U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

95–903 PDF 2004

REDUNDANCY AND DUPLICATION IN CHILD

WELFARE PROGRAMS: A CASE STUDY ON THE

NEED FOR EXECUTIVE REORGANIZATION

AUTHORITY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MAY 20, 2004

Serial No. 108–200

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

DOUG OSE, California

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

——— ———

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

MELISSA WOJCIAK, Staff Director

DAVID MARIN, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director

ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on May 20, 2004 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of:

DeLay, Hon. Tom, Majority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives ........... 52

Horn, Wade F., Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; J. Robert Flores, Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S.

Department of Justice; and Colien Hefferan, Administrator, Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service, U.S. Department

of Agriculture ................................................................................................ 16

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Davis, Chairman Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Virginia, prepared statement of ................................................................... 4

DeLay, Hon. Tom, Majority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 54

Flores, J. Robert, Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 35

Hefferan, Colien, Administrator, Cooperative State Research Education

and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 48

Horn, Wade F., Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, prepared statement of ............ 18

Murphy, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, prepared statement of .................................................................. 12

Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California, prepared statement of ........................................................... 8

(1)

REDUNDANCY AND DUPLICATION IN CHILD

WELFARE PROGRAMS: A CASE STUDY ON

THE NEED FOR EXECUTIVE REORGANIZATION AUTHORITY

THURSDAY, MAY 20, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 2154,

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tom Davis (chairman of the

committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Tom Davis of Virginia, Murphy,

Blackburn, Waxman, Cummings, Tierney, Watson, Van Hollen,

Ruppersberger, and Norton.

Also present: Mr. DeLay.

Staff present: Keith Ausbrook, chief counsel; Ellen Brown, legislative director and senior policy counsel; Robert Borden, counsel

and parliamentarian; Drew Crockett, deputy director of communications; Mason Alinger and Susie Schulte, professional staff

members; Teresa Austin, chief clerk; Brien Beattie, deputy clerk;

Allyson Blandford, office manager; Robert White, press secretary;

Christopher Lu, minority deputy chief counsel; Earley Green, minority chief clerk; and Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The meeting will come to order. Thank

you all for coming.

The purpose of today’s hearing is to gain an understanding of the

wide range of Federal agencies and programs responsible for protecting and caring for our Nation’s most vulnerable citizens, abused

and neglected children. The committee’s primary interest is to determine the extent to which overlap and duplication among Federal

child abuse and neglect programs creates inefficiencies that hinder

overall effectiveness.

In turn, we’re also interested in exploring the need to reinstate

Presidential executive reorganization authority as a tool to cut

through the redundancy of the Federal bureaucracy with the area

of child abuse and neglect programs just one obvious example of

the organizational maze that we face.

There’s too much at stake for us to accept a scatter shot government structure. There are 542,000 children in this country in foster

care. The number of children with a parent in a Federal or State

correctional facility increased from 900,000 to 2 million between

1991 and 1999. We have an obligation to help provide the care and

the stability that these children need.

2

The bottom line is that the legislative branch is not an effective

manager of the Federal Government. Rather than formulating policy, authorizing spending and overseeing Federal initiatives, the

legislative branch all too often inserts itself into program administration by establishing niche programs to address niche needs. In

the realm of Federal child abuse and neglect, Congress has established more than 50 individual programs spread throughout 4 cabinet level departments. All are focused in some way on the important issue of protecting abused children. But how much effectiveness is lost due to lack of coordination across agencies? And we

have to ask, can we do better?

As the President stated in his management agenda, Government

likes to begin things, to declare grand new programs and causes.

But good beginnings are not the measure of success. What matters

in the end is completion, performance, results, not just making

promises, but making good on promises.

That’s the problem we face here today. For the past three decades, Congress has created 51 Federal programs spread across the

Department of Health and Human Services, Justice, Agriculture,

and Education to deal with problems of child abuse and neglect.

These 51 Federal child abuse and neglect prevention programs fall

under a bigger umbrella of 339 Federal programs that the recent

White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth identified as

playing a role in the general field of child welfare.

Considering that the Federal Government’s primary role in child

welfare is to administer grants to States, local and non-profit agencies, these are agencies that actually provide services to children.

The sheer number of Federal programs involved should be troubling to all, including the agencies administering them.

I’d be remiss if I failed to mention that Congress is guilty here

too, because we tie the hands of many of these agencies by earmarking hundreds of millions of dollars for specific programs

through the appropriation process. Earmarks are often an important source of Federal funding for valuable programs, but they

shouldn’t take the place of the expertise that’s available to the

agencies themselves.

I think two of the findings from the October 2003 report from the

White House Task Force on Disadvantaged Youth are especially

noteworthy. First, the report concluded that the current Federal response to disadvantaged youth is a perfect example of mission fragmentation. We’re doing too many similar things in too many different places.

The second conclusion of note is that Federal agencies must be

responsible for effectively stewarding child welfare initiatives as

authorized by Congress. The task force report found that mission

creep within agencies administering child welfare programs has led

to a haphazard response and a lack of rationality that these serious

and complex problems demand. Just because Congress has authorized these programs in various agencies doesn’t let Federal managers off the hook. The people administering these programs must

effectively shepherd the programs under their responsibility and

make sure their programs are focused on accomplishing outcomes

and results, not building turf.

3

The Federal agency witnesses here today will explain how their

individual programs and offices fit into the elaborate patchwork of

Federal child abuse and neglect prevention efforts, as well as efforts being made to improve coordination. I don’t doubt the sincerity or the intentions of a single Federal employee who has dedicated his or her life to promoting the welfare of our children. And

that holds true for the witnesses before us today.

But the question still remains: is the current structure the most

effective framework for protecting our most vulnerable citizens? I

would imagine the witnesses before us today have some ideas, and

I look forward to hearing from them.

That brings me to the second purpose for the hearing. There

have already been a great number of reports, studies, commissions

and task forces looking at ways to improve the organization and effectiveness of Federal programs, both in the area of child welfare

and across the entire Government. In my opinion, we know the answer by now. It’s time to return to the President for the authority

to initiate reorganizations within the executive branch and to have

them subject to an up or down vote in Congress. Waiting for Congress to come to an agreement and initiating such a reorganization

could take years and would inevitably get bogged down in jurisdictional battles. These are years that children receiving Federal aid

don’t have to lose.

I’m very pleased to have the Majority Leader, Tom DeLay, a

long-time champion of disadvantaged children, and an advocate of

Government reorganization here today with us. In addition, we’ll

hear testimony from a number of distinguished Government witnesses. We have Wade Horn, the Assistant Secretary for Children

and Families at the Department of Health and Human Services,

who will testify on behalf of all the child abuse and neglect prevention programs located within the Children and Families Administration, the Office of the Secretary, the Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, Substance Abuse

and Mental Health Services and Mental Health Administration.

Robert Flores, the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention, at the Department of Justice, will testify on the efforts to prevent child abuse and neglect in the Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Victims of Crimes, the National Institutes for Justice and the Violence

Against Women Office.

Colien Hefferan, the Administrator for the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service at the Department of Agriculture will discuss the Children, Youth and Families at Risk program at the Department of Agriculture.

The Department of Education will unfortunately not be joining

us this morning to discuss the Department’s efforts to protect atrisk youth through the Safe and Drug-Free Schools initiative and

the grants for infants and families. But the Department committed

to looking into the matter and reporting back to the committee on

the results of their findings.

I welcome all the witnesses to today’s hearing. I look forward to

hearing their testimony. Thank you for being with us.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Tom Davis follows:]

4

5

6

7

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I would now recognize the distinguished

ranking member, Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I too want to welcome the Honorable Tom DeLay to our hearing

today. While I’ve complained in the past about the Republican leaders being somewhat secretive and opaque, I just want to say that

he’s carried transparency to a new level today. [Laughter.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. That’s good, that’s good.

Mr. WAXMAN. But I want to thank you as well, Mr. Chairman,

for holding this hearing. Numerous studies have detailed areas of

jurisdictional overlap within the Federal Government. In March,

the Civil Service Subcommittee examined the overlapping structure

of food safety regulations in this country, an issue of great interest

to me. Today we examine another important area in which

redundances may exist, child abuse and neglect prevention programs. When overlapping programs cause inefficiencies or gaps in

service, reforms are necessary. Redundant programs should be redesigned, integrated into other programs or simply eliminated.

Agencies involved in child welfare programs also need to better coordinate their services.

But I do not believe the answer is to create a block grant for

those programs, as the administration has proposed. Block grants

provide little accountability and do not necessarily lead to great efficiency. One question we will have to address is how executive reorganization should occur. There are those who favor transferring

most of the responsibility for reorganization from Congress to the

White House. While this might appear to be the most efficient approach, I’m not sure it is the best approach. Even though I did not

agree with the bill that created the Homeland Security Department, I believe it was important for Congress to have played an active role in crafting that legislation.

As we focus on making Government more effective and efficient,

we cannot overlook the importance of our Federal Civil Service.

Federal employees are the heart and soul of our Government. Over

the past few years, Federal employees have seen their rights taken

away, their jobs outsourced and their pay raises under attack.

Not surprisingly, many Federal employees view reorganization as

just another assault on the Civil Service. I know that this is not

the chairman’s intent, but this perception is an unfortunate legacy

of recent administration actions. We must find ways to address the

genuine concerns of Federal employees as we consider any future

reorganization proposals.

I look forward to the testimony of today’s witnesses. And again,

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your holding this hearing.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Henry A. Waxman follows:]

8

9

10

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Murphy.

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Sarah is a child who was just 3 years old when I first met her.

But in those 3 years of her life, when I was working as a psychologist, she had already endured more suffering than anyone should

have to bear in a lifetime. She had already suffered a broken

femur, had twisting fractures of bones in both her arms, a large hematoma on her head, a fractured skull and developmental delays.

She was scared of people, terrified of a raised voice. When held, she

watched your eyes with a vigilance like that of a soldier who has

been in battle.

These painful injuries of obvious child abuse were not the worst

of her problems. Her biggest problem was that she had been returned to her violent home three times. While her parents negotiated through a legal system, Sarah was moved in and out of foster care and through an assembly line of case workers, doctors,

therapists and lawyers. Here was a child who was abused by her

parents and by the system meant to protect her, a system that was

convoluted, overwhelmed and difficult to negotiate at best, I had

trouble figuring out what forms to fill out next, what office to turn

to, what person to turn to. It was difficult for me and downright

impossible for the many children and parents I worked with.

Sadly and tragically, Sarah is not alone. She is one of the millions of children who have been abused over the last 10 years while

State and Federal Governments have spent billions and billions

trying to help. Somewhere in America, four children will die today

from abuse and neglect. That’s about 1,300 per year. And half the

neglect cases probably go unreported. Somewhere in America, a

child is abused every 30 seconds. That is a staggering almost

900,000 per year, and the numbers are not significantly changing.

There are 500,000 children languishing for years in our foster

care system because our juvenile and family courts do not adequately track them, according to a report released this week from

the Pugh Commission on Children in Foster Care. It’s painful for

us to even think of the deaths, injuries, the exploitation. I shudder

when I recall the sights of abused children in hospitals that I saw,

the scars of those recovering and the death notices of those who did

not.

If we had declared war against child abuse in this Nation, we

would have to come to the conclusion that we are not winning. The

casualties are mounting and the children are still suffering. This

is the great American shame.

Compassion has motivated us to take some action, but we have

a morass of Federal programs, we have 51 for multiple funding

streams. And it is virtually impossible to figure out just how much

is spent and how, and where it goes when one looks at the programs, at least the ones we can find. How much money is wasted

here? How much actually gets to helping the children in the front

line? It is not just how many dollars we spend, but how we spend

the dollars that can make a difference.

According to the October 2003 White House Task Force on Disadvantaged Youth, it said the complexity of the problems faced by

disadvantaged youth is matched only by the complexity of the traVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:29 Oct 10, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\95903.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
11

ditional Federal response to those problems. Both are confusing,

complicated and costly. If we do not get a clear sense of what we

are doing as a Government and how we can do it better, we cannot

offer hope to children like Sarah, nor can we offer hope to families

who with treatment can do better. There are programs and people

that can and do make a difference.

But I fear, I truly fear that if we dare to raise the questions

about where our dollars go and suggest there is redundancy and

inefficiency in Government programs, some will try to politicize the

issue and stop it. We will end up beating our chests and be full of

sound and fury while signifying nothing. It would be wrong. It

would delay what we must do and worst of all, it would lead to the

hurt of more children.

We must review these issues thoroughly, honestly, respectfully

and sincerely. To do anything less would perpetuate the great

shame we must admit today. We are not here to strengthen bureaucracies, but to strengthen the family. We are not here to save

the status quo, but to save lives. We cannot focus on the election

year politics of party preservation but must challenge ourselves to

find ways to get funding directly to where it will do the most good,

to eliminate regulations that add unnecessary hurdles to families,

and to strengthen those programs that ultimately strengthen our

families.

Somewhere in this Nation, 5 to 10 more children have been

abused since I began to speak. Somewhere in this Nation there are

many more children like Sarah, somewhere in this Nation there

are children in foster care wishing to be returned to a stable home,

praying for adoption and crying for someone to listen to them.

Somewhere on this dais, in this committee and in our chamber are

those who can make a difference, if we have the courage, the compassion and the commitment to ask the difficult questions and to

search for the elusive answers. To do anything less would continue

the shame. To do our job would give hope and life to the children

who depend on us.

I hope that we choose the path of hope.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Tim Murphy follows:]

12

13

14

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you. Are there any other Members

who wish to make opening statements? Ms. Norton, then Ms. Watson.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for focusing

this hearing particularly on abuse and neglect of children, because

there are services to be rendered, there is no time to be lost.

I want to note that the real quagmire, of course, is not about

funding streams, and it is at the local and State level. I know that

first-hand because of the extraordinary problems we’ve had in the

District, which I’ve since learned are simply part of a national pattern at the State and local level. Nevertheless, it does seem to me

that we have a particular obligation at the Federal level to make

sure the Government is efficient.

I am one of these members who believes that Government efficiency is particularly important, because then you get people turning on Government rather than on the inefficiency. At this point,

if the inefficiency is reorganization, I would want to first of all commend the Federal Government. What some local governments have

begun to understand, in the District for example, we are creating

a one-stop center, so that a parent or a guardian or personnel do

not have to traipse all around the city from one place to another

trying to find out what to do for this child.

Why aren’t we doing at least that at the Federal level? I raise

that because we’re talking about services that are for the most part

found in one, perhaps two agencies, if you take the Department of

Education. But most of them are in the Health and Human Services agency. Well, having run an agency of the Federal Government, having reorganized an agency from top to bottom of the Federal Government, my first question would be, why doesn’t HHS, or

why doesn’t the President of the United States use his inherent authority to organize agencies within his own department so that

some of these problems are at least ameliorated. Funding streams,

the way in which legislation itself is worded is for us.

But the last thing we want to do when we’re dealing with an

issue like this is to get into another controversy of the kind we

have had in our meetings and our hearings of the Department of

Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, where in the

end it was all about bureaucracy and you lost sight entirely of the

underlying reason that must be there for any reorganization to

occur.

I need to see evidence that the administration is tending to its

own business. Then if you can find that you need a wholesale reorganization to deal with abused and neglected children, I think you

will find Members of Congress willing to work closely on both sides

of the aisle with the administration to accomplish that purpose.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much. Ms. Watson.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good

morning to all.

I’m glad we are here to discuss the reorganization of our child

welfare system. It’s a very crucial issue that needs much attention.

Los Angeles County, the county with the largest foster care population in the Nation, has an abuse rate that is two to four times

higher than the rate of abuse in other jurisdictions. The county has

15

identified their three top goals as improved performance in the

length of a child’s placement to finalize adoption, and improve safety in the home, and finally, keeping children placed with their biological parents by offering extra support to the parent where necessary.

Los Angeles County’s identifications of its priorities is a step in

the right direction, just as removing redundancy and duplication in

our child welfare system ought to be another right step. We must

be very careful, however, that we cut the fat, not the muscle. And

I want to make certain that this initiative is not just an excuse for

cutting vital programs under the name of reorganization. Certainly

the well-being of our Nation’s youth is a top priority, and I would

hope that each person involved in this all-important task work

with the child’s best interests in mind, expeditiously and with great

sensitivity and care.

I worked in this system, I worked as a child psychologist, I

worked as a cookie cop. And believe me, we have lots and lots of

issues that we must deal with. But what we need is checks and

balances and accountability. Somebody has to be in charge, someone has to be monitoring, someone has to keep track of our young

people. So I look forward to seeing how our system and hearing

how our system will be improved by coordinating all of our forces.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much. Are there any

other Members who wish to make opening statements? Mr.

Ruppersberger. The Majority Leader is on his way over, so if you

want to take that time.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Not to be redundant, but we have to remember that we are really talking about protecting some of the

most vulnerable members of our society. Clearly the focus should

be on what we can do to make sure that no child falls through the

bureaucratic cracks and that Government resources are not being

wasted by duplication and redundancy. In my former position as a

county executive, I was involved in our county with a child that

was abused and later died.

An evaluation of the process showed that we had a lot of wellmeaning people working in the system, but the bureaucracy really

got in the way for us to deal with the actual children themselves.

That’s why it’s important that we continue to review what we need

to do to protect those vulnerable members of society.

In my opinion, executive reorganization authority should be

granted on a case by case basis when it’s determined by Congress

that it is necessary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

I don’t see Mr. DeLay here yet, so why don’t we move our first

panel up. When he comes in, I’d like to move him up to the dais

so he can give his statement from here and then ask questions to

expedite things. But why don’t we move our first panel here. We

have a distinguished first panel, Dr. Wade Horn, the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families at HHS; Mr. J. Robert Flores, the

Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice; and Dr. Colien Hefferan,

the Administrator of Cooperative State Research, Education and

Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

16

Thank you very much for being with us today. It’s our policy that

we swear you in before you testify, so if you’ll just rise with me and

raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

Dr. Horn, why don’t we start with you. I may interrupt in the

middle, but I may let you conclude. We’ll see what Mr. DeLay

wants to do and what his time schedule is. I know he wants to be

here for questions if we can do it. But we had the President here

this morning, there are some things happening on the floor. So

we’ll try to accommodate the Majority Leader.

Dr. Horn, thanks for being with us. By the way, we have a light

in front of you that will be green when you start. It turns orange

after 4 minutes, red after 5. Your entire statement is part of the

record and questions will be based on you entire statement. Thank

you very much.

STATEMENT OF WADE F. HORN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

AND HUMAN SERVICES; J. ROBERT FLORES, ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY

PREVENTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; AND COLIEN

HEFFERAN, ADMINISTRATOR, COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH EDUCATION AND EXTENSION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank

you for the opportunity to testify before you today to discuss the

Federal Government’s coordination efforts to prevent and respond

to child abuse and neglect.

The Bush administration is committed to improving our national

response to the terrible problem of child abuse and neglect. While

we are justifiably proud of the efforts we are making to assist

States, tribes and communities in strengthening child abuse prevention and child welfare programs, far more needs to be done. Unfortunately, the plethora of disparate programs and funding

streams that are mired with idiosyncratic and complex rules and

requirements make it extremely difficult for States to develop and

manage effective child welfare systems.

That’s one reason why the Bush administration strongly supports

the reauthorization of the executive branch Reorganization Act, so

that we can begin to study possible reorganizations within the executive branch that allow for greater coordination and collaboration

of our efforts, to improve our ability to prevent and intervene in

cases of child abuse and neglect.

As Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, I oversee

many Federal programs targeted to child abuse and neglect and

the child welfare system. We have learned that if we are to be successful in meeting the complex needs of the children and families

that come in contact with the child welfare system, we must provide a coordinated response to the problems associated with child

abuse and neglect at all levels of government. With this goal in

mind, ACF created the Federal Interagency Work Group on Child

Abuse and Neglect to provide a forum for collaboration among Federal agencies with an interest in child maltreatment. The group

17

shares information, plans and implements joint activities, makes

policy and programmatic recommendations, and works toward establishing complementary agendas in the areas of training, research, legislation, information dissemination and delivery of services as they relate to the prevention, intervention and treatment of

child abuse and neglect.

Led by the Office of Child Abuse and Neglect, the Federal Interagency Work Group is composed of representatives from a number

of components within the U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, as well as officials from the Departments of Education,

Justice, Defense, Housing and Urban Development, Agriculture

and others. Recognizing the importance of coordination, I’d like to

take this opportunity to highlight a new effort that HHS and other

Federal partners are undertaking through the Office of the Surgeon General.

On April 1, 2004, I was pleased to join Congressman Tom DeLay

and Surgeon General Richard Carmona at a press conference commemorating National Child Abuse Prevention month, where a new

initiative was announced to integrate a public health perspective

into the prevention of child maltreatment. Since that time, officials

from several agencies within HHS, as well as the Departments of

Education and Justice, have been meeting regularly to further this

effort.

I’m pleased to report that as a result of these discussions, on

June 16th, the Surgeon General will host the first Federal workshop on prevention of child maltreatment. As part of this activity,

I will join Surgeon General Carmona and other administration officials to engage in a focused examination of how to improve Federal

program coordination, effectiveness and efficiency in this area. The

goal will be to build on existing assets and strengthen collaborations between community and faith-based programs and Government efforts that identify, assess, treat and provide long treatment

and prevention services for children and families.

In addition to these efforts to increase coordination across Federal programs, the President’s budget for fiscal year 2005 includes

important provisions to provide both increased funding targeted to

child abuse and neglect, and greater flexibility in the use of Federal foster care dollars. Specifically, the President proposes to fully

fund the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program, and to nearly double the funding level for programs authorized under the

Child Abuse, Prevention and Treatment Act.

Additionally, the administration proposed a legislative change

that would offer States the option to receive a capped flexible

source of funds to build innovative programs for children and families aimed at improving the safety, permanency and well-being of

children who come in contact with the child welfare system. Finding ways to successfully combat child abuse is a challenge that no

one entity, organization or unit of government can achieve on its

own. Rather, it will require that we all work together to address

this issue and in doing so, bring new hope to the thousands of children who suffer from abuse or neglect.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today,

and I’d be pleased to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Horn follows:]

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Flores.

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am J.

Robert Flores, the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention, within the Office of Justice Programs

at the Justice Department.

I’m pleased to be here today to represent the Department, the

Attorney General and OJP’s Assistant Attorney General, Deborah

Daniels. Consistent with the Attorney General’s strategic plan, we

at OJP endeavor to focus on how best to meet beneficiary and community needs while accomplishing the necessary coordination

among stakeholders at all levels, Federal, State and local.

OJP, including OJJDP, also collaborates widely with other Federal agencies across our program fields. We also understand the

need for integration of child welfare programs and consistent services. Although the two systems are often disconnected, the juvenile

justice and child welfare systems are both integral to serving children’s needs. Because the causes of abuse and neglect have their

roots in dysfunctional families, child welfare workers and juvenile

justice practitioners end up seeing many of the same children.

OJJDP funded the Rochester Youth Development Study 10 years

ago, and has continued to support that study, which has determined that children who are abused and neglected self-reported

that they were significantly more likely to engage in serious and

violent delinquency than children who were not maltreated.

Abused kids also end up as teenagers who are more likely to use

drugs, do poorly in school, become pregnant and suffer emotional

and mental health problems. For that reason, it’s imperative that

both the juvenile justice system and those agencies that provide

human services succeed. For example, this shared responsibility

with each agency contributing its respective expertise is the philosophy behind the administration’s efforts to improve the reintegration into the communities of those juveniles and adults who leave

confinement.

The Justice Department does not build housing. We’re not providing jobs and we don’t provide health care. But we know that

those services are key to the successful reintegration into society

of those individuals. In turn, the successful reentry for a former offender is necessary to preserve the safety of our society. Because

we can’t provide these services and resources directly, we must

turn to other Federal and State partners, and the rules and regulations must allow for such cooperation.

In my written statement, I provided other examples of existing

DOJ programs that demonstrate a high degree of coordination between and among Federal agencies as well as with State and local

governments and organizations.

In addition, as this committee conducts its examination of Federal child welfare service delivery, I commend to you the ability of

the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to effect changes in many child-serving programs across

multiple Federal agencies. The Coordinating Council is statutorily

mandated, chaired by the Attorney General and includes the Secretaries of Labor, Education, Housing and Urban Development and

Health and Human Services as well as the Director of the Office

34

of National Drug Control Policy and the CEO of the Corporation

on National Community Service.

In addition, the Council includes nine practitioner members. Especially over the last year, the Council has developed into a body

that provides a real mechanism for departmental representatives to

invite other Federal agencies to coordinate with them on child welfare and other issues. The Department of Justice has in turn asked

for the cooperation of other agencies in satisfying departmental priorities and received it.

I want to assure you that the Department of Justice is fully committed to ensuring that all children, including those at risk for involvement in our juvenile justice system, are afforded the chance

to be nurtured in a healthy family environment where they can

grow into productive, self-sustaining adults. We look forward to

working with our colleagues across Government to achieve that

goal.

Thank you, and I’d be pleased to answer any questions you might

have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Flores follows:]

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Dr. Hefferan, thank you for being with us.

Ms. HEFFERAN. Good Mr. Chairman and members. I’m Colien

Hefferan, the Administrator of the Cooperative State Research

Education and Extension Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The mission of our agency is to advance knowledge for agriculture, the environment, communities and human health and

well-being through program leadership and coordination and Federal assistance, primarily to universities. I appreciate the opportunity to come before this committee today to present several contributions that USDA supports through our cooperative extension

programs that improve the welfare of our Nation’s children.

The programs I’ll describe to you are administered by USDA in

cooperation with land grant universities, particularly State extension programs. The cooperative extension model, which shares

leadership and funding for community based programs across Federal, State and local governments, is ideally constructed to leverage

scarce financial resources and develop locally relevant solutions to

challenges facing youth. Federal funding for these programs is provided both through a formula base to the universities as matched

by dollar for dollar with State and local funds.

Families, Youth and Communities is one of our key programs in

the national extension system. Through our program, extension

professionals provide research based education and training in critical needs such as nutrition, financial security, child care and

youth development. The youth development components of extension that I’d like to discuss today especially focus on the 4–H Youth

Development Program, and the program entitled Children, Youth

and Families at Risk.

For over 100 years, USDA has been the national headquarters

for one of America’s flagship youth development organizations, the

4–H program. 4–H reaches over 7 million children across the

United States in every corner of the country, and involves over

650,000 adult volunteers. While 4–H is ultimately delivered by

local county extension staff, USDA is responsible for the overall

program leadership and integrity.

USDA also coordinates with the U.S. Army and the Department

of the Air Force to deliver 4–H programs on military installations

across the country and in fact with the Army worldwide, 4–H programs are available on military installations. 4–H has always been

more than just a community youth program or youth club. It’s specifically designed to promote research-based youth development

goals, and because it’s linked to the research systems of the universities, it’s an ideal program for introducing youth to positive activities, including science and technology. 4–H teaches youth personal

responsibility, community involvement and citizenship. In fact,

many Members of Congress are 4–H alumni, including several

members of this committee.

While 4–H is our central youth development program, the programs that focus on children, youth and families at risk are particularly important in addressing the issues this committee is concerned about. Since 1991, our families and youth at risk program

has supported more than 600 programs across States and commuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:29 Oct 10, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\95903.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
47

nities addressing critical needs of these families with children. The

program supports comprehensive, intensive and community based

education and has citizens involved as volunteers and professionals

throughout the program. It focuses on resiliency and protective factors in youth, families and communities. In fiscal year 2004, Congress appropriated about $7.5 million to this program and the

President’s budget calls for an appropriation of $8.5 million in fiscal year 2005, which will be the level that was funded in fiscal year

2003.

Probably one of the most important aspects of this program is

that it develops private partnerships that can be sustained over a

very long period of time. At least 65 percent of the programs funded under the Children, Youth and Families at Risk program have

sustained funding through non-Federal sources for at least 6 years

after the completion of their Federal funding. There are programs

again in many communities, over 200 across the Nation. To give

you one prime example, through the Cornell cooperative extension

system, there are programs that work with rural youth, youth in

rural and isolated areas who would not otherwise be possible to

participate in this kind of program in peer education that helps

them develop the skills to resist the many challenges that are facing teenagers today.

There are many examples that I can provide, and I will be glad

to do so with questions. But I appreciate the opportunity to share

with you a program that is leveraged substantially and works

across Government with other agencies to ensure positive youth development.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hefferan follows:]

48

49

50

51

52

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much for being with us.

Thank all of you for being with us.

I’m going to yield to the Majority Leader for an opening statement and to take the first line of questions. Let me just say we’re

very pleased to have the Majority Leader, Tom DeLay, here. He’s

taken a strong interest in child abuse prevention in the District of

Columbia and nationally, and later today he’s going to receive the

Leadership in Child Prevention and Abuse from the Casey Family

Programs Foundation. So congratulations on that, Mr. Leader, and

thank you for taking an interest and taking time from I know a

very busy legislative day to be with us. I know this is important

to you. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM DELAY, MAJORITY LEADER, U.S.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. DELAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really thank you for the

honor of being allowed to sit here with you and the committee. It

is an honor, and I appreciate your testimony as a panel. It is an

honor to be back before this committee to once again discuss an

issue that I know is close to your heart, Mr. Chairman, and is also

close to mine.

The fragmentation of Federal child protective services and funding in the U.S. Government today, Mr. Chairman, is an embarrassment. For decades, Congress has appropriated more and more

money into more and more programs, only to find that the numbers

of neglected, malnourished and abused children remain unacceptably high.

The problem is real, and it’s acute. And the response at the State

and especially the Federal level has been reactive and clumsy.

Meanwhile, because politicians from both parties can report to the

American people our apparently generous appropriations, a few

million here for child abuse prevention, a few billion there for foster care assistance, the American people have a false impression

that the Government is in fact taking care of these kids.

But the evidence shows that the Government is doing no such

thing. In fact, it shows quite the contrary. And I don’t mean to cast

aspersions here, Mr. Chairman, for I’ve been in Congress myself for

20 years, while trends have not appreciably improved, Congresses

and Presidential administration of both parties merit their share of

the blame. But the fact still remains, Mr. Chairman, kids are dying

and it’s our fault.

In our defense, abused and neglected children are hardly ignored

in Federal law. The charts over here show you, Mr. Chairman, the

latest estimates indicate some 33 Federal agencies and bureaus

and offices handle 51 programs and 46 different funding streams

to address child protection. And all of these account for billions of

dollars.

Meanwhile, a White House report on disadvantaged youth shows

that 339 Federal programs are specifically charged with helping

children in one way or another, and 13 Federal agencies administer

more than 120 different programs that provide for mentoring alone.

And it should be noted for the record that the Office of Management and Budget has rated 68 percent of those 330 programs as

either results not demonstrated or ineffective. It should be further

53

noted that more than half of them have not received a thorough,

top to bottom evaluation in the last 5 years.

Meanwhile, if this committee, and Congress generally are concerned about the duplication, and the lack of coordination in these

many programs and offices, not to worry. There are two separate

interagency working groups at the Department of Health and

Human Services to coordinate Federal child abuse prevention activities. And we have recently learned that there are plans to create a third.

However well intentioned the current system may be, Mr. Chairman, its duplication of efforts, its redundant programs and its lack

of coordination have not served abused and neglected children.

These facts are heartbreaking to anyone who cares about children.

This isn’t merely a matter of governmental inefficiency or mission

creep. It’s a failure of imagination and a failure of will.

The Federal solutions to the problem of abused and neglected

children that we have relied on all our lives are not working. While

each of us can send out press releases touting this program or this

or that new grant, kids are still hurting. Again, I don’t mean to assign blame to any individual. These problems are much bigger than

any one person. They have grown, in fact, to a size much greater

than the 435 people who work in this building. And yet it is up to

Congress and the President to act.

There are things we can and should do to help, Mr. Chairman,

but they don’t include the creation of new layers of programs, funding streams and working groups plopped on top of the old ones. We

need a fundamental re-imagining of the Federal role in protecting

kids. We spend billions of dollars that could do much more good if

they reached the right children at the right time.

All the money in the world won’t help if it’s soaked up by redundant and ineffective bureaucracy. We need a restructured system

that targets resources where they can help. And that is practically

impossible in the current bureaucratic environment.

I therefore strongly urge this committee to do two things. First,

look with skepticism on any plans emanating from within Congress

or the executive branch that simply aggravate current bureaucratic

inefficiencies, and second, Mr. Chairman, act to restore to the

President Government reauthorization authority, so that our child

protection services can finally start to serve the children instead of

serving the bureaucracy.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Tom DeLay follows:]

54

55

56

57

Mr. DELAY. I don’t know if you want me to go to questions.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. If you’d like to go to questions, I’ll recognize you.

Mr. DELAY. I won’t spend much more of the committee’s time. I

appreciate your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, and your courtesy. I

just would ask the panel a couple of questions.

First of all, in the news as recently as yesterday and today, we

have Courtney, who was a young girl evidently from Brooklyn,

dropped off by her father in Baltimore, and her father left, leaving

her alone. We’ve been just crying over this beautiful little girl, who

obviously her parents don’t want or can’t take care of. And now

she’s in foster care. An abandoned child from New York found in

Baltimore, currently in foster care. HHS and DOJ, maybe you all

can walk me through how the billions of dollars in Federal funds

are going to help Courtney.

Mr. HORN. One of the problems with the way that the Federal

Government puts out funds in the child welfare system is that the

bulk of the dollars occur after the fact, after the fact of abuse or

neglect. And far fewer resources are dedicated to supporting families, so that abuse or neglect does not happen in the first place.

And although I don’t know all the circumstances of Courtney’s

case, it sounds to me like this was a family that was in trouble,

that was in stress. My guess is that there weren’t a lot of resources

to help that family, and that the only option that they felt for

themselves was to drop this girl off and have her placed in foster

care.

One of the things that the President would like to do is to provide States with greater flexibility in the use of foster care funds,

so that we not only intervene after the fact, but prevent child abuse

and neglect from happening in the first place. Because a compassionate society, in our view, is not one that simply has a really topnotch, top door foster care system take care of the 900,000 children

who are abused and neglected each year, but that a compassionate

society is one that works as best we can to reduce the possibility

of abuse and neglect in the first place.

Mr. DELAY. Mr. Flores.

Mr. FLORES. The Department works to provide training and technical assistance to family and juvenile court judges across the country. One of the challenges is that people tend to look at the juvenile

court system or the family court system as the last place to go and

then when they get there, many of the judges don’t feel that they

have access to resources that they could use to try to prevent, as

my colleagues just said.

We have invested heavily, prior to this year, in trying to assure

that across the country there is a heightened level of preparation

for family and juvenile court judges so that when they see these

cases in the first instance, they don’t necessarily need to wait until

the second or third child in a particular family comes before them,

as either a ward or a possible ward. This continues to be challenge,

however, because oftentimes we’re not able to intervene at the most

appropriate place.

One of the programs that the Justice Department does fund, and

we fund it and we built it with the support of HHS, is the nurse

home visitation program, which attempts to not wait until the child

58

is born, but to intervene at the stage where the girl first comes forward and says, I’m pregnant, I’m going to have a baby. We know

this is an incredibly high stress situation, where if we don’t intervene, we’re likely to see child abuse, child neglect, and other horrors intervene. That program is able, because it matches a human

being, an adult, a trained adult, with that child, to see very significant improvements in what happens to that baby once the baby is

born, and during the pregnancy, because it results in better diet,

better care, better preparation for having a new child at home.

So it can be done. We know how to do that. But we are looking

at how we extend those resources and build so that every community has access to that. That will be done in partnership with HHS,

because it requires not only the courts perhaps be involved, but it

particularly involves the health care community. We can’t do that

alone. And until people get used to the fact that the court need not

be the last place that we turn to for child care, we’re going to probably continue to see some of those results.

But we’re working to try to build on that. Because unless we intervene at the earliest stage, and I think that in many cases it calls

for intervention prior to birth, we’re not going to see the results

that we all want.

Mr. DELAY. There just seems, in my testimony I pointed out 120

different mentoring programs, lots of task forces, lots of interagency working groups. Do you as a panel, do you think the Federal Government shows a lack of focus in those results that you’re

talking about?

Mr. FLORES. I think that there’s a temptation sometimes to address a particular type of problem with a new system. And that

sometimes we have the capacity already, if we go back to existing

processes and programs, to build on those in a more efficient way,

rather than create an entirely new system to support a niche problem or some aspect of it which was not the heartland of what was

originally envisioned when the program was built.

We’re looking at that now. For us, one of the important areas is

gang activity. We’re not going to see the results that we want if we

focus on gang activity only after it occurs. Instead of doing that,

what we’re working with is our other agency partners. We want to

work with everyone from Agriculture to HHS to look at how we go

all the way back to try to address some of those areas where quite

frankly, in many communities, we’re failing to intervene at an appropriate place.

One of the challenges is for us to be disciplined in looking at

those places where we can do more by building on an existing program rather than creating something separate. That’s one of the

reasons why interdepartmental communications is so key. And

when we find that they’re happening well, we typically find that

we’re seeing the results and we’re seeing add-ons, or we’re seeing

more efficient use of resources because someone’s able to do that.

I want to say quite clearly that one of the things that a court can

offer to the child protective service community is a system which

has a substantial amount of control over individuals. And we don’t,

we often fail at taking advantage of that opportunity to really work

with the parent, not just the child that comes before the court. We

see it done in many specialized courts, whether it’s a drug court,

59

whether it’s a specialized gun court. We see that kind of intervention working well.

So I would just say that I think that the justice system for juveniles and for families is an area that we need to continue to leverage, because it provides some tools that are not otherwise available

in the health care environment.

Mr. HORN. Mr. Delay, clearly coordination at the Federal level is

difficult and we’re doing the best we can, I think with some success. But it’s even worse at the local level. The real problem is not

at the Federal level when you have 51 different programs and

funding streams. The real problem is at the State and local level.

I mean, think about it. If you’re interested at the State or local

level to put together a seamless system of services called child welfare to support families, prevent child abuse and neglect, to intervene in cases where abuse and neglect has been found, and then

to provide after-care and then adoption services if necessary, you

have to negotiate all these different programs. And they all have

their idiosyncratic reporting requirements. They all often have different eligibility requirements. Some are State formula grants.

Some are entitlements programs. Some are competition, some are

only open to local community-based organizations, others only open

to States and local governments.

I mean, this is very difficult to do at the State and local level.

So one of the things, one of the consequences of creating so many

different programs and putting them in so many different places is

not just making it difficult for us to coordinate. That’s actually the

easy part. The hard part is at the State and local level.

Mr. DELAY. Ms. Hefferan.

Ms. HEFFERAN. Well, I think it is clearly difficult at the State

and local level. But that’s probably the most important place for

these programs to be developed and coordinated and delivered, because we cannot conceive at the national level of all of the circumstances and configurations of organizations.

I think one of the things that we’ve tried to do is to capture the

creativity of the local communities with really limited resources

that are catalytic in nature and essentially launch the best ideas.

But I certainly agree that there are very many players for very

good reasons in this issue. And it’s a coordination problem across

the entire spectrum, not just the national level.

Mr. DELAY. I would hope that we could charge you as a committee and working with you to go back to your respective departments and report back to me and to this committee that you’ve

looked at all these programs and looked at the ones, and report

back to the ones that are working and the ones that are not working. Rather than trying to coordinate everything that exists, maybe

you ought to take a hard look at those, I think this committee

needs to know which programs are working and which are not

working.

Also, I would admonish you to, well, let me just finish with this,

Mr. Chairman. Dr. Horn, can you explain the purposes of the two

separate working groups at HHS and how you think a third one

would help to reduce the bureaucratic barriers that hamper our

ability to protect children?

60

Mr. HORN. Well, first of all, the one that ACF runs is the one

that I’m most familiar with, which is the Interagency Work Group

on Child Abuse and Neglect. And this used to be statutorily mandated. Then Congress deleted the mandate, but there was a felt

need within my agency to continue to work with other agencies,

both within HHS and across other departments, in order to make

sure that we weren’t duplicating efforts.

And also, where it was appropriate, to do some joined funding

and some joined efforts. For example, the Children’s Bureau and

SAMHSA jointly fund the National Resource Center on Substance

Abuse and child welfare. It’s a nice intersect between the work that

they do and the work that we do. We jointly fund the National Resource Center, which provides training and technical assistance to

both the child welfare system and the substance abuse treatment

system, as well as finding ways for them to work together effectively.

We also work with NIH in terms of helping to develop jointly a

research agenda in this area. We’ve seen some very nice gains in

terms of our knowledge about neglect through the Consortium on

Neglect, which is also being coordinated between us and NIH and

other agencies within HHS. I think the other interagency group

that exists currently is the one found in the Department of Justice.

Then the third one is really more of a workshop than a freestanding interagency work group, and this is in response to conversations that we’ve had in part with your office to get the Surgeon General engaged in the issue and to help to integrate a public

health perspective into child abuse and neglect. So on June 16th,

we’re going to be holding a workshop. But it’s unclear at this point

whether we see this as a longstanding coordinating group, but

rather an opportunity to bring together a variety of different actors

from the Federal level to begin the conversation about how we can

better coordinate outside of the existing coordinating councils.

Mr. DELAY. Mr. Chairman, I think they’ve answered most of my

questions. Again, I appreciate your indulgence and the indulgence

of the other members of the committee.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Well, thank you very much for your leadership. Congratulations again on your award, and permanent reorganization authority is something this committee continues to look

at and address and we look forward to working with you on it.

Thank you very much.

Mr. DELAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Van

Hollen, is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for

holding this hearing, and Mr. Majority Leader, I just want to thank

you for your commitment on these issues and congratulations on

the award as well.

This is not a Republican issue, not a Democratic issue, it’s not

even just an American issue. This is a human issue and I know

that all of us are interested in getting results. I thank the witnesses for being here today, Secretary Horn is a constituent and I

thank you for your long commitment to these issues.

And by all means, where we have programs that are not working

or not functioning well, I ask members of the administration to

61

come forward and tell us what’s broken and whether you want to

fix it or get rid of it or merge it or whatever it may be. Because

if we’re spending dollars ineffectively and we’re not getting the results in terms of reducing child abuse and making it easier to move

children from the foster care system into permanent placements, by

God, I think we need to know, we need to get to that result.

Mr. Horn, I’ve looked at your prepared testimony and listened to

you and Mr. Flores, I listened to you as well. In your statements

you talk about terrific coordination that’s going on within the Federal Government, interagency processes. Mr. Flores, you’ve got a

whole section entitled Statutory Tools that support agency coordination and collaboration. These are existing statutory authorities,

and you talk about the good work and cooperation and collaboration that’s going on using those authorities.

Mr. Horn, I understand your comments with regard to block

granting. And that’s an important issue and it should be debated.

But this hearing is being held under the overall umbrella of legislation to provide for blanket executive reorganization authority. And

as I listened to you, Mr. Horn, you said yes, there are lots of different programs at the Federal level, different offices. But the real

issue is the funding streams at the State level. These charts over

here deal with all the Federal agencies, and that’s been the thrust

of this hearing.

So I’m going to ask all of you, what specific reorganization measures are you proposing that we need to take in this area to be effective that you want to do today that you do not have the statutory

authority to do at the Federal level with respect to executive organization? I’d be very interested in your specific ideas, because what

I’ve heard so far is, we’re going to take a look at it, it’s important

to study this issue, but I want to know today what obstacles you

see with respect to your executive ability to reorganize at the Federal level that you do not have the authority to do.

Mr. HORN. I think one of the difficulties in contemplating reorganization is the fact that you have to deal with so many different

committees within the Congress, because there are different programs and different committees have jurisdiction. Let me give you

an example on youth issues. The Department of HHS is quite interested in this new idea of positive youth development as a prevention strategy for a whole host of things, including prevention of

child abuse and neglect for youth. One of the things we know from

the positive youth development perspective is that kids who are

well connected to families, to communities and to community organizations and to other caring adults in their community are at far

less risk for a whole host of negative outcomes.

Well, the Secretary, back in the fall of 2001, 21⁄2 years ago, actually 3 years ago, he directed my agency to look at all of the youth

serving programs within HHS, because the question that he had

was, why aren’t they all in this box called the Family and Youth

Services Bureau? Why are not all the youth serving programs at

HHS in that box where they can work well together?

So we did a comprehensive review of HHS youth serving programs. And we found two things. First of all, we found that a lot

of youth serving programs are embedded in legislation that is

broader than just youth serving. So the Secretary then had a choice

62

of transferring programs from one part of the agency to another

simply to get the youth programs over there, but in order to do

that, he’d have to transfer the entire program itself, some of which

may have nothing to do with youth serving issues.

The other thing is we found some instances where, for example,

the National Youth Sports Program is statutorily mandated to be

in one aspect of my agency and can’t be transferred unless Congress agrees to do that. So one of the things that fast track authority would allow the Secretary and the President to do is to come

to Congress with a comprehensive reorganization plan in whatever

area makes sense, and then to ask Congress to give us an up or

down vote on the reorganization plan, instead of going through 7,

8, 9, 10 different committees in order to start to piecemeal bring

things together.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you. If I could just ask, Mr. Chairman,

if we could get a list, if you had the authority today to make these

changes, if you could please provide me and my members of the

committee with a list of specific changes in this area that you

would make today, and what the statutory obstacles are to those,

to making those changes, it would be very helpful to me in analyzing this legislation. Thank you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you. Let me just say to my friend

from Maryland, we saw with the Department of Homeland Security

and other areas, when the administration does come up with a concept, it’s vetted through the committee process. These bodies here

are driven by jurisdiction. We can’t sometimes get the right result.

I think the administration, whether it’s a Bush administration or

a Kerry administration, would be more emboldened with a permanent reorganization authority, something the Presidents from

Franklin Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan had.

Now, what form does that take is something I think we would

have to sit down and discuss and try to work together to come to.

But without that, I don’t think you’re going to find anybody coming

up in an agency on their own saying, well, they ought to abolish

that agency but keep mine going back and forth. So I think that

the concept is something we need to work together on. I’ve had discussions with Mr. Waxman on this. There are certain worker safeguards and the like that would have to be included in that.

I think this hearing illustrates just one area where obviously reorganizing, streamlining, means we can get more for the same

number of dollars. And that’s really what it’s all about at a time

when resources become scarce.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized.

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the distinguished panel for being here.

I’m looking at these charts and this system which doesn’t make

a lot of sense to me. If you heard my opening testimony, it’s much,

much harder for people to try and negotiate this system who are

so vulnerable and also States. I suppose, if we also listed all the

State programs, it would fill this room with lines and goodness

knows how to make sense out of this.

So Dr. Horn, let me start off by asking you, if you had the blank

slate to really try and establish and rework this in a way that

helped the States, that streamlined this and got the money to the

63

programs where it would make the most difference somehow, and

some other organizational structure to protect and nurture our Nation’s children, do you have any idea where you would start?

Mr. HORN. Yes, I do, actually. I’d start with allowing States to

develop a single data collection and reporting system. You see,

right now what we do is we say, here’s the program, who does the

program serve. And we set up a data collection and reporting system for that program. So we have a reporting program for CPS, we

have a different reporting program for a different aspect of child

welfare.

Instead, what we ought to do is say, here’s a family. What services does this family need, and let’s develop a single data collection

and reporting system for the family, where it’s family and child focused and not program focused. What that would do is first of all

eliminate duplication and administrative burden on the part of

States and local communities. But it would also force services to

start to think coordinating rather than just in their own little box.

So as long as we have all these different data collection systems

and reporting requirements across all these different programs, it’s

going to be very difficult to get people at the local and State level

to think outside their particular box. And it’s very difficult to coordinate services, because you don’t ask the question, what services

does this family need, because you’re reporting on the service that

you provide.

So that would be the one place I would start, is to provide the

ability for States to come up with a single data reporting system

that would ask the question, not who does this program serve, but

what programs and services does the family and child need.

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. Let me shift over to Mr. Flores. My understanding is that your office is responsible for about $79 million

annually through part B State formula grants which are supposed

to provide treatment of juvenile offenders who are the victims of

child abuse and neglect. Now, the committee staff tells me that

there are no performance goals associated with this grant money

in the Department’s fiscal year 2005 performance plan. Will performance goals for this grant program be forthcoming? And I’d like

to know how you’re going to coordinate this with other Federal

agencies and develop these performance measures, to make sure

the Federal Government is speaking with one voice in addressing

these issues of abuse and neglect.

Mr. FLORES. Congressman, the President has been very clear

that he wants to see performance measures in every program, so

that we can figure out whether or not we’re actually helping the

people that we’re responsible for working with. We are taking a

look at all of the parts of OJJDP, not only to make sure that they

have performance measures, but that the performance measures

actually get us to where we want to go. One of the challenges has

been historically that, there has been a question as to what’s the

widget. Is it that at the end of the day we want to have a healthy

child in a good situation, or is it that we want to dispense a program well? I think that’s a little bit of what Dr. Horn was talking

about.

So we’re looking at changing performance measures so that they

actually have a tie-in to the ultimate success, the outcome of that

64

child, not just have we delivered it in a way that’s effective, did the

money go out to the State, did the money do what it was supposed

to accomplish. Now, where we do an excellent job under any measure is in the money that is put out to the States on issues of confinement. And the reason for that is that we have very clear outcome measures that everyone has to look at in three of the four

categories, so that we know State to State whether or not children

are where they’re supposed to be in terms of housing, whether or

not the State is still imprisoning status offenders, whether the confinement is being used in an appropriate way.

Because of that, we have an extraordinary amount of success

that every year we build on. We have very few States, I think only

one or two, that still have challenges in that area. But we’re working in that way. So the answer to your question is yes, and that

we are in those areas where performance standards have been in

place for a long time, we’re reviewing those to make sure that they

are actually outcome oriented, and not simply process oriented.

Mr. MURPHY. I hope you can do that, not only to have a standard, but to enforce them. Because even in States that may recognize that, having worked in the field myself, I’ve seen them handled horribly and really contribute to just perpetuating the cycle of

abuse among our children. It isn’t enough just to have standards,

they must be enforced vigorously and with passion and commitment. So I hope you’ll do that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. You’ll get an opportunity for more questions later. Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Horn, I was interested in your testimony and your description of various coordination efforts. You indicated that there was

more coordination going on. I’m led to believe there must be a fair

amount of coordination since there has been a reduction, and this

is between the last administration and this administration apparently, in the number of Federal programs in this area. I’m not sure

what accounts for the decrease. I wonder if it’s reorganization.

And what I’d like to know is what HHS has done with, on the

authority it has internally to reorganize the way in which it delivers services to abused and neglected children.

Mr. HORN. Well, first in terms of the issue of program reduction,

at least in the Administration on Children and Families, the number of spending authorities that I oversee has grown over the last

3 years, not reduced. Not all of them are obviously related to child

abuse and neglect, but all of them are related in some ways to families and children. And the Secretary likes to talk about one department. He likes to say that HHS is not a holding company with all

sorts of disparate interests, but all of us have an interest in the

well being of American citizens. And he’s right. And within the Administration on Children and Families, I take that to also mean

that we are one administration focused on improving the well-being

of children and families.

The one reorganization that we’ve undertaken within ACF is to

try to pull as many youth programs together and family serving

programs together and place them within this organizational box

65

called the Family and Youth Services Bureau. We’ve had some success with that, for example——

Ms. NORTON. This is for abused and neglected children in particular?

Mr. HORN. It’s for, well, we have this perspective that if you help

build strong families and you provide children with good opportunities to connect with their parents, with other caring adults in their

community, with schools and civic organizations, that you have less

abuse and neglect, as well as less crime, less depression, less suicide, less school dropout. And there’s a good deal of research to

show that.

So what we try to do is have a perspective that says we need to

strengthen families and supports for families and children as an organizational unit. And one way to do that, to do that reorganization is to try to pull as many youth serving organizations together

into one organizational box so that they can be better coordinated.

And we’ve done that. We have transferred into the Family and

Youth Services Bureau and the Family Violence Program, to integrate that into the services for youth. We’ve also in the process of

transferring, the Secretary has the Title V, Section 510 abstinence

grants, State formula grants, from HRSA into the Family and

Youth Services Bureau to integrate it with a broader positive youth

development perspective.

But there’s another abstinence education program that’s done

under the Sprands grants that’s also in HRSA. But because they’re

part of a larger authorized grantmaking authority, the Sprands

program, the Secretary can’t take out the abstinence education

grants from Sprands and transfer them over into the Family and

Youth Services Bureau to coordinate them with the——

Ms. NORTON. You could ask us for a slight change in law that

would enable you to do that.

Mr. HORN. And in fact we have. That’s part of the President’s fiscal year 2005 budget.

So I’m not here to say that reorganizations are impossible to happen without fast track authority. But certainly what fast track authority does is allows us particularly, if you want to think very

boldly, allows the President, whoever the President might be, whatever the administration might be, to not have to negotiate through

multiple committees and subcommittees to make an organization

that makes sense.

Ms. NORTON. You have, I think correctly noted that these services are delivered at the State and local level. That’s where the

quagmire is. We don’t want to blame you for that. A block grant

which simply gave the money to the State, and we’ve seen what

block grants have done in other agencies, without any mandate to

straighten that out, still leave the State, it seems to me, where it

is today, able to deliver money as it wants to.

I mentioned in my opening remarks the one-stop center notion.

But I don’t see how simply lumping the money together brings the

programs together.

Mr. FLORES. Congresswoman, forgive me, but I don’t, at least in

my area, I don’t know of any proposal for us to block grant any

funds. We do have a proposal to allow States an option to use Title

4(e) foster care funds more flexibly, something that we’ve been

66

doing under the child welfare waiver authority that States have

been experimenting with under the child welfare waiver authority

since that waiver authority was implemented as part of PERORA

in 1996.

What we’ve found in the States that have taken Title 4(e) foster

care funds and been able, where they can use them more flexibly,

is we’ve found first of all, fewer kids are going into foster care. Second of all, there is some evidence that the length of stay for those

kids in foster care, once controlled for severity of symptoms and severity of the abuse or neglect, is shorter. And there’s been no detriment in the overall well-being of children.

So all the President would like to do is provide States the ability

to opt into a more flexible funding option with Title 4(e). But that’s

not a block grant. I run block grants, I run the Social Services

block grant, the TANF block grant, the Community Services block

grant. I know what block grants look like. You give the money out

to States under a formula, they send a plan in, and as long as they

do stuff based upon their plan, everything’s OK.

But in terms of the flexible funding option for States, they would

have to front-end submit a plan which could be turned down by the

Secretary. There would be every continuation of every child protection under law for kids in foster care as currently are there. And

they would also have to have an evaluation overlay to ensure that

outcomes for kids are better off given their ability to use the funds

more flexibly.

Because the big problem right here, right now, in Title 4(e), is

that we’re spending $4.6 billion a year to do three things: help pay

for the costs of kids, maintaining them in foster care; help States

with the administrative costs of running those programs; and doing

child welfare training. Now, all of those three things are fine, but

notice I never used the word services. Within that $4.6 billion, the

largest Federal funding stream for child welfare, not one penny can

be used for services.

Does that really make sense? Why not allow States at their option to use the money also for prevention services, for wraparound

services once the kids are in foster care, for post-adoption services

if the kid is adopted? Services, it seems to me, is the name of the

game, not process. Unfortunately, we’re paying for far too much

process and far too little service.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you. The gentlelady’s time has expired.

The gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to

thank our panel for being here.

And Dr. Hefferan, I’ll begin with you. I’m one of those committee

members that is a 4–H alum, and loved every minute of it and

have a 79 year old mother who is in her 60th year as a 4–H adult

volunteer, one of those 50,000 volunteers that you mentioned. And

I commend you and your program for your aggressive pursuit of a

public-private partnership. It certainly does make a difference in

what we do.

I would hope that you all are keeping a list of best practices and

lessons learned that you are willing to share with other agencies

67

as they look for ways to have successful implementation at the

State and local level.

Ms. HEFFERAN. We certainly are, and that has been one of the

benefits of the coordination, particularly through HHS, is that we

have shared a number of practices and policies. In light of that, I

think one of the real challenges that we have with education based

programs is that the outcomes of the programs are very far removed from the input and expenditure, whether it’s Federal or

local funding. And that is an ongoing challenge as we think about

accountability, as we think about coordination with others. These

long term programs, which certainly many of us believe are the

ones that are most cost effective, are most difficult to establish the

impacts from.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Well, we thank you for your work. I hear a tremendous amount of frustration in your voice. And I would hope

that you realize there’s frustration on our part, also.

Now, let me just for clarification, how many of these 90 programs

come under your jurisdiction?

Mr. HORN. For the major child welfare programs under my jurisdiction are Title 4(e) foster care——

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Just the number.

Mr. HORN. Probably 12.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. Do you come under the CFO Act? Do you

comply with that?

Mr. HORN. Yes.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. You do, OK. And have you all participated in

part in the PMA?

Mr. HORN. Yes, we have.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK, great. And the GAO, have they done a review in the last couple of years of your department?

Mr. HORN. They certainly have done a number of reviews of a

number of the programs that we oversee.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK, great. Now, you expressed frustration with

the States. And having come from the State Senate in Tennessee,

a lot of times we had a pretty good bit of frustration with you all,

in not being able to understand how you were laying out what your

requirements were.

So let me ask you this. As we say that’s a problem and trying

to address it, and of course it’s frustrating to me to hear that you’re

waiting, that you’re just now going to talk about beginning a dialog

to address all of this when this has been going on for a long time.

So June 16th ought to be a pretty good day if we’re going to open

some communication. We want to be certain that’s successful and

that these programs continue to be funded. I agree, money should

go into the programs and not into the bureaucracy. And I’m going

to agree with you on that.

But let me ask you a question here. How do you set your accountability standards for these programs for the States? And then

the evaluated, or the data that you’re receiving back from the

States, how are you putting that in to evaluate it, and then spit

something out that helps you to say, this is where we need to

tweak this, this is where we need to push for some efficiencies?

And then what kind of accountability do you have on yourself and

on the States to improve that delivery of service?

68

Mr. HORN. First let me clarify, I’m not frustrated with the

States. I’m saying that I imagine States are frustrated by the multiple funding streams that would require them to negotiate in order

to implement child welfare services at the local level. I, like Dr.

Murphy and Dr. Watson, am a child psychologist. I’ve spent my

professional career working in and around the child welfare system, and I know from both the Federal and local level how difficult

the system can be to negotiate and work in.

In terms of accountability, there are three things that we do.

First of all, we participate in the GPRA process each year and we

have two primary child abuse and neglect GPRA outcome measures

that we challenge ourselves each year to improve up. One is the incidence, the overall incidence of child maltreatment and the second

is the recurrence or repeated maltreatment of children. And we’re

working to try to reduce those.

Second, in all of the grants that we provide, we have an evaluation or outcomes based requirement so that each of them must also

implement and then report back to us on the outcomes of the individual grants that we provide. But the most aggressive thing we’ve

done in this area in the last 3 years is the implementation of a new

system of reviews of child welfare systems in America called the

Child and Family Services Reviews. This is a new review system

that is outcome focused, not process focused, that goes in and reviews child welfare systems at the State and local level from beginning to end, from prevention and support services to CPS services

to foster care services to adoption services.

And it’s not just a paper review. Yes, we review records. But

then we go and talk to people who are involved in that case, first

to find out, does the record accurately reflect what actually happened, so we may talk with the foster parent, we may talk with

the biological family, we may talk with the case workers, we may

talk with advocates. We talk with a range of people involved in

that case. We also look at State level data, real data about treatment incidents, repeated maltreatment incidents, frequency of

placements in foster care and so on, and have set a very high bar

for positive results in all of these areas.

The result of which is, we just completed all 50 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Not one State has passed all of

our outcome based standards in our Child and Family Services review. Not one. That is very, very bad news for defenders of the status quo. If the status quo was working so well, why is it that not

one State was able to pass all of our outcome based standards

when it came to outcomes related to child welfare systems?

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, sir, and thank you all for your

service, and we look forward to working with you. Mr. Chairman,

thank you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Ms. Watson.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate

the panel. This is a deep and complex area that we’re dealing with.

But we have a model out there, and first, I want to say, I think

there ought to be a legislative proposal after you collect all of our

responses, as you respond and we respond, to get some idea where

69

we’d like to see you go. I think there ought to be a legislative proposal.

But you have a model, it was the 1996 welfare reform. And that

was worked over for a long period of time. What we have to do is

enable the local establishment, local government as well as State

government, meet your floor. We set the floor here in Congress, but

the States then have to customize and meet their needs. I would

say we need to start with a proposal that looks at services first,

should be child-centered and then in the processes at the local

level, we need to take into consideration wraparound kinds of

thinking, so we can coordinate across all areas rather than run into

walls and blocks.

We need to look at case management, because it really boils

down to the individual child, so what is the case management approach, who are the stakeholders, and then how do we collect the

data. I like the demonstration projects. Are the demonstration

projects meeting the mission goals, the objectives that were set up?

One of the problems we have in California is 58 structures called

counties that deliver these services. And the county government is

their own feifdom. Breaking across those lines to collect data is

something we haven’t figured out as well, yet.

And we need to look at outcomes and have long term evaluations

to see what is working, what is not working, and demonstration

projects are set up to do that kind of thing. And then what we need

from the Feds are the resources. Now, how we give those resources

is the challenge. Block granting in the State of California means

that money is going to go to support education, probably, because

that’s where we need it. But we also need the protective services.

So my recommendation, and then you can respond about a proposal, bring to us based on all the hearings that you have a legislative proposal, let us work it through our process and then require

the States to customize, fix it and report. And Dr. Horn, can you

respond?

Mr. HORN. Well, I agree with you. I think it’s important for us

to do all of those things and to enable States to put together seamless systems of care at the local level. And I absolutely agree with

you that TANF is a good example of this. In fact, TANF is one of

those programs that I oversee. One of the things we did in TANF,

for example, is collapse three different child care funding streams

into one because all those there child care funding streams had different eligibility requirements, different focuses and so forth. By

collapsing them into one funding stream, we were able to provide

the States with the flexibility they need to figure out how to use

child care in the service of moving people, not just off of welfare,

but out of poverty effectively. And they did a good job with it.

Let me also clarify that the President believes that it’s not just

a matter of greater flexibility in child welfare, it’s also a matter of

more resources. And the President has asked for a billion dollar increase in the Safe and Stable Families program, half of which the

Congress has appropriated thus far, but we’re still asking for the

other half. And he’s asked for a doubling in this budget of the Child

Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act funds, which would allow us,

for example, to provide preventive services to 55,000 more families

70

than are currently being provided with preventive services at the

local level.

So I agree, it is not just only about flexibility, although flexibility

is important. It’s also about additional resources, and the President

has proposed those.

Ms. WATSON. Let me just ask you, this is my final question, Mr.

Chairman, are we going to be presented, is Congress going to have

a legislative proposal referencing this reorganization that then we

can process, amend and come up with something in a period of

time?

Mr. HORN. I think that would be part of a topic of conversation

on June 16th when the Surgeon General convenes his work group.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much. Mr. Murphy.

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, a quick followup. Representative

Blackburn was asking about Federal programs and measuring

State performance and what types of measures were used. How

does this information make its way back to Congress, and how do

you close this loop to make sure we understand what the States

are doing?

Mr. HORN. We do that in a variety of fashions. We do notify Congress of the results of the Child and Family Services review process. I just testified last week before the Human Resources Subcommittee on that very issue. But judging from your question, it

sounds like we need to do a better job of keeping Congress informed.

Mr. MURPHY. I’d like to see it myself.

Mr. HORN. I’d be very happy to provide it.

Mr. MURPHY. Another question, but before I do that, Dr.

Hefferan, we’ve kind of left you alone there, I’ve seen first-hand

that programs like 4–H do a marvelous thing for children, not only

abused children but children with physical handicaps and so on. I

tip my hat to you.

But let me just throw out this last question to the whole panel.

The White House report on disadvantaged youth indicates there

are some six different clearinghouses to identify what works. So

what do we know about what works to prevent child abuse, help

children aging out of foster care and to prevent juvenile delinquency, and is the Federal Government funding the right programs? Just as importantly, I want to go back to, are we ending

the programs that don’t work?

Mr. FLORES. The Office of Justice Programs is involved currently

in trying to address that specific fact that you’ve noticed, which is

that almost every agency has a different set of what works. It creates a number of problems, because in some cases you have to have

a program on a certain list in order to be able to apply Federal

funding to it. We really would like to see a unified what works

grouping so that people could go to one place and reference programs throughout the entire Government and have a sense, with

some common denominators, as to how to judge one program

against the other, so that you can have your choices about what

you want to do, it doesn’t mandate it, but it dose give you an idea

as to what testing has been applied to that program.

71

You know because you’ve seen the evidence in a number of programs that even though they claim to have been tested and reviewed and evaluated, the evaluation is not worth the paper that

it’s printed on. Vice versa, we’ve had other programs that have

really undergone substantial evaluation and really are gold-plated

programs. We know that, and they deliver the results that they

promise.

How to make that distinguish, how to distinguish that for the

people out in the field so that communities have a quick way of

identifying programs, they don’t waste money and they don’t spend

money on trying to develop a best practices that already exists is

something that’s already underway. We’re partnering with HHS,

we’re talking to our friends at SAMHSA, at CSAP, we’re trying to

bring all of those together so that we have one way of looking at

programs and we have one place to direct people to, even though

they might be accessed through the HHS Web site or any other

home page.

Mr. MURPHY. Is this going to require some legislative action to

take place, or do you have full authority to move forward on these

changes of refining?

Mr. FLORES. I believe that we are not going to need any legislation, at least at this point I’m not aware that we do. We’re moving

forward and having conversations, and the process is underway.

We’re not in the process of asking for any legislation. We think

that we can do that. In many ways it’s simply a matter of recording

and making public what each agency already knows. Sometimes it’s

very difficult to find that out. The other part is that while we may

say it’s a best practice or has been evaluated, the person looking

at that may not have a way of determining whether the evaluation

meets their own standards.

So by making it more transparent, and by telling people, this

program was evaluated, but it was evaluated this way, it will allow

them to say, OK, well, it was evaluated, but we’re still not going

to use it in our State, because it doesn’t meet the Governor or the

head of juvenile justice in our State, it doesn’t meet our standards.

Mr. MURPHY. Do any of the other panelists have a comment on

that? Dr. Hefferan.

Ms. HEFFERAN. Actually through our connections with the university research systems, we have supported and maintained a

Web based system for evaluation of youth development programs,

parenting programs that essentially can evaluate by a criteria

based system the components of a program and match that essentially to the issues that you’re particularly facing in a community

or with a program. It’s called Cypher Net, it’s quite an inexpensive

program, Web based. It has literally millions of hits each year from

professionals across the entire country trying to look for criteria

against which to judge specific programs.

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. Dr. Horn.

Mr. HORN. At the Administration on Children and Families, we

are particularly attracted to this whole notion of positive youth development, as I mentioned. I think the problem we’ve had in recent

history is we tend to see children and youth as a series of problems

to be solved. So we have an anti-drug program on Monday, an antismoking program on Tuesday, an anti-teen pregnancy program on

72

Wednesday, all of which are very useful and needed. But we don’t

bring them together very well, and we don’t tend to treat children

and youth as the complex human beings they are, that have both

assets and deficits.

So what we’re trying to do is provide services in a new way that

treats youth and children as people that have both assets and challenges. And the problem with that is that some of the funding

streams make it difficult for us to do that. Even within the Administration on Children and Families, I’ve got 65 different spending

authorities. You’d think at least I could get those to work together.

It’s a challenge. And there are some cases where legislation may

be required as we’ve requested, for example, in the President’s fiscal year 2005 budget.

Mr. MURPHY. Well, I hope you would identify those to us, whether you have the authority or need legislative authority. I would

really ask you to report back to the committee and let us know. It’s

extremely important to this committee to know that we could followup on that, too.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you. Let me just ask a quick question before turning it over to Mr. Ruppersberger. If Congress were

to grant the President the authority to initiate the type of programmatic reorganization of the Federal Government, would you

recommend that the White House consider child welfare programs

as a candidate for reorganization, providing you, the experts in the

agency, it would give you a chance to determine the best structure,

or would you rather have the status quo?

Mr. HORN. My job is to advise the Secretary of Health and

Human Services, who then advises in turn the President. I would

certainly advise the Secretary that would be a good area for us to

look at.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Flores.

Mr. FLORES. I agree.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Dr. Hefferan.

Ms. HEFFERAN. I agree, also.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. All right, thank you very much. Mr.

Ruppersberger.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. It’s an extremely important issue, I think

the panel has done a good job in presenting. I referred to in my

opening statement about being a county executive. And I had an

issue where a child died, her name was Rita Fisher. And I put it

on my refrigerator for over a year, wondering how we could make

sure this didn’t happen again. What we did at a local level in the

social services department was do program review, literally determine what programs we could or could not afford or that weren’t

effective, so that we could then downsize or do away with those

programs to put our priority where things were needed.

I agree with you that resources need to go to families before the

problem even starts. But there are also degrees of areas that we

really have to focus on, child neglect, malnutrition. I think we really need to focus on the foster care. I think there are a lot of good

people in foster care and there are people that shouldn’t be in foster care, and a lot of accountability in that regard.

73

What I really feel is important, though, is that in the end, we

need to as quickly as we can get the moneys and the resources to

the local level. By the time you get money, and here I was a county

executive and now I’m sitting here as a Congressperson, maybe

being able to do something a little different. But by the time you

get Federal grant money, it goes to the Federal bureaucracy, the

State bureaucracy, sometimes it gets to the locals; half the money’s

gone.

What my experience shows is that we need more resources at the

local level as quickly as we can. And then from a Federal level, it

would seem to me that we need to make sure the policies are there,

we need to make sure that we are reviewing accountability and

outcome. That needs to be done. We also need to make sure that

if we have bad managers, we move them aside to make sure we

can be held accountable.

I think we’re all in agreement with some of the things that are

happening today, I think Majority Leader DeLay hit it on the head

when he said every time we turn around, we create a new program

to help in solving the problem. When in fact, I would wonder if we

could do away with some Federal programs, or consolidate Federal

programs so that we could have a coordination between drug problems versus malnutrition problems versus all these other issues.

So my question basically would be, what do you feel about the

issue of getting moneys, you keep talking about the State. I think

the State slows up a lot. And I’d like you to address that issue, between State and getting money to the actual locals, to the social

workers and people responsible at the lower level, getting moneys

to the State. Would you be able to evaluate and recommend moneys going more quickly, and I’m not sure about bypassing the

State, but we have to work on that plan.

Mr. FLORES. As a practical matter, we’ve attempted to find out

if we have a current way of doing that right now. We administer

some block grants and we administer the Drug Free Communities

program on behalf of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

That program provides money directly to communities, for them to

leverage their existing efforts in terms of addressing drug use and

other substance abuse in their communities. It allows them to partner other things and bring things together.

But one of the things that we have found consistently missing is

that person whose responsibility is simply the coordination. Somebody whose job and whose widget it is to demonstrate that actually

people are coming together and those programs are going where

they need to go. In most cases, that does not happen. So that if a

funding stream from HHS goes down, even if it makes its way to

the community level, there’s no one to say that they are going, they

are responsible for making that funding flow and the person responsible for it is talking with the block grant person who’s handling the community money that comes out from the Department

of Justice or from the Department of Agriculture.

So in our gang initiative and in our child prostitution initiative,

we have begun to fund that role for the local community, so that

we can demonstrate to them the value of having somebody whose

sole widget is not substantively to deal with any aspect that goes

to helping that child, but actually is responsible for bringing people

74

together. Now, that requires a tremendous amount of time and a

lot of force from Washington.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Horn, I’d like to hear your point.

Mr. HORN. The way that the money goes out, whether it’s to the

States or communities, local organizations or local government is

largely dictated to us by the statute. And different statutes dictate

how that money goes out in different ways. Some of the statutes

have a cap on the amount of administrative expenses that a State

can claim as they distribute the money, for example, in a community services block grant, there’s a certain amount that the State

can retain, the rest must go to community based organizations to

implement that.

But I do think that at the end of the day, you’re exactly correct,

that whatever resources are available, to the maximum extent possible, they ought to be spent at the local level where you have a

provider and a recipient of those services. We ought to challenge

ourselves to try to figure out how to maximize that amount of

money.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Well, my suggestion, you’re talking about

changing a system, then you need to identify those statutes, make

a presentation to us and let us evaluate it. Also, I think it’s important that you talk to the front line, you talk to the locals and make

sure you get the input of where money’s being wasted and the frustrations that are going on.

Unfortunately, as we keep growing we create bureaucracy. There

are always good people in bureaucracies, really a lack of management, I believe, at the top. But as far as the bureaucracy is concerned, if you look at the resources and the money that are going

just into the Federal bureaucracy, just to implement these plans,

just think if you could cut that in half and put that money out on

the street to help the children. That’s the challenge we have, I believe, on the Federal level.

I would hope you would look at that issue when you come back.

I think there’s a lot of interest on this panel, and I believe strongly

too that we need to do this quickly and from a fast track. I think

we ought to look at a fast track, because the longer we go on with

this, the more children and families will be suffering.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much. Obviously your

comments have engendered a lot of discussion, and the authority

and jurisdiction for permanent reorganization resides with this

committee, something that is basically a priority for the leader, Mr.

DeLay, who was here earlier, and myself and a lot of other members. How we proceed with that, how quickly, what we can negotiate, because we also have to get through the Senate, which has

shown little interest in this, is something that remains ahead of us.

But we appreciate all of you giving your input into this, giving

us a case study on where we are with this. Again, we appreciate

the job you’re doing. And the hearing will close. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

75

76

77

78

79

80

Æ