U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

60–952 CC WASHINGTON : 1998

CHILD PROTECTION PROGRAMS IN FLORIDA

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

DECEMBER 14, 1998

Serial 105–99

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means

(

ii

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

BILL ARCHER, Texas, Chairman

PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois

BILL THOMAS, California

E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida

NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky

AMO HOUGHTON, New York

WALLY HERGER, California

JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana

DAVE CAMP, Michigan

JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota

JIM NUSSLE, Iowa

SAM JOHNSON, Texas

JENNIFER DUNN, Washington

MAC COLLINS, Georgia

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio

PHILIP S. ENGLISH, Pennsylvania

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada

JON CHRISTENSEN, Nebraska

WES WATKINS, Oklahoma

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona

JERRY WELLER, Illinois

KENNY HULSHOF, Missouri

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York

FORTNEY PETE STARK, California

ROBERT T. MATSUI, California

BARBARA B. KENNELLY, Connecticut

WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington

GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts

MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York

WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee

XAVIER BECERRA, California

KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida

A.L. SINGLETON, Chief of Staff

JANICE MAYS, Minority Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida, Chairman

DAVE CAMP, Michigan

JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana

MAC COLLINS, Georgia

PHILIP S. ENGLISH, Pennsylvania

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona

WES WATKINS, Oklahoma

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan

FORTNEY PETE STARK, California

ROBERT T. MATSUI, California

WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania

WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana

Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public hearing records

of the Committee on Ways and Means are also published in electronic form. The printed

hearing record remains the official version. Because electronic submissions are used to

prepare both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of converting

between various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the process

is further refined.

iii

C O N T E N T S

Page

Advisory of December 2, 1998, announcing the hearing ...................................... 2

WITNESSES

American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSME),

Local 3041, Carol Ann Loehndorf ....................................................................... 46

Broward County Foster Parents Association, Linda Day ..................................... 67

Children’s Home Society of Florida, Kathryn R. O’Day ....................................... 70

Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption:

Dave Thomas .................................................................................................... 6

Jan Hefner ........................................................................................................ 6

Florida Department of Children and Families:

Linda F. Radigan .............................................................................................. 18

Johnny L. Brown .............................................................................................. 33

Florida Dependency Court Improvement Program, and Seventeenth Judicial

Circuit of Florida, Hon. Kathleen A. Kearney ................................................... 14

Handy, Inc., Eileen Donais ..................................................................................... 74

Jenne, Hon. Ken, Broward County, Florida .......................................................... 10

Meyer, Christine, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida .................................. 43

Sanderson, Hon. Debby P., Florida State House of Representatives .................. 8

Talenfeld, Howard M., Colodny, Fass & Talenfeld, P.A. ...................................... 37

Youth Law Center, Howard M. Talenfeld ............................................................. 37

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Jane Addams Hull House Association, Chicago, IL, Gordon Johnson, statement and attachments ......................................................................................... 85

Koenig, Hon. Julie, Circuit Court Judge, Seventeenth Judical Circuit of Florida, letter .............................................................................................................. 87

(1)

CHILD PROTECTION PROGRAMS IN FLORIDA

MONDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1998

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:09 a.m., in the

City Commission Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Hon. E.

Clay Shaw, Jr. (Chairman of the Subcommittee), presiding.

[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:]

2

ADVISORY

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (202) 225–1025

December 2, 1998

No. HR–20

Shaw Announces Field Hearing on

Child Protection

Congressman E. Clay Shaw, Jr., (R–FL), Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, today

announced that the Subcommittee will hold a field hearing on child protection programs in Florida and other States. The hearing will take place on Monday, December 14, 1998, in the Fort Lauderdale City Hall, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, beginning

at 10:00 a.m.

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

hearing will be from invited witnesses only. Witnesses will include a State legislator, State and local social service administrators, judicial and law enforcement

representatives, child welfare practitioners, and researchers. 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 Subcommittee has jurisdiction over most Federal foster care and adoption

programs. The first major reform of the child welfare system in almost two decades,

the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (P.L. 105–89), was initiated in the Subcommittee and signed into law just one year ago. The legislation establishes new

procedural requirements to promote child safety, to shorten the time a child spends

in foster care, and to expedite the adoption process. One of the most important requirements makes a child’s health and safety the paramount concern in any efforts

made by the State to preserve or reunify families. The legislation also provided

States with additional resources from the Federal Government including the expansion of family preservation programs and the promotion of adoption services.

The Subcommittee is traveling to Florida to determine what barriers exist to full

implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 and to exercise oversight over programs established to protect abused and neglected children. The hearing will provide an opportunity for the Subcommittee to hear directly from State legislators who, along with the Federal Government, provide funding for child protection programs, from judges and appointed legal advocates who adjudicate and represent abused and neglected children in court, and from child protection administrators and practitioners who provide services to maltreated children and their families.

In announcing the hearing, Chairman Shaw stated: ‘‘The Subcommittee is holding

this hearing as part of our ongoing responsibility to monitor the effectiveness of

child protection programs throughout the United States. The safety of abused and

neglected children must be a paramount concern at all levels of government and in

all parts of our communities. We are especially interested in how the major child

protection reforms enacted as part of the 1997 adoption law are being implemented

in Florida and what more needs to be done to keep children safe both in their own

families and in the foster care system.’’

3

FOCUS OF THE HEARING:

The hearing will focus on what the Federal Government can do to help State and

local governments provide assistance to troubled children and their families and to

keep children safe in the foster care system. The Subcommittee is interested in

learning about the problems that exist in Florida and elsewhere across the nation

that result in leaving abused children in dangerous situations either by returning

them to unfit biological parents or by placing them in a child protection system that

fails to protect them.

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:

Any person or organization wishing to submit a written statement for the printed

record of the hearing should submit six (6) single-spaced copies of their statement,

along with an IBM compatible 3.5-inch diskette in WordPerfect 5.1 format, with

their name, address, and hearing date noted on a label, by the close of business,

Monday, December 28, 1998, to A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff, Committee on Ways

and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, 1102 Longworth House Office Building,

Washington, D.C. 20515.

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS:

Each statement presented for printing to the Committee by a witness, any written statement

or exhibit submitted for the printed record or any written comments in response to a request

for written comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any statement or exhibit not

in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed, but will be maintained in the Committee

files for review and use by the Committee.

1. All statements and any accompanying exhibits for printing must be submitted on an IBM

compatible 3.5-inch diskette WordPerfect 5.1 format, typed in single space and may not exceed

a total of 10 pages including attachments. Witnesses are advised that the Committee will rely

on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record.

2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not be accepted for printing.

Instead, exhibit material should be referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material

not meeting these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use

by the Committee.

3. A witness appearing at a public hearing, or submitting a statement for the record of a public hearing, or submitting written comments in response to a published request for comments

by the Committee, must include on his statement or submission a list of all clients, persons,

or organizations on whose behalf the witness appears.

4. A supplemental sheet must accompany each statement listing the name, company, address,

telephone and fax numbers where the witness or the designated representative may be reached.

This supplemental sheet will not be included in the printed record.

The above restrictions and limitations apply only to material being submitted for

printing. Statements and exhibits or supplementary material submitted solely for

distribution to the Members, the press, and the public during the course of a public

hearing may be submitted in other forms.

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

Wide Web at ‘‘http://www.house.gov/wayslmeans/’’.

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.

want to thank the folks here in Ft. Lauderdale, the city commisChairman SHAW. The hearing will come to order. I first of all

f

4

sion, the mayor, and the city manager for allowing me to come

home. I spent many years behind this podium as a commissioner

and as the mayor, so I feel very comfortable in this room.

I am also very pleased that my friend Phil English from Pennsylvania is here to be part of this hearing. He also serves on the

Human Resources Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee.

Last of all, and certainly not least of all, I am very pleased to

welcome all of our friends, Dave Thomas, and all of our other distinguished witnesses for this hearing. I see Ken Jenne is here with

us among the others. Thank you, Phil, for coming to Florida for

this hearing. I know it is a heavy duty leaving Pennsylvania in December to come to the State of Florida. We are delighted to see you.

The purpose of this hearing is to continue the Ways and Means

Committee’s examination of the Nation’s child protection programs.

The children being cared for by the child protection programs run

by the States, counties, and cities of our Nation are the most vulnerable children in our society today. They have been abused or neglected by their parents. To protect them, the State assumes custody and places them either in foster homes or some other type of

foster facility. Now removed from their parents, some of them are

still vulnerable to further abuse or neglect unless government is

vigilant in protecting them. But government does not always do a

good job. That is why, like many other officials, child advocates and

scholars, we on the Ways and Means Committee have been working so hard over the past 4 years to improve the Nation’s child protection programs, and that includes adoption laws. The Federal

role is to provide the broad framework for the program, to provide

States with adequate funding to help low-income families, and ensure program accountability.

The Adoption and Safe Families Act which was written primarily

by our Committee and passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote

in 1997 is an example of our commitment to improving child protection programs, in this case, by shortening the length of time

children spend in the limbo of foster care and by providing States

with financial incentives to increase adoption. Similarly, our legislation on racial discrimination in foster care and adoption placement which was enacted in 1996 is further evidence of our commitment to getting children out of foster care as quickly as possible.

In examining the Federal law and in examining the State laws

and what some of the problems are, we found that many of the

problems were caused by Federal law, which simply put barriers in

the way of adoption. We have cleared away much of that clutter,

and hopefully it will come up and give us great dividends in placing children in permanent adopting homes.

We are here today primarily in our role of ensuring accountability. Is the State of Florida implementing a child protection program that makes the safety of these children of paramount importance, and at the same time one that gets children into permanent

settings as quickly as possible? Is the State of Florida aggressively

implementing the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the interethnic adoption provision? If not, what can we do at the Federal

level to ensure that Florida improves in its performance?

5

Here, I want to mention one issue that the Committee plans to

examine very carefully this year. The Federal Government now

provides States with a great deal of money, but the system by

which we provide it is flawed. The system is flawed because we

provide generous open-ended fundings for children who have been

removed from their families but cap inflexible funds for providing

the much needed services to prevent the unnecessary removal of

children from their homes. To remedy this problem, I would like to

provide States with more control over their funds. The States are

doing an exemplary job with the flexibility we have given them

with the new welfare reform legislation, and I believe they would

do an equally good job in using more flexible child protection funds.

But many advocates and policymakers want the Federal Government to maintain a strong regulatory role over the State and local

child protection programs. Perhaps we can develop reforms that

will ensure more flexibility and strong Federal oversight. I hope

our witnesses will address these issues today.

Before hearing from witnesses, I want to make an important

point about how I plan to conduct this hearing this morning.

Broward County is now involved in a court suit concerning its child

protection program. It is my fervent desire, and actually my commitment, to avoid making any comments on either side of this case,

and I strongly suggest that our witnesses do the same. In fact, I

request that our witnesses do the same. The court suit should be

allowed to run its course without any interference from other

branches of Federal or State government. We have invited witnesses representing all sides of this suit, but this is not the setting

or the time to discuss this case itself. I am sure that all of you understand this and will abide by our wishes in this regard.

I will now recognize Mr. English for any opening statement that

he might have.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of brevity, I will

keep my remarks short. I just want to thank you for sponsoring

this hearing, which is the latest in a series of field hearings and

hearings in Washington that you have done on this subject. I am

looking forward to seeing what is going on in Florida and comparing it with what we are trying to do in Pennsylvania. I think

our problems are similar and I will be particularly interested to see

how Florida is proceeding with these very, very difficult issues.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to congratulate you. I realize this is

the last hearing that you are going to be chairing of this Subcommittee. If I may be permitted to say so, you have been a superb

advocate as a Chair of the Human Resources Subcommittee, and

a lot of us are looking forward to your work as Chairman of the

Social Security Subcommittee in the new Congress. I believe that

as a longtime Member, 4 years serving under you on the Human

Resources Subcommittee, not only have I learned a lot, but also, we

have done extraordinary things in Congress, and I want to congratulate you for that.

Chairman SHAW. Thank you very much for your kind remarks.

I would like to say that I will be leaving the Subcommittee in good

hands with Nancy Johnson. I believe she will be taking it as Chairwoman from the State of Connecticut.

6

Now we get to our hearing. Our first witness is no stranger to

this Subcommittee. He has testified before our Subcommittee in

Washington. He has become, I think, perhaps the national poster

child for adoption, being the founder of the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption in Dublin, Ohio. I might say too with a great deal

of pride that he is one of my constituents here in Fort Lauderdale.

Dave, proceed as you wish. I understand that you are not going to

be reading your full testimony yourself because of your voice, but

if you would like to proceed.

STATEMENT OF DAVE THOMAS, FOUNDER, DAVE THOMAS

FOUNDATION FOR ADOPTION, DUBLIN, OHIO; ACCOMPANIED BY JAN HEFNER, DIRECTOR, DAVE THOMAS FOUNDATION FOR ADOPTION

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you. Let me just say thank you very much

for allowing us to be here. I would like to say, Chairman Shaw, you

have done a wonderful job for adoption, trying to get these kids. All

they want to do is have a permanent and loving home. Jan Hefner

is the director of my foundation and she wrote these remarks and

I am going to let her say these remarks. So go ahead and testify.

Ms. HEFNER. Mr. Shaw and Mr. English, good morning. As a

matter of fact, these remarks are a compilation of things that Dave

has shared with folks across the country, so we just wanted to

bring a few of those to you this morning.

In essence, Wendy’s and the Dave Thomas Foundation have tried

to make the public more aware of the youngsters that are in foster

care through public service announcements and Internet sites,

adoption fairs, bus cards, and other kinds of media, and our local

partners, our stores, our franchisees, they are a very, very important part of the team. We have all been working together to recruit

parents, to educate judges and elected officials about these kids.

We are very thankful to you, Mr. Shaw and your colleagues in Congress, for passing the Adoption Tax Credit as well as the Adoption

and Safe Families Act.

Since you were gracious enough to invite me, as Mr. Thomas’ remarks said, I would like to share a couple of comments. First of

all, he feels very strongly that States and counties have a huge responsibility to be sure that not only the letter of the law is implemented, but also the spirit of the law. After all, if local officials

make sure that the best interest of each child is number one, then

your communities will be much safer, happier, and healthier.

Good and timely services for families have to be available right

away so as many families as possible can stay out of the system

altogether and stay together. Foster care is very important. It is a

lifeline for children in crisis, but it is not meant to be permanent

in any way.

We also believe that every child can be adopted, every child deserves a family. We just have to find the right one in a timely manner. Also, potential adoptive families need to be treated kindly and

gently like the really important people they are. That goes for foster families also.

We must also pay attention to the court system. We need excellent tracking systems within the court and these need to be able

to talk to the social service systems. If we do not have that kind

7

of connection, then we are going to lose a lot of the accountability

and the ability to do the implementation of the spirit of the law.

We also need committed and well-trained judges who hold everyone accountable to do the right things for children. They are the

gatekeepers, and we just hope that all of the judges in the State

of Florida understand that. In fact, they are the ones who must

hold folks accountable for this. We know that Judge Kearney has

been doing a terrific job down here, and wish her well in her new

position.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we need to make sure that each one of

us in our own special way in this beautiful community of Fort Lauderdale do what we can to make sure every child has a safe and

loving home to start their life out right. That much we owe them.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SHAW. Mr. English.

Mr. ENGLISH. I wonder if our two witnesses could generalize—I

know this is a very broad stroke I am inviting you to give, but can

you generalize for us, if we had a stronger adoption policy in this

country, if we were doing a better job, as I think our policy—the

direction our policy is now headed in, doing a better job of placements earlier on, can you quantify for us what impact it would

have on communities like Florida?

Ms. HEFNER. The latest research that we are aware of from

WESAT indicated that about 10 years ago if the youngsters that

were in foster care had been placed much earlier with adoptive

families, then it would save literally billions of dollars across the

country. I am sure that is the case here in Broward County. It has

got the second largest number of youngsters in care in Florida. So

not only would you save the administrative costs of children in foster care, there is also the longitudinal issues. Hopefully, those kids

will not then be involved in either the juvenile justice system or

the adult system, or would they be homeless on the streets because

they would, in fact, have a family that they can connect to. So

there is not only the spiritual and moral issues, there are also financial issues.

Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SHAW. Thank you.

Dave, as I mentioned earlier, you are very active and not only

are you an adopted child yourself a few years back, but you were

very active in Washington on the passage and testified regarding

the Adoption and Safe Families Act, as I recall. You were also at

the White House with me for the signing. I think such moments

in history should some way be memorialized and I have something

I would like to present to you at this time.

What we have here is a signed copy of the act, together with the

ceremonial pen with which it was signed into law by President

Clinton.

[Presentation.]

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you very much.

[Applause.]

Chairman SHAW. Yes, sir.

Mr. THOMAS. Now all we have got to do is make it work.

Chairman SHAW. Right. You are a tough guy. He says now let

us make it work. OK.

8

Mr. THOMAS. We have it, now we need to implement it. This was

the first step.

Thank you.

Chairman SHAW. On our second panel, we have Hon. Linda—oh,

Ms. Radigan will be coming later. Evidently, her plane is running

late. We also have our hometown State representative, Debby

Sanderson, from the Florida House of Representatives, also Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, which is no lightweight

area, I can tell you that. We have got our new sheriff—not new any

more—Ken Jenne, a very old friend of ours. Ken and I have worked

together on everything from the Charter Commission through all

the positions that he has held. If he will come forward. And Judge

Kathleen Kearney whose name has already been mentioned this

morning. She will be leaving us and leaving the Seventh Judicial

Circuit of Florida for Tallahassee where she will be taking over tremendous responsibility under the Bush administration. We have

the written testimony—if we do not, we will be getting it and putting the testimony in the record. If the witnesses would proceed as

they see fit, if you wish to summarize—we are going to try to move

the hearing along with a 5-minute rule. If it runs a little bit over,

I cannot see anybody at this table that I would put the gavel on.

So proceed as you wish.

Debby.

STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBY P. SANDERSON, FLORIDA STATE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Ms. SANDERSON. Thank you, Congressman Shaw. It is a pleasure

to be here this morning. I wish it were a happier subject. It is one

that we struggle with in the legislature and certainly here at the

district level.

I want to mention that appropriations have increased significantly over the last 7 years. The legislature appropriated this year

the largest amount of resources in years. It was an increase of $75

million and 212 positions. Now that is statewide.

In the fall of 1997 there was a surge in the number of children

placed in out-of-home care. This surge was not anticipated in the

1998 Budget Appropriations Act. We do not have a good child welfare information system and we are working on one. It is a very,

very expensive situation. In Tallahassee it is called SACWIS,

Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information Systems—that is

the acronym—which is being developed. It is going to be a couple

of more years before it is up. This may be one reason the State

does not have, and is not able to react as soon as we would really

like to because we do not have some of the information we really

need. The allocation methodology may need to be changed. This is

something, as you know as a Congressman, is politically very sensitive when you try to take dollars from one district or from one

State to another.

Management decisions have been lacking at times. The district

structure does not allow the department to correct problems very

easily. The State is now adjusting to the Federal Adoption and Safe

Families Act of 1997, which I think was a very good piece of legislation, but it has imposed certain restrictions and constraints on

us.

9

We passed State legislation this past session to implement those

Federal requirements. It calls for the safety and health of children

as a paramount concern in decisionmaking in all stages of the proceedings. It requires all children in the dependency court system to

have a permanency planning review hearing within 1 year from the

date of the out-of-home placement. It provides additional grounds

for expediting termination of parental rights in certain circumstances. This is an area that really, really needs to be worked

on. We have many children languishing in the system today that

the parents’ rights are not terminated. They are not complying

with any of the court orders and really have lost the ability to be

good parents and we need to get these children placed. The legislature will have an opportunity to address these changes budgetarily

this upcoming session which starts March 2, 1999.

Privatization of the child welfare system may bring many challenges and unknown resource demands. This is a massive undertaking by the department as directed by the legislation of 1998.

Sadly, children are going to die regardless of how many resources

the State may put into these programs. As I have mentioned, we

have had significant budget increases, and where they affect District 10, of that, 70—let us see, of the 212 FTEs, full-time equivalents, District 10 has received 28 percent of those. These are new

people coming on board child protective, which is 48.5 of the 172

positions, new counselors, and 38 percent, which are 8 of the 24 supervisor positions.

Investigations have increased by more than 15 percent since

1993. The number of family builders—the number served by the

Family Builders Program, which is an intervention program that

we have tried, have increased over 152 percent over the last 5

years. In District 10, the increase was 149 percent. So they are utilizing it, but still it is obviously not the total answer.

The length of stay has been shortened from 22.4 to 19.4 months

in care. Adoption placements statewide have increased by over 44

percent since 1990, which I think is a good sign, but we need to

step that up. In District 10, the rate of children entering adoptive

home, supervision for 1,000 maltreated children went from 10.8 in

1994 to 18.3 in 1997–98. That’s a 69-percent increase in just 4

years.

In 1998, a review of 53 foster homes in District 10 chosen because of overcrowding, abuse reports or concerns by the judges, the

guardian ad litems or department staff indicated that only 4 percent were unacceptable with regard to safety, cleanliness, and

maintenance. Fourteen were unacceptable because of overcrowding.

I think 14 percent is awfully high. Children appear to be cared for

in all the homes. The results were even better in a similar review

of 50 homes just completed.

The budget that I chair and have the responsibility of chairing

is $12.6 billion. It is tremendous, it is the largest part of the Florida budget. There are so many demands, Medicaid has grown tremendously in this State. The Medicaid serves over 10 percent of

the State’s population. So in other words, a tremendous number.

Since 1996 expenditures have risen more than 574 percent and the

number of individuals covered has increased by 180 percent. In

1996, the average cost per client in the Medicaid Program has inVerDate 11-SEP-98 13:20 Mar 30, 2000 Jkt 060332 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 K:\HEARINGS\60952.TXT WAYS1 PsN: WAYS1
10

creased from $2,215 to $4,530. That is an average. In the absence

of Federal reform, the State is likely to face continued growth in

Medicaid expenditures. We are drowning in this and really need

some help on the Federal level, which you have been very helpful

with in the past year with the budget reconciliation.

Infrastructure and structured management determines the success of any program. We need to reallocate existing foster care dollars. For instance, the population at risk versus the reported number is very difficult, particularly without SACWIS up and running.

The number of cases versus the number reported are what we need

to base this on. It is very possible that some of the children in this

district were misplaced in more expensive foster care, therapeutic

homes versus regular foster care because of lack of slots. It is a

very slot-driven situation that we have.

Some management decisions have been made by other than the

legislature, such as those made by local district attorneys. I am not

casting aspersions on any specific district attorney, but they have

latitude of moving their budgets a little bit here and there. So

there are some things—Federal lawsuits that we have just been

pounded with are also a problem and that is a concern that I have

with this new lawsuit that has been placed on us. Do we really

want the Federal courts running our foster care system?

We have no information on the length of stay by district and by

category of foster care, only the length of stay over all. That needs

to be much more specific. We need to find out what is driving an

increase in the caseload and causing it to spike so appreciably.

The Federal adoption legislation that you were so key and responsible on helping to pass requires emphasis on the best interest

of the child first and that 12-month planning versus 18 months. I

know that Judge Kearney felt that 12 months would be sufficient

to do that and she was comfortable with that.

My last comment is that the birth parents are the ones that are

really responsible for these children and something has got to be

done to have parents realize what a treasure children are. I was

never blessed with any of my own, but it gave me the opportunity

to put my energies for children other than my own. It is not the

foster parents’ responsibility, it is the birth parents’ responsibility,

and that has somehow got to be driven home. I do not know. We

cannot do it legislatively. How we can make parents more responsible, not to abuse their children, to take care of them, love them

and nurture them? I know we are trying with many intervention

programs and hope to be more successful as we go on. This is an

enormous program and it takes everyone in this room and everyone

outside of this room to solve it.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Chairman SHAW. Sheriff Jenne.

STATEMENT OF HON. KEN JENNE, SHERIFF, BROWARD

COUNTY, FLORIDA

Sheriff JENNE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and Mr.

English for having the foresight to schedule this hearing in

Broward County and address what clearly has become a crisis in

our community. I do want to talk a little bit different than probably

some of your other speakers. I want to speak about the role of law

11

enforcement, specifically the Broward Sheriff’s Office, can play in

protecting our children.

I want you to know that I am thankful for those who gave us

a very strong wakeup call that we all needed. It was all of our responsibilities to provide a safety net for society’s most vulnerable.

There are clearly right now some gaping holes in that net when it

comes to our children. Unfortunately, there is no quick and easy

solution to this problem, no Band-Aid that can stop the bleeding at

this moment, but we all must prepare together for major surgery

of the system.

One way the Sheriff’s Office can help repair the system is by assuming the responsibility of protective investigations, not the placements but the investigations. This is right now the responsibility

of the State Department of Children and Family Services. These investigations are the ones that determine whether the child should

be removed from an unsafe environment and whether any criminal

activity is occurring. So we are just talking about protective investigations right now.

Let me take a moment to address what currently happens when

an investigator calls for help. The Federal law is clear where the

investigator’s duty lies. You mentioned this earlier, Mr. Chairman,

in your remarks, but I think it warrants reiteration. The duty of

the investigator is to do whatever is in the best interest of the

child. The child’s welfare is, and will continue to be, of paramount

importance to an investigator.

What will be emphasized in any training that takes place, should

we assume those responsibilities? The first thing I think law enforcement ought to do upon receiving a call from an 800 hotline is

extensive background on the people who live in the household.

Have there been prior calls to the hotline from this household?

Who lives in the house? Are there criminal backgrounds? By conducting this background research, we would arm every investigator

with crucial information he or she needs to make an informed decision that is in the best interest of the child. That is not being done

now.

Other steps would be to include providing investigators with the

tools they need to perform these jobs effectively. It is hard to imagine, but most of these—the work of these investigators are outside

of the office, yet they do not have portable computers; they do not

have cell telephones; they do not have communication radios. They

spend every moment of their day in their cars transporting children, yet there are no guarantees of safety and reliability because

the cars are their own personal vehicles. There is no accountability

regarding automobile insurance when they are transporting these

kids in the State’s custody. The Sheriff’s Office will provide inexpensive types of vehicles to these investigators. We would also enhance the training requirements for the investigators by adding a

40-hour investigator course on topics such as child interview techniques, case management preparation and an overview of the

criminal statutes and evidence of collection scenes—crime scenes.

Mr. Chairman and Mr. English, I want to emphasize to you that

that type of training is absolutely essential. How to interview a

child is much different than how to interview an adult. How to

take evidence is so important, yet we do not have it today. I believe

12

that this is not only an appropriate role for a law enforcement

agency, but I think it is a necessary one in today’s society, not just

here in Broward County. Police officers and sheriff’s deputies are

clearly equipped, trained, and experienced to perform these functions. Our infrastructure lends itself to doing them thoroughly and

efficiently. We have the tools by nature that are at our disposal

that the Department of Children and Families, (DCF) does not

have. Perhaps more important is the level of responsibility and accountability that we demand of our investigators. It is the same

level of accountability we demand throughout the Sheriff’s Office

for everything from crime rates to clearance rates and to community outreach. Our employees are responsible for the public safety

of 1.5 million people in this county. It is time we demand more

from those individuals who are explicitly responsible for protecting

the welfare of our children.

This office, and I think other law enforcement agencies, sheriffs’

offices throughout this State are willing to do it and the structure

can be put into place quickly. But to do this job, we have to tell

you it will cost more money for those computers, for those cell telephones, for better training. We estimate that it will take approximately $2 million more annually to conduct those protective investigations. I suspect you will find this to be a common theme

throughout the State, particularly in the urban centers where caseloads are overwhelming and the need for proficient reliable investigative work is high.

Our children, like all of us, need to live in a safe, healthy environment and we should say to all of us, shame on us for letting

their welfare become a high risk situation that takes a grand jury

report to remind us this should be our highest priority. It should

remain our highest priority year in and year out, not just when the

news media bring a rash of tragedies to our attention.

In closing, I want to say once again, Mr. Chairman, to you and

to Mr. English, thank you for bringing this Subcommittee here. I

am sure, and I know it is true that our needs are great, but our

resolve is also great to tackle this problem. I want to say once

again how proud we are that you are here and leading this fight

for us. Thank you.

[The prepared statement follows:]

Statement of Hon. Ken Jenne, Sheriff, Broward County, Florida

First, I’d like to thank Congressman Shaw and the other distinguished members

of this subcommittee for having the foresight to schedule this hearing in Broward

County and address a clearly pressing crisis in our community.

I want to talk with you today about the role that law enforcement—and specifically the Broward Sheriff’s Office—can play in protecting our children.

And I want you to know I am thankful to those who gave us all the wake-up call

we needed. It is all of our responsibilities to provide a safety net for society’s most

vulnerable. And there are clearly some gaping holes in that net when it comes to

our children.

Unfortunately, there is no quick and easy solution, no band-aid that can stop the

bleeding at this moment. But we all must prepare, together, for major surgery of

this system.

One way the Broward Sheriff’s Office can help repair the system is by assuming

the responsibility of protective investigations, a responsibility currently under the

state’s Department of Children and Families. These are investigations that determine whether or not a child should be removed from an unsafe environment, and

whether any criminal activity is occurring.

13

Let me take a moment to address what currently happens when an investigator

responds to a call for help. The federal law is very clear where the investigator’s

duty lies (and Congressman Shaw mentioned this in his opening remarks, but I

think it warrants reiteration).

The duty of the investigator is to do whatever is in the best interest of the child.

The child’s welfare is and will continue to be of paramount importance to an investigator. That will be emphasized in any training that takes place, should we assume

these responsibilities.

The first thing we would do upon receiving a call from the 800 hot-line is extensive background on the people who live in that household:

• have there been prior calls to the hotline regarding this household?

• who lives in the house?

• do they have criminal backgrounds?

By conducting this background research, we would arm every investigator with

crucial information he or she needs to make an informed decision about what’s best

for the child.

This is NOT being done now.

Other steps we would take include providing investigators with the tools they

need to perform these jobs effectively.

The vast majority of their work is done outside the office, yet they don’t have portable computers, cell phones or communication radios. They spend all day in their

cars and often transport children, yet there are no guarantees on the safety and reliability of their personal vehicles, and there is no accountability regarding automobile insurance when we are transporting children in the state’s custody! The

Sheriff’s Office would provide inexpensive unmarked vehicles to each investigator.

We would also enhance the training requirements for investigators by adding a

forty hour investigator course on topics such as child interview techniques, case

management and preparation, an overview of criminal statutes, and evidence collection at crime scenes.

I believe this is not only an appropriate role for law enforcement agency, but it

may be necessary for law enforcement to perform these duties. And not just here

in Broward County. Police officers and sheriff’s deputies are clearly equipped,

trained and experienced to perform these functions. Our infrastructure lends itself

to doing them thoroughly and efficiently. We have tools at our disposal that DCF

does not have.

Perhaps most important is the level of responsibility and accountability that we

will demand of the investigators. It is the same level of accountability we demand

throughout the Sheriff’s Office for everything from crime rates, to clearance rates,

to community outreach.

The Broward Sheriff’s Office employees are responsible for the safety of a million

and half people in this county, and we hold them to very high standards of performance. It’s time we demand more from those individuals who are explicitly responsible for protecting the welfare of our children. The Sheriff’s Office is willing to do

it, and the structure can be put in place quickly.

But to do this job right will cost more money than is currently budgeted. We estimate it will take about $2 million more annually for us to conduct protective investigations the way they should be conducted. I suspect you’ll find this to be a common

theme throughout the state, particularly in urban centers where the caseloads are

overwhelming and the need for proficient, reliable investigative work is high.

Our children—like all of us—need to live in safe, healthy environments. Shame

on us for letting their welfare become such a high risk situation that it takes a

grand jury report to remind us this should be our highest priority. And it should

remain our highest priority year in and year out—not just when the news media

brings a rash of tragedies to our attention.

In closing, I would like to once again thank this subcommittee for coming to South

Florida. It is true that our needs are great, but so is our resolve to tackle this problem. We need your continued help and participation. Thank you.

Chairman S

Ms. Kearney.

HAW. Thank you, Sheriff.

f

14

STATEMENT OF HON. KATHLEEN A. KEARNEY, JUDGE, SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA; AND CHAIR, FLORIDA DEPENDENCY COURT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Judge KEARNEY. Good morning, Chairman Shaw and good morning, Mr. English. I want to thank you very much for the opportunity to appear here today with you. First let me indicate that I

am here as a sitting circuit court judge at this moment. My testimony will be in light of that current position. I also chair the Florida Dependency Court Improvement Program which your Subcommittee assessed and funded. So I am here also in that capacity

as chair of the Dependency Court Improvement Initiative here in

the State of Florida.

Florida’s child protection system and Broward County’s in particular is in a state of crisis. No one can deny that. Countless children at this time are left in abusive homes on a daily basis due

to inadequate risk assessment and investigation being done by the

department. Sadly, countless more children are also abused and neglected in our foster care system here as a result of overcrowding

and problems within that system. The purpose of this hearing

though, as I understand it, is not to debate the genesis of that crisis or the nature of that crisis, but to provide you with potential

solutions at the Federal level to assist us in our work on behalf of

protecting children; therefore, I would like to limit my remarks this

morning to three specific recommendations that can be done at the

Federal level to assist us here at the State level.

The first remark that I have is that it is imperative that you

fully implement the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. This

act totally revolutionized the national approach to child welfare

and protection by putting the health and safety of children as the

paramount concern, and also determining whether reasonable efforts have been made by the government before removing a child,

reclassifying, redefining what reasonable effort is, and also reasonable effort at the time of reunification as that decision is made by

the courts. Florida was the first State in the Nation to pass into

law the Adoption and Safe Families Act when our legislature enacted in May of this year the Dependency Court Improvement Initiative that included all of the Adoption and Safe Families Act requirements. I would like to publicly thank Representative

Sanderson, without whose leadership and initiative the Dependency Court Improvement legislation would not have passed, and it

would have caused great harm and disservice to the children of

Florida had that not taken place. Unfortunately though, the State

of Florida has not implemented the recommendations of Adoption

and Safe Families and, at this time, I have great concern about

that.

The Adoption and Safe Families Act was passed in November

1997, so all States were on notice that at the first legislative session, they needed to pass into law the Federal requirement. So we

have known since November that proper training on the ramifications of the new law needed to be done. We have known since May

1 when the legislation was passed here in the State of Florida that

it was in fact enacted with an enactment date of October 1.

I am very concerned at this time on behalf of the judiciary because the training that has been provided within the department

15

to fully implement the act is woefully inadequate. It is my understanding that there has been a 1-hour videotape that has been

shown to representatives of the department—and that is it as far

as fully being able to be trained.

I have also received and have just reviewed the draft of the professional development centers. They are the entity responsible for

training here in Florida of all caseworkers and retraining of existing caseworkers. I received a draft of their initial report for 1998,

there is not one mention in that over 50-page report of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, nor is there a mention of the Dependency Court Improvement Act, which enacted it here in Florida. So

I am very concerned that the principal training arm at this time

has not trained and is not at this point prepared to train on the

complete paradigm shift from what had been a family preservation

model at all cost, to now the health and safety of children as the

paramount concern. And I believe that first and foremost that you

must require that the States provide to the Federal Government a

report on the training initiative and a report on what the States

have done to fully implement and adopt Adoption and Safe Families. Without that, I fear that the States will not effectively train

their workers on this very vital and important mission and function. That would be my first recommendation.

The second recommendation I have for you is to allow access to

the National Crime Information Center computer to the Department of Children and Families in Florida. Child abuse unfortunately is never limited to one State or one jurisdiction. Given the

mobility of today’s population, it is imperative that Congress enact

legislation that gives State child protection agencies access to the

NCIC. Right now, if I were to go out and conduct an investigation

here in this community, unless I had a friend in law enforcement

who through informal channels might be able to give me an NCIC

report or I sent away to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to get

it, which would take months, I will not be able to tell you if there

is any other criminal history outside the State of Florida of any of

the individuals in the home, including the alleged perpetrator. To

force an investigator to investigate without that valuable tool is unconscionable. Florida has enacted the required legislation that

would give us access to the NCIC, but it does require congressional

approval at this time. I would strongly encourage you to see to it

that that is done.

The third recommendation that I have this morning deals with

the educational services that are given to children, both in shelter

care and in foster care. Children who are placed in out-of-home

care, whether that be with a relative, whether that be in shelter

placement and ultimately in foster care if it is not safe to send

them home, are frequently moved from school to school as they are

moved from foster home to foster home. The teachers that initially

have that child in class are often not consulted in any way about

the child’s special needs. Their records frequently do not follow

them from school to school. There is no requirement that encourages the staff from the school district to have input in the case

planning function of the Department of Children and Families. I

would strongly encourage you to look at changing or perhaps

amending the Individual Disabilities Education Act, known as

16

IDEA, to mandate that school districts and child protection agencies receiving Federal funds identify children that have been placed

in shelter and foster care, share information pertaining to those

children with one another, so that each child’s individual needs can

be more fully assessed and met. I would also encourage you to require that school personnel be consulted and provide input on the

educational needs of the child in the child’s case plan.

In closing, let me stress my intense gratitude to Representative

Shaw for his leadership on a national level in making possible

Adoption and Safe Families. Without your leadership, sir, it would

not have happened and you will save millions of children because

of your efforts.

Thank you so much.

[The prepared statement follows:]

17

18

mittee, I would like to congratulate you on your impending appointment as Secretary of the Florida Department of Children and

Chairman SHAW. Thank you, Judge, and on behalf of the Comf

Families. We certainly look forward to great things from you.

And now our final witness from this panel, who has just now

flown in, I understand running a little bit late. We very much appreciate your efforts in getting here. Linda Radigan is the Assistant Secretary for Family Safety and Preservation of the Florida Department of Children and Families. Welcome. Thank you for being

here.

STATEMENT OF LINDA F. RADIGAN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY,

FAMILY SAFETY AND PRESERVATION, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

Ms. RADIGAN. Thank you, Chairman Shaw and Mr. English, for

coming here to hold this hearing. This is very helpful to the Department of Children and Families, who rarely has the opportunity

to travel to Washington to provide input on the very important and

critical Federal funds that you provide to the State of Florida.

19

Of the over $400 million that is spent in Florida each year on

the child protection system, just under half of that is from our Federal funding sources. You are clearly a primary partner in our protection of vulnerable children and families.

You have heard a lot of data already, and I will reiterate just a

few points. In the package that I gave you is some statewide data

as well as data on the three counties in south Florida, District 9,

District 10, and District 11.

Overall, the child population in Florida has grown by 6 percent

over the past 5-year period. During that same timeframe, the number of child abuse and neglect reports investigated by the State of

Florida grew by 15 percent. Over the next 5 years, we are expecting both the child population and the number of children reported,

who will require a child abuse investigation, to continue to increase

by another 9 percent.

From 1994 through 1997, the number of children in Florida’s foster care system remained fairly constant even though the child

population and the reporting rate significantly increased. This is

largely due to an infusion of resources from the Florida legislature,

supported by our Federal-matching sources, to increase the number

of foster care and adoption staff that provide the critical support

and services that these children and families need.

As you have already heard, during that timeframe, the number

of children who were successfully adopted increased quite dramatically and that had a large impact obviously on the number of children in foster care. The length of time for Florida’s children in foster care decreased by 22 percent during those years, reaching a low

of 17 months last year. The State also invested in family builder

programs over the past 4 years, which did have for many children

an avoidance of care in the foster care system.

The passage of the Federal Adoption and Safe Families Act was

landmark legislation in terms of a renewed emphasis on child safety as a priority of child welfare and a renewed emphasis on achieving permanency more quickly for those children who live in foster

care. As the result of the Dependency Court Improvement Project

in this State, as was mentioned by Judge Kearney, Florida was in

a position to move forward and adopt the Federal changes in its

State law this past year. We appreciate the continued funding of

the Dependency Court Improvement Project. That has resulted in

linkages at the local level and statewide level that are very critical

in improving the way in which we work together on behalf of children and families.

Last year, Florida saw an increase of 14 percent in its children

in out-of-home care, and we believe that it is the result of a number of factors coming together at that point in time. We believe

that the resources provided by the legislature in terms of additional foster care and adoption counselors have reached their limit

in terms of the number of cases they are able to handle and process

as well as the number of attorneys. The department will be working very closely with the legislature in the coming session to increase the number of professional counselors, foster care counselors, adoption counselors, dependency attorneys and judges in

order to meet the increased expectations for judicial oversight and

quicker permanency resolution for children in care. Those manVerDate 11-SEP-98 13:20 Mar 30, 2000 Jkt 060332 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 K:\HEARINGS\60952.TXT WAYS1 PsN: WAYS1
20

power resources are critical to making this system work effectively

and quickly on behalf of children and families.

With respect to our funding stream, with the tremendous growth

in Florida’s child population and the new demands of both our

State law and the Federal law for judicial oversight, better case

planning, better resolution, the ongoing entitlement nature of the

Federal IV–E Program is vital to the further growth that Florida

is anticipating. We also would welcome any additional efforts to

simplify the regulations and allow more flexibility with the way in

which we expend IV–E dollars for child abuse victims, so that not

just those victims who go into foster care, but those child victims

who could be diverted from foster care, have the opportunity to be

served with IV–E dollars. When children can be safely diverted

from out-of-home care, we would like to see the ability to use IV–

E dollars to accomplish that.

The current IV–E waiver process is a very cumbersome one and

we would recommend that the waiver process within the Title IV–

E Program be more standard and routine as it is in the Medicaid

Program where there are certain types of options that States can

adopt. It takes less time and there is less ongoing paperwork and

reporting associated with Medicaid waivers. At this point, only

States who come up with a totally new and different idea for a IV–

E waiver are eligible to receive that waiver. And there are many

good waivers already in effect that we would like to utilize.

The Social Services Block Grant is one important funding source for Florida’s child protection system, about $60 million of our current system is Social Services Block Grant money. The reduction

over the past 3 years of more than $11 million in that particular

block grant program has been a serious blow to our child protection

system, and any further reductions would be a problem. Even in

the context of some of the increases in the Title IV–E Program in

terms of the part A funding for family preservation programs, they

have not been enough to offset the Social Services Block Grant reductions.

A second major reform effort underway in Florida’s child protection system, as you have heard mentioned earlier, is the intent of

the Florida legislature to move toward the privatization of all services in the child protection system, ranging from caseworkers involved with providing services and supports to families to all foster

care and adoption services. This is a critically important opportunity to revitalize the way in which communities are involved in

the child protection system and to revitalize the way in which services are conceptualized and provided. It reflects a major shift in

this State from the government being a provider of the service, to

the government becoming a better purchaser of services.

The whole Title IV–E Program, when it was originally built was

built for State-operated systems. The regulations and the claiming

mechanisms are not well-suited to a government agency that is

now purchasing these services from the private sector. While we

certainly expect that the Federal Government would hold our State

agency responsible for the integrity of the child protection services

that we are purchasing, we very much need major changes that

would support our purchase of services funded by IV–E from the

private sector. There are actually many disincentives in the current

21

IV–E regulations for State agencies moving in this direction. For

example, the training funding under the IV–E Program provides a

75-percent match for training of employees who are State employees, but will only provide a 50-percent match for employees who

are providing the same services but who work in the private sector.

The current regulations are still quite extensive in terms of documentation that needs to be provided. It is our belief that given the

nature of this work, the nature of our own State law, significant

documentation requirements will always be needed when we are

taking cases to court and potentially terminating parental rights.

So we believe that this needs to remain a State level responsibility

and burden with the Federal Government focusing more on the

achievement of performance outcomes in the child protection system. And we welcome the efforts in the new ASFA legislation to

develop performance outcomes and we are anxious to work with

you on the establishment and implementation of a funding stream

that truly requires States to achieve permanency. At this point,

the—and I hate to confess this—but the Federal funding stream

does not give us enough of a strong incentive to achieve permanency. It is too open-ended, and we actually receive Federal funding for children in foster care for too long. It should be expected

that what you buy and what we buy at the State level from our

districts is permanency resolution, not raising children in foster

care.

We are very appreciative of any opportunities to make further

changes in the current Title IV–E Program and would be very

happy to offer any ongoing assistance that we can in this endeavor.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement follows:]

Statement of Linda F. Radigan, Assistant Secretary, Family Safety and

Preservation, Florida Department of Children and Families

It is with pleasure that I am here today to provide testimony on Florida’s Child

Protection System, and the critically important partnership that we have with the

federal government. I would like to begin by providing some data on major trends

in Florida’s system, as well as trends in South Florida in the counties of Palm

Beach, Broward, Dade and Monroe.

The overall child population in Florida has grown by 6 percent over the past five

years. In Palm Beach, it has grown by 8 percent; in Broward County by 11 percent,

and in Monroe and Dade Counties by 7 percent. Over the next five years, the child

population in these south Florida counties is projected to increase by another 9 percent.

The per capita reporting rate per one thousand children in Florida has remained

fairly constant over the past five years, close to the 1997–98 rate of 31.6 reports

of child abuse or neglect for every 1000 children in the general population. Although

the reporting rates per capita are much lower than the statewide average in South

Florida—last year they ranged from 17.5 in Dade/Monroe to 24.3 in Palm Beach

County—there has still been a dramatic increase in the number of child abuse and

neglect reports received and investigated each year. In Palm Beach County, reports

investigated have increased by 15 percent from FY 93–94 through FY 97–98; in

Broward County by 14 percent, and in Monroe and Dade Counties by 3 percent.

Over the next five years, child abuse reports in these south Florida counties are projected to increase by another 9 percent.

From 1994 through 1997, the total number of children in Florida’s foster care system remained fairly constant, even as the child population increased. This is because the state invested significant resources in foster care and adoption counselors.

For those children who were in the foster care system, we have seen significant results achieving permanency goals. The number of children adopted increased by 17

percent. Each of the south Florida counties achieved similar increases in the number of foster children adopted over the last few years. Concomitantly, the length of

22

time that children spend in foster care has been decreasing. The median length of

stay decreased from 22.4 months in 1991 to 17.5 months in 1997, a 22 percent decrease. The state also invested in intensive in-home services, and many children

who would have otherwise been placed in out-of-home care were diverted.

The passage of the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA) was

landmark legislation in terms of a renewed emphasis on child safety as a first priority of child welfare, and achieving permanency, quickly, for children placed in outof-home care. Florida, after two years of intensive research and analysis as the result of the federally funded grant known as ‘‘The Dependency Court Improvement

Project,’’ had prepared a major rewrite of Florida’s child protection statute. All of

the required ASFA changes were incorporated into Florida’s statutory rewrite. The

renewed emphasis on child safety is clearly reflected in the increased number of

children entering out-of-home care during the last fiscal year, an increase of 14 percent.

The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, as well as Florida’s own recent statutory changes, clearly anticipate increased judicial oversight of all cases. The time

frames for permanency hearings have been shortened overall, and Florida now expects children placed with relative caretakers to receive the same judicial oversight

and permanency resolution. With the greater intensity of casework and services

needed, as well as shorter timeframes to achieve permanency, the Florida legislature in the coming session will be asked for significant resource increases to support

the need for additional judges, lawyers, caseworkers, foster homes, and foster payments. Ongoing and additional federal support will be needed.

With the tremendous new demands and growth that Florida will continue to experience, it is critical that the entitlement nature of the Title IV–E funding be maintained. That guarantee is vital to the stability of child protection as we continue to

build on our resources. However, as you review the issues surrounding child welfare,

we would welcome any federal effort to simplify the regulations and allow more

flexibility to spend IV–E dollars for all child abuse victims, not just those child victims who go into foster care, which in Florida last year was just 5.6 percent. There

must be flexibility and incentives for diverting children from out-of-home care when

it is an appropriate and safe option. The current IV–E waiver process is too cumbersome.

Unfortunately, the Social Services Block Grant, a primary source of child protection funding, has been reduced twice in the past three years, a reduction of more

than $11 million in child protection. More Social Services Block Grant reductions

to the Florida child protection system are on the horizon should Congress continue

the current trend. The Florida legislature did not provide any state general revenue

to offset these losses. The impact of these reductions is not fully known, however,

any funding reduction in the child protection system is significant, particularly

when the child population and incidence of family violence is increasing.

The second major reform underway in Florida is the intent of the 1998 legislature

to privatize all of the services in the child protection system, ranging from caseworkers providing voluntary services to foster care and adoption services. This is a

critically important initiative to rebuild local communities’ understanding, knowledge and ownership of their children and families. The privatization of child welfare

reflects a major change in the state government’s role, a shift away from direct service provision to a role of contract negotiation, monitoring of outcomes, and quality

assurance functions.

The Title IV–E program was designed for state-operated systems. The regulations

and claiming mechanisms are poorly suited for a child protection system that is operated by private agencies. While it is expected that the federal government would

hold the state agency responsible for the integrity of child protection services, major

changes must be made in the regulations to allow for the provision of services and

claiming of federal funds by the private sector, as well as government. Disincentives

for privatization now exist in federal regulations. For example, private provider staff

training in child protection earns a 50-percent federal match, while state staff training earns 75-percent. This requires more state support to fund the training system

for non-state providers. This will require a major overhaul of current regulations.

The current regulations are still too extensive. Title IV–E funds must be more flexible, such as with Titles IV–B and the Social Services Block Grant. There is a need

to focus more on the achievement of permanency outcomes, than the reams of documentation that are now required by the federal government. We will not possibly

achieve permanency and meet the requirements of our own state law without proper

and extensive documentation, but this needs to remain a state-level responsibility

and burden.

The Florida Department of Children and Families will be most appreciative of any

opportunities to assist you, Congressman Shaw, and your committee members in

23

any revisions to the current Title IV–E program that you may consider in the next

Congress. Thank you for your efforts on behalf of Florida’s children and this opportunity to provide testimony today.

[The attachments are being retained in the Committee files.]

f

24

25

26

27

Chairman S

Mr. English.

Mr. ENGLISH

HAW

. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

. Thank you.

f

This has been a very useful panel, and let me start with Representative Sanderson.

I noted in your testimony, you commented on the efficacy of putting cases into court, recognizing that there has been a lot of litigation filed against State and local child welfare agencies. And I

would like you to expand on your testimony, and while you do that,

Mr. Chairman, if it is appropriate, I would like to have included

in the record a study of the outcomes of child-welfare-related lawVerDate 11-SEP-98 13:20 Mar 30, 2000 Jkt 060332 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 K:\HEARINGS\60952.TXT WAYS1 PsN: WAYS1
28

suits conducted for the Subcommittee by CRS and just recently

concluded, if I could have that done.

Chairman SHAW. Without objection.

[The information was not available at the time of printing.]

Mr. ENGLISH. Representative Sanderson.

Ms. SANDERSON. Did you want me to address a specific lawsuit

just as an example?

Mr. ENGLISH. That would be terrific, from your experience.

Ms. SANDERSON. OK, we are involved in one right now that is ongoing. Florida chose in 1996 to abolish that category and go to a

waiver in order to serve additional individuals who needed to be

served in this basic category. We knew that there is the ability to

offer a less-expensive option for the State to provide for these people, more than adequate, and we chose that. There was not a plan

that was ready to be implemented, and I think that’s where probably the biggest portion of this came. But the providers—because

it is a very provider, the whole system is very provider driven—we

ended up with a situation in Federal court where the providers

took us to court. We thought they were going to sharpen their pencils, they did not.

They have been ongoing and being paid that same amount of dol- lars year after year, probably $40 million more than when we made

that initial decision, so we are still tied up in the court. That could

have a $200 million impact on the State of Florida, just in that one

category. That is the type of situation I am talking about.

Mr. ENGLISH. Do you think, in general, bouncing these sorts of

cases into court actually improves the child welfare system or does

it simply add complications to an already balkanized system?

Ms. SANDERSON. Well, I think you probably said it best in your

last statement. Yes, it does tremendously complicate. It also still focuses the dollars on the existing people being served and it does

not get to the waiting list. There was a fairly bogus waiting list

that was being thrown at us, as to the numbers of people that

needed to be served, and when that was toned down, it was appreciably less. Those were the type of people we were trying to meet,

because if we are going to give Cadillac service to 2,000 or 2,100

and a couple thousand are out there that are not receiving any

services—there are many people whose families have been raising

these young people on their own and never even thought of coming

to the State for assistance of any type. We would like to be able

to allow them to do that and perhaps go to some kind of a voucher

system to make sure it actually goes to the individual to be served,

depending on the levels that they need it.

Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you. Judge Kearney, you have your work

cut out for you in the next few years and it must be an exciting

assignment. As you know, the Federal IV–E Program allows the

States to claim training expenses as an open-ended entitlement

with a Federal match of 75 percent. What more needs to be done

in this area?

Judge KEARNEY. I am very involved in training at the judicial

level, and I think it does take a significant amount of local leadership within the State in order to effectuate change by training. We

will not implement Adoption and Safe Families unless every caseworker in the State of Florida is effectively trained on its ramificaVerDate 11-SEP-98 13:20 Mar 30, 2000 Jkt 060332 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 K:\HEARINGS\60952.TXT WAYS1 PsN: WAYS1
29

tions and its impact. I do believe that the funds would be available.

We do need to come up with a 25-percent match in order to do that,

and it is an unlimited assignment as far as I can see. But right

now, I do not see that we have aggressively gone after those training funds, nor have we set up an effective training program that

should have been set up over 6 months ago in order to train every

caseworker in the State of Florida.

Chairman SHAW. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. ENGLISH. Certainly.

Chairman SHAW. Is this what you refer to in your testimony as

an hour of videotape?

Judge KEARNEY. Yes, sir. When you think of the complete and

total paradigm shift that you did by adopting this statute, this legislation, and forcing the States to enact it within their first legislative sessions—and Florida’s was very quick. We started—our Committees were meeting in December, in January and February, and

then we started session in March. We had 60 days’ worth of sessions and I am telling you, if it were not for Debby Sanderson, I

do not know how we would have gotten that act done, it literally

passed the very last day of session.

But even then, we have now had since May 1, complete and total

knowledge of the fact that Adoption and Safe Families was now

law in Florida, and there has not been an effective training program at all.

Chairman SHAW. That training money also would be available to

you, Sheriff, as far as your investigators are concerned, if you can

come up with the other 25 somewhere.

Sheriff JENNE. It is interesting, Mr. Chairman, if I may—and Mr.

English, if I may—if there is a 1-hour video training plan, we are

looking at a 40-hour course before our people get in, as a minimum.

And I think I wanted to emphasize that to you, that we think before—even though our people will have more propensity to be

trained earlier on in this, that it is absolutely essential—and I

want to go back to that point I made earlier that these investigators have to know how to talk to these children. It is not—that is

a key element, that they know how to marshal the evidence, keep

the evidence in check, and also be able to make these inquiries.

This is a really complicated area, and dealing with these children

is much more difficult—and should be, ought to be much more difficult—than it is with adults.

And going back to Mr. English’s point, you really and truly need

these moneys to do this and to get involved. And if it is only an

hour video, it is not sufficient.

Chairman SHAW. If I may continue to impose on your time——

Mr. ENGLISH. Surely.

Chairman SHAW. What is the educational background that deputies would have, what is their educational background requirement

presently?

Sheriff JENNE. Presently, it is a bachelor’s degree. We would

have either an associate or a bachelor’s degree. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to emphasize to you that in this type of investigation, sometimes a bachelor’s degree can be very deceiving.

Sometimes people will want to say because one has a bachelor’s degree, one is qualified to do these investigations. The truth is that

30

we believe that psychologicals, we believe that polygraphs, we also

believe experience is the real key to this, and the maturity of the

individual.

My experience, as you know—Mr. Chairman, I would not want

to speak for you, but many times, a bachelor’s degree is not an indication of maturity or knowledge of a subject, but rather an

achievement of a particular level of education.

Chairman SHAW. Pay scale?

Sheriff JENNE. Pay scale, ours would probably be about $8,000

more a year. We think that that is absolutely essential.

Chairman SHAW. Is it presently around $25,000?

Sheriff JENNE. Yes, and we are looking at the low thirties, yes,

Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SHAW. Debby, you wanted to jump in here, I believe.

Ms. SANDERSON. Thank you, Chairman Shaw, I wanted to add

one thing. In reading the grand jury report, I was very alarmed to

read that the training, where in the early eighties, the emphasis

was on the best interest of the child, it then shifted in the early

nineties back to reunification, and then best interest of the child

for a number of years now; and yet the training is still reunification. And I think that is part of the problem we have been experiencing here too, where these children have not really been placed

appropriately.

Chairman SHAW. Thank you.

Mr. ENGLISH. Judge, that last remark from Representative

Sanderson leads me to something that was interesting and a little

disturbing to read in your testimony, and that is, ‘‘There is little,

if any, recognition that the principal mission of any federally funded child protection agency is to ensure the health and safety of children.’’ What other mission is being espoused here? Is it family preservation at all cost?

Ms. SANDERSON. Yes, sir, it is. One of the things that has been

most disturbing to me in over 10 years on the bench handling these

types of cases—and also my former background is a sex-crimes,

child-abuse prosecutor with the State Attorney’s Office here before

going on the bench—is to watch over time how the department

would literally have 5, 10, 15, sometimes I have seen as high as

20 referrals to the Department of Children and Families before any

action is taken on behalf of the child. We talk about the

gatekeeping function, if you have read the grand jury report from

Broward County, you will see that what appears to have been a

gatekeeping function has been resource driven, to keep a child in

an abusive home rather than to remove the child because it is expensive once we remove a child. Foster care is expensive, shelter

care is expensive. Treatment and assessment are expensive. And

so, if the child can be maintained within the home, and preferably,

it appears, without services, that was the preferred way to do

things. And that was what was encouraged. And you will see in the

grand jury report, some supervisors even telling caseworkers they

were not to remove children, so that they could keep them within

the home. It is less expensive.

Unfortunately, what has happened over time is that by the time

the cases finally do come to court, the children are so damaged,

that they have been so abused and so neglected that the psychoVerDate 11-SEP-98 13:20 Mar 30, 2000 Jkt 060332 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 K:\HEARINGS\60952.TXT WAYS1 PsN: WAYS1
31

logical trauma is so solid, that it takes years’ worth of intense therapy, which is very expensive, to try to correct the problem. And

also, many of those children by that time are not the adorable 5-

year-olds that are readily adoptable, but instead, the 13-year-old

runaways that are not able to be effectively helped. And as a result

of that, we have thrown away a generation of children because of

that.

So I see that, again, it gets back to the training initiative. If you

fully train on what the law is, as well as risk assessment. On those

children that can be safely maintained in the home, they should be

there, with supportive services in place to assist the family. For

those children that cannot, we should remove them at the earliest

opportunity, force the family to be accountable as Representative

Sanderson talked about, to have a partnership with the Department of Children and Families, the guardian ad litem program, the

court, to fully assist that child and the family. But if it is not going

to work, to stick to the timeframes that you have set forth, the

timeframes that our Florida Dependency Court Improvement Act

set forth, and then proceed to termination of parental rights to find

an appropriate family for that child.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I have one other brief question, if

I could be indulged.

Chairman SHAW. Go ahead.

Mr. ENGLISH. For Secretary Radigan—actually I was intrigued

by your testimony on a number of levels, but in your testimony,

you specifically mentioned the reduction of Social Services Block

Grant funds, and as you probably know, this block grant is under

the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee, however, the

cuts did not come out of our Committee, but were simply enacted

to accommodate the President’s budget submission to Congress.

The fight to preserve these block grants is going to be engaged in

the coming Congress. Unfortunately, what I have found is that the

case has not been made effectively that this block grant represents

a unique funding stream that is very important to local communities. From your perspective, I was wondering if you could share

with the Subcommittee how this money is used in Florida and

what the cuts would mean in terms of services.

Ms. SANDERSON. As with other block grants, with the gift of flexibility comes the defusing of how the money is used, so that as each

State uses it differently, I think it is hard for the Federal Government to see the clear impact of these reductions. In Florida, most

of the block grant is used in Florida’s child protection system; the

second most significant portion of the block grant is used for funding child care programs for at-risk and working poor clients; a

small amount of the block grant goes to the Department of Juvenile

Justice for juvenile justice programs; and very small amounts of

funding in developmental services and in mental health.

Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SHAW. We will be exploring the expansion of the block

grant funding in this next Congress. I know that Chairman Johnson will be interested in that, as I am. And we will also be looking

for some of you to come up and testify before the Subcommittee in

Washington. There is just so much to do, and I think we have alVerDate 11-SEP-98 13:20 Mar 30, 2000 Jkt 060332 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 K:\HEARINGS\60952.TXT WAYS1 PsN: WAYS1
32

ready learned quite a bit from this panel and we very much appreciate your being here.

The record will remain open for a short time, if there is anything

that you would like to any way embellish upon your testimony or

if there are any questions that any Members of the Full Committee

might have for you, we will certainly address them to you.

Thank you very much for your time.

One question before you leave. Representative Sanderson, let me

just ask you a question real quick. If you were sitting in our position in Washington, what would you change about the law that

would assist you in the appropriations process, other than more

money? What can we do further? We have come a long way, particularly in adoption and foster care, we have made a lot of corrections to Federal law, but that is not to say there is not more we

can do. Do you have any ideas?

Ms. SANDERSON. I think other than additional dollars, Congressman Shaw, if we had the opportunity to combine waivers sometimes, it would give us greater flexibility. The Medicaid issue is

something that has always bothered me, the Federal Government

says that we cannot require anyone to make copayments on this.

We have tried to do this. With pharmaceuticals we put a $1 copayment on Medicaid pharmaceuticals, and Legal Aid was so nice to

send out letters to every Medicaid recipient in the State of Florida

and tell them that they did not have to pay it because the feds said

they did not. We again were trying to expand our resources within

existing dollars.

These are the types of things that would give us the flexibility

that we need. When it comes to the Medicaid services that are provided for these little ones that are brought into our system, there

does not seem to be any financial responsibility on the part of the

parents that brought them into this world. And that has got to

change, they are their children.

Chairman SHAW. Is there any State legislation which speaks to

the training required of these people, the number of children that

the caseworkers are supposed to be looking after?

Ms. SANDERSON. Yes, and we have tried to reduce that with additional dollars. That was the premise behind it, in addition to the

training. What I mentioned in the grand jury report, when I find

that they are still working toward reunification, which of course

would be ideal, but not in all cases, and they are not doing that,

and we have been putting millions of dollars in, which I know Secretary Radigan can testify to, over the last number of years. Right

now, with all the mandates that we have, that are partially Federal and over 50 percent of our budget, and I am facing right now

with these mandated situations, a $200 million deficit in my budget in the coming year. So that is not a pleasant thought.

Chairman SHAW. Thank you. Thank you all for being here, thank

you very much.

I would like to recognize, we have got Mayor Naugle with us

today. He is taking care of his shared child care responsibilities we

see. We are pleased to have you and we wanted to thank you personally for allowing us the use of the hall here this morning.

33

I am going to try to start enforcing the 5-minute rule. We have

got a large panel here and we have got a lot of work to accomplish

this morning.

We have got Johnny Brown, who is the District 10 administrator

of the Florida Department of Children and Families; Howard

Talenfeld, who is—this is a law firm?

Mr. TALENFELD. Yes, sir.

Chairman SHAW. Here in Fort Lauderdale; Christine Meyer, who

is the program attorney, the Guardian Ad Litem, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida; Carol Ann Loehndorf, who is the president

of AFSCME Local 3041 in West Palm Beach; Linda Day, president

of Fort Lauderdale Foster Parents Association; Kate O’Day, who is

the vice president for Program Development and Evaluation, Children’s Home Society of Florida; Eileen Donais—I hope I am pronouncing that correctly—who is the executive director of HANDY,

Helping Abused and Neglected Dependent Youth, here in Fort Lauderdale. Welcome, all of you.

I believe we have got the testimony from all of you, which we will

make part of the record, and we would invite you to summarize in

any way you see fit.

Mr. Brown.

STATEMENT OF JOHNNY L. BROWN, DISTRICT 10

ADMINISTRATOR, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN

AND FAMILIES

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Chairman, Mr. English, elected Representatives, ladies and gentlemen and guests, thank you for the

opportunity to address what has been called Broward County’s foster care crisis.

I have been asked to address some specific subjects here today,

such as education opportunities for foster children, our district’s

staffing, the historic lack of resources for our county’s foster care

program, and the benefits derived from flexible funding. I will do

that presently, but first, allow me to give you a little history.

In August 1997, when I took over the helm of District 10, I knew

I had inherited a district that was in a state of gridlock, which it

had six administrators in the last 10 years.

The culture of the child welfare division led employees to spend

most of their energy finding excuses instead of looking for solutions. Fiscal year 1997–98 ended in a $4 million deficit in our outof-home care budget. The staff was carrying caseloads 3.5 to 4

times the national average. Staff turnover of service counselors was

61 percent. There was no plan in place to address the looming crisis, no thought had been given to the future. That was left for me

and my new management team.

It was not difficult to figure out why these things were happening—while funding for foster care in Broward County has increased 4 percent over the last 3 years, during that same timeframe, the district caseloads have grown a whopping 26 percent.

Last year, the Florida legislature gave us 52 new positions which

will reduce the caseloads from 1 to 51 to 1 to 24 after our new employees finish their training in February. That is almost twice the

recommended caseload for a foster care counselor.

In June 1997——

34

Chairman SHAW. Which is twice the caseload, the 1 to 25?

Mr. BROWN. The 1 to 24 is almost twice.

Chairman SHAW. It is still twice the recommended caseload.

Mr. BROWN. Almost.

Chairman SHAW. So we are at four times the recommended caseload?

Mr. BROWN. At this present time, but the national average is 1

to 15.

Chairman SHAW. Excuse me for interrupting, but thank you.

Mr. BROWN. In June 1997, District 10 had 1,129 children in its

out-of-home care population and a budget of $7,369,000. In June

1998, we had 1,397 children in our out-of-home care population,

268 more children than the previous year and a budget of

$7,319,000, which equates to a budget that was $50,000 less than

the year before. In fact, in District 10 today, Broward County, we

have 13 percent of the children in statewide foster care and only

9 percent of the resources. And when you are talking about a budget of over $100 million, the 4-percent difference becomes a substantial deficit. Our deficit today stands at almost $11 million and

growing. Why?

As Judge Kearney said, because in Broward County, more children are coming into care at a faster rate and many of these children are coming into care experiencing severe emotional behavior

and psychological problems. So additional resources have to be utilized to treat these children.

District 10 does not control its front door. We not only investigate child abuse and neglect allegations, we also provide the children in foster care with adoptions and a myriad of other services.

Ladies and gentlemen, as soon as I became the district administrator, we warned everybody about our crisis. We were warned by

Mr. Talenfeld within a matter of 2 weeks after we were appointed

to the position that he planned to sue us if we did not improve the

services to foster children. The report before you contains the evidence to that fact. Our Health & Human Services Board sent up

flares. We asked for help. But the demands for our services grew,

and continued to grow, and our deficit grew and continued to grow,

and here we are today.

This problem is not unique to Broward County or unique to the

State of Florida. Time and time again, colleagues from all over the

State—indeed all over the country—have shared similar stories

with us.

Let me now address your specific concerns:

In section G of the briefing package before you is a letter outlining the joint efforts of the Broward County School Board and

District 10 on behalf of its foster children. I am in debt to Howard

Talenfeld for his intervention with the School Board and for the

commitment to helping us forge and strengthen these ties of cooperation in our community to improve the quality of life and services to our foster children.

Thank you, Howard.

We were also able this past September to open a residential assessment center. The new program allows us to thoroughly assess

the specific needs of children who come into care as well as the

35

needs of his or her family, so that our department can make proper

recommendations for services to these families.

Chairman SHAW. Go ahead and summarize.

Mr. BROWN. Let me expand just briefly on the staffing. Currently

we have 171 service counselors plus 63 investigators and that includes the new positions that Linda alluded to earlier. We have

managed to make inroads on our turnover as well. In calendar year

1997, the turnover rate was 61 percent. Thus far this year, the

turnover rate is half of that. But that still needs to be improved.

I do just want to briefly summarize since I have run out of time. In south Florida we pay our counselors $26,000 a year. That is not

enough. As the Sheriff alluded to, he is going to try and pay his

employees $8,000 to $10,000 more. We have been able to get more

people coming into our positions with advanced degrees but it is

going to be difficult to keep those people on board if we do not improve the pay scale.

I am gratified in reference to what was presented in the grand

jury report. We think all of those recommendations are true. We

have put together a group of stakeholders in this community to try

and address the issues that were made in the grand jury’s report.

But I think here in this State, Mr. Chairman, we are all going to

have to be honest with ourselves and admit the fact that we do

have a crisis here, not only here in Broward County, but throughout this State, as to how we are taking care of our foster children.

Our elected officials are going to have to admit that too and as

Representative Sanderson indicated, resources is an issue that has

to be addressed. And until we address the resources and until we

improve the training for our staff, this system, this broken system

is going to remain broken.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement follows:]

Statement of Johnny L. Brown, District 10 Administrator, Florida

Department of Children and Families

Elected Representatives, ladies and gentlemen, and guests, thanks for the opportunity to address what has been called Broward County’s foster care crisis.

I have been asked to address some specific subjects here today, such as educational opportunities for foster children, our district’s staffing, the historic lack of

resources for our county’s foster care program, and the benefits derived from funding flexibility. I will do that presently. But, first, allow me to give you a little history.

In August 1997, when I took over the helm of District Ten, I knew that I had

inherited a district in a state of gridlock that had six administrators (six!) in its last

ten years.

The culture of the district led to employees spending most of their energy finding

excuses, not looking for solutions. Fiscal Year 1997–98 ended in a $4-million deficit

in the district’s out-of-home care budget. The staff was carrying caseloads 3.5 to 4

times the national average. Staff turnover of service counselors was 61 percent.

There was no plan in place to address this looming crisis. No thought had been

given to the future; that was left to me and my new team. Here we are.

It wasn’t difficult to figure out why these things were happening—while funding

for Foster Care in Broward County has increased by only 4 percent over the last

three years. During that same period of time, the district’s caseload has grown by

a whopping 26 percent.

Last year, the Florida Legislature gave us 52 new positions, which will reduce

caseloads from 1 to 51 to 1 to 24 after our new employees finish their mandated

three months of training in February. That is almost twice the recommended caseload for a foster care counselor, but it’s a start.

In June of 1997, District Ten had 1,129 children in its Out-of-Home Care population and a budget of $7.369-million to care for these children. In June of 1998,

36

we had 1,397 children—268 more than the previous year!—and a budget of $7.319-

million, a slightly smaller budget.

In fact, today in District Ten, Broward County, we have 13 percent of the children

in care statewide and only 9 percent of the resources.

Our deficit today stands at almost $11-million dollars. And growing.

Why? Because in Broward County, more children are coming into care at a faster

rate and many of these children come into care experiencing severe emotional, behavioral and psychological problems, so additional resources have to be utilized to

treat them.

District Ten doesn’t control its front door. We not only investigate child abuse and

neglect allegations, we also provide the children foster care, adoption, and a myriad

of other services.

Ladies and gentlemen, as soon as I became the district’s administrator, we

warned everybody about our crisis. The report before you contains evidence to that

effect. Our Health & Human Services Board also sent up flares. We asked for help.

But the demands for our services grew—and continue to grow—and our deficit grew.

And continues to grow. And here we are.

This problem is not unique to Broward County, or unique to the State of Florida.

Time and again, colleagues from all over the state—indeed from all over the country—have shared similar stories with us. The state of foster care in the United

States mirrors the state of foster care in Florida. And it’s not a pretty picture.

Let me now address your specific concerns:

In Section G of the briefing package before you is a letter outlining the joint efforts of the Broward County School Board and District Ten on behalf of our foster

children. I am in debt to Howard Talenfeld for his intervention with the School

Board and for his commitment to helping us forge and strengthen these ties of cooperation.

This memo and the commitments made in it mark the start of what I believe will

be a meaningful turn around in the way our agencies have worked, or failed to

work, as some have said, on behalf of the children we serve in common.

We were also able, this past September, to open the first Family Assessment Center in the state, which allows us to thoroughly assess the specific needs of each child

who comes into care, as well as the needs of his, or her, family.

I touched briefly on staffing before.

Let me expand on that. Currently, we have 171 service counselors, plus 63 protective investigators, including the new positions I spoke about earlier.

We’ve managed to make inroads into our turnover rate, as well. In calendar year

1997, the turnover rate in service counselors was 61 percent. Thus far, in 1998, and

as of September, the turnover rate has dropped by half—still way too much, by anyone’s accounting. But it’s a start.

We’ve been fortunate in Broward County to have a strong internship program. We

have been able to attract employees with advanced degrees.

But in South Florida, it is very difficult to retain new and qualified staff whose

salaries seldom exceed $26,000 per year and working conditions that are hard to

imagine.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful for the Grand Jury’s report. I’m gratified

that members of this community took the time and analyzed the facts and brought

the subjects of my concerns—the children of Broward County—to the forefront. I

have vowed not to let this Grand Jury report sit on a shelf and collect dust, and

have already taken steps to organize the review committee the Grand Jury’s report

recommended. The letters of invitation to stakeholders have been sent and our first

meeting is scheduled for January 6th.

But, as the Grand Jury Report makes only too clear, this crisis is not new.

I am heartened by the support I have received from the leaders in this community, going all the way to Washington, DC. From the Sheriff’s Office, from the

Broward County School Board, from the dedicated members of our own Health &

Human Services Board, from my colleagues at the Coordinating Council.

And from you ladies and gentlemen, who have requested information and shown

a willingness to understand the root causes of a crisis of this nature and help us

to ensure this doesn’t have an opportunity to occur again.

But words and encouragement are never enough.

Our efforts at making Broward County a model for privatization for the state

have started—by April 1999, or earlier, protective investigations of child abuse and

neglect will be conducted by the sheriff’s office because they have the know-how and

the resources to do a much better job. It’s simply the right thing to do.

We are committed to the privatization of those services that can best be delivered

by the private sector.

37

At this moment, we have submitted a grant request for two villages, to be run

by private providers to house up to 160 of our hard to place older children. We are about to receive $200,000 from The Ounce of Prevention to help us start

a program called Neighbors to Neighbors, which has met with great success in Chicago and is about to be launched in Daytona. Representatives of the program met

with our staff this past Thursday and the exchange was lively and fruitful.

It’s still not enough.

I need a budget that is commensurate with the need at hand as well as with the

future needs of our county’s children. I am grateful for the new positions we received this year. But I need at least half as many more employees.

I also need—indeed, Florida and my fellow district administrators need—budgetary flexibility commensurate with the individual problems at hand, with the specific challenges of a specific district in mind. Let’s face it—the needs of Broward

County, or Dade County, are dramatically different from those of Pensacola, or the

Panhandle Region, or even those of our friends on the West Coast.

But even that won’t be enough.

I need our community to rise to the challenge and give us more foster homes—

at least 400 more beds. So we can continue the job we’ve started. During this past

Fiscal Year, we closed 64 homes and opened 119 new ones for a gain of 55 homes.

But that wasn’t enough. We must do even better than that but we can’t do it

alone.

I sincerely appreciate you coming down here and I appreciate your openness and

your courtesy toward my staff and me.

It hasn’t been an easy year. But what we’re going through is nothing compared

to what the children in foster care go through every day, separated from their families, separated from their friends and schoolmates. Sometimes, re-abused in the

places where we, in good faith, placed them thinking we were protecting them from

harm.

I need your support and I need this community’s support.

The solutions needed to solve this crisis of conscience have to come from Broward

County and begin with the classic first step in problem solving—recognizing the existence of a problem and facing it head on.

Those of us who represent government have to admit we have a crisis in this state

and in this country with the foster care system.

Only then can we can deliver, in a voice strong enough to be heard all the way

to Tallahassee,—maybe all the way to Washington, DC, as well—a sound set of solutions to make the necessary changes to fix this broken system.

I am happy that Governor-elect Bush has appointed Judge Kearney, one of this

country’s leading child advocates, to lead our department. It shows our new Governor has a keen understanding of this issue.

As DCF Secretary, Judge Kearney is going to be a powerful voice for Florida’s

children, and she’ll need your support, as well as the support of this community,

as she goes about developing legislative priorities for our department in the coming

months.

Ladies and gentlemen, to turn away from the opportunity this crisis has dropped

in our community’s lap again is unthinkable.

We risk losing a generation of kids who are looking to us with hope and with expectation that this time (this time!) our community, our state, our nation, and our

district will live up to their responsibility toward its most vulnerable citizens, its

young children.

Thank you.

Chairman S

Mr. Talenfeld.

HAW. Thank you.

f

STATEMENT OF HOWARD M. TALENFELD, COLODNY, FASS &

TALENFELD, P.A., FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA; ON BEHALF

OF YOUTH LAW CENTER, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

Mr. TALENFELD. Chairman Shaw, Mr. English, I want to thank

you for the opportunity of placing children at risk over the priorities of other business in Washington today.

I was deeply saddened as a board member of the Youth Law

Center and having served this State for 5 years defending class acVerDate 11-SEP-98 13:20 Mar 30, 2000 Jkt 060332 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 K:\HEARINGS\60952.TXT WAYS1 PsN: WAYS1
38

tion litigation, in having to file this litigation here in Broward

County. But the facts remain, in the 14 months since Mr. Brown

took over, notwithstanding his efforts, children are still being physically and sexually abused. We have a severe truancy problem

where children are not in school and they are turning to drugs and

alcohol and other types of at-risk behaviors. And District 10 here

still has more than 100 children who are missing and definitely not

in school today, as I speak to you.

Broward County is not alone. Twenty-four States and the District

of Columbia have been subject to these suits which have been filed

in the jurisdictions where children are suffering, unfortunately at

the hands of the State who is supposed to be there to protect them.

I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you and share with you

some of the Broward experiences so that we can make some recommendations to you with respect to the Adoption and Safe Families Act, titles IV–B and IV–E, and improvements that may occur

on a Federal level to avoid the tragedies we are experiencing here

in Broward County today. We are going to make three suggestions:

First, Congress must address specifically the issue of inappropriate child-on-child sexual activity in foster care. At the present

time, since the filing of the class action litigation, we have become

aware of approximately 50 instances of this child-on-child sexual

activity. There is no centralized registry in the State of Florida that

receives reports of child-on-child sexual activity, even though we

have an abuse registry mandated by Federal law. In fact, right now

here in Broward County, the only record, the only tracking system,

is this four-page system which I can assure you does not contain

each incident. The purpose of such tracking is critical.

Recently, as you are aware, the American Medical Association—

Journal of the American Medical Association pointed out the seriousness and the severity of these problems, the substantial, lasting

impact that they will have on children’s lives when they were exposed to this, particularly children coming into care for other forms

of neglect or abuse. And unfortunately, they point out that most of

the time, the public authorities that are contacted are the police

departments and not the social service agencies, for various reasons. And so we are suggesting to you, and underscoring to you,

the necessity that tracking systems on a statewide level must exist

to determine which children coming into care have these problems,

so that we can provide treatment to them as well as protect other

children.

Second, children in foster care must receive appropriate education. More often than not, they are several years behind, lagging

with respect to grade levels, and most graduate to the streets instead of obtaining their high school diplomas.

Unfortunately, although there are Federal mandates that specifically talk about including educational records in a child’s case plan

and making sure that children maintain some stability in their

education, there is no requirement that the schools and other educational organizations be involved in the case planning process. In

fact, confidentiality has been used as a bar to prevent this. We

must look to these children’s educations as part of the foster solution. Although the foster care systems of most States look to their

custodial arrangements at night, it only makes sense when chilVerDate 11-SEP-98 13:20 Mar 30, 2000 Jkt 060332 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 K:\HEARINGS\60952.TXT WAYS1 PsN: WAYS1
39

dren are in school 25 hours a week that we look to the schools for

their education and to help them as well. That is where we are putting our precious resources.

And the third point we want to make is that the States should

not be allowed to give up on the children who are missing from

care. As I alluded to earlier, there are approximately 100 children

missing today in Broward County who cannot be found. They are

not receiving their education. They are certainly in a position

where they are at risk on the streets. Some of these girls are selling themselves, they are using drugs, they are using alcohol, but

they have certainly lost the permanent opportunity for their education. When a child, one of our children, is lost, the newspapers

headline it. Yet there were no pictures today of the 100 children

in the newspapers who are missing from Broward County.

We greatly appreciate your leadership and we are hoping that

you fill in the gaps that are missing with respect to the Adoption

and Safe Families Act. You certainly have been a leader in that regard, but again, the job is very, very difficult and we are extremely

hopeful that you will look to these three issues—the children who

are being physically and sexually abused, children who are not in

school right now and the children who are on the streets—when

you look at performance standards for the States with respect to

this Act.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement follows:]

Statement of Howard M. Talenfeld, Colodny, Fass & Talenfeld, P.A., Fort

Lauderdale, Florida; on Behalf of Youth Law Center, Broward County,

Florida

Representative Shaw and Members of this Subcommittee, I am privileged to be

here today to testify on behalf of the Youth Law Center, a not for profit advocacy

group which is seeking to protect the more than 1500 children in care of the Florida

Department of Children & Families, District 10 serving Broward County, Florida.1

I. THE BROWARD COUNTY FOSTER CARE CRISIS

Broward County’s foster care system is in a state of crisis.2 The Youth Law Center became seriously concerned about this crisis when it received a complaint concerning child on child sexual abuse in District 10 and learned of a study District

10 commissioned which documented that 41% of children receiving targeted case

management 3 in Broward County were known to have been sexually abused.4 This

study also documented that large percentages of such children were known to steal

[63%], were truant [45%], and had special education needs [76%].

After a thorough investigation, on August 11, 1997, the Youth Law Center wrote

District 10 [Broward County] expressing its concern that children in District 10’s

care and custody were regularly harmed by Florida’s dangerous, over-crowded, and

inadequately supervised foster care system. This letter put the department on clear

notice that children in District 10’s custody were in extreme danger.

After allowing 14 months for the department to solve these problems, on October

20, 1998, the Youth Law Center, on behalf of eight foster children, filed a federal

class action suit alleging that Broward County’s foster care system was unconstitutionally dangerous and that many of District 10’s foster children have been physically and sexually abused, often by other children. These children have been confined in the states’ custody in overcrowded, unsafe, and inadequately supervised and

monitored foster homes and shelter facilities. These placements are made with inadequate screening and evaluation of children to determine whether the children

present a danger to each other. Further, the District has failed to monitor children

once they are placed in these homes due, in part, to overburdensome caseloads averaging almost 300% nationally recommended standards. Foster children are allowed

to be truant, and the department has failed to locate and protect almost 100 District

10 children who are missing from placements and whose whereabouts are unknown.

40

These truant and missing children are at risk of drug and alcohol abuse, prostitution, and delinquency.

These dangerous conditions have not yet been resolved and are continuing today.

On November 16, 1998, a Broward Grand Jury issued its interim report making

similar findings regarding the conditions of foster care. More recently, on November

24, 1998, a juvenile judge convened an emergency review when he received information that as many as seven children in an over-crowded foster home were victims

and perpetrators of child on child sexual assault. Several days later we learned that

District 10 was unaware that a 13 year old boy and a 16 year old boy in a District

10 placement also engaged in child on child sexual activity. On December 8, 1998,

we were notified that a 12 year old girl suffering from Cerebral Palsy alleged was

sexually assaulted two years ago while living in a District 10 foster home. These

tragedies and the misfortunes of the named Plaintiffs, are not isolated examples of

children whose lives are scarred at the hands of their state caretakers.5 Rather,

they exemplify the harms suffered by many other foster children. Since filing the

class action proceeding and without having access to Florida’s central abuse registry, we have been made aware of at least 50 other alleged incidents of child on

child sexual abuse and many other instances of alleged neglect and physical abuse.

II. THE NATIONAL CHILD WELFARE CRISIS

Broward County is not alone. Twenty-one states, or regions therein, and the District of Columbia are in federal class action litigation because they have allowed

children to be injured and to languish in foster care.6 Tragically, children who are

the victims of neglect and abuse are often re-abused by the state which was supposed to protect them, educate them, and find permanency for them. Through these

litigations, Plaintiffs are seeking to enforce United States Constitutional and federal

statutory rights on behalf of children for the minimum protections guaranteed them.

Despite spending close to $5 billion dollars nationally with almost $200 million

going to Florida alone,7 the child welfare crisis is a national emergency that requires immediate Congressional solutions.

III. CONGRESSIONAL SOLUTIONS

As a result of our Broward experience, we have identified three recommendations

which are pertinent to your concerns regarding appropriate federal oversight.8

A. Inappropriate child on child sexual activity in foster care must be addressed

First, the State of Florida does not have a comprehensive system to track all reports of child on child sexual abuse so that such information can be used in making

placement decisions and in providing appropriate treatment to victims and perpetrators. Although Florida adheres to the literal mandates of CAPTA,9 Florida does not

require the reporting of child on child physical and sexual abuse which occurs where

the caretaker is not at fault.10 ‘‘Therefore assaults among foster children are not included in [The Florida Protective Services System].’’ 11 Additionally, although 42

U.S.C. § 671(10) provides that state plans must ‘‘report to an appropriate agency

known or suspected instances of physical or mental injury or sexual abuse or exploitation, or negligent treatment or maltreatment,’’ this provision has not been construed by Florida to require such reporting of inappropriate child on child sexual

behaviors to the centralized abuse registry.

No child can be safe in foster care if he or she is placed with another child who

is a sexual perpetrator. In 1991, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services reported that ‘‘...approximately 9.5% (1,168) of the children in foster care had

engaged in sexual behavior that was of concern to the foster care counselor,’’ and

‘‘...foster care counselors identified 200 children who had sexually assaulted another

child within the previous 12 months.’’ 12 The October 1995 Qualifacts study, finding

a 41% prevalence in the subject population in Broward County, confirms the exigency of the problem. In this month’s Journal of the American Medical Association,

Dr. William C. Holmes and Dr. Gail B. Slap, reviewed 166 studies from 1985 to

1997 concerning the sexual abuse of boys and confirmed the urgency of addressing

this widespread problem.13 Although this study found prevalence estimates which

varied from 4% to 76% depending upon methodologies utilized, the study concluded,

‘‘[t]he sexual abuse of boys is common, underreported, unrecognized, and undertreated.’’ ‘‘Sequelae included psychological distress, substance abuse, and sexually

related problems ...Negative sequelae are highly prevalent and may contribute to

the evolution from young victim to older perpetrator.’’ 14

Notwithstanding the high prevalence of child on child sexual abuse identified in

the 1991 Florida study, the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services did not implement the ‘‘... key recommendation to improve early identification

41

of perpetrators prior to placement in foster care in order to decrease the risk of sexual assault in foster care.’’ 15 Nor did this agency respond to the emergency sounded

by the relatively recent Qualifacts study. Citing a 1984 review,16 the authors of this

month’s AMA review wrote, ‘‘When public authorities were contacted about the

abuse, reports were made to the police rather than child protective services.17

Such findings, both in Florida and nationally, underscore the necessity to identify

potential victims and perpetrators for treatment and the protection of other children

in foster care. An amendment to CAPTA requiring the states to identify both child

on child physical and sexual abuse, will enhance the safety of foster care and protect

many young, innocent children, such as the foster children in Broward County, from

re-abuse.

B. Children in foster care must receive appropriate educations

Second, foster children are also being harmed because their educations are disrupted. Once children come into care, they are automatically removed from their

schools and lose their friends, teachers and continuity in their education. More often

than not, foster children go through as many schools as placements, usually lagging

several years behind their appropriate grade level. Further, the October 1995

Qualifacts study has reported 45% of the population studied were truant and that

76% of the subject population need special education services. Few foster children

graduate from high school.18 In Broward County, as late as October 28, 1998, the

Department had not provided the Broward School Board the names of District 10’s

foster children and the identity of their respective schools to address their educational and special educational 19 needs.20 Instead of graduating high school, most

foster children graduate to the streets.

There is no federal mandate requiring states or local school boards to ensure that

children in the custody of the states have an educational case plan. 42 U.S.C.

§ 675(1)(C) only touches upon the education of foster children when it provides that

a foster child’s case plan include health and educational records and ‘‘assurances

that the child’s placement in foster care take into account proximity to the school

in which the child is enrolled at the time of placement.’’ Logically, it makes no sense

for Congress to focus only on a foster child’s custodial plans and virtually ignore the

child’s educational and emotional needs. This omission in federal law makes no

sense when Florida child welfare workers are required to visit a child only once per

month,21 while state law mandates that teachers see children 25 hours per week.22

Local school boards devote thousands of dollars per year for the education and special education 23 of children, money which should be also directed to addressing the

national foster care crisis and the educational needs of foster children.

C. States should not be allowed to give up on children who are missing

Third, there is no effort in District 10 to find or serve missing foster children. The

October 30, 1998, District Administrator’s report identified that there were 96 children on runaway status, a marked increase over 1996 and 1997 when in corresponding months approximately 70 children were reported to be on runaway. Our

foster children on runaway status are, for the most part, abandoned by District 10,

and left to fend for themselves on the streets. As a result, they are not enrolled in

school and are exposed to the dangers associated with Fort Lauderdale street life—

alcohol and drug addiction, prostitution, sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy

and the commission of crime. Sadly, many of these children could be returned to

a foster home or other residential placement if District 10 simply made the effort

to pick them up.

Admittedly, these foster children present the greatest challenge to any foster care

system, and there are no easy solutions. However, the children who run from foster

care will tell you that they do so because they feel abandoned, rejected, neglected

and abused by District 10. They do not believe they are any worse off on the streets

than in the foster homes licensed by the district. District 10 and other child welfare

systems must be mandated to develop meaningful procedures to locate these children, to place these children in uncrowded homes with foster parents who are

trained to address their issues, and to provide caseworker support for these children

and their foster parents.

Federal statutory law does not impose an express obligation to find or to serve

missing foster children. Although the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, 42 U.S.C.

§ 5701, et seq., provides funding to both public and private entities to assist in the

development, building, and renovation of runaway and homeless youth centers, this

act does not target children in the custody of the states.24 42 U.S.C. § 671 et seq.

must be amended to ensure that states are required to locate and serve foster children who are missing. We cannot simply write these children off and abandon them

like a trash heap on the streets.

42

IV. CONCLUSION

Although Broward County’s foster care crisis is not unique, the plight of our foster

children serves to emphasize three areas of state and local accountability which will

make a difference in the national challenge. The identification of children who are

abused by each other will reduce the incidence of re-abuse in foster care and promote the treatment of these children who are in need. The assurance that foster

children will have educational case plans tailored to their needs will bring substantial resources into the battle. And, by requiring states to locate and treat missing

foster children, we may avoid the permanent disruption of their education and their

subjection to unknown dangers which in many cases is far worse than the neglect

and abuse which required their removal in the first place. 1District 10 is the catchment area for the State of Florida Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, now the Florida Department of Children & Families serving Broward County,

Florida. 2 Johnny Brown, District Administrator for District 10, admitted that the foster care system

is in a ‘‘state of crisis.’’ He acknowledged the problem, stating, ‘‘When you have overcrowded

homes, you have problems with supervision...we still have a lot of work to do.’’ Sally Kestin,

Foster system failing kids, Sun-Sentinel, October, 19, 1998, at 1B. 3Targeted or Medicaid case management ‘‘means the service to assist an individual in accessing needed medical, social, educational and other services.’’ Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 59G–8.300

(1998). 4Qualifacts Systems, Inc, ‘‘District 10 Broward County, 177 Children and Families Receiving

targeted Case Management Services,’’ October 1, 1995. 5These are examples from the complaint attached as Exhibit ‘‘A.’’ Plaintiffs’ Complaint-Class

Action, Ward v. Feaver, Case No. 98–7137-Civ-Moreno. 6 National Center for Youth Law, Foster Care Reform Litigation Docket, (1998). 7Letter from Representative E. Clay Shaw to Howard M. Talenfeld, November 23, 1998.

8 Although we believe that unfunded federal statutory mandates imposed upon the states contribute to this crisis, we assume that the purpose of the December 14, 1998 hearing in Fort Lauderdale is to receive constructive suggestions concerning holding states and localities accountable for the tragedies rather than to hear trite requests for additional federal funding for family

preservation and foster care programs. 9The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment and Adoption Reform Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 5106

(1998). 10 In Florida, such reports are only received if ‘‘the alleged victim lacks supervision or has

been neglected or abused by the caretaker.’’ Fla. Admin. Code r. 65C–13.015(1998). ‘‘There are

no current laws that require the reporting and tracking of sexual assault perpetrated by a child

in the custody of the department.’’ Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Office of

Children Youth and Family Services, ‘‘A Study of Sexual Assault Among Foster Children in

Florida’’ (February 1991), p. 5. See DOA v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services,

561 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (Sexual intercourse between 13 year old boy and 5 year

old niece did not constitute child abuse pursuant to Section 415.503, Florida Statutes.) 11Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Children Youth and Family

Services, ‘‘A Study of Sexual Assault Among Foster Children in Florida’’ (February 1991), p. 5. 12 Id. at I. 13William C. Holmes, M.D. and Gail B. Slap, M.D., M.S., Sexual Abuse of Boys: Definition,

Prevalence, Correlates, Sequelae, and Management, JAMA, December 2, 1998 at 1855. 14 Id. 15See note 12, supra. 16Finkelhor D. ‘‘Boys as Victims: Review of the Evidence,’’ Child Sexual Abuse: New Theory

and Research, New York, N.Y., The Free Press, pp. 150–170, (1984). 17Finkelhor postulated that male underrepresentation in commonly studied databanks from

child protection agencies reflected both low overall reporting and preferential reporting to less

commonly studied police records. Id. at 1855. 18 Although the Department of Children and Families has not published a study on the graduation rates of foster children, our summary of the data which they produced regarding children

who age out of the system rather than run away, confirms that no more than 30% receive a

high school or other type of diploma. 19 Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. 20Karla Bruner, Data on foster kids can’t be located, The Herald, October 28, 1998, at 5B. 21Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 65C–13.010 (1998). 22Fla. Stat. § 228.041(13)(1998). 23 Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq. 24 In addition, the Act provides funding to implement and sustain outreach programs to assist

runaways with drug/alcohol abuse, education, living assistance, and a wide variety of other

needs. This act does not make special provision for the identification, location, and return of

the increasingly large number of foster care children who have runaway from their placements.

Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5701, et seq.

[The attachment to this statement is being retained in the Committee files.]

f

43

Chairman SHAW. Thank you.

Ms. Meyer.

STATEMENT OF CHRISTINE MEYER, PROGRAM ATTORNEY,

GUARDIAN AD LITEM, SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF

FLORIDA

Ms. MEYER. Chairman Shaw, Mr. English, it is an honor to address the Subcommittee and I appreciate the opportunity.

I am the program attorney for the Guardian Ad Litem Program

here in Broward County. The Guardian Ad Litem Program is under

the auspices of the judicial branch of State government. Here in

Broward County, the program consists of approximately 700 volunteers and 21 paid staff members.

The court appoints the Guardian Ad Litem Program to approximately 3,000 abused, neglected, and abandoned children every

year. The volunteer guardians are independent of all of the parties

involved in a case. They are truly the eyes and the ears of the

court. Most importantly, the guardians are the one face that these

children can rely on in the system. Guardians meet with their children at least once a month, they monitor the case to ensure that

the appropriate services are being delivered to these children, and

they ensure that the parties comply with all court orders. They

submit reports to the court and they attend the court hearing.

Without these outstanding child advocates, these children’s voices

would go unheard.

Recently, a Broward County grand jury produced a comprehensive interim report describing extensive and systemic problems facing the Department of Children and Families. Given this state of

emergency to our child welfare system, it is imperative that local

programs are properly funded to meet the Federal mandate of children’s safety and well-being remaining the paramount concern.

Now while the role of the Guardian Ad Litem Program is to represent the best interests of children, it is not to serve as watchdog

over the Department of Children and Families. However, recently

the Guardian Ad Litem Program has been faced with the situation

of having to serve in that function.

I would like to just briefly describe to you a few recent cases

where the Guardian Ad Litem Program has found it necessary to

ensure the safety and well-being of a child who would have otherwise faced further risk of abuse.

The first case involves an abused child whose parental rights had

been terminated. It was the guardian ad litem who informed the

court that the department had placed this 11-year-old boy in a

preadoptive home with an alleged sexual perpetrator. Although the

department was aware of the allegations for over a month, the

child was not removed from that home. Without the guardian’s diligence, this child could have been adopted by a man who allegedly

sexually abused four other young men.

In a criminal case to which the Guardian Ad Litem Program had

been appointed, a 5-year-old girl was allegedly sexually abused by

her stepfather. The department investigated this case for possible

social service intervention. The guardian ad litem attempted to inVerDate 11-SEP-98 13:20 Mar 30, 2000 Jkt 060332 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 K:\HEARINGS\60952.TXT WAYS1 PsN: WAYS1
44

form the department investigator that this stepfather was an alleged sexual perpetrator on two other children. The investigator responded to the guardian, ‘‘I do not want to hear about those other

cases.’’ Additionally, the stepfather had his parental rights terminated to his own children. The mother reported to the guardian

that she continued to take her children to jail to visit the father.

The guardian ad litem has been informed by this investigator that

he will close this case for further action. It will be the Guardian

Ad Litem Program who will bring this case into court for possible

social service intervention.

In another Guardian Ad Litem case, it is a dependency case involving a 31⁄2-year-old child who languished in the system for 29

months. It was the Guardian Ad Litem Program who retained a

pro bono attorney for this child to initiate termination of parental

rights. Otherwise, this child would never achieve permanency in

this child’s very short life.

Those are a few cases that are reflective of a much larger problem. These cases reflect that perhaps the Adoption and Safe Families Act is not being fully implemented at the State level. There appears to remain the philosophy of some in the system that family

preservation is the paramount concern. Equally disturbing is the

fact that some of our own State legislators are unfamiliar with the

law and believe family preservation is still the paramount goal. As

recently as last week, we had State legislative hearings and our

own State legislators touted the importance of family preservation.

It is imperative that our own State legislators fully support and

implement the Adoption and Safe Families Act at the State level.

We are hopeful that one day all these children’s voices will be

heard and that the best interests and well-being of these children

will continue.

The recommendation is that perhaps a local oversight committee

be implemented to oversee the cases and the decisions made by the

department as well as the recommendation that the State, at the

State level, implement fully the Adoption and Safe Families Act.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement follows:]

Statement of Christine Meyer, Program Attorney, Guardian Ad Litem,

Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida

The Guardian Ad Litem Program is under the auspices of the judicial branch of

state government. The Guardian Ad Litem Program in Broward County (Seventeenth Judicial Circuit) is comprised of approximately 700 volunteer guardians and

21 paid staff members. The court appoints the Program to approximately 3000 children in Broward County.

The Program is appointed to dependency cases where children have been abused,

neglected, or abandoned and to criminal cases where children are the victims or witnesses to crimes. The Program also receives appointments to family law cases where

there are allegations of abuse or neglect.

Volunteer guardians act as the eyes and ears of the court. Guardians are considered parties to the case and act independently of all others. At least once a month,

guardians have personal contact with the children they represent, gather information from those involved in the children’s lives, monitor the case to ensure that children are receiving appropriate services, ensure the parties comply with all court orders, submit reports to the court and attend court hearings. Without these outstanding child advocates, these children’s voices would not be heard.

Recently, a Broward County Grand Jury produced a comprehensive Interim Report describing the extensive and systemic problems facing the Department of Children and Families (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Department’’). Given the state of

emergency our child welfare system is currently operating under, it is imperative

45

that local programs and organizations are properly funded to meet the Federal mandate of children’s safety and well-being remaining the paramount concern.

While the role of the Guardian Ad Litem Program is to represent the best interest

of children, it is not the Program’s role to serve as watchdog over the Department

of Children and Families. Nevertheless, the Guardian Ad Litem Program, in order

to protect the children, has found it necessary to perform this function.

As a demonstration of the Guardian Ad Litem Program’s critical role in the child

welfare system, below are a few examples where the Guardian Ad Litem Program

ensured the safety and well-being of a child who would have otherwise been at risk

of further abuse:

1. In a dependency case where the parental rights were terminated, it was the

Guardian Ad Litem who informed the court that the Department placed an eleven

year old boy in a pre adoptive home with an alleged sexual perpetrator. Although

the Department was aware of the allegations for over a month, the child was not

removed from the home. Without the Guardian’s diligence, this child could have

been adopted by a man who allegedly sexually abused four other young men.

2. In a criminal case, a five year old girl was allegedly sexually abused by her

stepfather. The Department investigated this case for possible social service intervention. The Guardian Ad Litem attempted to inform the Department Investigator

that the stepfather was a accused of sexually molesting two other children. The Investigator responded, ‘‘I don’t want to hear about the other cases.’’ Additionally, the

stepfather had his parental rights terminated on his three biological children. The

mother reported to the Guardian Ad Litem that she continued to visit the stepfather

in jail and would bring the children with her when she visited. The Department investigator decided to close this case. It is the Guardian Ad Litem Program that will

bring this case into the dependency court system to ensure the safety and well-being

of the children.

3. In a dependency case, after a 3 and one-half year old child languished in the

system for twenty-nine (29) months, it was the Guardian Ad Litem Program who

retained a pro bono attorney to move forward on a termination of parental rights

case in order to achieve permanency for this young child.

4. In a family law case, there were allegations of drug abuse, domestic violence,

and physical abuse of the four year old child. The Department received at least

three prior abuse reports. As the result of one of the reports, the Department

brought the child to the Child Protection Team (medical experts trained in evaluating child abuse). The Child Protection Team recommended the father attend Parent Effectiveness Training and Anger Management Classes. The father did not fully

comply with the recommendations. Although the child stated that his father was

physically abusing him, and a psychological report indicated ‘‘neither parent could

be recommended as a custodian for the child,’’ the Department decided the family

did not need dependency court intervention. The Guardian Ad Litem did bring the

case to the attention of dependency court, however, where the judge temporarily removed the child from the father’s custody until he complied with the expert’s recommendations.

5. In a criminal case, an eight year old girl was left at a mall by her mother who

had a a history of mental illness. The child was not wearing pants or shoes and

was filthy. Moreover, the Department had previously investigated two separate

abuse reports. One report alleged that the mother left the child at a busy intersection when the child was three years old. The other report alleged that the mother

cut her daughter with a knife and threw her 6 year old nephew on the ground. The

Department left the child in the mother’s and grandmother’s custody and closed

their investigation. Although the Department closed the investigation, the Department did bring this case to the court’s attention after the Guardian Ad Litem Program made several calls to the Department expressing the Program’s concerns.

Upon the Department’s recommendations, the Court initially ordered that the child

remain with the grandmother. Ultimately, the Court removed the child from the

grandmother after the Guardian informed the Court that the grandmother lived in

a two bedroom apartment with seven other people. One child slept on couch while

another six year old boy slept in a bed with two adults. Additionally, during a taped

criminal deposition, the child stated that the grandmother told the child to lie and

say she went to the mall by herself. .

As the above-described cases reflect, the Adoption and Safe Families Act is not

being fully implemented and followed. There appears to remain the philosophy of

family preservation. These cases represent a small sample of a much larger population. While local and state government should be held accountable for program

outcomes, the lack of resources to properly implement these programs must be considered.

46

The Guardian Ad Litem Program’s mission is to represent the best interest of

abused, neglected and abandoned children. The Program has a lack of funding as

well, and is unfortunately unable to continue in the role of watchdog over the Department. The concern is, however, who will protect these children?

Chairman S

Ms. Loehndorf.

HAW. Thank you.

f

STATEMENT OF CAROL ANN LOEHNDORF, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES (AFSCME), LOCAL 3041

Ms. LOEHNDORF. Good morning. My name is Carol Ann

Loehndorf and I want to thank you for the opportunity of appearing before you this morning. I am a family services counselor in a

foster care unit in Palm Beach County and I am also the President

of AFSCME Local 3041 which represents the social workers in both

Palm Beach and Broward Counties.

Along with my full statement, I would like to submit to the

record a recent national survey of AFSCME child welfare workers.

I enjoy working with kids and families, but I probably would not

work for the Department of Children and Families if I were starting out now. Our caseloads are too big, our children’s problems are

much more severe and the State just does not give us enough

money for the problems. Morale is at an all time low and staff

turnover is very high.

In some ways, our child welfare system has improved since I

started. We have a broader array of programs and better procedures. We are shifting away from a primary focus on reunification

to pursuing more than one option simultaneously, which is a more

realistic strategy. But inadequate funding means our programs do

not work as well as they should.

One huge problem is the excessive caseloads, as high as 50 or

more. But these official numbers actually understate workloads by

counting some staff who do not manage any cases and trainees

with only a few. They ignore inefficiencies such as shortage of

transportation aides, which means that a social worker has to

spend up to half a day transporting children for family business.

And they ignore the fact that many of us work far more than our

official 40-hour week because we simply cannot walk away from a

child in crisis.

High turnover rates make an overwhelming situation worse.

Only two of the counselors in my eight-person unit have been in

the unit for more than 3 years. High turnover has at least three

negative consequences—higher caseloads for experienced workers,

loss of continuity for the children and a lack of experience to make

effective judgment calls. It is almost impossible to describe the subtle cues and red flags I recognize every day from my years of experience.

At the same time, our children have much more complex needs.

One of my most time-consuming tasks is getting the medical and

psychological exams necessary to place a child in an appropriate

setting. Then after I go through this process, there are waiting lists

for these critical services. Children without these placements end

47

up in our offices. Right now, I have a 12-year-old foster child in my

office on a daily basis. He is there because he was expelled from

school and his foster mother works. I have been trying to get him

back into school and into a therapeutic setting but this is taking

a lot of time. This is a bad situation for him and it distracts me

from my other children.

We also have a crisis in attracting enough foster parents because

more of our children have severe problems and more women are

working outside of the home. Burnout of foster families is a very

real problem.

Even with all these obstacles, I would still feel good about my

work with the department, but we feel like we are under siege. We

have large caseloads and we need to have some kind of priorities

on how to govern how we spend our time. Yet management passes

this responsibility on to the frontline workers by default and then

fails to support us if something goes wrong. I am equally likely to

be accused of neglect by management if I miss a report deadline

or if I miss a child’s appointment.

Protective investigators receive criticism for not removing children quickly enough and then again for removing them too quickly.

Our administration has been slow to invest in even basic resources

to improve our efficiency or the safety of our jobs. For example, I

can spend up to 15 minutes because I have to go to another office—

I have to walk across the courtyard—just to photocopy something.

Management has just recently installed locks on our doors, but

only after several disruptive incidents and pressures from frontline

workers. I myself have been threatened in my office by a father

with a knife when he took his child from the office.

Our State government has responded by passing a new law

privatizing all foster care services in Florida. In other words, they

want to give the problem to someone else. But privatization is no

solution and may compound our problem. By putting a private

management company between the State and direct frontline operations, it will be even harder to implement State policy consistent

with adequate accountability. Instead of privatizing, Florida needs

increased funds to reach reasonable and safe caseload levels. We

need more social workers and more money to pay foster parents

and more intensive services.

But money is not enough. The department and the press need to

stop scapegoating frontline workers when a child is injured or dies.

The awful reality of child welfare is that no one can be right all

of the time. About 5 years ago, a judge rejected my recommendation against reunification of a child with his parents. And that

child was killed by his father. Even a judge can be wrong at times.

No one can do a good job in an environment of fear. We need

supportive supervisors to be available to help in tough cases, revamped and expanded training including more out-in-the-field

training and mentoring for new caseworkers and better managed,

more efficient offices.

It is ironic that private agencies slated to take over foster care

on January 1 are asking for immunity from lawsuits and assurances of payment increases as the number of children increase. In

effect, the agency has admitted that it too will fail some individual

children and that underfunding guarantees failure. If we had such

48

reliable funding increases, I truly believe that we would have had

a better, more stable work force and better outcomes for children.

Thank you for your attention.

[The prepared statement follows:]

Statement of Carol Ann Loehndorf, President, American Federation of

State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Local 3041

Good morning. My name is Carol Ann Loehndorf. I want to thank the Chairman

and the Subcommittee for giving me this opportunity to share with you my experiences as a front-line worker in Florida’ child welfare system.

I started working for the State of Florida on June 3, 1963 and have spent about

20 of the past 35 years in child welfare and foster care. Currently I am a Family

Services Counselor in the Foster Care Unit in Palm Beach County. I am also the

President of Local 3041 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal

Employees (AFSCME), which includes social workers in Palm Beach and Broward

Counties. I would like at this time to offer into the record a recently-completed national survey of AFSCMEs child welfare workers, ‘‘Double Jeopardy: Caseworkers

At Risk Helping At-Risk Kids.’’ It describes many of the same working conditions

Ill be talking about today.

I enjoy working with my kids and their parents, but I probably would not choose

to work for the Department of Children and Families if I were starting my career

now. Our caseloads are too big; the children’s problems are much more severe; and

the state hasn’t given us enough money to address these problems. Our salaries,

which start at $26,000, don’t reflect our professional status or, perhaps more importantly, the life and death judgments we must make each day. We also do not get

the kind of training we need or the support we used to have from our supervisors

and administrators. Morale has sunk to an all-time low, and staff turnover is very

high in my unit and throughout the state.

The problems and challenges in child welfare are deeply rooted in our society as

a whole, not just within the child welfare system. Unfortunately, some children will

die while in the system no matter what changes are made or who is administering

it because it is not humanly possible to make the right decision all the time. Approximately five years ago, in fact, I had the experience of having a judge reject my

recommendation against reunification of a child with his parents, only to see him

die at the hand of his father. Anyone, even a judge, can make an error in judgment

in this work. Having said this, however, AFSCMEs front-line workers want to work

with our elected officials, Department administration, judges, and child advocates

to improve the system so we can do the best job humanly possible to protect our

children.

CASELOADS AND TURNOVER

In some ways our child welfare system in Florida is better than the one I entered.

Today, we have a broader array of programs and mechanisms in place which allow

us to track and review cases more frequently with the goal of moving children

through transition and either back into their home or into adoption more quickly.

We also are moving toward concurrency planning where we will pursue more than

one option for a child at a time. This shift away from a primary focus on reunification more accurately reflects the complexity of the situations we face. However, inadequate funding and staffing levels mean that our programs do not work as well

as they could.

One huge roadblock standing in our way to delivering consistent, high-quality

services is the enormous caseloads assigned to each social worker. Several grand juries have found that caseloads in Broward County are too high. The 1998 grand jury

found that caseloads here average 50, which is just about the number of kids I have

in Palm Beach and which is more than three times higher than what’s recommended by the Child Welfare League of America.

This number, however, does not convey our situation in a meaningful way. It actually understates caseload sizes because it doesn’t take into account the fact some

personnel in this count perform administrative duties and do not manage any cases.

It also ignores the fact that trainees with only a few cases are counted in the average. It ignores important inefficiencies in our operations. For example, we often

transport a child for a parental visit—a task that can take an entire half a day—

because we do not have enough transportation aides. Finally, it ignores the fact that

many of us work far more than our official 40 hour work week because we simply

cannot walk away from a child in crisis.

49

High turnover rates only make an overwhelming situation worse. Last year, the

turnover rate in Broward County was 78 percent. In my own unit, we have eight

social worker positions, but we are almost never fully staffed. Right now, we are

down two because we have one vacancy and one new worker, who is still in training

and is not yet responsible for any cases. Only two of us have been in my unit for

more than three years; one has been with us two years; two have recently transferred from other child welfare units; and another has just completed her training

but has virtually no field experience yet.

High turnover and inexperience have at least three negative consequences. When

workers leave, those of us who remain have to pick up their cases until new employees are hired and trained, a process that can take several months or even longer.

Our children lose continuity with their social worker, who may be the only stable

influence at that moment in their lives. Finally, the social workers never build up

the day-to-day experience they need to make the difficult judgment calls we face

constantly. Its almost impossible to describe the subtle cues and red flags I recognize every day based on my years of work in the system. There’s just no substitute

for this experience, but precious few of our workers stick around to develop it.

KIDS’ PROBLEMS WORSENING/SERVICES NOT AVAILABLE

What’s worse, all this is happening while our children have much more complex

needs, including violent behavior and hyperactivity. Many children on my caseload

need therapeutic placement sites to help them adjust emotionally to being put into

foster care. One of the most time-consuming tasks I face is securing the medical,

psychological and psychiatric exams and diagnoses necessary to place a child in the

appropriate therapeutic foster family, residential therapeutic group home, or psychiatric facility. Then, after I go through this process, many of these critical services

have waiting lists and aren’t available as quickly as we need them

Children without these placements end up in our offices. For several weeks now

Ive had a 12 year old foster child in my office during the day because he was expelled from school and his foster mother works. Ive been trying to get him back into

school or into a therapeutic environment, but this is taking a lot of time. We’ve had

kids in our offices until midnight because that’s how long it took to find them a

place to spend the night. They often return in the morning because there’s nowhere

else for them to go. This is a bad situation for these kids. It also means we cant

effectively help the other 45 or 50 children on our caseload.

We also are facing an extreme crisis in attracting enough foster parents because

more of our children have severe problems and more women are working outside

the home. We always have had more difficulty placing older children, but now we

are facing a new shortage of foster homes for preschool children, and an increased

demand for child care in foster families with two working parents. Not only in

Broward County but also in Palm Beach and other counties, foster parents take in

as many as seven children at a time. These pressures cause burnout among our foster parents. Sometimes we cant locate a foster family at all.

UNSUPPORTIVE ADMINISTRATION

Even with all these obstacles, I would feel good about the work I do if I were getting helpful support from the Department. Years ago, Department administrators

saw their role as enabling social workers to do their jobs well and standing by them

when they made a tough call.

Now, we feel like were under siege all the time. We cannot realistically do an effective job for all of the children for whom we are responsible. Inevitably some kind

of priorities have to govern how we spend our time. Yet our management avoids this

reality, placing this task on the front-line workers by default and failing to support

them if something goes wrong. I am equally likely to be accused of neglect if I miss

a report deadline or miss an appointment with a child. Management responds to

problems by giving social workers additional paperwork. Investigations social workers feel like they’re between a rock and a hard place, receiving criticism both for

not removing kids quickly enough and for too quickly removing them.

Our administration has been slow to invest in even basic resources to improve our

efficiency or to improve the safety of our jobs. For example, I have to spend up to

15 minutes going outside and across the courtyard to another office just to copy a

piece of paper. We finally got a fax machine just this month. Recently, management

installed locks on our doors, but only after several disruptive incidents and pressure

from front-line workers. I myself was threatened by a father at knifepoint as he took

his child from my office. Management has yet to recognize the importance of cellular

phones when we go into unsafe neighborhoods.

50

PROPOSED SOLUTIONS

How can we start to address these problems? The response of our state government last summer was to pass a new law privatizing all foster care services in Florida—in other words to give someone else the operational responsibility.

Privatization will not solve, and in fact may compound, the fundamental problems

which I have discussed. By putting a private management company between the

state and direct front-line operations, it will be even harder to implement state policy consistently with adequate accountability.

Other states have done a better job than Florida without resorting to privatization. For example, Delaware recently passed a law which mandates that caseloads

cannot exceed the Child Welfare Leagues standards by more than two, and which

also requires sufficient funding for hiring enough staff to stay within these standards. Connecticut also has established maximum caseload sizes.

Instead of privatizing, Florida needs to give the child welfare system more funds

to reach reasonable and safe caseload levels. This is not just a Broward County

problem. I can say from my experience in Palm Beach that we need a lot more social

workers, more money to pay foster parents, and more funding for the intensive services many of these kids need. (The State of Florida is eighth from the bottom in

per capita state spending for child welfare according to 1996 figures from the Child

Welfare League.) If we can lower caseloads and upgrade our equipment, we can finally get the chance to deliver quality services to the children and families we serve.

But money is not enough. The Department and the press need to stop

scapegoating front-line workers when a child is injured or dies. No one can focus

adequately on doing a good job in an environment of fear. We need administrative

support to do our jobs well, including supervisors available to help in tough cases.

Social worker training needs to be revamped and expanded, especially for new child

welfare workers. Right now, new social workers don’t get enough out-in-the-field

training and mentoring, which is absolutely necessary for them to competently take

over cases.

I found a real irony in a recent article in the Palm Beach Post which reported

that

a private agency slated to take over foster care on January 1 has gotten cold feet

because it wants immunity from lawsuits and assurances that the state will increase its payments at the same rate as the number of children coming into the system. In effect, the agency has admitted that, like the public sector, it will fail some

individual children, and that it is concerned about not having enough money to

serve adequately the children in its care. I will be very envious, I confess, if the

funding guarantees requests are granted. If during my years with the Department

we had received such reliable funding increases as our cases increased, I truly believe we would have a stable work force today and better outcomes for children.

Thank you for your attention. I will be happy to answer any questions you may

have.

f

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

f

67

Chairman SHAW. Let me make one thing clear at this point,

which I think is very important. And that is, to all the officials in

Broward County and Tallahassee, all across the State of Florida,

Federal dollars are available for training and maintenance payments on an open-end basis. If you have more children in foster

care, the Federal share is ready and waiting as long as the State

and local government puts up the matching money, and that

matching money goes anywhere from 25 to 50 percent. It is an extraordinarily generous open-end program that the Federal Government has. And really there is no excuse not to take advantage of

that. We are talking about kids.

Ms. Day.

STATEMENT OF LINDA DAY, PRESIDENT, BROWARD COUNTY

FOSTER PARENTS ASSOCIATION

Ms. DAY. Chairman Shaw, Mr. English——

Chairman SHAW. Bring that microphone back just a little bit

closer to you.

Ms. DAY [continuing]. I would like you to close your eyes and

imagine yourself at home with your friends and suddenly someone

takes you by the hand and tells you that you are going with them,

you have 5 minutes to fill a black garbage bag. What will you take?

How will you say goodbye? Feeling the pain of not knowing is the

reality of over 300 foster children that have passed through my

home. My family have been foster parents in Broward County for

more than 20 years. We are seeing more children physically, sexually and mentally severely damaged entering foster care.

The first and most important issue is that we establish stability

for our children by providing social workers that know their past

history, follow them, and be there for them when they need them.

Our children deserve to have social workers that have appropriate

caseloads so they can devote the time needed to move these children quickly through the system. At this time, our caseworkers are

carrying two to three times their normal caseloads and it becomes

impossible for them to do their job. Because of the frustration to

do the job correctly, many leave. I have been told by many they

would have stayed but feared for the safety of the children on their

caseload because they could not physically keep up with the current events happening in each case. We are in desperate need of

more caseworkers to keep our children stable and safe.

Children who have been sexually abused need intense therapy at

the moment they come into care. They need to be placed into

homes or facilities that have had training to meet their needs and

not placed into regular foster homes with other children. Why

make these children victims again or create new ones? We are putting our children and our foster parents at risk.

It takes two working parents in most families to make a living

and that includes our foster parents. If a child comes into care on

Friday night, it is most likely that he may be moved on Monday

morning because there is no day care available. Every move is

damaging to our children. Why couldn’t we incorporate day care in

68

our foster care system so our children could stay in their first

placement? Stability is the key to healthy children.

Now tell me, how long would you stay up night after night trying

to comfort a screaming baby going through cocaine withdrawal?

Sometimes feeling beside yourself because you cannot stop the

tremors of the pain gnawing in their little tummies. Or trying to

reassure a 3-year-old that everything is going to be OK when they

scream out in their sleep for their mommy. Our foster parents do

this for ages 0 to 5 years for just $11.13 a day.

How long would you keep a child that rips the screens out of

your windows, peels the wallpaper off your wall, urinates in the

corner of the room and tells you to shut up, you are not their mom,

and there is always that threat of that child running away. As foster parents, you answer countless calls from school on your child’s

performance and behavior. Our foster parents do this for ages 6 to

12 years of age for just $11.45 a day.

Dealing with normal teenagers is a task in itself. As foster parents, we are dealing with abused, neglected children who have already been burdened with all of the above baggage for years. Like

with babies, you stay up night after night to make sure they are

in their beds. You hear the pain of them not being with their families, or when they finally trust you, they tell you things that make

your skin crawl. Our foster families listen to abusive language and

have their belongings such as their cars, jewelry, and money taken.

Our foster parents do this day after day for 13-year-olds and older

for just $13.71 a day.

When reading this statement to a friend, she was appalled because just the week before, she had boarded her dogs for just

$12.50 a day.

We need more foster homes, and I believe by having enough caseworkers, our foster parents could carry the load with their support.

As it stands now, foster parents get burned out because they cannot reach a worker, there is no worker and when they need answers, it takes too long to get them.

Many of our foster parents do not have health insurance. I have

talked to many working professionals that said they would become

foster parents but if they would retire, they would lose their health

insurance. Why could we not offer health insurance to our foster

parents?

I guess what I am really trying to say is that we need to invest

in our children now. Surely, it is going to cost, but what about in

the future when these kids are in jail, on drugs, on the street, or

making our loved ones victims? Why can we not invest for their future, our future, our children’s future, and our grandchildren’s future? Do we really want these troubled adults on the street with

our families? Can you honestly say that you have done enough for

foster care?

[The prepared statement follows.]

Statement of Linda Day, President, Broward County Foster Parents

Association

Close your eyes and imagine yourself at home or with your friends and suddenly

someone takes you by the hand and tells you that you are going with them, you

have five minutes to fill a black garbage bag, what will you take, how will you say

good-bye. Feeling the pain of not knowing is the reality of over three hundred foster

children that have past through my home. My family have been Foster Parents in

69

Broward County for more than twenty years and we are seeing more children physically, sexually and mentally severely damaged entering Foster Care.

The first and most important issue is that we establish stability for our children,

by providing Social Workers that can give them the past history, follow them, and

be there when they need them. Our children deserve to have Social Workers that

have appropriate caseloads so they can devote the time needed to move the children

quickly through the system. At this time our Caseworkers are carrying two to three

times their normal case load and it becomes impossible for them to do their job. Because of the frustration to do the job correctly, many leave. I have been told that

many would have stayed but feared for the safety of their children on their caseloads, because they could not physically keep up with the current events happening

in each case. We are in desperate need of more Caseworkers to keep children stable

and safe.

Children who have been sexually abused need intense therapy at the moment

they come into care. They need to be placed into homes or facilities that have had

training that meets their needs, and not placed in regular foster homes with other

children. Why make these children victims again or create new ones? We are putting our children and our Foster parents at risk.

It takes two working parents in most family’s to make a living and that includes

our Foster parents. If a child comes into care on a Friday night it is most likely

that he may be moved on Monday morning because there is no Day Care available.

Every move is damaging to our children. Why couldn’t we incorporate Day Care in

to the Foster Care System so our children could stay in their first placement? Stability is the key in healthy children.

Now tell me, how long would you stay up night after night trying to comfort a

screaming baby going through cocaine withdrawal? Some times feeling beside yourself because you can not stop the tremors or the pain gnawing in their little tummies. Or trying to reassure a three-year-old that everything is going to be okay

when they scream out in their sleep for their Mommy. Our Foster parents do this

for ages 0–5 year olds, for just $11.13 a day. How long would you keep a child that

rips the screens out of your windows, peels the wallpaper off the wall, urinates in

the corner of their room tells you to shut up ‘‘your not their mom’’ and there is always the threat of that child running away. As Foster Parents you answer countless

calls from school on your child’s performance and behavior. Our Foster Parents do

this for age’s 6–12 year olds for just $11.45 a day. Dealing with normal teenagers

is a task in itself. As Foster Parents we are dealing with severely abused neglected

children who have already been burdened with all of the baggage from above for

years. Like with babies you stay up night after night to make sure they are in their

beds. You hear the pain of not being with their families or when they finely trust

you they tell you things that make your skin crawl. Our Foster families listen to

abusive language and have their belonging such as their cars, jewelry and money

taken. Our Foster Parents do this day after day for 13 year olds and up for just

$13.71 a day.

When reading this statement to a friend she was appalled because the week before she had just boarded her dogs for just $12.50 a day.

We need more Foster homes, I believe by having enough Caseworkers our Foster

Parents could carry the load with their support. As it stands now our Foster Parents

get burned out because they can not reach a worker or there is no worker and when

they need answers it takes to long to get them.

Many of our Foster Parents do not have health insurance. I have talked to many

working professionals that said they would become Foster Parents, but if they would

retire they would lose their health insurance. Why couldn’t we offer health insurance for our Foster Parent’s?

I guess what I’m really trying to say is, that we need to invest in our children

now. Sure it’s going to cost but what about in the future when these kids are in

jail, on drugs, on the street, or making our loved ones victims? Why can’t we invest

for their future, our future, our children’s future and our grandchildren’s future? Do

we really want troubled adults on the streets with our families? Can you honestly

say you have done enough for Foster Care?

Chairman S

Ms. O’Day.

HAW. Thank you.

f

70

STATEMENT OF KATHRYN R. O’DAY, VICE PRESIDENT, PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION, CHILDREN’S HOME

SOCIETY OF FLORIDA

Ms. O’DAY. Thank you. Linda and I decided that the Days have

it today.

Chairman Shaw, Mr. English, thank you for the opportunity to

address the Subcommittee.

The child protection system in Florida is under pressure to deliver critical results with very limited resources. In my written materials, I gave you some of those indications, I will not read them

to you again. In response to this challenge, the Florida legislature

last year did pass a bill to privatize foster care and related services, to transfer these responsibilities from the Department of Children and Families to competent community-based lead agencies.

This is an important step toward establishing public-private partnerships and it needs your support to help it get on its feet and

to keep it going.

I want to tell you about two things today. I want to give you an

example of a private-public partnership that we initiated here in

Broward County with Children’s Home Society that has had tremendous benefits to our foster care system. And I want to make

some recommendations to you about Federal funding to help support those initiatives.

About this time last year, I was contacted by a member of the

Allegiance Health Care Corporation because they were opening corporate offices in Weston and they wanted to be a good community

corporate citizen and to fund a community need. We immediately

identified the need for foster care as being of critical importance to

Broward County and the Allegiance Health Care Corp. gave us

some funding, the United Way added to that funding and with

about $100,000, we were able to hire some new workers and to

partner with a community-based organization named Child

SHARE. Child SHARE goes out into the churches and recruits foster parents who have a sense of mission and want to give back to

the community, and then builds a support system around them

that includes resources, respite care, babysitting and all kinds of

other recognition.

We hoped to open 40 foster homes in 2 years. Since March 1998,

we have been able to open 30 new homes, we anticipate having 49

new homes by the time we finish our next class this month in

training foster parents. The state Department of Children and

Families estimates that we need over 400 new homes here in

Broward, so this is a tremendous addition to our foster care system. I am firmly convinced that these are the kinds of solutions

that we are going to need to make a difference for children with

the resources that we have.

Just like our foster parents hold us to high accountable standards, Federal funding needs to hold us to high accountable standards and we need to be able to work within those guidelines and

to ensure that children in foster care get what they need. However,

the current regulations for funding are in need of greater flexibility

to allow States to apply Federal funding toward outcomes which

are identified as critical by that State. Currently, States can capture reimbursement of eligible expenses through a process which

71

requires meeting various categorical eligibility characteristics.

Linda Radigan alluded to this earlier for you. We can get around

those requirements with waivers but they typically are cumbersome and take a long time to accomplish. One of the problems

with negotiating for privatization in child welfare is that those regulations are not geared to private agencies and that is part of the

problem with the agency in St. Petersburg who is trying to negotiate a contract with the department to initiate privatization on

January 1, 1999.

Even where solutions can be identified statewide and that have

long-range solutions attached to them, we cannot replicate projects

in other parts of the country, so if we see an idea that is working

somewhere else, we cannot see if it is going to work in Florida because each project has to be unique.

I do not have time allotted to me today to give you a lot of details

about Federal financing, but I would like to offer you some guiding

principles to consider as you are working on changes to Federal

funding and mandates. Please consider supporting private-public

partnerships with particular emphasis on matching private community funds that pay for system reform. It is important to ensure

that there is enough funding for core services and let private dollars pay for enhancements to the system and help initiate new

kinds of solutions.

Additionally, consider a waiver process that is more localized and

allows for replication of existing projects in part or in whole. A

process is needed where reviews and approval can be completed in

as short a timeframe as possible, depending on the scope of the exemption requested.

Allow States to identify targets; for example, if we wanted to reduce the number of children per 1,000 requiring out-of-home care,

and then build funding around systems that support the achievement of that outcome.

It is important that we begin to realize that child welfare is really a public health issue and needs to be treated from that model

where you look at the prevention as well as the intervention if we

are going to find a long-term solution to this.

I thank you for taking your time today to consider these important issues. I am pleased to see the recent focus locally and at the

State and national level on the serious problems which affect so

many of our youth. I am confident that as we continue to work together, we can build new approaches and systems to make life better for children who cannot live at home.

[The prepared statement follows:]

Statement of Kathryn R. O’Day, Vice President, Program Development and

Evaluation, Children’s Home Society of Florida

Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee. We welcome you to Ft.

Lauderdale, and appreciate your attention to the important issue of child protection.

To introduce myself, I am Kate O’Day, Vice President of Children’s Home Society

for Program Development and Evaluation. I am a Licensed Clinical Social Worker

in the State of Florida, and began my career in child welfare in 1980, working with

a unit in one of our local police departments which dealt every day with child abuse

and neglect. Over the past eighteen years, I have worked and managed programs

and services in family preservation, runaway shelters, adult and adolescent substance abuse, adoptions, and foster care, among others. My career has spanned both

government service and work in the not-for-profit sector. My work with Children’s

Home Society has included directing the programs and services here in Broward

72

County for the past four years. Currently, my position is responsible for addressing

program and service needs in our communities throughout the State of Florida and

to ensure that our services are having the intended impact on the clients with whom

we serve. The child protection system in Florida is under tremendous pressure to deliver

critical results with limited resources. Child abuse reporting alone in Florida has

increased by 15.5% since fiscal year 1993/94. There were approximately 3 reports

of abuse/neglect for every 1000 children in Florida last year, which resulted in

121,777 reports to Florida’s Abuse Hotline. After investigation, 79,641 of these children were identified as abused or neglected, and 12,000 of these were served in

emergency shelter. During this same period, 12,632 children were served in board

paid foster care, which again has seen an increase in its numbers; 7.8% more children this year than two years ago. The numbers of children in residential group

care has increased by 36% over the same time period, with 2,427 children being

served last year. Although the goal for many of these children is family reunification, many never return home and are eventually adopted out of the system. Statewide, 11,158 children received adoption subsidies in fiscal year 97/98, an increase

of 16% over the past two years.

This hearing is being held here in Broward County because of the crisis we are

facing with providing for children in out of home care. During the last fiscal year,

the number of children in foster care in Broward County alone increased by 278

children—from 1,145 children on July 1, 1997 to 1,423 children on June 30, 1998.

Our state Department of Children and Families has found serious problems in addressing these increased needs, and the results have been that children are residing

in overcrowded and unsafe conditions in many cases, and not receiving the level of

care they need and deserve.

In the wake of concerns over growing needs for service, increased demands on the

state budget, and continuing high profile cases in which children have died in spite

of repeated involvement with the child protection system, Florida’s legislature last

year passed a bill to privatize foster care and related services, transferring these

responsibilities from the Department of Children and Families to competent, community-based agencies. Congress has also responded to the national conditions of

child protection with important legislative reforms, which limit the time of children

in care, among other things. If we are to succeed with this important initiative for

privatization in Florida, and deliver services which meet the mark for Federal requirements, we will have to work together in new ways to reform our thinking at

every level in the child protection system, from case work and service provision, to

data tracking and outcome measures, and most importantly to this Committee, to

resource allocation and funding. Furthermore, I am convinced that we must find the

will and the way to effectively address the growing problem of child abuse only

through a true partnership between the public and private sectors. These productive

working relationships between governmental entities and the communities and people they serve require your support to help them get off the ground and to succeed.

Building a system which accomplishes the goals of child protection and family

preservation is our collective responsibility. I have come here today to address you

on two important issues which need to be considered in building a better child protection system. First, I want to tell you about an important private-public initiative,

which has produced significant results here in Broward County for foster children.

Secondly, I would like to invite you to consider increased flexibility in some aspects

of Federal funding of adoption and foster care which would help those of us who

are in the trenches working to solve these problems.

Children’s Home Society of Florida has been a provider of licensed foster care in

Broward County since 1967. By January of 1998, we were operating 21 licensed foster homes. Funding for these services was provided by a mix of private donations,

the United Way, and ‘‘pass through’’ foster care board payments from the Department of Children and Families to the foster families.

In late 1997, a member of the Allegiance Health Care Corporation staff contacted

one of the members of our local Board of Directors here. As they were opening new

offices in Weston, the Baxter-Allegiance Foundation wished to identify a community

need which it could then lend assistance to through funding. A conference call was

arranged between the Allegiance staff, the Foundation Executive Director, and

mysel. We identified the need for more foster homes in Broward County as being

of critical importance, and agreed to submit a proposal for funding. In March 1998,

we were awarded a two year grant of $98,291; $64,832 for the first year and a

matching challenge of $33,459 for the second year. We proposed to hire two new foster family care workers and expand our capacity by about 40 homes over the twoyear period. At about the same time, the local founder of Child SHARE, (which

stands for Shelter Homes A Rescue Effort), approached us. We formed a partnership

73

with Child SHARE of South Florida to recruit and assist foster family homes for

this expansion. Simultaneously, we applied to the United Way to increase our funding and support the expansion by Baxter-Allegiance and the partnership with Child

SHARE. The community, through the United Way, responded by increasing our

funding for family foster care by 42%, or $41,573.

The results have surpassed even our most optimistic projections. Since March

1998, we have added over 30 new foster family homes (for a current total of 55) and

anticipate serving 70 at the completion of our next foster family training class this

month. Many (but not all) of these families have come to us through the partnership

with Child SHARE. This will more than meet the goals we identified to the Foundation for a two-year period, less than one year into the project. A total of $106,405

in private funds have made this possible. With our District Administrator estimating a need for over 400 new homes in Broward County to appropriately care for

our children, 49 new homes is a very welcome addition to our system of care.

This is a true illustration of public-private partnerships, and allow me to tell you

a little about how that partnership works. Child SHARE is an affiliate of the California based organization, which recruits and supports foster family homes through

active involvement in local churches. Families which are recruited in this way are

offered an extensive array of supports within their church community, including

support groups, respite care, baby-sitting, furniture and equipment, and recognition

and appreciation for what they are doing for all of our children. Child SHARE provides that community-level organization to raise awareness about the need for foster

homes, recruit potential families, and give them an environment which embraces

them in their efforts once they become licensed and have children in care with them.

Children’s Home Society’s role in the partnership is that of a professional Foster

Family Agency, which evaluates the potential foster homes, does all the background

screens and ensures the family meets all the standards for licensing, and then provides professional casework as families are matched to children and receive the

services they need—such support with the school system, health care, and counseling or recreational needs. Children’s Home Society also provides a free monthly

clinic to all of its foster families where well care services are donated by a local pediatrician, as well as ongoing training and support groups for problem solving with

family logistics and parenting foster children.

People connections have made this partnership work. It so happened that one of

Children’s Home Society’s foster families for many years was also a member of the

congregation sponsoring the Child SHARE efforts. We arranged for a program to be

presented in the evening to church members with a panel including foster parents,

professional foster care staff, an adult child of foster care, the pastor, the Child

SHARE staff member, and myself. The response from the congregation was overwhelming, and has not stopped. This experience has firmly convinced me that the

community will support solutions it sees as effective, and when the results can be

seen and touched, as with a child who is blossoming in foster care. The dedication

of these families who come forth out of a sense of mission and the need to care for

those in need is an inspiration to all of us who work with them.

Just like our foster parents, federal funding mandates need to hold all of us to

a high quality of care as we work with children who cannot live at home. Standards

need to be set and enforced to ensure that children get what they need in a timely

fashion. However, the current regulations for funding foster care and adoption are

in need of greater flexibility to allow states to apply Federal funding towards outcomes which are identified as critical by that state. Currently, states may capture

Federal funding for reimbursement of eligible expenses through a process which requires meeting various categorical eligibility characteristics. States can qualify for

exceptions to these requirements through the waiver process, but this poses problems itself in terms of time and flexibility. Waivers typically take more than a year

for approval, which may not be responsive enough in a situation such as we have

in Florida, where contract negotiations are currently underway for the first implementation of privatization to be implemented on the West Coast in District 5 by

January 1, 1999. As Federal funding regulations impact on the ability of a qualified

community-based lead agency to draw down Federal money, there is no route to a

short term or temporary exemption process. Even where solutions can be identified

statewide and in the long-range, the waiver process only allows for demonstration

projects in each state, each of which must be unique. This means that a good idea

in one area of the country cannot be replicated and compared with results elsewhere.

It is far outside the scope of five minutes of testimony before you today to outline

a plan for making Federal funding more flexibile and exceptions or waivers more

timely and easily granted. But I would like to offer you some guiding principles to

consider as you are working on changes to Federal funding and mandates. Consider

74

supporting private-public partnerships, with particular emphasis on matching private community funds that pay for system reforms and to support basic program

operations. I have found that donors are attracted to seeing their monies matched

by other private donors as well as government sources. Additionally, consider a

waiver process that is more localized, and allows for replication of existing projects

in part or in whole. A process is needed where reviews and approvals can be completed in as little as thirty to sixty days, depending on the scope of exemption requested. Allow states to identify targets, (such as reducing the number of children

per 1,000 requiring out of home care) and then build funding around systems which

support the achievement of that outcome, rather than ensuring that procedural safeguards are in place for the current system.

I thank you for taking your time today to consider these important issues. I am

pleased to see the recent focus, locally and at a state and national level, on this serious problem which affects so many of our youth. I am confident that as we continue

to work together, we can build new approaches and systems to make life better for

children who cannot live at home.

Donais, we saved you until last because we wanted to end on a

positive note.

Chairman SHAW. Thank you. And our final panelist, Eileen

f

STATEMENT OF EILEEN DONAIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

HANDY (HELPING ABUSED AND NEGLECTED DEPENDENT

YOUTH), INC., FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA

Ms. DONAIS. I will try my very best to do that. Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman Shaw and Mr. English, for inviting us

here today. My name is Eileen Donais, I am executive director of

HANDY, an acronym for Helping Abused, Neglected Dependent

Youth. We are a 501(c)(3) nonprofit Broward corporation and our

mission statement is as follows: We are dedicated to breaking the

cycle of child abuse by helping the abused, neglected, dependent

youth of Broward County who are placed in protective custody by

the court. We provide emergency funds and network to fill the

cracks in meeting their needs for items such as food, clothing, eyeglasses, specialized medical and dental services, scholarship and

educational opportunities.

The organization has a very large and active board, over 500

members and an advisory council consisting of three judges and

several other prominent community leaders.

Private fundraising, donations, and private grants generate our

total budget. Hundreds of thousands of volunteer hours are contributed by this dedicated group of individuals who care so genuinely

about the children we serve. HANDY was established in 1985 as

the nonprofit arm of the State Guardian Ad Litem Program to accommodate needs identified and unfulfilled by the State and to provide a support system for them and State caseworkers.

I would like to cite some examples that further define this statement.

A 15-year-old young man is residing in a therapeutic treatment

program in Jacksonville. His mother was stricken with a brain aneurysm and given only a very slight chance of recovery. Immediate

funding was not available from the department. HANDY provided

an airline ticket for him so that he would have those last fleeting

moments here with her before she passed on.

The HANDY free clothing bank has become a total necessity to

this community of children and families. Referrals come to us from

75

25 agencies. We are the only agency in Broward County to fill this

tremendous need. The majority of children brought in off the street

have nothing, as we know, but the clothing on their backs and our

department store is here to truly help them. We furnish everything

at no charge, from infant sizes to adult clothing, shoes, baby furniture and supplies, all donated by this huge wonderful community

at large. Families are able to return at least four times per year.

HANDY’s funds are generously used to stock new undergarments

and socks. During our past fiscal year, we served 4,900 clients at

a used clothing store value of approximately $58,000. With a minimal staff, members, friends, corporate employees, and high school

students also provide 5 days of staffing for this facility.

It is particularly significant to note that during the past 6

months, we have seen an increase of at least 50 percent in requests

for beds and food. In the interest of the child’s safety and wellbeing, HANDY is allocating dollars for both of those needs. Local

merchants are supplying beds at deeply discounted prices, and

HANDY, being a member of the Daily Bread Food Bank, is able to

help families stock up on necessary foodstuffs and Publix gift certificates to supplement with something as simple as milk and bread

for the weekend.

A longstanding partnership has developed with Lens Crafters

and their Gift of Sight Program, where children can have an eyeglass prescription filled at no cost. Our board has two medical liaisons that assist in finding pro bono help for special medical and

dental procedures. Some of that is extended care, such as a corneal

transplant and a severely infected tattoo on a beautiful young lady.

It is not uncommon for one of our dependency judges to phone us

from their courtroom requesting emergency assistance to avoid

eviction, restore electricity, or whatever crisis that may be affecting

the child’s quality of life. Of course, we are there to take action immediately.

HANDY is very committed to helping our children languishing in

school to become better students and prepare them to receive a

higher education to live in this global world. Our mentor programs

for adolescents and teens is thriving and growing. In collaboration

with the Broward County School Board and Broward Community

College, this important project will continue to help and motivate

these at-risk teens.

The long-term goal of HANDY is to counterbalance the current

decrease in DCF Prgram funding for the increased number of

abused and neglected children entering the court system. It is our

fervent resolve to expand HANDY programs and services to serve

each child that needs assistance. It is through this joining hands

of public-private partnership that we can truly make a difference,

one child at a time.

To every Federal-elected official, government official, State official, we would encourage you to speak on our behalf and on behalf

of all of the children of the important development of these publicprivate partnerships.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement follows:]

76

Statement of Eileen Donais, Executive Director, HANDY, Inc., Fort

Lauderdale, Florida

Handy, Inc. was established as a non-profit 501 c3 organization in 1985 by a

small group of concerned citizens who saw the need to raise funds to fill a void that

would help to complete the vision of the State Guardian ad litem program. It remained small until 1991 when Broward County community leaders created a membership organization and enlarged its scope. Today HANDY provides emergency

funds and services that ‘‘fill the cracks’’ giving these children, who are wards of the

state, a fighting chance to become whole again.

HANDY has received numerous awards, such as the J.C. Penney Golden Rule

Award to founder Ed Pudaloff. Mr. Pudaloff also received the ‘‘Spirit of Excellence

Award’’ last year from the Miami Herald. After founding the auxiliary, Kathie Jackson was named Broward County Child Advocate of the Year in 1995 because of

HANDY’s accomplishments.

HANDY is unique to Broward County as it is the only organization solely designed to work with the entire population of children who have fallen victim to

abuse and neglect, as well as network with other organizations and individuals in

our community, which serve them. In recent years, HANDY has been able to not

only fulfill the emergency needs of these children, but also improve their low selfesteem and enhance their lives through various events and incentive-based educational programs.

The mission statement of HANDY is ‘‘We are dedicated to breaking the cycle of

child abuse by helping the abused, neglected, dependent youth of Broward County

who are placed in protective custody by the court. We provide emergency funds and

network to ‘‘fill the cracks’’ in meeting their needs for items such as food, clothing,

eyeglasses, specialized medical and dental services, scholarship and education opportunities.’’ Following is a comprehensive outline of how HANDY accomplishes this

mission.

The HANDY membership is over 500 and is open to any person in the community for minimal dues of $25 per year, or the option of a lifetime membership, which continues to grow. The HANDY Board is a cross section of working men and women

and community volunteers who have diverse educational, profession and economic

backgrounds. The Advisory Council includes three judges and several prominent

community leaders, an accountant and legal advisor.

All funding for HANDY programs and services comes from dues, fundraising activities and events, Corporate support, and private foundation grants. We do not receive any state or federal funding. It is an efficiently run organization with a minimal paid staff so that as much money as possible continues to be directly distributed

to the children. Total revenue from private fundraising for the fiscal year ending

July 31, 1998 was $543,943. In addition, hundreds upon thousands of volunteer

hours have been donated by HANDY members to raise funds and assist with social

outlets for the abused and neglected population we serve.

The outline that follows encompasses the broad and in-depth services and programs that Handy offers and funds on behalf of the adjudicated dependent children,

and those advocating on their behalf.

PROGRAM SERVICES:

• The HANDY ‘‘ABC’’ Birthday Club matches member sponsors with Guardian ad

litem children to recognize their special day. Most of the youngsters have never received a gift yet alone recognition. It is a totally self-sustaining program facilitated

by member’s volunteer hours. • Housing dollars are expended on an emergency basis for rent as necessary to

ensure that a child has a safe place in which to live. Oftentimes the caretaker has

fallen on an unavoidable hardship or illness. This funding is offered as a one-time

temporary measure to keep a family intact while evaluating the overall future situation by state caseworkers.

• Emergency funds are also provided for utility, water and telephone bills after

evaluating the immediate need and lack of funds from any other source. The criteria

for such expenditures are largely based on the information in the previous paragraph. HANDY does have a ‘‘networking’’ provision in place with Florida Power &

Light for serious situations that arise.

• Until the passage of recent legislation, HANDY has provided the funds for the

State Adoption Filing Fee so that any family willing to adopt a child in their custody would not encounter expenses that may preclude an adoption decision. These

fees have been refunded to us once finalization has taken place, but had we not

‘‘stepped up to the plate’’ for this one, it is reasonable to expect that perhaps that

adoption would not have taken place.

77

• The ‘‘Holiday Wish List’’ specifically designed to grant the special wish of a

Guardian ad litem child is one of the largest and significant undertakings of the

entire year. HANDY member sponsor children, corporate donors take hundreds of

wishes, and community individuals step in to help this cause. Each child receives

that ‘‘special something’’ that their guardian has discussed with them, including bicycles for those deemed most necessary.

• Beds and cribs are in crisis need at this time. As the shortage of foster homes

continues to prevail, more and more children are being placed with relatives or caregivers who themselves are very needy. HANDY is working with several local companies who are supplying and delivering this basic necessity at nearly wholesale

prices. Furniture donations are also passed along to families in crisis. Special equipment is also purchased as needs are identified by the Guardian ad litem or others

involved in assessing the child’s needs.

• Medical, dental and eyeglass needs are fulfilled whenever possible and for the

most part, pro-bono professionals are sought out to assist with this need. While

Medicare dollars should be the proviso that is available to the children, many procedures are not covered by this insurance. The HANDY Board has two medical liaisons who ‘‘network’’ in the community to find this important assistance.

• Nutritious food is oftentimes not available when children are placed with a relative or other caregiver. HANDY is a member of the Daily Bread Food Bank and

our volunteers help Guardians and caseworkers to receive bulk food. Oftentimes this

is then supplemented with local food store certificates for items such as milk and

fresh produce.

• The HANDY free Clothing Bank has become a total necessity to this community

of children and families. Referrals come to us from 25 resources. There is no other

agency in Broward County to fill this tremendous need. Abruptly removed from an

abusive or neglectful situation, children are often taken into custody with only the

clothes on their back. When placed in shelter or foster care, the state provides only

$15 for emergency clothing and personal items. If a child is moved to a new placement, more often than not, their total belongings fit into a small trash bag. Our ‘‘department store’’ furnishes everything at no charge from infant sizes to adult clothing; shoes, baby furniture and supplies, all donated by the community at large.

HANDY funds are generously used to stock new undergarments and socks. One full

time person, and part time help staff this facility. A huge member volunteer staff

assists weekly, as do corporate employees and high school students receiving community service hours. During our past fiscal year, we served 4,900 clients at a used

clothing store value of $58,000.00. HANDY leases a 3,200 sq. foot facility in downtown Ft. Lauderdale only minutes from the County Courthouse.

When HANDY is unable to meet a need, for example, tennis shoes, we provide

gift certificates from local discount stores. This service is also provided for items

such as school supplies and household goods.

EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES & SERVICES:

HANDY Saturday S.T.A.R.S. (Steering Teens Toward Academic Rewards & Success) is a tutoring program, which targets the most critical age level, middle school

and high school students. Each student is matched with a college student from our

local universities. The tutors are contracted by HANDY to provide at least one hour

of personal tutoring in the child’s school on a weekly basis. The success of this program has been aided by collaboration with the Brossard County School Board and

Brossard Community College. A partnership with the college employs our Program

Administrator. Saturday field trips are arranged on a monthly basis. The children

regularly participate in the ‘‘Challenge Ropes Course’’ to motivate them and raise

their level of self-esteem. Other field trips include community service projects and

field trips exposing the children to future job opportunities. The enrollment has doubled this past year, and a continual waiting list exists as their child advocates nominate them for this empowering program.

• Scholarships for college and vocational training are awarded monthly to any

child who has ever been under court supervision. Interviews of prospective recipients take place monthly and HANDY also assists each student in reviewing their

total financial aid package, e.g., Peel Grants, foster care tuition waivers. A cross section of dedicated community leaders serve on this committee and their expertise and

contacts are invaluable to the student.

• ‘‘Computers for Kids,’’ is a new project this year, whereby we are seeking donations in an effort to put computers in the homes of needy children who would benefit

from the tutorial help and follow up to school computer training. This is now considered an essential part of their overall education. It is also our goal to supply a comVerDate 11-SEP-98 13:20 Mar 30, 2000 Jkt 060332 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 K:\HEARINGS\60952.TXT WAYS1 PsN: WAYS1
78

puter to each of our local college students to ease the burdens they face everyday

while trying to work and go to school.

The HANDY Summer Camp Program offers opportunities for local day camp and

sleepover camps located throughout the State. Each and every child nominated by

the Guardian ad litem, Caseworkers, or therapists is considered for an appropriate

placement. This program is deemed as extremely important to a child’s social development and interpersonal relationships. Camp counselors also become outstanding

role models. HANDY receives many scholarships for camping programs and also allocates huge sums of money to insure its success. More than 300 children had this

wonderful experience in the summer of 1998.

• School field trips, graduation gifts, tickets for prom parties (items that most

children take for granted) are also funded by HANDY when a request is made, and

provided the person advocating for the child feels that it is a deserving gift.

SOCIAL ACTIVITIES

The HANDY membership has always believed that it is important for the Guardian ad litem and children they represent to participate in as many social activities

as possible. These opportunities benefit the communication between those involved

and certainly enhance the child’s social skills. When a State Supreme Court order

evolved that no longer permitted a Guardian ad litem to transport children in their

automobile, HANDY was undaunted in keeping these activities on track. HANDY

now contracts private charter buses, staged at various county locations to transport

the children and guardians to the activity. Some of these activities include—

• ‘‘Back to School Shopping Spree’’ HANDY members sponsored a child to receive

a $100 local mall certificate and the volunteers arranged for fantastic store discounts. A huge pizza party was held for over 300 in attendance. After all, these kids

do like to ‘‘look like the next guy.’’

• The 7th annual Lighthouse Point Yacht & Racquet Club Christmas Party will

treat 65 youngsters ages 5–10 to an unforgettable day. Sponsored by fundraising of

the ladies of Lighthouse Point Auxiliary and club management, the children will

ride aboard yachts in their own Boat Parade, partake of a delicious lunch, entertainment, and best of all they will receive a brand new bicycle, compliments of JM Family Enterprises.

• Another highlight for the children is the attendance of many dependency court

judges, who join in the festivities and fun along with the children.

• The annual Easter Picnic hosted by Florida Power & Light at their Port Everglades picnic grounds. A huge staff of HANDY volunteers hosts a fabulous day including a petting zoo; DJ, carnival rides, lunch, and their very own custom made

Easter basket. Hundreds sign up well in advance and it is interesting to note that

this is often the perfect opportunity for siblings to see one another, since they may

live in different homes.

• Other ongoing Children’s Activities include—Florida Marlin’s Season Tickets,

Museum of Discovery & Science Imax Theater, Green Glade Ranch Hoe-down &

Barbecue, Dolphins Football Training Camp, Grand Prix Racecourse

The long term goal of HANDY is to counter-balance the current decrease in DCF

program funding for the increased number of abused and neglected children entering the court system. It is our fervent resolve to expand HANDY programs and services to serve each child that needs emergency assistance, educational help, and social outlets that will help enrich their lives.

It is through this joining hands of public-private partnership that we can truly

make a difference . . . . . one child at a time.

Chairman S

Mr. English.

Mr. ENGLISH

HAW

. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

. Eileen, thank you very much.

f

This panel has painted a detailed and in some ways very grim

picture and I wonder if I could prevail on them to amplify on their

testimony.

Starting with Mr. Talenfeld, I was intrigued by your testimony,

and can you tell me, are you suggesting that the Federal child

abuse definition excludes child-on-child sexual abuse? And do you

79

know specific instances where the law itself was an obstacle to

identifying this kind of abuse?

Mr. TALENFELD. Florida has not implemented the Adoption and

Safe Families Act in a manner which would include child-on-child

sexual abuse as part of the type of referrals that are mandated to

its central abuse registry. I can tell you that to obtain this information has been anecdotal, it has been based upon assignments from

judges and court orders to represent these children that have been

injured in care. And I wanted to alert your attention to the fact

that we do not believe the States are gathering this information.

None has been reported, to our knowledge, accumulating these

data, to have any idea as to what percentage of the number of children in care have been victims of this type of abuse.

Mr. ENGLISH. Have you had or do you know of any specific instances where a centralized child abuse registry would not take action on this type of complaint?

Mr. TALENFELD. The answer to that question is corrective. If you

would dial the numbers 1–800–96ABUSE and would not allege

that a caretaker is at fault with respect to the child-on-child sexual

abuse at hand, they would not receive your complaint.

Mr. ENGLISH. Is your concern that reports of this type of abuse

are not made or that they are not investigated?

Mr. TALENFELD. There is no direct policy, at least at the State

level in Florida, which mandates the centralized reporting of these

abuses. So we believe in many cases, these are crimes that take

place at night, that maybe a caretaker may have knowledge of,

they do not know where to go. But the Journal of the American

Medical Association points out in this month’s article that most of

these complaints are very sensitive, many of them go directly to

law enforcement agencies, and there is no centralized place to receive them. We believe that CAPTA should mandate that these reports from whatever agency, from whatever source, go to the centralized agency because they are so hard to receive when they do

come. And we need to have that capacity to not only identify the

victims, but the perpetrators, to obtain treatment for both.

Mr. ENGLISH. Ms. Meyer, one might infer from the testimony

that an important provision of the Adoption and Safe Families Act

is to ensure that the safety of the child is the paramount concern

and investigating allegations of maltreatment is being ignored. Do

you see a continuing overemphasis on making every effort to keep

families together even at the expense of a child’s safety?

Ms. MEYER. In the experience of the Guardian Ad Litem Program and some of the cases that I described, the family preservation apparently seems to be the goal. I think Judge Kearney mentioned the 1-hour training video. Perhaps it is a training issue that

needs to be addressed. It is probably more likely than not that a

lot of the investigators who are out there in the field may not be

aware of this recent legislation, may not be aware that the goal has

been switched now to the safety and well-being of children. So it

is disheartening to see it; however, I believe that the training of

these individuals needs to be implemented immediately so that

they are aware that there has been this shift and that they see

that these children need to be the focus. But the experience has

been that at this point, there are lots of cases that it is just not.

80

Mr. ENGLISH. Ms. O’Day, in your experience, how has the passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the interethnic

adoption provision changed the practice of child welfare in your

agency? Specifically, do you see a change in social work practice

and is concurrent planning increasingly used to plan for family reunification and at the same time for adoption?

Ms. O’DAY. Well, let me answer you. We have always tried to

match children with families, whatever those characteristics might

be, that would provide best for the children’s needs. We have never

been looking at demographic characteristics, for example, to make

those matches. So I would not say it has tremendously impacted

our adoption practice, but I would say it probably has more in the

public sector.

To talk about reunification, you have to talk about concurrent

case planning, which is what is needed to fulfill the Federal time

guidelines. This means that when a child comes into care, you immediately begin intensive services with the biological family to ensure that they understand what tasks are before them to get their

children returned to them, while at the same time you prepare a

well-trained foster home that is prepared to make a permanent

commitment to that child if it becomes necessary. So you’ve got

both tracks going at once.

Previously you would wait to see if the biological family would

fail out of their case plan and only then would you begin thinking

about permanency. With concurrent case planning, you begin

thinking about permanency from day one. But you have to afford

biological families every opportunity to succeed because children

really would rather live with their biological families than with a

substitute family.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman——

Ms. O’DAY. I am sorry—we have a program called Homeward

Bound that does this. We start visits between the biological family

and the child from the day that they are removed and encourage

a lot of contact, which tends to make the biological families do better. When the biological family cannot meet their case plan, then

we are prepared to go forward with permanency.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, you have been very generous in allowing me time. I would like to yield to you, I know you probably

have quite a few questions.

Chairman SHAW. Ms. Loehndorf, how much training have you received?

Ms. LOEHNDORF. It is very hard for me to tell you exactly. I have

been with the agency since June 3, 1963. So I have had a lot on

the job and a lot more than a lot of the younger ones.

Chairman SHAW. How typical are you?

Ms. LOEHNDORF. Very untypical.

Chairman SHAW. There is a huge turnover, I assume.

Ms. LOEHNDORF. Yeah, in my unit right now, there are two or

three slots that have just been revolving doors. The counselors that

were trained, a couple of them quit before they even finished their

training once they found out what they were really going to have

to do. We have got two that are literally in training right now,

there are only two of us that have been in that unit for a long

time—over 3 years. One of the other ones has been there 3 years,

81

but I think three of them have actually got other experience with

the agency.

Chairman SHAW. How many children are under your supervision

now?

Ms. LOEHNDORF. I personally have close to 50 kids—a little over

actually 50 kids. It is hard because——

Chairman SHAW. Is that typical?

Ms. LOEHNDORF. In my unit, what you have is the more experienced workers have much higher caseloads because what happens—and we just had this happen last week, which is why I have

to go recount again. The other counselor who had been there a

number of years, she left. So we just got another caseload divided

out among those of us who are taking cases. The ones in training

obviously cannot. So the higher caseloads stay with those of us who

have been there, which puts us at a real disadvantage because

when you are working with that many kids, something is going to

get away from you. You are just not going to make everything you

are supposed to do.

Chairman SHAW. You listened to Mr. Brown’s testimony. Would

you say that the problems in Palm Beach parallel the problems in

Broward County?

Ms. LOEHNDORF. Yes, I would.

Chairman SHAW. Mr. Brown, what training is available right

now if we were—you heard Ms. Meyer say that we should immediately implement this, you hear the Sheriff refer to the really

skimpy training program that we have. And I assume that you can

confirm that we are talking about an hour video? I would like for

you to either confirm or deny that. And if you were trying to implement some greater training at this particular point, which the Federal Government, by the way, I think we fund that at 75 percent,

what would you do?

Mr. BROWN. I agree with Judge Kearney and the other panelists

here today. We have only provided minimum services or training

to our counselors, and that compounds the problems that we have

in this agency. I agree with the Sheriff, we need about 40 hours

of in-service training every year ongoing for the existing counselors

and probably twice as much for new people coming on staff, because most of these people come on staff with other types of degrees. And that’s one of the problems in this system too. What we

have tried to do in Broward County over the last year that I have

been the district attorney with social work degrees and sometimes

advanced degrees. But again, the thing that compounds the problems, Mr. Chair, is that you cannot afford to pay these people to

keep them once you get them. So you get them here, you take them

through 3 months of training and that is what we provide to these

people, and then they come in and then they find the working conditions that have been placed upon them and the minimum pay

that they are receiving and the lack of resources, and they leave.

Chairman SHAW. What is the turnover rate?

Mr. BROWN. It was 61 percent the first year and right now it has

been over the last 9 months about 38 percent.

Chairman SHAW. What effect does that have on the kids that

they serve, the fact that there is no stability, the fact that there

82

is a turnover, the fact that every time somebody knocks on the

door, it is somebody else?

Mr. BROWN. It not only affects the kids, sir, it affects our presentation in court, it affects the attention we are able to give to the

foster parents, it affects everything we try and do. You do not have

a stabilized work force, you are constantly passing the cases to

other people and you are constantly trying to meet all the goals

that are mandated by policies and procedures and it is just impossible to do the job.

Chairman SHAW. So what we have are kids that are going from

foster family to foster family, counselor to counselor.

Mr. BROWN. It is a catch-22.

Chairman SHAW. What is the average stay in foster care in

Broward County? Have you implemented the 15-month mandate

that the Federal statute has, which I think Debby Sanderson said

was actually reduced to 12 months in the State of Florida.

Mr. BROWN. You know, sir, the rewrite of 39 happened during

this past legislative session and October 1 we started the implementation of it. But to be honest with you, our department has not

trained our staff properly. We are presently looking at those children that have been in care over 12 months, but we have only been

in this change of chapter 39 a couple of months and we have not

impacted those children that have been in over 15 months at this

time. I would think in a couple more months, those cases will start

being presented to the courts and hopefully we will be moving some

of those kids to permanency.

Chairman SHAW. How many caseworkers do you have now?

Mr. BROWN. I have 171 caseworkers with the new appropriation

that I received this past legislative session in the foster care arena.

When I say foster care arena, we have blended protective supervision and foster care. And then I have 63 positions in the protective investigative unit that the Sheriff has alluded to taking over.

Chairman SHAW. Do you have any suggestions as to how Federal

law might be adjusted to help you out here?

Mr. BROWN. Well, I think we have major problems with our

categoric funding and I think that that needs to be addressed, because for example, this past week, the money has been allotted to

us for our out-of-home care budget and this year we got $7,319,000.

I said earlier that we had an $11 million deficit, so we are out of

money in that category and we have very little flexibility of moving

dollars around. So then we have to go back to the central office and

the Secretary then has to go to the legislators to try and make the

necessary changes in the budget so that we can pay our bills. I

think that we need to be cognizant of the fact that we need more

flexibility in moving money around so that we can operate and so

we can develop the needed resources to protect children in this

county.

Chairman SHAW. Does Florida law have flexibility to address the

increased population that you are serving?

Mr. BROWN. No, sir. As a District Administrator, we can only adjust the budget by 10 percent. And if you are paying $2 million a

month for services for children and you have a budget of let us say

$7 million, it does not give you much latitude.

Chairman SHAW. Does all your money come from the State?

83

Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir.

Chairman SHAW. You get nothing locally?

Mr. BROWN. We get public-private donations, we have a——

Chairman SHAW. I am talking about government money.

Mr. BROWN. No, sir.

Chairman SHAW. All right, I want to thank all of you. Did you

have anything further you wanted to ask?

Well, let me ask Ms. O’Day a question regarding what we have

heard on both sides of the question of privatization. What changes

do you see in Federal law with regard to privatization? I think

somebody earlier, and I think it was an earlier panel, mentioned

that the training money on privatization is 50 percent whereas for

government funding is 75 percent. And I think that is something

we should look to. Where are you seeing privatization across this

country, what programs should we be looking at as things that are

working? Where would you suggest we might want to look to see

how this is all working out?

Ms. O’DAY. I do not think that we have arrived at a solution

where privatization is concerned. I think that these are experiments that we are trying to deal with a tremendous problem that

requires increasing resources and we are trying to do this within

the resources that we can put to the problem.

We do need more flexibility from the Federal funding and we

need the Federal funding to incent, that is to provide incentives for

the system to move children out of care and have good outcomes

for them while they are in care. We need to be tracking how children are doing, are they doing well in school, are they reaching

their developmental milestones, are they able to leave foster care

and become productive citizens? So we need to be focusing more on

outcomes and the Federal funding needs to incent those outcomes.

There is definitely a role for the government in child welfare, we

cannot turn the whole system over to the private sector and expect

the private sector to solve all those problems themselves. But the

government needs to do monitoring, it needs to do data collecting,

it needs to do incenting and the private sector needs to be free to

innovate, to bring private resources on board to enhance the system and to work for more flexible and creative solutions.

Chairman SHAW. But you do not have an exact one to point to?

Ms. O’DAY. I cannot give you a model where privatization has

been implemented and we can say that is it, it is perfect, we want

to try and do it just like that. No, the Child Welfare League is

working with looking at some of those early initiatives. Some of the

privatization projects are still too new, the data are not in yet, we

do not really know how they have done. We do know that in Kansas, a lot of the private agencies lost millions of dollars the first

year out because there were not effective cost estimates. We do not

really know—they have not really tracked how many children are

involved and exactly what it cost and how to reduce those costs.

Chairman SHAW. I would just open up one further area that no

witness has really spoken to and I will just throw this out to anyone who wants to catch the ball, or maybe it is not even within

anybody’s experience, but is there anything we are doing about

these kids once they reach 18? Some of them, probably a good percentage maybe have a year or two of high school left or something

84

of this nature. Are we addressing that problem? Can somebody

jump in and tell me what we are doing?

Ms. LOEHNDORF. If the child is 18 years of age and they are still

involved in school or in going with higher education, they can stay

in and we continue their cases and we continue paying their board

payments, or if they go into the independent living program, we

continue with that as long as they are in——

Chairman SHAW. So there are resources out there for those that

want to continue their education.

Ms. LOEHNDORF. Yes.

Ms. O’DAY. If they can stay in the system that long. The problem

is that a lot of times there is turnover and with the lack of appropriate care, they drop out of the system themselves by running

away. As Mr. Talenfeld has alluded to, and I have worked with

these kids at Covenant House, they solve their own problem by

saying you guys do not know how to take care of me, I know how

to take care of myself. And so they do not get those benefits because they do absent themselves from the system.

Chairman SHAW. Let me just throw one further thing out. We

heard this in a hearing in Washington and I told this story already

once this morning and I warned the people that I told it to that

they may be hearing it again, because it is something that really

had a profound effect on me.

The adopting agency of the State, this woman was testifying before our Committee and told us the story, it went like this: A little

girl 3 years old being introduced to her new adopting parents, stood

there and looked at them for a moment and then put her hands

on her hips and looked them straight in the eye and said, ‘‘Where

have you been?’’

Now if that does not put a tingle through you, if that does not

tell you that our job is to get these kids into permanent homes

when we know that they are not going to be able to get back to

their family, and you see that they would be in danger in getting

back to their family—that is what our job is, and do it as quickly

as possible. It is a national disgrace, it is not a Florida disgrace,

not a Broward County disgrace, it is a national disgrace that these

kids have been allowed to stay in foster care so long when there

are potential parents out there who are ready, willing and so anxious to embrace them, to have a family themselves. This is something we cannot tolerate.

At the Federal level, we have taken down all the barriers that

we know of to adoption. It is now up to the States. In fact, we have

mandated it to the States as part of the funding, to shorten this

time. We have got to get these caseworkers in and we have got to

get all of these people in and retrained as to exactly what it is that

we are going to do and what we are about. And that is what is so

important.

You all are doing the Lord’s work and God bless you. Thanks for

being with us today.

[Whereupon, at 12:23 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

[Submissions for the record follow:]

85

Statement of Gordon Johnson, President and Chief Executive Officer, Jane

Addams Hull House Association, Chicago, Illinois

ADDENDUM TO THE DECEMBER 14, 1998 CHILD PROTECTION HEARING IN FORT

LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA

News headlines are filled with the evidence that our national child protective systems are in crisis.

• Increasing numbers of children with more acute needs are entering the system.

• In far too many instances children suffer great harm or death at the hands of

the system designed to protect them.

• Biological families have multi-layered problems, including rising instances of

drug use and addiction, that are difficult to address within short periods of time.

• Public foster care systems are overwhelmed and underfunded. Case workers

carry case loads far in excess of prudent professional standards. Foster parents cycle

through the system, burned out and fed up by a lack of responsiveness and bureaucracy.

• Children cycle through numerous foster placements, often failing to receive

needed treatment and services.

• Many children, particularly older children, those with special needs and large

sibling groups, languish in foster care for years with no permanent placement plans.

• The shortage of foster homes leads workers to split children apart from their

brothers and sisters when they enter the system, thus increasing the trauma these

children are already enduring.

• Older youths who have been in the foster care system for years are pushed out

of that system when they reach the cut off age. They are left to find their own way

to an independent lifestyle with little or no preparation or support.

In short, the public system that we, as a society, have put in place to protect our

children is failing them and their families. These are not simple problems and there

are no simple, easy solutions. However, organizations like Chicago-based Jane Addams Hull House Association in the private sector have some of the solutions to

some of the problems; solutions that are effective and cost-efficient.

Jane Addams Hull House Association has developed two programs in Illinois that

are specifically designed to meet the needs of two populations of children that are

often not addressed by typical public child welfare systems: older youths and large

sibling groups.

Older youths, who have typically been in the foster care system for years, are

often simply abandoned when they reach an age where they are legally no longer

in the care of the public child welfare system. With no training, support or guidance

they have an inordinately difficult time making the transition to independent, selfsufficient adults. Sadly, many simply do not make it, ending up in jail or on the

streets.

Sibling groups are often separated when they are taken in to protective custody

because the child protective systems in this country have not made specific provisions to keep them together. Separation from their brothers and sisters heightens

children’s sense of loss and makes it more difficult for them to adjust to new situations and people. It also makes working with biological families more difficult and

less effective. Where reunification with their biological family is not possible, these

siblings, once separated, face the possibility of remaining permanently separated either through adoptions by different families or simply by languishing in separate

foster care placements for years.

Jane Addams Hull House Association designed two programs to specifically meet

the needs of these youth and children. New Directions is an independent living program that provides a supportive environment while teaching youth the skills they

need to become self-sufficient. Neighbor to Neighbor is a foster care program specifically designed to keep sibling groups together in their own communities and to either reunite them with their biological parents or find permanent homes in which

the siblings remain together.

86

JANE ADDAMS HULL HOUSE ASSOCIATION NEW DIRECTIONS INDEPENDENT LIVING

PROGRAM

The New Directions Program is designed to help troubled teens learn to live independently and build responsible, self-sufficient lives. The program serves approximately 200 youth ages 17 to 21 who are currently in the custody of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services but are soon going to ‘‘age out’’ of the

system and be left to make their own way in the world.

The Problem:

• Many of the youths served by New Directions have been in foster care or residential treatment facilities for substantial periods of time.

• These youths have typically bounced around a series of placements, have little

contact with their biological families and few support systems to help them as they

must make the transition to being totally self-sufficient.

• Left to make these transitions totally on their own, many youths have trouble

getting or keeping a job or continuing their education, and others get into trouble

with the law.

The Solution:

New Directions provides a supportive environment and individualized training for

these teens as they make this major life transition. Through an extensive network

of educational and job placement programs, medical and psychological services and

a professional staff available around the clock, New Directions provides the handson support these youths need.

• According to an individualized care plan, each teen is placed in a furnished

apartment near transportation to work or school. Program participants must be in

school or have a job.

• A case manager provides adult supervision and instruction in such basic skills

as grooming, shopping, managing money, job interviewing and socializing.

• The teens receive weekly stipends for food and utility bills until they have adjusted to their new environments and are financially secure.

• The program also accommodates adolescents with special medical needs or

those who are pregnant or parenting.

The Results:

Most of the young men and women have made substantial progress—returning to

or graduating from high school, completing their GED, attending college or pursuing

careers.

Since 1991, more than 1,269 teen wards of the state have benefited from New Directions, and its companion programs, Pregnant and Parenting and the Hull House

Association Advocacy and Transitional Living Program.

84% of the New Directions graduates are still in school or working, have received

their degree, are living on their own, and have not fallen back to dependence on

state programs.

New Directions was recognized in a recent Price-Waterhouse study as being

among the top ten national programs meeting the needs of this at-risk population.

JANE ADDAMS HULL HOUSE ASSOCIATION NEIGHBOR TO NEIGHBOR PROGRAM

Hull House Association has designed a program that successfully keeps sibling

groups together in stable foster care homes within their own communities. The program currently serves 100 children on the south side of Chicago.

The problem:

• Despite a federal mandate to keep siblings together, most of the 500,000 kids

in foster care nationwide are separated from their siblings, with no idea when or

if they will ever be reunited or even see each other again.

• The pressures of more and more kids coming into the child welfare system,

mean that the emphasis is on simply finding open slots for kids, not on finding

placements that can keep all of the kids in a sibling group together. Foster homes

are filled up piecemeal, based on open slots and preferences of the care givers.

• Being separated from their brothers and sisters is incredibly traumatic for children. It increases the problems they have in foster care. Many siblings are never

reunited, leaving life-long scars for these children.

87

The solution:

Hull House Association set out to design a program that could effectively keep sibling groups together. DCFS provided the funding for Neighbor to Neighbor. The program has several basic features that make it effective at keeping kids together: • We hire foster parents as employees of Hull House Association and give them

the time and support they need to deal with the special needs of sibling groups. We

make them a part of the therapeutic team making decisions about the children in

their care. As employees of Hull House, they understand that the mandate is to provide care for entire sibling groups. • We view foster care as a supportive system—not a substitute system—for children and their families. We work intensively with biological families, offering an

array of services and resources to provide the best possible opportunities for families

to be reunited. Where reunification is not possible, we work towards healthy, stable

permanent placements that keep sibling groups intact. • We keep families in reserve to take entire sibling groups. We do not fill up slots

piecemeal. • We streamline care and make it more effective; for instance therapists and case

managers working with these children and families can work with them together

in one place, rather than scheduling multiple visits in locations all over the city and

state.

The results:

Researchers from the University of Chicago recently completed an independent

evaluation of the program and the results show that this program is very successful

at:• Keeping brothers and sisters together in their neighborhoods • Stabilizing their placements so they do not cycle through an endless series of

foster homes. The retention rate for Neighbor to Neighbor foster care givers averages 90 percent. On average, only 9 percent of children are moved from one foster

home to another once they enter Neighbor to Neighbor; even when this is necessary,

the siblings remain together. • Working successfully with foster and biological families toward reunification;

the reunification rate for this program is more than double the average.

• Streamlining care; making it more efficient and effective

We believe this program could serve as national model for keeping sibling groups

together. We need to commit ourselves to devising and funding foster care programs

that truly work to reduce the loss and trauma these children experience.

[Attachments are being retained in the Committee files.]

f

HON. JULIE KOENIG

CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

BROWARD COUNTY COURTHOUSE

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

December 15, 1998

Congressman E. Clay Shaw

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

Dear Congressman Shaw:

The current foster care system and the dependency court have been the subjects

of numerous

newspaper articles. In order to synopsize my conversation with Steve Effman and

Johnny Brown regarding improvement of the dependency/foster care system, I would

like to suggest the following:

I. Children spend approximately 42 months in foster care both statewide and in

Broward County. If we could reduce the time to 12 months (according to the statutory guidelines), we could reduce our foster care population by 70%. We can do that

by doing as follows:

a. All foster care status hearings should be heard by General Masters (who should

be experienced dependency attorneys).

b. Each dependency case which involves a child of 4 years or younger should have

a status hearing every 2 months in order to determine if the childs parents are remediating the conditions which caused the dependency, and if the childs special

needs are being met. If no significant remediation is made by the parent(s) after

88

6 months, a termination of parental rights petition should be filed and served within

10 days.

c. Each dependency case with a child over 4 years should have a status review

every 3 months. If no significant remediation is made by the parent(s) within 9

months, a TPR petition must be filed and served within 10 days.

d. A sufficient number of General Masters who are experienced dependency attorneys must be hired to have a status hearing of 15–30 minutes every 2–3 months

on every foster care case.

e. Case managers who work for the dependency divisions must be hired to oversee

the cases and determine if judicial orders are carried out. Case managers will also

bring C&F case

worker failure to the immediate attention of GM / Judge and perform on site status investigations (one Case Manager per Judicial Officer).

f. Termination of Parental Rights trials must be scheduled as soon as the TPR

petitions are drafted and must be put on every civil judges docket until the emergency situation currently existing is remedied. All TPR trials are to be expedited

on judicial dockets.

g. All dependency/foster care cases must be identified by the clerk and case managed by the GM/Judge in order that the Judges know at all times which cases are

currently pending.

II. Children in foster care receive no financial support from their parents. The

State pays their medical, board etc. without requiring the parents to pay child support.

a. Child support General Masters should be available at every detention and status hearing to set child support for both parents, to determine paternity if the child

is born out of wedlock, and to enforce child support. A DOR attorney must represent

the State at this hearing.

b. Children of divorce or paternity cases receive support from the absent parent

or by law the absent parent is incarcerated for failure to pay child support if said

parent has the financial ability to pay. Incarceration is often the ultimate persuasion for non-supporting parents to pay. I suggest that in dependency cases, the parents will either pay(and remediate the conditions which caused the dependency) or

fail to pay and be jailed. Parents who have no motivation to remediate and pay will

surrender their parental rights rather than be jailed, thus freeing children from the

system.

c. More money from dependency child support increases services to children. If

both parents each earned $650 per month the board rate of $300 per month could

be assessed according to child support guidelines. This would bring approximately

$36 million dollars into C&F. The legislature has established a Foster Care Child

Support Trust fund; for the first nine months of the 1995–96 fiscal year $100,000

was collected.

d. Currently the Department of Revenue does not establish or enforce child support for

dependent children in foster care.

III. Children in foster care receive little community support.

a. Establish a high profile, active, hardworking board who knows how to publicize

the needs of foster care children and make foster care children more visible in a

positive way in the same way cancer or the disease of the month is supported. This

board would need to be educated about foster children in order that they in turn

educate the public about the needs and availability of children for fostering and

adoption. We need a high profile board to market these children to the public. (For

example: every soccer, T-ball, basketball, baseball community team could sponsor a

foster child, but we need community leaders to assist this process.)

b. This Board should also act as in a quasi supervisory role regarding C&F and

how they meet the needs of foster children. The board will have contacts with professionals in the community who may provide pro bono services.

IV. Foster parents are skewed demographically to low income families. The mean

statewide foster family income is approximately $25, 000. Children who are adopted

by their foster parents or out of foster care receive State paid financial stipends

until the child reaches his 18th birthday.

The State of Florida currently supports all foster children (except my daughter)

who have been adopted.

a. Recruit a more financially heterogeneous population of foster parents.

b. Immediately go to every public school at the next teachers workday to recruit

foster parents.

1. Teachers generally love children, but most teachers don’t understand how foster

care/adoption works.

89

2. Teachers have expertise in child training; many teachers have room in their

homes and their hearts for a child.

3. Teachers often have many resources not available in the general population.

4. Very few foster children ever complete high school in Broward County.

c. Recruit psychiatric social workers, nurses, doctors, and health care professionals for special needs children.

V. Adoption of children from foster care needs to be marketed to the general public in a positive and professional manner.

a. Broward County parents are going to Russia, China, Yugoslavia and Central

and South America to adopt at great expense because they cant find a U.S. child

to adopt. Adopting a child from overseas frequently costs $25,000.

b. Thousands of children in foster care need to be adopted.

c. Children in foster care for the 44 months average have bonded with their foster

parents or are virtually unadoptable because of behavior problems.

d. If we can meet the needs of a dependent child and free him for adoption in

6–12 months, we will have to find immediate adoptive placements. We need these

new adoptive parents to be able to support the adoptive child financially as opposed

to the State paying the childs support until he is 18. We need to involve private

adoption attorneys with foster children in order to garner more adoptive parents.

This outline is a product of many years as a teacher, dependency attorney, child

support enforcement attorney, and a family law Judge as well as all the doctoral

coursework for an Ed. D in administration. If we utilize strong remedies, we need

strong remediators. I suggest that C&F review the list of their best workers and

attorneys over the past 15 years who may have quit in desperation and invite them

to assist in the change of the system.

Sincerely,

JK/ps

cc: Chief Judge Dale Ross

Court Administrator Carol Lee Ortman

District X Administrator Johnny Brown

Senator Walter Skip Campbell

Representative Eleanor Sobel

Representative John Rayson

Representative Steve Effman

Representative Kenneth Gottlieb

Representative Debbie Sanderson

Æ