here 70886.131
173 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 132 here 70886.132
174 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 133 here 70886.133
175 

Generations United 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 134 here 70886.134
176 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 135 here 70886.135
177 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 136 here 70886.136
178 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 137 here 70886.137
179 

National Association of Social Workers 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 138 here 70886.138
180 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here 70886.139
181 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here 70886.140
182 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 here 70886.141
183 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 142 here 70886.142
184 

National Committee of Grandparents for Children’s Rights 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 143 here 70886.143
185 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here 70886.144
186 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here 70886.145
187 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 146 here 70886.146
188 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here 70886.147
189 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here 70886.148
190 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here 70886.149
191 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here 70886.150
192 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 here 70886.151
193 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here 70886.152
194 

National Family Preservation Network 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 here 70886.153
195 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 here 70886.154
196 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 155 here 70886.155
197 

North American Council on Adoptable Children 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 156 here 70886.156
198 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 157 here 70886.157
199 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 158 here 70886.158
200 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 159 here 70886.159
201 

Northwest Adoption Exchange and Oregon 

Post Adoption Resources Center 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 160 here 70886.160
202 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 161 here 70886.161
203 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 162 here 70886.162
204 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 163 here 70886.163
205 

NYS Citizens’ Coalition for Children 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 166 here 70886.164
206 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 167 here 70886.165
207 

Research on Vulnerable Families 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 166 here 70886.166
208 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 167 here 70886.167
209 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 168 here 70886.168
210 

Sacred Authority 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 169 here 70886.169
211 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 170 here 70886.170
212 

Stephanie Trevitz 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 171 here 70886.171
213 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 172 here 70886.172
214 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 173 here 70886.173
215 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 174 here 70886.174
216 

The Adoption Exchange 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175 here 70886.175
217 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 176 here 70886.176
218 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 177 here 70886.177
219 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 178 here 70886.178 Insert offset folio 179 here 70886.179
220 

The National Mentoring Partnership 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 180 here 70886.180
221 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 181 here 70886.181
222 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 182 here 70886.182
223 

Voice for Adoption 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 183 here 70886.183
224 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 184 here 70886.184
225 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 185 here 70886.185
226 

Æ 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 186 here 70886.186