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

92–984 2004

TO REVIEW FEDERAL AND STATE OVERSIGHT OF 

CHILD WELFARE PROGRAMS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JANUARY 28, 2004 

Serial No. 108–30 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 

ii 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

BILL THOMAS, California, Chairman 

PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois 

E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida 

NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut 

AMO HOUGHTON, New York 

WALLY HERGER, California 

JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana 

DAVE CAMP, Michigan 

JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota 

JIM NUSSLE, Iowa 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas 

JENNIFER DUNN, Washington 

MAC COLLINS, Georgia 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona 

JERRY WELLER, Illinois 

KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri 

SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado 

RON LEWIS, Kentucky 

MARK FOLEY, Florida 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas 

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin 

ERIC CANTOR, Virginia 

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York 

FORTNEY PETE STARK, California 

ROBERT T. MATSUI, California 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York 

WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota 

MAX SANDLIN, Texas 

STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio 

Allison H. Giles, Chief of Staff 

Janice Mays, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES 

WALLY HERGER, California, Chairman 

NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut 

SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado 

JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana 

DAVE CAMP, Michigan 

PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania 

RON LEWIS, Kentucky 

ERIC CANTOR, Virginia 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

FORTNEY PETE STARK, California 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York 

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

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

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

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

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

is further refined. 

iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Advisory of January 21, 2004, announcing the hearing ....................................... 2 

WITNESSES 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Hon. Wade F. Horn, Ph.D., 

Assistant Secretary for Children and Families ................................................. 8 

U.S. General Accounting Office, Cornelia M. Ashby, Director, Education, 

Workforce, and Income Security Issues ............................................................. 18 

Alliance for Children and Families, Curtis C. Mooney ........................................ 93 

Association on American Indian Affairs, Jack F. Trope ....................................... 105 

Atwood, Thomas C., National Council For Adoption ............................................ 82 

Bell, William C., New York City Administration for Children’s Services ........... 43 

Bilchik, Shay, Child Welfare League of America .................................................. 73 

Birch, Thomas L., National Child Abuse Coalition .............................................. 97 

Burge, Cathy, Naples, FL ....................................................................................... 122 

Catholic Charities, Archdiocese of New York, Monsignor Kevin Sullivan .......... 80 

Child Welfare League of America, Shay Bilchik ................................................... 73 

DePelchin Children’s Center, Curtis C. Mooney ................................................... 93 

Frenzel, Hon. William, Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care ................ 70 

Gladwell, Lisa E., River Edge, NJ .......................................................................... 125 

Holden, Courteney Anne, Voice For Adoption ....................................................... 102 

Home School Legal Defense Association, Christopher J. Klicka ......................... 109 

Iowa Department of Human Services, Division of Behavioral, Developmental, 

and Protective Services for Families, Adults, and Children, Mary J. Nelson . 32 

Klicka, Christopher J., Home School Legal Defense Association ........................ 109 

Mooney, Curtis C., Alliance for Children and Families, and DePelchin Children’s Center ........................................................................................................ 93 

National Association of Foster Care Reviewers, Bill Stanton .............................. 56 

National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators, Mary J. Nelson . 32 

National Child Abuse Coalition, Thomas L. Birch ............................................... 97 

National Council For Adoption, Thomas C. Atwood ............................................. 82 

Nelson, Mary J., National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators, 

and Iowa Department of Human Services, Division of Behavioral, Developmental, and Protective Services for Families, Adults, and Children ............... 32 

New York City Administration for Children’s Services, William C. Bell ............ 43 

O’Hara, Marie C., Barnegat, NJ ............................................................................. 130 

Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, Office of Children, Youth, and 

Families, Wayne T. Stevenson ............................................................................ 53 

Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, Hon. William Frenzel ................. 70 

Stanton, Bill, National Association of Foster Care Reviewers, and Phoenix 

Administrative Office of the Courts, Dependent Children’s Services Division ........................................................................................................................ 56

Stevenson, Wayne T., Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, Office 

of Children, Youth, and Families ........................................................................ 53 

Sullivan, Monsignor Kevin, Catholic Charities, Archdiocese of New York ......... 80 

Trope, Jack F., Association on American Indian Affairs ...................................... 105 

Voice For Adoption, Courteney Anne Holden ........................................................ 102 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Beauchamp, Edith J., Greenbelt, MD, statement ................................................. 137 

de Santos, Patricia, Claremont, CA, statement .................................................... 144 

Evans-Baxter, Judith G., Pompano Beach, FL, letter .......................................... 147 

Voice Application Specialists International, Inc., Woodstock, GA, Maricriz 

Nolan, letter .......................................................................................................... 148 

(1) 

TO REVIEW FEDERAL AND STATE OVERSIGHT 

OF CHILD WELFARE PROGRAMS 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 2004 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:32 a.m., in 

room B–318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Wally Herger 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:] 

2 

ADVISORY 

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: 202–225–1721 

January 21, 2004 

HR–7 

Herger Announces Hearing to Review Federal and 

State Oversight of Child Welfare Programs 

Congressman Wally Herger (R–CA), Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing to review Federal and State oversight of child welfare 

programs. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, January 28, 2004, in 

room B–318 Rayburn House Office Building, beginning at 10:30 a.m. 

Oral testimony at this hearing will be from both invited and public witnesses. Invited witnesses will include Federal and State officials and other experts familiar 

with child welfare programs. Any individual or organization not scheduled for an 

oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the Subcommittee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing. 

BACKGROUND: 

On November 6, 2003, the Subcommittee held a hearing to examine a case in New 

Jersey involving four boys who were apparently starved while in the care of their 

adoptive parents. This neglect escaped the attention of caseworkers who made numerous visits to the home, and instead was first reported by a neighbor who found 

one of the boys rooting through the trash in search of food. The Federal Government 

provides approximately $7 billion to the States to operate foster care and adoption 

assistance programs intended to protect children. However, this case as well as others involving the death or abuse of children involved with the child welfare system 

raise questions about whether more needs to be done to ensure that children are 

protected and reside in safe environments rather than continuing to be subjected 

to abuse and neglect. 

On November 19, 2003, the Subcommittee held a hearing to examine improved 

monitoring of children in care by focusing on the information systems designed to 

track and protect these vulnerable children from abuse and neglect. Government officials and outside experts testified at this hearing that effective data systems are 

necessary to keep children safe. Quality information systems can provide crucial information to monitor these children and help to ensure State accountability for their 

well-being, but for this to happen States must effectively use the data they collect 

to protect and track these children. The Subcommittee’s third hearing in this series, 

to be held on January 28, 2004, will review Federal and State oversight systems 

designed to prevent abuse and neglect of children, including those under State protection. 

In announcing the hearing, Chairman Herger stated, ‘‘It is critical that we do all 

we can to ensure the safety of children. When the very systems intended to protect 

these children fail to defend them from continued abuse or neglect, we must ask 

hard questions about what more needs to be done. This hearing will give us the opportunity to learn what Federal, State, and local officials should be doing to ensure 

that children are in safe, loving environments. 

3 

FOCUS OF THE HEARING: 

The hearing will focus on what Federal, State, and local officials can do and 

should be doing to ensure the safety, permanency, and well-being of children. 

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSIONS OF REQUESTS TO BE HEARD: 

Requests to be heard at the hearing must be made by telephone to Peter Sloan 

or Kevin Herms at (202) 225–1721 no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, January 23, 

2004. The telephone request should be followed by a formal written request faxed 

to Allison Giles, Chief of Staff, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, 1102 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515, at 

(202) 225–2610. The staff of the Subcommittee will notify by telephone those scheduled to appear as soon as possible after the filing deadline. Any questions concerning a scheduled appearance should be directed to the Subcommittee staff at 

(202) 225–1025. 

In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, the Subcommittee 

may not be able to accommodate all requests to be heard. Those persons and 

organizations not scheduled for an oral appearance are encouraged to submit written statements for the record of the hearing in lieu of a personal appearance. All 

persons requesting to be heard, whether they are scheduled for oral testimony or 

not, will be notified as soon as possible after the filing deadline. 

Witnesses scheduled to present oral testimony are required to summarize briefly 

their written statements in no more than five minutes. THE FIVE-MINUTE 

RULE WILL BE STRICTLY ENFORCED. The full written statement of each 

witness will be included in the printed record, in accordance with House 

Rules. 

In order to assure the most productive use of the limited amount of time available 

to question witnesses, all witnesses scheduled to appear before the Subcommittee 

are required to submit 200 copies, along with an IBM compatible 3.5-inch diskette 

in WordPerfect or MS Word format, of their prepared statement for review by Members prior to the hearing. Testimony should arrive at the Subcommittee office, 

B–317 Rayburn House Office Building, no later than 1:00 p.m. on Monday, 

January 26, 2004. The 200 copies can be delivered to the Subcommittee staff in 

one of two ways: (1) Government agency employees can deliver their copies to B– 

317 Rayburn House Office Building in an open and searchable box, but must carry 

with them their respective government issued identification to show the U.S. Capitol 

Police, or (2) for non-government officials, the copies must be sent to the new Congressional Courier Acceptance Site at the location of 2nd and D Streets, N.E., at 

least 48 hours prior to the hearing date. Please ensure that you have the 

address of the Subcommittee, B–317 Rayburn House Office Building, on 

your package, and contact the staff of the Subcommittee at (202) 225–1025 

of its impending arrival. Due to new House mailing procedures, please avoid 

using mail couriers such as the U.S. Postal Service, UPS, and FedEx. When a 

couriered item arrives at this facility, it will be opened, screened, and then delivered 

to the Subcommittee office, within one of the following two time frames: (1) expected 

or confirmed deliveries will be delivered in approximately 2 to 3 hours, and (2) unexpected items, or items not approved by the Subcommittee office, will be delivered 

the morning of the next business day. The U.S. Capitol Police will refuse all nongovernmental courier deliveries to all House Office Buildings. 

WRITTEN STATEMENTS IN LIEU OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE: 

Please Note: Any person or organization wishing to submit a written statement 

for the printed record of the hearing must send it electronically to 

hearingclerks.waysandmeans@mail.house.gov, along with a fax copy to (202) 225– 

2610, by the close of business Wednesday, February 11, 2004. In the immediate future, the Committee website will allow for electronic submissions to be included in 

the printed record. Before submitting your comments, check to see if this function 

is available. Finally, those filing written statements who wish to have their statements distributed to the press and interested public at the hearing can follow the 

same procedure listed above for those who are testifying and making an oral presenVerDate May 21 2004 07:11 Jul 15, 2004 Jkt 092984 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\92984.XXX 92984
4 

tation. Please directly follow these guidelines to ensure that each statement 

is included in the record. 

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS: 

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

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

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

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

files for review and use by the Committee. 

1. All statements and any accompanying exhibits for printing must be submitted electronically 

to hearingclerks.waysandmeans@mail.house.gov, along with a fax copy to (202) 225–2610, in 

WordPerfect or MS Word format and MUST NOT exceed a total of 10 pages including attachments. Witnesses are advised that the Committee will rely on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record. 

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

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

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

by the Committee. 

3. All statements must include a list of all clients, persons, or organizations on whose behalf 

the witness appears. A supplemental sheet must accompany each statement listing the name, 

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

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

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

The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons with disabilities. 

If you are in need of special accommodations, please call 202–225–1721 or 202–226– 

3411 TTD/TTY in advance of the event (four business days notice is requested). 

Questions with regard to special accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as noted above. 

f 

Chairman HERGER. Good morning. I would invite everyone to 

take their seats, please. Welcome to today’s hearing. The purpose 

of this hearing is to continue our efforts to review and understand 

how well our Nation’s child welfare programs are protecting vulnerable children. Last November, the case of four boys apparently 

starved by their adopted parents in New Jersey came to the attention of the Nation. Many of us were shocked to learn that the alleged abuse and neglect of these boys had for so long escaped the 

attention of so many individuals, including child welfare workers 

who repeatedly visited their homes. We held our first hearing, 

learning what happened in this specific case, and learning how the 

boys were doing. Two months later, I understand that the boys continue to make progress in their new environments. 

Our second hearing looked at routine but important questions 

surrounding the data States collect to monitor kids in their care. 

Witnesses told us that good information systems play a vital role 

in helping States protect kids in care. We also learned that a number of States lack the capacity to use the data they collect to help 

ensure safe and permanent placements for kids. Today’s hearing 

will review Federal and State oversight of child welfare programs. 

The basic questions today are simple, but I expect that the answers 

may not be so simple. What do we do at the Federal, State, and 

local level to ensure that children are safe and placed with loving 

families? Are current measures working to protect children? What 

5 

more should we be doing to protect children in foster or adoptive 

families? 

We know the foster care system includes many thousands of loving families who provide safe, nurturing homes to vulnerable children. Without them, these children would grow up without a family 

or a place to call home. We commend them, and thank them for 

their dedication to these children. However, we also know that the 

case in New Jersey is not an isolated incident. Every one of our 

States has witnessed shocking stories of children whose abuse 

slipped through the cracks—of children missing from care, or even 

children who died while in State custody. 

We have asked representatives from the Federal Government, 

State and local government, and child welfare organizations to join 

us to discuss whether Federal and State protections are working. 

I am also pleased that a number of organizations and individuals 

have responded to our request for additional input. Finally, we are 

joined by several parents who have been involved with the child 

welfare system, and who will offer us their personal perspective. I 

thank all of our witnesses for joining us today. We tried to accommodate everyone who submitted a request to testify that met the 

Committee’s requirements and was related to the topic of today’s 

hearing. We look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses about 

ways to better promote safety for children in foster and adoptive 

families. Without objection, each Member will have the opportunity 

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

at this point. Mr. Cardin, would you like to make an opening statement? 

[The opening statement of Chairman Herger follows:] 

Opening Statement of the Honorable Wally Herger, Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources, and a Representative in Congress from 

the State of California 

Good morning and welcome to today’s hearing. The purpose of this hearing is to 

continue our efforts to review and understand how well our nation’s child welfare 

programs are protecting vulnerable children. 

Last November the case of four boys apparently starved by their adoptive parents 

in New Jersey came to the attention of the Nation. Many of us were shocked to 

learn that the alleged abuse and neglect of these boys had for so long escaped the 

attention of so many individuals, including child welfare workers who repeatedly 

visited their home. We held our first hearing to learn what happened in this specific 

case and to learn how the boys were doing. Two months later, I understand that 

the boys continue to make progress in their new environments. 

Our second hearing looked at routine but important questions surrounding the 

data States collect to monitor kids in their care. Witnesses told us good information 

systems play a vital role in helping States protect kids in care. We also learned that 

a number of States lack the capacity to use data they collect to help ensure safe 

and permanent placements for kids. 

Today’s hearing will review Federal and State oversight of child welfare programs. 

The basic questions today are simple, but I expect the answers may not be so simple. What do we do at the Federal, State, and local level to ensure children are safe 

and placed with loving families? Are current measures working to protect children? 

And what more should we be doing to protect children in foster or adoptive families? 

We know the foster care system includes thousands of loving families who provide 

safe, nurturing homes to vulnerable children. Without them, these children would 

grow up without a family or a place to call home. We commend them and thank 

them for their dedication to these children. 

However, we also know that the case in New Jersey is not an isolated incident. 

Every one of our States has witnessed shocking stories of children whose abuse 

slipped through the cracks, of children missing from care or even children who died 

while in State custody. 

6 

We’ve asked representatives from the Federal Government, State and local government, and child welfare organizations to join us to discuss whether Federal and 

State protections are working. I’m also pleased that a number of organizations and 

individuals have responded to our request for additional input. Finally, we are 

joined by several parents who have been involved with the child welfare system, 

who will offer us their personal perspective. We look forward to hearing from all 

of our witnesses today about ways to better promote safety for children in foster and 

adoptive families. 

f 

Mr. CARDIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I very much 

appreciate your leadership in putting together this hearing. I think 

this is a very important hearing for us. It is not our first in the 

area of child welfare or protecting our children; we have had several other hearings. Yet this hearing is particularly meaningful because of the wide diversity of the panels that will be appearing before us, and their expertise in this area. We should be able to get 

the perspective from just about every one of the stakeholders in our 

child welfare system, and I thank you very much for convening this 

hearing. 

None of us will forget the hearing we had in regard to the case 

in New Jersey that you mentioned, where four children were literally being starved. Yet we don’t have to go to New Jersey. I think 

we can look in each one of our States and find that there is a lot 

more that needs to be done to protect the welfare of children. I notice in my own State of Maryland that there is a highly profiled 

case that is currently going on about a child who was beaten to 

death. So, each of us need to really scrutinize what is happening 

in our own individual States and look—and I particularly appreciate Dr. Wade Horn being here—look at what we can do at the national level to provide the right structure to protect our children. 

Let me make a couple of observations. First, there is the issue 

of funding. I think we have to adequately fund the programs in this 

area. I do have concerns about the open-ended funding for children 

that are placed out of home—but that we have a capped funding 

source for preventive services in order to keep our children safe 

and healthy. I think we need to take a look at that as we review 

the budget of this country. Second, the child welfare system is only 

as good as the people that are in the system who provide the leadership. When we look at the turnover, particularly of caseworkers—they are the frontline people—we know that we have a 

problem here of how to attract and retain the best people to stay 

in this very difficult arena, so that they can provide the leadership 

and experience necessary to protect our children. Third, there is 

the issue of what the Federal role should be. I know that we are 

all struggling with providing the flexibility to local government. We 

want to do the best we can to allow the locals to do what they 

think is right, and I support that. I support the flexibility. Yet 

there needs to be Federal accountability. We need a Federal system 

that says that every child is precious, and that we need to protect 

vulnerable children. 

During past hearings, I have expressed concern about the Bush 

Administration’s child welfare proposals—that they fail to adequately address these three core issues that I mentioned. I am concerned about the President’s budget, as to whether it will be adeVerDate May 21 2004 07:11 Jul 15, 2004 Jkt 092984 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\92984.XXX 92984
7 

quate to meet these objectives. I know that the Administration has 

proposed the block granting of child welfare dollars. That gives me 

a great deal of concern, because I see in every case that we have 

gone to block grants, it is followed with a reduction of the Federal 

Government’s role in meeting these needs. Look at the Social Services Block Grant program (title XX of the Social Security Act, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 1987, P.L. 100–203) that was at 

one time funded at $2.8 billion. Its funding is now down to $1.7 billion. Look at the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 

reauthorization. The TANF program has not kept up with inflation, 

and the chances of this Congress approving a TANF reauthorization that will reflect inflation—buying the same amount for the dollars that are being made available—is not very likely. So, we have 

seen that when the Federal Government goes from a guaranteed 

funding program to a block grant funding program, it is usually followed by less Federal funds. 

Nevertheless, I remain hopeful that we can work together, Mr. 

Chairman, because this is an area for which we all share the same 

objective. We all want to make sure that America’s children are 

protected—particularly the most vulnerable. So, on behalf of the 

Democratic Members, we want to continue to work without party 

distinction here. We want to be able to develop a national commitment to our vulnerable children. We want to improve our current 

system and make it accountable. We want to provide the resources 

that are necessary, so that we can truly protect our children, and 

so we don’t have to read in the paper about these horrible abuse 

cases that should have been corrected. I look forward to hearing 

from our witnesses. 

[The opening statement of Mr. Cardin follows:] 

Opening Statement of the Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Maryland 

Mr. Chairman, I am glad we are here today to continue a series of hearings on 

our Nation’s child welfare system. These discussions may not get reported on the 

front pages of any newspaper, but they are vitally important to the nearly one million children who are victims of abuse and/or neglect every year, and to the half 

million children who now reside in foster care. 

The written testimony provided today in combination with the comments we have 

heard in our past hearings appears to illustrate a growing consensus on a few key 

issues. 

First, the current child welfare system grossly under-funds services designed to 

prevent child abuse by strengthening families. Experts, administrators, and advocates alike have repeatedly pointed out that the Federal Government provides openended funding for out-of-home care, while providing only limited, capped funds for 

preventive services. 

Second, the child welfare system is only as good those who run it—from the top 

all the way down to the frontline caseworker. To make real improvements, sufficient 

political will has to exist within those making policy decisions, and adequate experience and training is needed by those making the hard decisions every day about 

how to care for children in troubled homes. Regrettably, we know that low pay, high 

caseloads and inadequate training has led to rapid turnover for child welfare caseworkers—with their average tenure lasting less than two years. 

Third, the results of the recent Child and Family Service Reviews, past and current litigation revolving around the child welfare system, and recent reports on specific child abuse cases (including the disturbing story about an adoptive family in 

New Jersey), all illustrate the clear need for a strong Federal presence in ensuring 

the safety of our most vulnerable children. 

This does not mean we cannot provide flexibility to our States and communities— 

because we can and should. But it does mean the Federal Government must deVerDate May 21 2004 07:11 Jul 15, 2004 Jkt 092984 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\92984.XXX 92984
8 

mand better outcomes for abused children, while providing the necessary resources 

to promote that goal. 

During past hearings, I have expressed concern that the Bush Administration’s 

child welfare proposal fails to adequately address these three core issues. The President’s plan is designed to be budget neutral, indicating a belief that no new resources are needed to provide protection and permanency for at-risk children. 

I do not think the evidence before us supports such a conclusion. 

I also have grave doubts about the long-term impact of effectively block-granting 

nearly all child welfare funding. Beyond the question of what happens if caseloads 

go up, I am concerned about the Federal financial commitment over time. The Social 

Services Block Grant, which among other things funds child protective services, has 

been cut from $2.8 billion a year in 1996 to $1.7 billion today. Furthermore, the 

TANF block grant is not keeping up with inflation, meaning it is set to lose about 

a quarter of it purchasing power over the next five years. In short, block grants too 

often lead to spending cuts. 

Nevertheless, I remain hopeful that we can work together on a comprehensive solution to the problems now confronting our child welfare system. We all agree there 

is a problem, and I think there is a fair amount of consensus about what is causing 

that problem. That is an important first step towards moving to a meaningful solution. I look forward to taking the next step so that we can better protect our most 

vulnerable children. Thank you. 

f 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Cardin. Before we move on 

to our testimony, I want to remind our witnesses to limit their oral 

statement to 5 minutes. However, without objection, all the written 

testimony will be made a part of the permanent record. As you will 

note from the witness list, we have a number of individuals scheduled to testify today. We expect to receive testimony from Dr. Wade 

Horn and the first panel before breaking for lunch. Then we expect 

to return for the remaining witnesses, starting at approximately 

1:30 p.m. We appreciate everyone’s patience in allowing us to hear 

from so many witnesses on such an important topic today. To 

begin, I would like to welcome Dr. Wade Horn, Assistant Secretary 

for Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS). Dr. Horn has been before the Subcommittee on a number of occasions, and I thank him for appearing 

before us today. Dr. Horn to testify. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WADE F. HORN, PH.D., ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Dr. HORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee. I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss Federal child welfare oversight activities, 

and to share with you initiatives we are undertaking to further 

strengthen child welfare services in America. The Administration 

for Children and Families uses several mechanisms to work with 

States to assess State and local child welfare systems, to measure 

compliance with Federal laws, and to hold States accountable, both 

for meeting Federal requirements, and, more importantly, for 

achieving positive outcomes for children and families. We also use 

information gathered from our various reviews to provide targeted 

technical assistance that is responsive to individual State needs, in 

an effort to help improve their systems and services. 

The principal mechanisms for Federal oversight include title IV– 

E eligibility reviews, reviews of the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS), reviews of the statewide 

9 

Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS), and the 

Child and Family Services Review (CFSR). The CFSRs are the cornerstone of our efforts to review State performance, and ensure a 

State’s compliance with key provisions of Federal law. It is also our 

means to partner with the States in identifying areas that need improvement, and working to bring about those improvements. The 

CFSRs began in fiscal year 2001, and to date, we have completed 

48 of them. 

The CFSRs cover all areas of child welfare services, from child 

protection and family preservation, to adoption and positive youth 

development. The review itself includes a self-assessment phase, 

followed by an intensive on-site review in which we pair teams of 

Federal and State staff to review cases and interview children, parents, foster parents, and stakeholders, to identify areas of strength 

in each State, and areas that require improvement. When weaknesses are identified, States enter into a Program Improvement 

Plan (PIP) to address the areas where we find deficiencies. To date, 

31 PIPs have been approved. After the PIP period ends, States will 

undergo a second review—and we continue this process until the 

State comes into compliance on all of the 14 areas under review. 

If a State fails to carry out provisions of this PIP, or fails to achieve 

its goals, we will begin imposing applicable penalties. 

We recognize that providing quality technical assistance is critical to helping States get the most out of the review process and 

to bring about needed change. Therefore, the Administration provides over $8 million annually to support 10 national resource centers, whose role is to build the capacity of State, local, tribal, and 

other publicly administered and supported child welfare agencies. 

The national resource centers are providing technical assistance to 

States in different stages of the CFSR process. These reviews are 

beginning to make a significant contribution to improving child 

welfare services across the country. However, we know we must do 

more in order to better protect children, support families, and promote timely permanency. Therefore, last year, the President unveiled a bold new proposal—the Child Welfare Program Option— 

that would allow States to choose a flexible alternative funding 

structure, to design more effective ways to strengthen services to 

vulnerable children and families. States that choose the program 

option would be able to use funds for foster care payments, as well 

as other child welfare services, such as prevention activities and 

case management. While States that choose this option would have 

much greater flexibility in how they use title IV–E funds, they 

would continue to be required to maintain the child safety protections under current law. 

We believe that this option would offer a powerful new means for 

States to structure their child welfare services programs in a way 

that supports the goals of safety, timely permanency, and enhanced 

well-being for children and families, while relieving them of significant administrative burdens. We appreciate the Committee’s support in working with us on crafting legislative language to make 

this proposal a reality. Finally, I would like to mention another 

Presidential priority that speaks to a concern Mr. Cardin brought 

up in his opening comments, and which directly supports State efforts to provide needed services to children and families. The ProVerDate May 21 2004 07:11 Jul 15, 2004 Jkt 092984 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\92984.XXX 92984
10 

moting Safe and Stable Families amendments of 2001 (P.L. 107– 

133) fund family support, family preservation, time-limited reunification, adoption promotion, and support services, and provides 

funding for the Court Improvement Program. The President, as you know, has proposed an increase of $1 billion in this program over 5 years. Thus far, Congress has appropriated approximately half that amount. The President is firm in 

his commitment to continue to seek and secure full funding—$505 

million a year—for this important program. We ask for your continued support of this vital investment in our Nation’s children and 

families. We have made great strides in the field of child welfare, 

but the work of assuring the safety, permanency, and well-being of 

every child who comes to the attention of a child welfare agency or 

court remains a tremendously challenging task. We are committed 

to working with the States, Members of Congress, communitybased organizations, and concerned citizens to continuously strive 

for better outcomes for all of these children. Thank you, and I 

would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Horn follows:] 

Statement of the Honorable Wade F. Horn, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary for 

Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to appear before you to discuss issues related to Federal child welfare oversight and 

the President’s commitment to improving the lives of vulnerable children and families. Through the development of national outcome measures, and the implementation of the results-oriented Child and Family Services Review process, we have built 

a national consensus on the key goals for child welfare: assuring children’s safety, 

meeting children’s needs for timely permanency in a loving and stable family, and 

promoting child and family well-being. I am pleased to have this opportunity to provide a brief overview of our Federal oversight activities and to share with you initiatives we are undertaking to further strengthen child welfare services. 

Overview of Child Welfare Oversight 

The role of Federal child welfare oversight is to monitor States and federally recognized Tribes to ensure they are meeting their responsibilities of protecting our nation’s most vulnerable children and providing effective services to at-risk families. 

The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) uses several mechanisms to 

work with the States to assess State and local child welfare systems, to measure 

compliance with Federal laws and to hold States accountable both for meeting Federal requirements and, more importantly, for achieving positive outcomes for children and families. We also use information gathered from our various reviews to 

provide targeted technical assistance that is responsive to individual State needs in 

an effort to help them improve their systems and services. We urge States to collect 

and analyze information in a manner that promotes a culture of continuous assessment and improvement, rather than waiting for the next tragedy to call for reform. 

The following are the principle mechanisms for Federal oversight of child welfare 

systems: 

• Title IV–E Eligibility Reviews—Title IV–E reviews focus on whether a child 

meets the statutory eligibility requirements for foster care maintenance payments. Federal funds are disallowed for cases that fail to meet these requirements. If a State fails in more than a specific percentage of cases, it is considered to be out of compliance with the Federal foster care program requirements. 

Most of the States reviewed to date were in substantial compliance with the eligibility requirements and most of the remainder are in the process of implementing corrective action plans. 

• The Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS)— 

AFCARS collects case level information on all children under the care of the 

State in foster care and those children adopted from the State public child welfare system. It also includes information on adoptive and foster parents. The 

AFCARS review encompasses assessing the ability of a State’s automated information system to gather, extract and submit the correct AFCARS data accuVerDate May 21 2004 07:11 Jul 15, 2004 Jkt 092984 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\92984.XXX 92984
11 

rately. The review process is a rigorous evaluation of the State’s system and allows the review team to identify problems, investigate the causes, and suggest 

solutions during the review. 

• Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS)—Through 

these reviews we assess and inspect the planning, design, and operation of 

SACWIS systems to determine how such systems meet the requirements imposed in the law, regulations, guidelines, and in the State’s unique business 

plan. ACF evaluates all mandatory functional components (e.g. intake, screening, assessment, and investigations) and all the optional components the State 

elected to include in the system design (e.g. court processing and contract monitoring). The SACWIS can function as a ‘‘case management’’ system that serves 

as the electronic case file for children and families served by the States’ child 

welfare programs. Twenty-nine States now have operational systems that are 

comprehensive and capable of supporting both improved case management and 

required data reporting. 

• Child and Family Services Review—The CFS Review is designed to ensure that 

State child welfare agency practices are in conformity with Federal child welfare requirements, to determine what is actually happening to children and 

families as they are engaged in State child welfare services, and to assist States 

with enhancing their capacity to help children and families involved with the 

child welfare system achieve positive outcomes. 

The CFS Review is the most comprehensive Federal child welfare monitoring tool 

we have and is the focus of my testimony today. 

Child and Family Services Reviews 

The Child and Family Services Review is the cornerstone of our efforts to review 

State performance and ensure compliance with key provisions of law. It also is our 

means to partner with the States in identifying areas that need improvement and 

in working with them to bring about those improvements. I would like to take a 

few moments to describe the reviews and what we are learning from them. 

The CFS Review began in FY 2001 and to date we have completed 48 reviews 

including 46 States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. Only 4 reviews remain: Mississippi, Rhode Island, Nevada, and New Jersey. These reviews will be 

completed by the end of March 2004. 

The CFS Review covers all areas of child welfare services, from child protection 

and family preservation, to adoption and positive youth development. The review requires that State child welfare agencies, in collaboration with a range of other State 

and local representatives, engage in an intense self-examination of their practices 

and analyze detailed data profiles that the Federal Government provides from our 

national databases on child welfare. 

We follow the self-assessment phase of the review with an intense onsite review— 

in which we pair teams of Federal and State staff to review cases and interview 

children, parents, and foster parents—to identify areas of strength in State child 

welfare programs and areas that require improvement. This joint approach to reviewing States has had the effect of not only engaging States in identifying their 

own strengths and weaknesses, but also in building the commitment of States to 

make needed improvements and strengthen their capacity to self-monitor between 

Federal reviews. 

When weaknesses are identified, States enter into Program Improvement Plans 

(PIP) to address any of the areas where we find deficiencies. The PIP must be submitted for approval within 90 days of the completion of their final report. To date, 

31 Program Improvement Plans have been approved. 

We recognize that providing quality technical assistance is critical to helping 

States get the most out of the review process and bring about needed change. Therefore, the Administration provides over $8 million annually for 10 national resource 

centers whose role is to build the capacity of State, local, tribal and other publicly 

administered or supported child welfare agencies. These resource centers are organized around subject areas including: Family-Centered Practice; Organizational Improvement; Foster Care and Permanency Planning; Information Technology in Child 

Welfare; Special Needs Adoption; Youth Services; Child Maltreatment; Abandoned 

Infants; Community-Based Family Resource and Support Programs; and Legal and 

Judicial Issues. In addition to these ACF-funded resources centers, we also are 

partnering with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration in supporting a National Center on Substance Abuse and Child Welfare. 

The national resource centers are providing technical assistance to States in different stages of the CFS Review process. For example, the National Resource Center 

for Organizational Improvement has guided many States in developing work plans 

12 

for the statewide assessment portion of the review and other resource centers have 

assisted States in developing their Program Improvement Plans. 

After the Program Improvement period ends, States will undergo a second review, 

and will continue this process until they come into compliance on all of the 14 areas 

under review. 

We hold the States accountable for achieving the provisions of their Program Improvement Plans but, in order to assist them in making needed improvements, we 

suspend Federal penalties while a State is implementing its plan. If a State fails 

to carry out the provisions of its Program Improvement Plan or fails to achieve its 

goals, we will begin imposing applicable penalties. 

Among the most significant findings across the 46 States, Puerto Rico, and the 

District of Columbia are the following: 

• States are performing somewhat better on safety outcomes for children than on 

permanency and well-being. Overall, States are responding to reports of abuse 

and neglect in a timely manner, and are providing services to prevent out-ofhome placement when appropriate. 

• States need to work on preventing repeat abuse and neglect of children and 

need to improve the level of services provided to families to reduce the risk of 

future harm, including monitoring families’ participation in services. 

• The timely achievement of permanency outcomes, especially adoption, for children in foster care is one of the weakest areas of State performance. 

• Most of the States need to make significant improvements in their judicial processes for monitoring children in foster care, such as assuring timely court hearings and increasing their attention to timely termination of parental rights, 

where appropriate. 

• There is a strong correlation between frequent caseworker visits with children 

and positive findings in other areas, such as timely permanency achievement 

(which is one of the most difficult areas for States to address effectively) and 

indicators of child well-being. 

• In the area of well being, States are strongest in meeting the educational needs 

of children, followed by physical health, and then mental health. States need 

to improve the way in which they assess the needs of family members and provide services, and the way in which they engage parents and children in developing case plans. In particular, States need to focus on their work with fathers, 

including identifying fathers and engaging them in services. 

• There are important differences in the level of services provided to intact families, as opposed to families whose children are in foster care, often with less attention to the intact families. We believe that many States need to strengthen 

the up-front preventive services they provide to intact families if they are to be 

successful in preventing the unnecessary break-up of families and in protecting 

those children who remain at home rather than being placed in foster care. 

The Child and Family Services Review is making a significant contribution to improving child welfare services across the country, but there is still much work to 

be done. We know that we must do more in order to better protect children, support 

families and promote timely permanency. Therefore, the President has put forth a 

bold new Child Welfare Financing proposal that would strengthen State child welfare systems and help States better meet the needs of America’s most vulnerable 

children and families. 

Child Welfare Program Option 

In FY 2004, the President unveiled a new proposal, the Child Welfare Program 

Option that would allow States to choose a flexible, alternative financing structure 

over the current title IV–E foster care entitlement program. Over the years, we consistently have heard from States that the title IV–E foster care program is too restrictive because it only provides funds for the poorest children who have been removed from the home. 

The program also has been criticized for failing to support the goal of permanency. 

While reimbursement for foster care and related case management services is openended, title IV–E funds may not be used for other types of services that could prevent a child from needing to be placed in care in the first place, or that would facilitate a child’s returning home, or moving to another permanent placement. 

Under the President’s proposal, States could choose to administer their foster care 

program more flexibly, with a fixed allocation of funds over a five year period, 

should this approach better support their unique child welfare needs. States that 

choose not to receive funding provided by this option would continue operating 

under the current title IV–E entitlement program. 

13 

The Program Option provides States with more flexibility so they can design more 

effective ways to strengthen services to vulnerable children and families. States that 

choose the Program Option would be able to use funds for foster care payments, prevention activities, permanency efforts (including subsidized guardianships), case 

management, administrative activities (including developing and operating State information systems), training for child welfare staff and other such service related 

child welfare activities. States would be able to develop innovative and effective systems for preventing child abuse and neglect, keeping families and children safely 

together, and moving children toward adoption and permanency quickly. 

While States that choose this option would have much greater flexibility in how 

they use funds, they would continue to be required to maintain the child safety protections under current law, including requirements for conducting criminal background checks and licensing foster care providers, obtaining judicial oversight over 

decisions related to a child’s removal and permanency, meeting permanency 

timelines, developing case plans for all children in foster care, and prohibiting racebased discrimination in foster and adoptive placements. The proposal also includes 

maintenance of effort requirement to ensure that States selecting the new option 

maintain their existing level of investment in the program. 

In addition to providing a new option for States, the President’s proposal includes a $30 million set-aside for federally recognized Indian Tribes or consortia that can 

demonstrate the capacity to operate a title IV–E program. Currently Tribes are not 

eligible to receive title IV–E funding, although some Tribes are able to access funds 

through agreements with States. This proposal would open the possibility for federally recognized Tribes to receive direct title IV–E funding. We believe this proposal 

will result in the development of innovative child welfare programs that ultimately 

will better serve vulnerable children. 

We believe that this option would offer a powerful new means for States to structure their child welfare services program in a way that supports the goals of safety, 

timely permanency and enhanced well-being for children and families, while relieving them of administrative burdens. Given the continuing problems faced by States 

in managing their child welfare programs, we all must think about more creative 

ways to strengthen these programs. We appreciate the support of this Committee 

as demonstrated by holding hearings such as this and in working with the Administration on creating legislative language to make this proposal a reality. 

Finally, I would like to mention another Presidential priority that directly supports State efforts to provide needed services to children and families. As discussed 

earlier, the Child and Family Services Review points to States ongoing struggle with 

providing services to children remaining in their own home as well as the need for 

improvements in State judicial processes relating to child welfare. The Promoting 

Safe and Stable Families Program funds family support, family preservation, timelimited reunification, and adoption promotion and support services and provides 

funding for the Court Improvement Program. The President is deeply committed to 

securing full funding, $505 million, for this important program and we ask for your 

support of this vital investment in our Nation’s families. 

Conclusion 

We have made great strides in the field of child welfare, but the work of assuring 

the safety, permanency and well-being of every child who comes to the attention of 

a child welfare agency or court in this country remains a tremendously challenging 

task. We are committed to working with the States, Members of Congress, community-based organizations and concerned citizens to continuously strive for better outcomes for all of these children. 

I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to discuss our ongoing 

efforts to monitor the child welfare system through the Child and Family Services 

Review. More than any recent initiative of the Federal Government, the Child and 

Family Services Review has captured the attention of State child welfare agencies. 

It also has gained the attention of the media, State legislatures, and others who 

know that changing complex child welfare systems will not be fast or easy. We, in 

the Administration for Children and Families, are committed to working with 

States, and to using the knowledge that we are gaining through the review to support States in improving the outcomes of child welfare services for the children and 

families they serve. 

I also would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to highlight the 

President’s bold new vision for strengthening the child welfare system through the 

Child Welfare Program Option. We are proud of the progress we have made to-date 

in providing more resources to States to support children, youth and families and 

look forward to working closely with you on the President’s Child Welfare Option 

Proposal. 

14 

I would be pleased to answer any questions. 

f 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Dr. Horn, for your testimony. 

First to inquire is the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Lewis. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Horn, I note that the 

CFSRs are key to Federal oversight of the child welfare programs. 

What lessons have we learned from these reviews, and what, if 

any, changes in practice have resulted from these reviews? 

Dr. HORN. The primary thing we have learned is that every 

State we have reviewed so far—and we have reviewed all but four 

at this point—have areas of strength, and areas that require improvement. What we are doing is working with each individual 

State to develop a plan that is consistent with our findings from 

the CFSR to improve the child welfare system in that State. We 

know we set the bar high when it comes to passing each of the elements within the CFSR. We did that on purpose because we want 

to use it as a way to drive improvements in the system, not simply 

to create a system that validates what States are already doing in 

child welfare. We feel that this is a very critical review process, 

which will allow us to help each individual State improve their systems. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you. While States are implementing their 

PIPs, of course, as they are required to by these reviews, any financial penalties they may incur are waived. Do you ever foresee a 

time when these reviews may become more stringent, for example, 

by linking Federal funding to achievement of expected standards? 

Dr. HORN. It is my personal hope that we will not ever impose 

a penalty, because States will have adequately implemented their 

PIPs and met the goals that are outlined in the PIPs. The goal of 

the penalties is not to recoup Federal dollars, but rather to drive 

improvements in the system. The hope is that through this process, 

every State will have an improved child welfare system, in order 

to better ensure the safety, permanency, and well-being of children 

that interact with the system. However, if in the course of implementing the PIP, a State either does not do it adequately, or does 

not meet the goals that they set in their PIP, we certainly stand 

ready to impose penalties. We are in the process now of going back 

to the States that have started to implement their PIPs, and we 

look forward to determining how much progress has been made. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you. 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. The Ranking Member, the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cardin, to inquire. 

Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Horn, it is always 

a pleasure to have you before our Committee. We thank you for 

your commitment in this area. There is one area that we may 

agree on—the funding for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families 

program—which you would like to see in the Administration’s request for full funding. You are right, Congress has not approved 

that. Wouldn’t it be easier if we just made that mandatory funding? That way, you wouldn’t have to worry about a fickle Congress. 

I certainly would be willing to support that. If we could get some 

Administration support, maybe we could get it done on the mandatory side. 

15 

Dr. HORN. The President is committed to—— 

Mr. CARDIN. Good. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. HORN. To securing full funding for his request. At the end 

of the day, a dollar out of discretionary funds is equal to the same 

dollar out of mandatory spending, in terms of purchasing power at 

the State level. 

Mr. CARDIN. It is not the same here on Capitol Hill. You pay 

a price on the discretionary side, whereas the mandatory side 

speaks to priorities. I agree with you that this is a program that 

is working, and would provide us additional help with regard to the 

concerns of today’s hearing. So, I would just urge you—this may be 

one area on which we could reach bipartisan agreement, and not 

have to confront the appropriators every year. The U.S. General 

Accounting Office (GAO) will testify a little bit later about workforce deficiencies, talking about the high turnover issue that is not 

a surprise to any of us, since caseworkers are given a large number 

of children that they must monitor. That is unacceptable. Is HHS 

looking at coming in with some Federal guidelines as to what is the 

appropriate caseload for caseworkers, or other ways to try to deal 

with the problem of high turnover, inadequate training, and inadequate pay for caseworkers? 

Dr. HORN. Certainly, this is something that we look at when we 

go out and do the CFSRs. One of the things that we try to take 

a look at in the cases that we review, for example, is whether there 

are timely visits to foster homes. If you are struggling with 120 

cases per caseworker, it is harder to visit a foster home on a 

monthly basis than if you have a more reasonable caseload. I 

worked in the child welfare system myself. In fact, my first internship when I was in graduate school was as a caseworker in Child 

and Family Services in Southern Illinois, and I can speak from personal experience that it is harder to do your job when you have 

high caseloads versus lower caseloads. I think one of the difficulties 

that States face in this area is the categorical nature of the funding 

streams that come from the Federal Government to the States. One 

of the things that we would like to see happen with the President’s 

flexible funding proposal, is to break down those categorical walls 

and allow States, if they feel that one of the problems they are experiencing is caseloads that are too high, to use those funds not 

just to support kids in terms of maintenance payments in foster 

care, but to hire more caseworkers, if that is what they need. 

Mr. CARDIN. My concern with that is, I think perhaps just the 

opposite will happen. I know the pressures that State governments 

are facing today. I know what is happening in the State of Maryland during the legislative sessions. We just got the Governor’s 

budget. It is not balanced very well at all, and the prognosis for 

next year is even worse. All of the programs in regard to this area 

are under constant attack, and caseload is one of the areas that 

they fudge. I would think that unless there is some direct guidance 

from the Federal Government, either a carrot or stick, it is unlikely 

that Maryland, even though it wants to make progress in this area, 

could make progress in this area. 

I would just suggest two things. One is to set up Federal guidelines as to what is acceptable. Perhaps offer incentive bonuses for 

16 

States that achieve certain levels on training, retention, and caseload numbers. That might be a way in which federalism could truly 

work—where we offer encouragement to the States. We could offer 

the States additional incentives through bonus payments, and then 

see how they respond to it. I think just giving States a block grant, 

hoping that they will hire more people, in today’s environment, is 

a little bit too much trust with regard to the political realities they 

are confronting. I would just mention one more thing because my 

time is running out, and that is, we have gotten word that some 

States, rather than comply with the review requirements of law, 

may very well just take the Federal penalties, because it is just too 

costly for them to do the reviews. Have you heard this? Are you 

concerned that you might, in fact, find States prepared to incur the 

Federal penalties rather than make improvements on the CFSRs 

that we think are so important to understanding what is going on 

in our States? 

Dr. HORN. I would hope not. I have not heard that any specific 

State has taken that position. The penalties are escalating, so they 

can become quite significant. As I indicated in my response to Congressman Lewis, our perspective is not that this is a system to recoup Federal dollars, but rather to drive improvement in State systems. As I also mentioned, we are using our network of national 

resource centers to help States figure out how to make the improvements that are required in their system. I do believe that part 

of the problem, again, is the categorical nature of the funding 

streams. I appreciate your passion on this issue, and your longstanding interest in improving the child welfare system. I would, 

however, respectfully challenge your description of the President’s 

proposal as a block grant, precisely because a block grant is one in 

which the money goes out in one form to all the States. If a State 

chooses to continue to have an open-ended entitlement program, 

they can continue to do that under the President’s proposal. 

Mr. CARDIN. The problem is that, because it is budget neutral, 

if the caseload goes up in a particular State, they are going to lose 

money from this program that they would have otherwise received. 

Dr. HORN. Yes. 

Mr. CARDIN. So, it is capping the dollars that are going into the 

program. 

Dr. HORN. We have heard that. First of all, I don’t deny that 

there would be anxiety about this at the State level. We heard the 

same argument in 1996 when Aid to Families with Dependent 

Children (AFDC) was replaced with the TANF program. We have 

recently done an analysis of the amount of money a State would 

have had under AFDC over the last 6 years if the caseloads had 

declined as they had under TANF—if it is true that the TANF declines are all due to the economy, versus what they actually got 

under the TANF program. In contrast to your opening statement, 

suggesting that block grants inevitably lead to fewer dollars, our 

analysis showed that States got $54 billion more over the last 6 

years under TANF than if they had the AFDC program. 

Mr. CARDIN. That is based on the fact that AFDC was a cash 

assistance program. On the other hand, TANF is a program whose 

support extends beyond cash assistance. The program is working, 

but I think it is unfair to say that the States would have gotten 

17 

less money. The truth is that we probably would have developed 

other initiatives to deal with the related programs other than cash 

assistance. So, I understand what you are saying and I think you 

can make that argument, but I also think that when you look at 

the total services that are now being provided, which are much 

more comprehensive than this cash assistance, it is working. It is 

doing exactly what Congress said. States don’t have as much 

money as they had in 1996. They can’t buy as much today as they 

could in 1996. 

Dr. HORN. One of our concerns, Congressman, is that the percentage of children in foster care who are eligible is declining. We 

think it is declining, at least in part, because of the link back to 

the AFDC program. We have had to readjust our baseline estimates downward each of the last 3 years. If you were to lock in 

the amount of money that is available under the current baseline 

projections, you actually get a good deal by capturing the money 

now rather than seeing the amount of money available ratchet 

down over the next 5 years. 

Mr. CARDIN. We are in agreement on that point. I just wish 

that all States could get away from the look back provision. 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you. Dr. Horn, you have read about, 

as virtually all of us have, the New Jersey starvation case involving the Jackson family. In your opinion, how could that situation 

escape the notice of so many people, neighbors, fellow worshipers, 

and others, for so long, and are there specific changes that this 

case suggests we should be making on the national level? 

Dr. HORN. I am not familiar with all the details of that particular case, but I am as incredulous as others with the details that 

I do know—that this could have possibly escaped the notice of caseworkers, who apparently came into the home because of other children that they were either monitoring, or thinking about placing 

in that home. At the same time, I would say that I think it is not 

possible to expect the Federal Government to be able to assure that 

every single case at the local level is being appropriately managed. 

The best that the Federal Government can do is look at trends, and 

look at systemic factors within a child welfare system, to determine 

whether there is something wrong with the system as a whole, not 

at each individual case level. Otherwise, every single case would 

have to be reviewed by a Federal employee or staff member for 

every child in foster care, a task that there simply is not enough 

money in even a perfect world to be able to do. 

One of the problems in the New Jersey case, is that there isn’t 

enough money available currently, nor enough flexibility in the current system to provide the kinds of post-adoption services that I 

think are necessary to ensure that once a child is adopted, the family has the resources and the skills necessary to be able to deal 

with whatever post-adoption circumstances come up. Under the 

President’s proposals, both the Promoting Safe and Stable Families 

program, and the flexible funding proposal, there would be more 

money available to provide post-adoption services if that is an issue 

that needs to be addressed within an individual State. We think 

that the way we can help situations such as the one in New Jersey 

is, A, by having more resources available for adoption services; and 

B, by giving more flexibility to the States to target the resources 

18 

they have in ways that fit the needs of the children who interact 

with the child welfare system in that State—whether they are postadoption services at the back end, or prevention services at the 

front end. 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Dr. Horn, for your testimony. 

With that, I would like to call up our first panel: Cornelia Ashby, 

Director of Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues for 

the U.S. General Accounting Office; Mary Nelson, President of the 

National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators; William Bell, Commissioner of the New York City Administration for 

Children’s Services (ACS); Wayne Stevenson, Deputy Secretary for 

Children, Youth, and Families for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and Bill Stanton, President of the National Association of 

Foster Care Reviewers. Ms. Ashby? 

STATEMENT OF CORNELIA M. ASHBY, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, 

WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL 

ACCOUNTING OFFICE 

Ms. ASHBY. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cardin, thank you for inviting 

me here today to discuss several issues related to the oversight of 

child welfare programs. My testimony will focus on three key 

issues: States’ use of funds authorized by title IV–B of the Social 

Security Act to prevent abuse and neglect in foster care placements, as well as provide other child welfare services; factors that 

hinder States’ ability to protect children from abuse and neglect; 

and HHS’s role in helping States overcome these factors. My comments are based primarily on the findings from three reports we 

issued last year. Title IV–B, which has two parts, is the primary 

source of Federal funding for services to help families address problems that lead to child abuse and neglect, and prevent the unnecessary separation of children from their families. Relatively few subpart 1 dollars are used to provide family support and family preservation services, while the majority of subpart 2 funds are used for 

these services. 

We found that States most frequently use subpart 1 funds to 

fund staff salaries, administration and management expenses, child 

protective services, and foster care maintenance payments. In contrast, States spent half of their subpart 2 funds on family support 

or prevention programs, and another 12 percent on family preservation services. However, the results for the past 2 years of HHS’s 

formal process for assessing States’ child welfare systems, known 

as the CFSR, indicate that States have not performed strongly in 

terms of assessing the services that families need, and providing 

those services. When HHS reviewed case files, it determined that 

31 of the 32 States that had a CFSR in 2001 or 2002 needed improvement in this area. 

Child welfare agencies face a number of issues relating to staffing and data management that impair their ability to protect children from abuse and neglect. In particular, low salaries hinder 

agencies’ ability to attract potential child welfare workers, and to 

retain those already in the profession. Additionally, large caseloads, administrative burdens, limited supervision, and insufficient 

training reduce the appeal of child welfare work. Our analysis of 

the CFSRs in 27 States indicated that large workloads and worker 

19 

turnover delay the timelines of investigations, and limit the frequency of worker visits with children, hampering agencies’ attainment of some key Federal safety and permanency outcomes. Furthermore, States face challenges developing a SACWIS to track 

abuse and neglect reports and monitor children in foster care, with 

many States reporting development delays. Most States responding 

to our survey faced challenges to SACWIS development, such as obtaining State funding, and developing a system that met child welfare agencies’ needs statewide. 

In addition, several factors affect the States’ ability to collect and 

report reliable adoption, foster care, and child abuse and neglect 

data, including insufficient caseworker training, inaccurate and incomplete data entry, and technical challenges reporting the data. 

Of course, HHS plays a role in helping States implement their 

child welfare programs, but in some cases, additional Federal oversight or technical assistance could help States provide more effective services. For example, HHS’s oversight of title IV–B focuses 

primarily on States’ overall child welfare systems and outcomes, 

but the agency provides relatively little oversight specific to the 

services provided under title IV–B, subpart 1. The role of HHS in 

assisting States to overcome child welfare workforce challenges, is 

limited to partial Federal reimbursement for training expenses, 

and management of discretionary grant programs that fund State 

child welfare improvements. The agency monitors SACWIS development and data reporting, and provides assistance to States. However, States reported ongoing challenges, such as the lack of clear 

and documented guidance on how to report child welfare data, despite the availability of this assistance. 

In each of the three reports upon which this testimony is based, 

we made recommendations to the Secretary of HHS. We recommended that HHS provide the data necessary to ensure that regional offices monitor States’ use of title IV–B, subpart 1 funds, 

and consider gathering additional information on their use. We also 

recommended that HHS take actions that may help child welfare 

agencies address recruitment and retention challenges, and that 

HHS consider ways to enhance the guidance and assistance offered 

to help States overcome key data challenges. We found that HHS 

generally agreed with our recommendations, except that it noted 

that its level of oversight of title IV–B was commensurate with the 

program’s scope and intent. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ashby follows:] 

Statement of Cornelia M. Ashby, Director, Education, Workforce, and 

Income Security Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office 

Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss several issues related to the oversight of child welfare programs across the nation. As you are aware, state child welfare agencies determined that over 900,000 children had been the victims of abuse 

or neglect by their parents or other caretakers in 2001. Additionally, more than 

800,000 children are estimated to spend some time in foster care each year, with 

the Federal Government allocating approximately $7 billion each year to investigate 

abuse and neglect, provide placements to children outside their homes, and deliver 

services to help keep families together. Title IV–B of the Social Security Act, comprised of two subparts, is the primary source of federal funding for services to help 

families address problems that lead to child abuse and neglect and to prevent the 

unnecessary separation of children from their families. Funding under Title IV–E 

of the Social Security Act is used primarily to pay for the room and board of chilVerDate May 21 2004 07:11 Jul 15, 2004 Jkt 092984 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\92984.XXX 92984
20 

[1]We also recently testified on one of these reports. See U.S. General Accounting Office, Child 

Welfare: States Face Challenges in Developing Information Systems and Reporting Reliable 

Child Welfare Data. GAO–04–267T. (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 19, 2003). [2] Child protective services activities typically include reviewing reports of alleged child abuse 

and neglect, investigating those that meet the state’s criteria as a potential incident of abuse 

or neglect to determine if the alleged incident occurred, and, in some cases, referring families 

to needed services and removing the child from the home, if necessary. 

dren in foster care. Since 1994, designated federal matching funds have been available to states to develop and implement comprehensive case management systems— 

statewide automated child welfare information systems (SACWIS)—to manage their 

child welfare cases as well as to report child abuse and neglect, foster care, and 

adoption information to the Federal Government. 

In addition to this funding, the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) 

Administration for Children and Families (ACF) monitors states’ compliance with 

key federal goals, specified in part by the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) 

of 1997, to keep children safe and ensure their placement in stable and permanent 

homes. Through its formal review process, known as the Child and Family Services 

Review (CFSR), HHS uses specific assessment measures, such as agencies’ ability 

to conduct timely abuse and neglect investigations and regularly visit children in 

their homes, to assess the performance of states’ child welfare systems. 

My testimony today will focus on three key issues: (1) states’ use of Title IV–B 

funds in providing a wide array of services to prevent the occurrence of abuse, neglect, and foster care placements, as well as other child welfare services; (2) factors 

that hinder states’ ability to protect children from abuse and neglect; and (3) HHS’s 

role in helping states to overcome the challenges they face in protecting children 

from abuse and neglect. My comments are based primarily on the findings from 

three reports: [1] U.S. General Accounting Office, Child Welfare: HHS Could Play a 

Greater Role in Helping Child Welfare Agencies Recruit and Retain Staff. GAO–03– 

357. Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2003; Child Welfare: Most States Are Developing 

Statewide Information Systems, but the Reliability of Child Welfare Data Could Be 

Improved. GAO–03–809. Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2003; and Child Welfare: Enhanced Federal Oversight of Title IV–B Could Provide States Additional Information 

to Improve Services. GAO–03–956. Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2003. Those 

findings were based on multiple methodologies, including a survey of child welfare 

directors on states’ use of Title IV–B funds; an analysis of 600 exit interview documents completed by staff who severed their employment from 17 state, 40 county, 

and 19 private child welfare agencies; and a survey of all 50 states and the District 

of Columbia regarding their experiences in developing and using information systems and their ability to report data to HHS. In each case, we supplemented these 

surveys and analyses by conducting multiple site visits to selected states and by 

interviewing child welfare experts and HHS headquarters and regional officials. 

In summary, we found that states use Title IV–B funds to provide a wide variety 

of services to prevent the occurrence of abuse, neglect, and foster care placements, 

as well as to provide other child welfare services. Subpart 1 dollars were most frequently used to fund staff salaries, with almost half of these funds designated for 

the salaries of child protective services (CPS)[2] social workers. In comparison, 

states spent half of their subpart 2 funds on family support or prevention programs 

and another 12 percent on family preservation services. CFSR results for the past 

2 years, however, indicate that states have not performed strongly in terms of assessing the services families need and providing those services. Child welfare agencies face a number of issues related to staffing and data management that impair 

their ability to protect children from abuse and neglect. In particular, low salaries 

hinder agencies’ ability to attract potential child welfare workers and to retain those 

already in the profession. Our analysis of CFSRs in 27 states indicated that large 

caseloads and worker turnover delay the timeliness of investigations and limit the 

frequency of worker visits with children, hampering agencies’ attainment of some 

key federal safety and permanency outcomes. Furthermore, states face challenges 

developing appropriate information systems needed to track abuse or neglect reports 

and monitor children in foster care, with many states reporting development delays. 

In addition, several factors affect the states’ ability to collect and report reliable 

adoption, foster care, and child abuse and neglect data, including insufficient caseworker training, inaccurate and incomplete data entry, and technical challenges reporting the data. Although HHS plays a role in monitoring child welfare programs, 

additional oversight or technical assistance could assist states in meeting the needs 

of children served by child welfare agencies. For example, HHS’s oversight of Title 

IV–B focuses primarily on states’ overall child welfare systems and outcomes, but 

the agency provides relatively little oversight specific to the services provided under 

21 

[3]Our September 2003 report on Title IV–B focused primarily on subpart 1 because little, if 

any, research has been conducted on how subpart 1 funds have been spent on child welfare services. In contrast, a number of studies have been conducted on the services provided under subpart 2. [4] In addition, Title XX provides funds under the social services block grant that may be used 

for many purposes, including child welfare. [5] In fiscal year 2002, total Title IV–E spending was approximately $6.1 billion. The state 

matching rate for these payments is based on a state’s per capita income and ranges from 50 

percent to 83 percent. [6]States are entitled to Title IV–E reimbursement on behalf of children who would have been 

eligible for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) (as AFDC existed on July 16, 

1996), but for the fact that they were removed from the home of certain specified relatives. 

While the AFDC program was replaced by the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program in 1996, eligibility for Title IV–E payments remains tied to the income eligibility requirements of the now defunct AFDC program. In addition, certain judicial findings must be present, 

Continued 

Title IV–B subpart 1.[3] In addition, HHS plays a limited role in states’ workforce 

activities by offering partial reimbursement for training expenses and managing discretionary grant programs. The agency monitors SACWIS development and data reporting, but despite the availability of technical assistance, states reported ongoing 

challenges reporting reliable data. 

Background 

ACF is responsible for the administration and oversight of federal funding to 

states for child welfare services under Titles IV–B and IV–E. HHS headquarters 

staff are responsible for developing appropriate policies and procedures for states to 

follow in terms of obtaining and using federal child welfare funds, while staff in 

HHS’s 10 regional offices and 10 national resource centers provide guidance and 

technical assistance to improve child welfare services nationwide. HHS compiles 

state-reported child welfare data in two databases: the Adoption and Foster Care 

Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) and the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS). HHS relies on the information available in its databases to analyze and track children’s experiences in the child welfare system, to determine states’ performance on federal child welfare outcome measures, and to report to Congress on children’s well being and child welfare experiences. However, 

the monitoring of children served by state child welfare agencies is the responsibility of the state agencies that provide the services to these children and their families. Child welfare caseworkers at the county or local level are the key personnel 

responsible for documenting the wide range of services offered to children and families, such as investigations of abuse and neglect; treatment services offered to families to keep them intact and prevent the need for foster care; and arrangements 

made for permanent or adoptive placements when children must be removed from 

their homes. Most states and counties provide some child welfare services directly 

and provide others through contracts with private agencies. National survey data 

confirm that both state and private child welfare agencies are experiencing similar 

challenges recruiting and retaining qualified caseworkers. For instance, turnover of 

child welfare staff has been estimated at between 30 percent and 40 percent annually nationwide, with the average tenure for child welfare workers being less than 

2 years. 

In 2000, HHS established a new federal review system to monitor state compliance with federal child welfare laws. One component of this system is the CFSR, 

which assesses state performance in achieving safety and permanency for children, 

along with well-being for children and families. The CFSR process includes a selfassessment by the state, an analysis of state performance in meeting national 

standards established by HHS, and an on-site review by a joint team of federal and 

state officials. Based on the results of this process, HHS determines whether a state 

achieved substantial conformity with (1) outcomes related to safety, permanency, 

and well-being, such as keeping children protected from abuse and neglect and 

achieving permanent and stable living situations for children and (2) key systemic 

factors, such as having an adequate case review system and an adequate array of 

services. States are required to develop program improvement plans to address all 

areas of nonconformity. 

Federal Funding of Child Welfare Services and Programs 

Two titles of the Social Security Act provide federal funding targeted specifically 

to foster care and related child welfare services.[4] Title IV–E[5] provides an openended individual entitlement for foster care maintenance payments to cover a portion of the food, housing, and incidental expenses for all foster children whose parents meet certain federal eligibility criteria.[6] Title IV–E also provides payments to 

22 

and all other requirements included in section 472 (a) and (b) of the Social Security Act must 

be met, in order for the child to be eligible for Title IV–E foster care maintenance payments. [7]Special needs are characteristics that can make it difficult for a child to be adopted and 

may include emotional, physical, or mental disabilities, emotional disturbance, age, or being a 

member of a minority race. To qualify for an adoption subsidy under Title IV–E, a state must 

determine that the child cannot or should not return home; a state must make a reasonable, 

but unsuccessful effort to place the child without the subsidy; and a specific factor or condition 

must exist that makes it difficult to place the child without a subsidy. [8] In fiscal year 2003, the Congress appropriated $292 million for subpart 1 and $405 million 

for subpart 2. These federal funds cover 75 percent of states’ total Title IV–B expenditures because states must provide an additional 25 percent using nonfederal dollars. [9]States must spend a ‘‘significant portion’’ of their subpart 2 funds on each of the four service 

categories. HHS program instructions require states to spend at least 20 percent of their subpart 2 funds on each of the four service categories, unless a state has a strong rationale for 

some other spending pattern. [10]For our September 2003 report on Title IV–B and in this testimony, we mention only foster 

care maintenance and adoption assistance payments when referring to subpart 1 limits, although we did include planned spending on child care in our analyses of states’ planned subpart 

1 spending. [11]Staff of the House Committee on Ways and Means, 106th Congress, Background Material 

and Data on Programs Within the Jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means (Comm. 

Print 2000). 

adoptive parents of eligible foster children with special needs.[7] To qualify for federal IV–E funding for SACWIS, states must prepare and submit an advance planning document (APD) to ACF’s Children’s Bureau, in which they describe the state’s 

plan for managing the design, development, implementation, and operation of a 

SACWIS that meets federal requirements and state needs in an efficient, comprehensive, and cost-effective manner. Since the administration and structure of 

state child welfare agencies vary across the nation, states can design their SACWIS 

to meet their state needs, as long as states meet certain federal requirements. 

Title IV–B of the Social Security Act, established in 1935, authorizes funds to 

states to provide a wide array of services to prevent the occurrence of abuse, neglect, 

and foster care placements.[8] In 1993, the Congress created a new program as subpart 2 of Title IV–B (now known as Promoting Safe and Stable Families), which 

funds similar types of services but is more prescriptive in how states can spend the 

funds.[9] No federal eligibility criteria apply to the children and families receiving 

services funded by Title IV–B. 

Title IV–B subpart 1 provides grants to states for child welfare services, which 

are broadly defined. Subpart 1 funds are intended for services that are directed toward the accomplishment of the following purposes: (1) protect and promote the welfare of all children; (2) prevent or remedy problems that may result in the abuse 

or neglect of children; (3) prevent the unnecessary separation of children from their 

families by helping families address problems that can lead to out-of-home placements; (4) reunite children with their families; (5) place children in appropriate 

adoptive homes when reunification is not possible; and (6) ensure adequate care to 

children away from their homes in cases in which the child cannot be returned 

home or cannot be placed for adoption. 

In 1980, the Congress enacted legislation that limited the total subpart 1 funds 

states could use for three categories of services: foster care maintenance payments, 

adoption assistance payments, and child care related to a parent’s employment or 

training.[10] The total of subpart 1 funds used for these purposes cannot exceed a 

state’s total 1979 subpart 1 expenditures for all types of services. The intent of this 

restriction, according to a congressional document, was to encourage states to devote 

increases in subpart 1 funding as much as possible to supportive services that could 

prevent the need for out-of-home placements.[11] However, this restriction applies 

only to the federal portion of subpart 1 expenditures, as the law notes that states 

may use any or all of their state matching funds for foster care maintenance payments. 

Subpart 2 authorizes grants to states to provide four categories of services, which 

are defined below: 

• Family preservation services: Services designed to help families at risk or in crisis, including services to (1) help reunify children with their families when safe 

and appropriate; (2) place children in permanent homes through adoption, 

guardianship, or some other permanent living arrangement; (3) help children at 

risk of foster care placement remain safely with their families; (4) provide follow-up assistance to families when a child has been returned after a foster care 

placement; (5) provide temporary respite care; and (6) improve parenting skills. • Family support services: Community-based services to promote the safety and 

well-being of children and families designed to increase the strength and staVerDate May 21 2004 07:11 Jul 15, 2004 Jkt 092984 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\92984.XXX 92984
23 

[12]To obtain a breakdown of state spending for subparts 1 and 2 for the Title IV–B report, 

we sent a survey to all 50 states and the District of Columbia and received responses from 47 

states. [13]The survey data reported in this category reflect the salaries of staff affiliated with the 

child welfare agency. These figures do not include the salaries of child welfare agency staff dedicated to a specific program, which may be embedded within some of the other direct service categories, such as family support and family preservation. In addition, a state may use Title IV– 

B funds to contract with an organization to provide a particular program, which may include 

salary expenses as well as direct service expenditures. [14]For the Title IV–B report, we conducted site visits in California, New Jersey, Ohio, and 

Washington to obtain more in-depth information on the services provided and the types of children and families served. These states represent both geographic diversity and diversity in how 

states used subpart 1 funds. [15]This amount may be underestimated, since some states may not have separately reported 

administrative expenses associated with a specific program. For example, officials in one state 

reported that the total spending for a family support program included salaries for agency staff, 

overhead expenses, and related staff travel. 

bility of families, to increase parental competence, to provide children a safe 

and supportive family environment, to strengthen parental relationships, and to 

enhance child development. Examples of such services include parenting skills 

training and home visiting programs for first time parents of newborns. • Time-limited family reunification services: Services provided to a child placed 

in foster care and to the parents of the child in order to facilitate the safe reunification of the child within 15 months of placement. These services include: 

counseling, substance abuse treatment services, mental health services, and assistance to address domestic violence. • Adoption promotion and support services: Services designed to encourage more 

adoptions of children in foster care when adoption is in the best interest of the 

child, including services to expedite the adoption process and support adoptive 

families. 

States Spend IV–B Funds on A Variety of Services, With Subpart 2 Focusing 

More on Prevention 

In our September 2003 report on Title IV–B, we found that states use these funds 

to provide a wide variety of services to prevent the occurrence of abuse, neglect, and 

foster care placements, as well as services to help children in foster care and their 

parents; however, relatively few subpart 1 dollars are used to provide family support 

and family preservation services, while the majority of subpart 2 funds are used for 

these purposes. According to our survey data for fiscal year 2002,[12] states spent 

subpart 1 funds most frequently on the salaries of child welfare agency staff, administration and management expenses, CPS services, and foster care maintenance payments. In comparison, states spent half of their subpart 2 funds on family support 

or prevention programs and another 12 percent on family preservation services. 

CFSR results for the past 2 years, however, indicate that states have not performed 

strongly in terms of assessing the services families need and providing those services. 

States Use Subpart 1 Funds Primarily for Staff Salaries 

Relatively few subpart 1 dollars were used for family support or family preservation services; instead, they were most frequently used to fund staff salaries, with 

almost half of these funds designated for the salaries of CPS social workers. Another 

20 percent of these funds were used for the salaries of other social workers.[13] During a site visit to the state of Washington for the Title IV–B report,[14] child welfare 

officials told us that they used over 50 percent of the state’s subpart 1 funds for 

salaries of staff providing direct services, including CPS social workers, other types 

of social workers, social work supervisors, and clerical support staff. Administration 

and management comprised the second largest category of service, accounting for almost 17 percent of subpart 1 dollars. This category included rent and utilities for 

office space, travel expenses for agency staff, and staff training.[15]

CPS represents the third largest category of services that states funded with subpart 1. States used about 16 percent of their subpart 1 funds to provide a variety 

of CPS services, such as telephone hotlines for the public to report instances of child 

abuse and neglect, emergency shelters for children who needed to be removed from 

their homes, and investigative services. During our site visit to California, for example, officials reported using about 40 percent of their subpart 1 dollars to fund staff 

salaries and operating expenses associated with a variety of shelter care services 

provided by counties, such as emergency shelters and foster homes. A child is placed 

in one of these shelters when no other placement option is immediately available— 

for example, when an investigation in the middle of the night determines that the 

24 

[16] Respite care refers to the temporary care of children that can provide a break for the families from the daily demands of caring for their children or respite during times of emergencies. [17]For this report, we conducted site visits in California, Illinois, Kentucky, and Texas to obtain more in-depth information on workforce issues and their effect on children’s safety and permanency outcomes. Among other factors, these states represent geographic diversity and diversity in the practices they have implemented to address their recruitment and retention challenges. 

child is at immediate risk of harm. States also used nearly 11 percent of their subpart 1 funds to make recurring payments for the room and board of foster children 

who are not eligible for reimbursement through Title IV–E. About 10 percent of subpart 1 dollars were used to provide family support and family preservation services. 

Subpart 2 Most Frequently Funds Family Support and Family Preservation 

Services 

In contrast to subpart 1, states used over 80 percent of their subpart 2 dollars 

to fund services in its four mandated service categories—family support, family 

preservation, family reunification, and adoption promotion and support services (see 

app. I for additional information on states’ comparative expenditures on subparts 1 

and 2). For example, states reported using half of their subpart 2 dollars to fund 

family support and prevention services. These services included mentoring programs 

to help pregnant adolescents learn to be self-sufficient; financial assistance to lowincome families to help with rent and utility payments; and parenting classes, child 

care, and support groups provided by a community-based resource center. Washington funded a network of public health nurses and social service agencies to provide support services to families that are the subject of a report of abuse or neglect—these services are provided in lieu of, or following, a formal investigation 

when the level of risk to the child is not considered high. 

Family preservation services—designed to keep families together and prevent the 

need to place a child in foster care—represented the second largest service category 

funded by subpart 2. Washington used subpart 2 funds for its statewide family preservation program, which offers counseling and parent training services for up to 6 

months to families with children who are at risk of being placed in foster care. 

In addition, states reported using about 11 percent of their subpart 2 funds for 

adoption support and preservation services. With these funds, states provided services such as counseling for children who are going to be adopted, family preservation 

services to adoptive families, and respite care [16] for adoptive families. Officials in 

Ohio reported using almost half of its subpart 2 dollars for adoption services, including post adoption services and services to recruit families for children in need of 

adoptive homes. 

Finally, states spent about 9 percent of their subpart 2 dollars on family reunification services. States funded a diverse array of family reunification programs, such 

as supervised visitation centers for parents to visit with their children and coordinators for alcohol and drug treatment services for families whose primary barrier to 

reunification is substance abuse. New Jersey funded a supervised visitation program 

that offers parenting education, counseling, transportation, and support groups and 

is located in a private home, allowing families to visit together in a homelike setting 

and engage in more natural interactions. 

CFSRs Find States Are Weak in Assessing Families’ Service Needs 

While states are using Title IV–B funds to provide this array of services, CFSR 

results for the past 2 years indicate that states have not performed strongly in 

terms of assessing the services families need and providing those services. When 

HHS reviewed case files it determined that 31 of the 32 states that underwent a 

CFSR in 2001 or 2002 needed improvement in terms of assessing family needs and 

providing services to meet those needs. While 21 of the 32 states were considered 

to have an appropriate array of services for families, HHS found that the accessibility of services was a particular weakness in that many services were either not 

available statewide or had long waiting lists or other barriers to accessibility. 

Staff and Data Issues Affect States’ Ability to Protect Children From Abuse 

and Neglect 

Child welfare agencies face a number of issues related to staffing and data management that impair their ability to protect children from abuse and neglect. In particular, low salaries hinder agencies’ ability to attract potential child welfare workers and to retain those already in the profession. Additionally, caseworkers in the 

four states we visited for the March 2003 child welfare workforce report[17] cited 

high caseloads and a lack of supervisory support as issues impacting their ability 

to work effectively. According to these caseworkers, high turnover rates and staffing 

25 

[18]These reports were obtained through both site visit interviews and survey responses. For 

the child welfare information systems and data report, we conducted site visits in Colorado, 

Iowa, New York, North Carolina, and Oklahoma to obtain more in-depth information on states’ 

experiences developing SACWIS and reporting data to HHS. These states represent both geographic diversity and different stages of SACWIS implementation. In addition, we surveyed all 

50 states and the District of Columbia regarding their experiences in developing and using information systems and their ability to report data to HHS. We received responses from 49 states 

and the District of Columbia, although some states did not respond to every question. Fortysix of these states reported that they are developing or operating a SACWIS. Nevada, which 

HHS reported has an operational SACWIS, did not respond to our survey. Throughout this testimony, references to state survey responses for our July 2003 report include the District of Columbia. [19] U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2000 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates. [20]This amount is specific to child, family, and school social workers (the occupation under 

which caseworkers would likely be classified). [21]The Child Welfare League of America suggests a caseload ratio of 12 to 15 children per 

caseworker, and the Council on Accreditation for Children and Family Services suggests that 

caseloads not exceed 18 children per caseworker. [22] American Public Human Services Association, Report from the Child Welfare Workforce 

Survey: State and County Data and Findings, May 2001. 

shortages leave remaining staff with insufficient time to establish relationships with 

children and families and make the necessary decisions to ensure safe and stable 

permanent placements. Furthermore, our July 2003 report found that states face 

challenges developing appropriate information systems needed to track abuse or neglect reports and monitor children in foster care. While 47 states are developing or 

operating a SACWIS, many states [18] reported that the development of their 

SACWIS is delayed. Most states responding to our survey faced challenges to 

SACWIS development, such as obtaining state funding and developing a system that 

met the child welfare agency’s needs statewide. In addition, several factors affect 

states’ ability to collect and report reliable adoption, foster care, and child abuse and 

neglect data, including insufficient caseworker training, inaccurate and incomplete 

data entry, and technical challenges reporting the data. 

Recruitment and Retention Challenges May Hamper Agencies’ Attainment 

of Federal Child Welfare Outcomes 

In our report on the child welfare workforce, we found that public and private 

child welfare agencies face a number of challenges recruiting and retaining qualified 

caseworkers and supervisors. Low salaries, in particular, hinder agencies’ ability to 

attract potential staff and to retain those already in the profession. For example, 

caseworkers in each of the four states we visited said that many of their former 

child welfare colleagues pursued positions in the education field where they could 

not only make more money but also work with children without risking their own 

safety. For example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ national wages survey [19] reports that elementary and middle school teachers earn, on average, about $42,000 

annually while social workers earn about $33,000.[20]

Additionally, high caseloads, administrative burdens, limited supervision, and insufficient training reduce the appeal of child welfare work. Caseworkers and supervisors in all four states we visited cited demanding and complex caseloads and related administrative requirements, such as casework documentation, as factors affecting retention. Some of the caseworkers we interviewed handled double the number of cases recommended by advocacy organizations,[21] and one study found that 

caseloads for individual child welfare workers ranged from 10 to 110 children,[22]

with workers handling an average of about 24 to 31 children each. Furthermore, 

some of the caseworkers we interviewed told us that they spent between 50 and 80 

percent of their time completing paperwork, thereby limiting their time to assist 

children and families. 

Caseworkers told us that their desire to stay in the child welfare profession was 

influenced by high-quality supervision and adequate on-the-job training; however, 

these elements were often lacking. According to supervisors in one city we visited, 

about half of new trainees left their jobs before completing 1 year, in part, because 

these newly hired caseworkers were not sufficiently trained to do their jobs. Furthermore, some newly promoted supervisors have requested demotions because they 

felt unprepared to meet job demands, and the caseworkers they supervised complained of poor management and insufficient support. 

There is some evidence to suggest how recruitment and retention challenges affect 

the safety and permanency of children in care, but the magnitude of this effect is 

unknown. Caseworkers in the four states that we visited said that high turnover 

rates and staffing shortages leave remaining staff with insufficient time to conduct 

26 

[23] At the time of the original study, CFSR final reports were available for only 27 states; as 

of January 28, 2004, HHS had released reports for an additional 14 states. [24]See U.S. General Accounting Office, Child Welfare: States Face Challenges in Developing 

Information Systems and Reporting Reliable Child Welfare Data, GAO–04–267T (Washington, 

D.C.: Nov. 19, 2003). [25]The analysis of survey responses about reporting data to HHS is based on responses from 

49 states and the District of Columbia. All states, regardless of SACWIS development, were 

asked to complete these questions. 

the types of home visits necessary to assess children’s safety and to make well-supported decisions to ensure safe and stable permanent placements. For example, 

when staff change, caseworkers may have to reestablish information to update the 

case record and families may become hesitant to work with unfamiliar caseworkers, 

making it difficult to learn the history of the case. Worker turnover also disrupts 

the continuity of services, particularly when newly assigned caseworkers have to 

conduct or reevaluate educational, health, and safety assessments due to poor or insufficient information in case files left behind by others. Furthermore, caseworkers 

explained that high caseloads require them to limit the number and quality of the 

home visits they conduct, forcing them to focus only on the most serious circumstances of abuse and neglect. One caseworker in Texas noted that when she 

does make a home visit, the visit is quick and does not enable her to identify subtle 

or potential risks to the child’s well-being. 

Our analysis of federal CFSRs corroborated caseworker accounts,[23] showing that 

large caseloads and worker turnover delay the timeliness of investigations and limit 

the frequency of worker visits with children, thereby hampering agencies’ attainment of some key federal safety and permanency goals. Although identifying workforce deficiencies is not an objective of the CFSR process, in all 27 CFSRs we analyzed, HHS explicitly cited workforce deficiencies—high caseloads, training deficiencies, and staffing shortages—that affected the attainment of at least one assessment measure. While the number of affected assessment measures varied by state, 

we found that HHS cited these factors for an average of nine assessment measures 

per state, with more than half of the 27 states exceeding this average. For example, 

in New Mexico’s CFSR, reviewers cited staff turnover and vacancies as impairing 

workers’ ability to investigate child maltreatment reports, provide appropriate services for families, and establish timely permanency goals. Furthermore, the District 

of Columbia’s CFSR describes heavy workloads, high staff turnover, and a climate 

in which supervisors often call new workers out of training to handle ongoing caseload activities. 

Delays in SACWIS Completion and Challenges with Data Collection Affect 

States’ Ability to Ensure Reliable Data on Children’s Experiences 

In addition to performing a wide range of services to protect children, child welfare caseworkers are the key personnel who collect and document information on 

children and families served by children welfare agencies. Case file documentation 

is generally captured in state computer systems. In our July 2003 report, HHS reported that 47 states are using targeted federal funds to develop or operate their 

child welfare computer systems—known as SACWIS—but many continue to face 

challenges completing their systems. In our November 2003 testimony on 

SACWIS,[24] we reported on the costs associated with developing SACWIS and the 

associated barriers, such as development delays and difficulties in receiving state 

funding approval, creating a system that reflects child welfare work processes, and 

securing contractors knowledgeable about child welfare. Many state officials said 

that they recognize the benefit their state will achieve by developing SACWIS, such 

as contributing to the timeliness of child abuse and neglect investigations. In Oklahoma, for example, caseworkers and state officials noted that they believe their children are safer since the implementation of SACWIS simply because the information 

on the children is easily accessible to the caseworkers and their supervisors. According to our survey results, automated systems provided easier access to data and allowed caseworkers to better monitor children in their care, which may contribute 

to additional child welfare and administrative benefits, such as decreased incidences 

of child abuse and neglect, shortened length of time to achieve adoption, timeliness 

of payments to foster families, and timeliness of payments to foster facilities. 

Some of the data captured in case file records are reported to two HHS databases 

that compile child welfare data—AFCARS and NCANDS. We found that several factors affect states’ ability to collect and report reliable data to HHS on children 

served by state child welfare agencies. Almost all of the states responding to our 

survey [25] reported that insufficient caseworker training and inaccurate and incomplete data entry into their information system affect the quality of AFCARS and 

NCANDS data. Although most states reported these as separate factors, HHS and 

27 

the states we visited found that insufficient training and inaccurate and incomplete 

data entry are often linked. Caseworkers, supervisors, and managers in the five 

states that we visited reported that additional factors, such as difficulties balancing 

data entry with the time that they spend with the families and children, contributed 

to inaccurate or incomplete data entry. Supervisors in Iowa explained that since 

caseworkers are responsible for ensuring that children and their families receive the 

services they need, the caseworkers tend to initially limit data entry to the information that is necessary to ensure timely payment to foster care providers, and complete all other data elements when the caseworkers have time. In addition, caseworkers in Colorado said that they are between 30 and 60 days behind in their data 

entry, so the information in the automated system may not accurately reflect the 

current circumstances of children in care. 

We also reported in our July 2003 report and November 2003 testimony that 

many states experienced technical challenges reporting their data to HHS. The 

problems reported by states are typically a result of challenges associated with data 

‘‘mapping’’—matching state data elements to the federal data elements. For example, 36 states reported in our survey that matching their state-defined data to 

HHS’s definitions affected the quality of the data reported to NCANDS and 

AFCARS. In addition to the challenges reported in our survey, HHS reported that 

transferring data from older data systems into SACWIS affects the quality of the 

data reported to AFCARS and NCANDS. 

Improvements in HHS’s Oversight of Child Welfare Programs Could Help 

States Overcome Some Challenges 

HHS plays a role in helping states implement their child welfare programs, but 

in some cases, additional federal oversight or technical assistance could help states 

provide more effective services. In terms of child welfare funding, HHS focuses its 

programmatic oversight on the overall child welfare system in each state and provides relatively little oversight specific to Title IV–B subpart 1. HHS’s role in assisting states overcome the child welfare workforce challenges is limited to partial federal reimbursement for training expenses and management of discretionary grant 

programs, such as the Child Welfare Training Program. HHS also monitors 

SACWIS development and data reporting and provides assistance to states to address some of the associated challenges; however, states reported ongoing challenges, such as the lack of clear and documented guidance on how to report child 

welfare data, despite the availability of this assistance. 

HHS Focuses Oversight on the Overall Child Welfare System, but Has Limited Knowledge about States’ Use of Subpart 1 Funds 

HHS focuses much of its programmatic oversight on the overall child welfare system in each state, rather than focusing specifically on subpart 1 or any other federal 

funding source. A major component of HHS’s subpart 1 oversight is having the regional offices actively work with states to develop appropriate goals for their child 

welfare systems and ensure that available funds are used to support those goals. 

To receive Title IV–B funding, HHS requires states to submit a Child and Family 

Services Plan, which covers a 5-year period and describes the state’s goals and objectives toward improving outcomes related to the safety, permanency, and wellbeing of children and families, as well as the services and programs the state will 

pursue to achieve these goals. In addition to the 5-year plan, HHS requires states 

to submit an update each year to discuss their progress in meeting the goals outlined in their plans. Some regional officials noted that states are still struggling to 

use these documents appropriately for planning purposes and frequently just describe their current programs, rather than focusing on outcomes and collecting data 

to measure progress toward those outcomes. 

The CFSR process is an additional tool HHS uses to ensure that states conform 

to federal child welfare requirements and to help states improve their child welfare 

services. Staff at one regional office described the CFSR as a thorough review of the 

services funded by different federal programs, such as Title IV–B, providing an opportunity to determine whether states are providing the services they report in their 

planning documents and whether those services are adequate and appropriate to 

meet the needs of the state’s children and families. When asked about HHS’s role 

in guiding states’ use of subpart 1 funds to address weaknesses identified by the 

CFSRs, an HHS official told us that the agency provides technical assistance to 

states to help them determine the most effective use of their resources, while giving 

states much latitude to determine the most appropriate use of their subpart 1 funds. 

28 

[26]States are required to submit general reports on their total subpart 1 expenditures, but 

these provide no data on how the funds are actually used. Per instructions from the Office of 

Management and Budget, agencies must require states receiving federal grants to complete a 

financial status report (SF 269), providing general information on state expenditures. For example, the form might indicate that a state spent $10 million in subpart 1 funds in a specific fiscal 

quarter, but it provides no details on how the $10 million was used. [27] HHS requires states to submit their annual estimates for the upcoming fiscal year on a 

form CFS–101. For example, for fiscal year 2002, the CFS–101 was due by June 30, 2001. Because they are submitted before final appropriations have been enacted, a state might not request the full amount of funds to which it is entitled, if the final appropriation is greater than 

the state’s initial estimate. States must submit a revised CFS–101 by June 30, 2002, to request 

any additional fiscal year 2002 Title IV–B funds that might be available to them once appropriations are finalized. In addition, states can request additional Title IV–B funds if other states 

do not use the total funds to which they are entitled. [28] In most cases, we reviewed the final revised CFS–101 approved by HHS. For 1 state, however, we used the initial CFS–101 approved by HHS because it included planned subpart 1 expenditures that exceeded the limits for foster care and adoption assistance payments. Although 

the revised CFS–101 did not show that the state planned to exceed the limit, we used the initial 

CFS–101 to show that HHS had previously approved a spending plan that did not comply with 

the statutory limits. [29]Ten of the 13 states were also cited as needing improvement in ensuring that needed services are accessible to families in all areas of the state and 9 of the 13 states were categorized 

as needing improvement in terms of individualizing services to meet the unique needs of individual families. 

HHS does not require states to provide any data about their use of subpart 1 

funds, such as their subpart 1 expenditures for specific services.[26] As a result, several regional offices noted that they have no way of knowing how states actually 

spend their subpart 1 funds. Instead, HHS requires states to submit annual estimates of the amount of subpart 1, subpart 2, and other federal funds the state plans 

to spend in the upcoming year on different categories of services (such as family 

support or CPS). However, these estimates may not provide reliable data as to how 

states are using subpart 1 funds. HHS officials explained that states’ actual expenditures may vary from these estimates, as they address unforeseen circumstances. In 

addition, HHS requires states to submit their estimates before the final spending 

amounts have been appropriated.[27]

The descriptions provided by regional office staff of their review of these estimates 

indicate that they review them for relatively limited purposes. As a result, most 

HHS regional offices do not review the annual estimates for compliance with the 

statutory limits. In addition, HHS’s annual program instruction, which details what 

information states must include in their estimates and serves as the basis for the 

regional offices’ review of subpart 1 spending, does not mention the subpart 1 limits. 

Five regional offices were unaware that any limits on the use of subpart 1 funds 

existed. Four other regional offices were aware of the limits, but did not ensure that 

states complied with the limits. 

This lack of review led HHS to approve spending plans for 15 states that reported 

fiscal year 2002 planned subpart 1 expenditures for foster care maintenance and 

adoption assistance payments that exceeded the statutory limits.[28] The dollar 

amounts by which the subpart 1 spending estimates surpassed the limits were small 

in some cases, but large in others. For example, Georgia reported that it planned 

to spend $1,497,000 of subpart 1 funds for these purposes in 2002, which would exceed its statutory limit by $1,558. At the other extreme, Florida’s estimate indicated 

that it planned to spend over $9 million, which was more than $7 million over the 

maximum allowable spending of $1.9 million. In total, these 15 states submitted 

planned subpart 1 spending estimates for foster care maintenance and adoption assistance payments that would exceed the statutory limits by over $30 million. 

Several regional offices said that they are not concerned about a state planning 

to spend significant proportions of its subpart 1 funds on foster care maintenance 

and adoption assistance payments if they believed the state had a strong child welfare system with an appropriate array of services. Regional office staff said that 

they would, however, ask a state to reconsider its funding strategy if the state were 

performing poorly. However, many of the states with approved subpart 1 estimates 

above the statutory ceilings did not achieve strong outcomes on their CFSR evaluations with regard to providing needed services and having an appropriate array of 

services. HHS has conducted CFSRs on 13 of the 15 states with approved annual 

estimates over the subpart 1 spending limits and determined that appropriately assessing family needs and providing services to address those needs was an area 

needing improvement in 12 of the 13 states. In addition, 7 of the 13 states were 

also determined to need improvement in terms of having an appropriate array of 

services to meet the needs of families in the state.[29]

29 

[30] Under this new proposal, states could voluntarily choose to receive a fixed IV–E foster care 

allocation, which could be used for any services provided under Titles IV–B and IV–E. [31] As authorized under Title IV–E of the Social Security Act, the Federal Government reimburses 75 percent of states’ training expenditures related to foster care and adoption services. 

States providing training for contracted private agency staff can receive 50 percent federal reimbursement for this purpose. [32]Fiscal year 2002 data are the most recent data available at the time of this testimony. The 

District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and Puerto Rico have not participated in title IV–E reimbursements for the last three fiscal years. [33] In fiscal year 2003, among other child welfare training project activities, HHS awarded 

grants to eight recipients for developing models of effective child welfare staff recruitment and 

retention training. [34] Although the other discretionary grant programs fund initiatives that can involve caseworker training, caseworker training and development is not their primary focus. 

In discussing the current structure of Title IV–B, officials in all of HHS’s regional 

offices told us that they believe states need some flexibility to use Title IV–B funds 

to address state-specific child welfare needs as is currently the case under subpart 

1. At the same time, officials in 8 of HHS’s 10 regional offices also stressed the importance of subpart 2 to ensure that states use some funds on family support services and prevention activities to help preserve families and keep children from entering foster care. Several regional offices expressed concern that, in the absence of 

the minimum spending requirements outlined in subpart 2, states would neglect 

preventive services, while using Title IV–B funds for more urgent services, such as 

CPS or foster care. State and local child welfare officials in one state we visited, 

along with officials at 2 HHS regional offices, said that states need more federal 

funds to provide services to prevent foster care placements, such as an increase in 

funds available under Title IV–B or more flexibility to use Title IV–E funds to provide services. HHS is currently developing a legislative proposal to give states more 

flexibility in using Title IV–E foster care funds for such preventive services.[30]

HHS’s Involvement with States’ Child Welfare Workforce Is Limited 

HHS’s primary connection to the child welfare workforce has been through partial 

federal reimbursement—75 percent—of states’ training funds to implement educational programs for current child welfare staff and to enhance the child welfare 

curriculum of undergraduate and graduate social work programs to better educate 

and prepare potential caseworkers.[31] This funding may also be used for curriculum 

development, materials and books, support for current workers to obtain a social 

work degree, and incentives to induce entry to the child welfare field. During fiscal 

year 2002, 49 states received $286 million in title IV–E training reimbursements.[32]

These reimbursements ranged from a low of approximately $10,400 in Alaska to a 

high of more than $79 million in California, with the median reimbursement approximating $2.7 million. 

In addition, ACF’s Children’s Bureau manages six discretionary grant programs 

through which it funds various activities related to improvements in the child welfare system. One of these programs—the Child Welfare Training Program, authorized by Section 426 of Title IV of the Social Security Act—awards grants to public 

and private nonprofit institutions of higher learning to develop and improve the 

education, training, and resources available for child welfare service providers.[33]

This is the only program of the six with a specific emphasis on staff training;[34]

however, in fiscal year 2003, it received the second smallest share—8 percent—of 

the Children’s Bureau’s total discretionary funds. 

According to HHS officials, HHS has no authority to require states to address 

caseload issues in their CFSR-related program improvement plans or to enforce any 

caseload standards. Furthermore, HHS officials said that states have made few requests of HHS’s national resource centers for assistance with child welfare staff recruitment and retention. Although HHS officials told us that they plan to examine 

the CFSRs to better understand the relationship between recruitment and retention 

and safety and permanency outcomes across the states, the agency is still conducting these reviews and is not expected to complete them until March 2004. 

HHS Offers Assistance to Help States Develop SACWIS and Improve Their 

Data, but States Report Ongoing Challenges with Some of HHS’s Efforts 

In response to some of the challenges states face in developing SACWIS and collecting and reporting child welfare data, HHS has conducted on-site reviews of information systems and provided technical assistance from a variety of sources. For example, at the time of our review, HHS had conducted on-site reviews in 26 states 

with operational SACWIS to ensure that the systems met all federal requirements 

and to offer assistance to states that faced challenges completing the development 

of their SACWIS. Few systems have been determined complete after an on-site reVerDate May 21 2004 01:51 Jul 15, 2004 Jkt 092984 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\92984.XXX 92984
30 

[35] In commenting on a draft of the July 2003 report, HHS indicated that a Web resource is 

available to states interested in learning about other states’ efforts to develop human services— 

child welfare, food stamps, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, child care, and child support enforcement—information systems at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/nhsitrc. 

view because of unresolved issues, such as not being able to build links to other 

state information systems or not implementing certain eligibility determination 

functions. To help states address some of these development challenges, the 

SACWIS review team provides the state with recommendations for complying with 

SACWIS requirements and schedules a conference call with the state officials to 

walk through the system’s deficiencies and offer guidance on how the state can 

move forward. In addition, in an attempt to help states comply with the reporting 

standards and address some of the factors that contribute to data quality problems, 

HHS performs comprehensive reviews of state information systems’ ability to capture AFCARS data to identify problems associated with data collection and reporting and to ensure that the information in the automated system correctly reflects 

children’s experiences in care. 

Other technical assistance is available to states in a variety of formats. HHS facilitates the sharing of information between states developing SACWIS through an 

automated system users’ group that allows state and federal officials to exchange 

information, ideas, and concerns. In addition to the users’ group, HHS officials sponsor a Listserv—an electronic mailing list—that allows state officials to exchange information, a monthly conference call with state information technology directors,[35]

an annual technical assistance meeting, and an NCANDS state advisory group. The 

National Resource Center for Information Technology in Child Welfare, which 

opened in 1999, also provides assistance to states on SACWIS development and data 

issues. 

HHS has also made available to states the software it uses to examine states’ 

AFCARS and NCANDS submissions for inconsistencies and invalid data. Officials 

in all the states that we visited said that they regularly use this software, and an 

HHS official said that nearly every state has used the software at least once. HHS 

officials reported that these tests help them to identify some data quality errors, 

such as missing data, and said that they believe that, in general, data have improved in recent years. However, the officials indicated that the tests cannot pinpoint the underlying problems contributing to these errors. Furthermore, one official 

reported that no specific efforts have been conducted to track the individual data 

elements and, therefore, HHS cannot report on how data quality has changed over 

time. 

Although the states we visited appreciated some of HHS’s efforts to assist with 

improving state data quality, they and most states responding to our survey agreed 

that the assistance is not always consistent or easily accessible. The primary concerns reported by the states we visited were delays in receiving clear written guidance on defining and reporting certain data elements and the lack of state input 

in suggesting changes to AFCARS. Despite the written guidance available to states 

in the form of regulations and an online policy manual, states reported that the variation in state policies and practices makes it difficult to interpret how to apply the 

general guidance. As a result, states consult with HHS to ensure they are applying 

the regulations appropriately. However, in commenting on a draft of the July 2003 

report, officials in Oklahoma told us that a common concern among the states is the 

lack of timely response from HHS when seeking guidance on how to report data. 

In commenting on a draft of the same report, HHS explained that it first refers 

states to its Web site for information and believes that the available guidance addresses states’ concerns in most instances. In addition, the states that have had an 

AFCARS review experienced delays in obtaining guidance on how to proceed following the on-site review. An HHS official told us that since the review process is 

relatively new, the agency is still developing a process to respond to the states and 

recognizes that it has not been responsive to the states already reviewed. In addition, HHS is taking steps to gather feedback from states and other users of 

AFCARS data to determine how to improve the system to make the data more accurate and usable. As a part of these efforts, HHS has published a Federal Register 

notice soliciting comments and held focus group meetings at national conferences. 

The difficulties states face in receiving federal guidance and assistance, as well as 

the other challenges they face in reporting data, may negatively affect the reliability 

of the data available in AFCARS and NCANDS. 

Concluding Observations 

Despite its relatively small funding level compared to other funding sources for 

child welfare services, Title IV–B represents an important federal commitment to 

31 

states’ efforts to protect children from abuse and neglect. However, HHS does not 

provide in-depth oversight specific to Title IV–B subpart 1. Two key issues further 

compound states’ ability to prevent abuse and neglect. For example, given the difficulties that public and private child welfare agencies are experiencing in hiring, 

training, and retaining their work forces, these agencies’ ability to provide services 

to children is threatened. In addition, states face challenges in completing their 

SACWIS systems and in ensuring that caseworkers input complete and accurate 

case data in a timely manner. 

We recommended in our September 2003 report on Title IV–B that the Secretary 

of HHS provide the necessary guidance to ensure that HHS regional offices monitor 

states’ use of Title IV–B subpart 1 funds for compliance with statutory restrictions 

on the use of these funds. We also recommended that the Secretary consider the 

feasibility of collecting basic data on states’ use of these funds to facilitate its oversight of the program and to provide guidance to help states determine appropriate 

services to fund. In commenting on a draft of that report, HHS agreed with our first 

recommendation but noted that the statutory limitations on Title IV–B funds no 

longer serve a useful purpose and are incompatible with its current proposal to offer 

states much more flexibility in using other federal child welfare dollars. HHS disagreed with our second recommendation, stating that it believes that its level of 

oversight is commensurate with the scope and intent of the program and minimizes 

states’ reporting requirements. 

We recommended in our March 2003 report on child welfare worker recruitment 

and retention that, because of the reported impact staffing shortages and high caseloads have on the attainment of federal outcome measures, that the Secretary of 

HHS take actions that may help child welfare agencies address the recruitment and 

retention challenges they face. In commenting on a draft of that report, HHS generally agreed with our findings and concurred with our recommendation, saying that 

it has begun to explore the effectiveness of child welfare training programs, with 

an emphasis on lessons learned and best practices. However, HHS stressed that it 

has no authority to require states to address caseload issues in their CFSR program 

improvement plans or to enforce any caseload standard. 

To improve the reliability of state-reported child welfare data, we recommended 

in our July 2003 SACWIS report that the Secretary of HHS consider, in addition 

to HHS’s recent efforts to improve AFCARS data, ways to enhance the guidance and 

assistance offered to states to help them overcome the key challenges in collecting 

and reporting child welfare data. HHS generally agreed with our findings and, in 

response to our recommendation, noted that the data definitions need to be updated 

and revised and said it is currently in the process of revising the AFCARS regulations to further standardize the information states are to report. More recently, 

HHS said that it would be creating policy guidance that will delineate what will 

happen if a state fails to complete its SACWIS within a reasonable time frame. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you or other members of the Subcommittee may have. 

Appendix I: Subparts 1 and 2 Expenditures 

Table 1: Fiscal Year 2002 Expenditures for Subparts 1 and 2 Service Categories 

Service category 

Subpart 1 Subpart 2 

Number of 

States 

Amout of subpart 1 funding a

Percentage 

of subpart 

1 funding 

Number of 

States 

Amout of subpart 2 funding a

Percentage 

of subpart 

2 funding b

Staff positions .. 25 $70,965,578 27.6 17 $6,229,058 2.4 

Administration 

and management .............. 16 43,143,097 16.8 18 11,614,667 4.5 

Child protective 

services .......... 17 40,543,000 15.8 5 2,248,690 0.9 

Foster care 

maintenance 

payments ....... 17 27,890,783 10.8 2 647,154 0.3 

Multiple responsesc ......... 8 25,806,347 10.0 4 3,503,585 1.4 

Family support/ 

prevention ..... 17 19,840,891 7.7 28 127,430,496 49.8 

32 

Table 1: Fiscal Year 2002 Expenditures for Subparts 1 and 2 Service Categories—Continued 

Service category 

Subpart 1 Subpart 2 

Number of 

States 

Amout of subpart 1 funding a

Percentage 

of subpart 

1 funding 

Number of 

States 

Amout of subpart 2 funding a

Percentage 

of subpart 

2 funding b

Counseling and 

mental health 

services .......... 2 8,350,562 3.2 5 1,354,763 0.5 

Family preservation ............ 7 5,986,045 2.3 23 30,308,896 11.8 

Adoption subsidy payments 7 4,657,546 1.8 2 737,412 0.3 

Family reunification ............. 4 2,446,570 1.0 26 23,625,973 9.2 

Recruitment 

and training 

for foster/ 

adoptive parents ................ 9 2,260,061 0.9 16 6,828,885 2.7 

Adoption support and preservation services ................. 2 446,877 0.2 27 28,481,585 11.1 

Other ................. 11 4,817,180 1.9 15 12,795,915 5.0 

Totald ................ $257,154,537 100.0 $255,807,079 100.0 

Source: GAO survey. 

Notes: Percentages do not always total to 100 due to rounding. 

Data on subpart 1 expenditures are based on survey responses from 46 states and data on subpart 2 expenditures are based on survey responses from 44 states. While Pennsylvania responded to our survey, it did 

not provide expenditure data for subparts 1 or 2. aWhen providing data for our survey, states were asked to indicate the single service category that best described the type of program funded by subparts 1 and 2. Thus, programs that fall into multiple service categories may not be fully captured. For example, one state indicated it funded a family support program, which 

includes some family preservation and reunification services. In addition, states may not have been consistent 

in categorizing services. For example, several HHS officials told us that the delineation between family support and family preservation services is not clear, so that two states providing the same services to the same 

types of families may report them in different categories. Inconsistencies such as these could have an effect on 

any measured differences among service categories. bStates may spend less than 20 percent of their subpart 2 funds on any of the required service categories if 

they have a strong rationale. Some HHS regional officials said that they approve exceptions to the 20 percent 

requirement if a state is spending a significant amount of nonfederal funds on a subpart 2 service category. c Although states were asked to indicate the single service category that best described the type of program 

funded by subparts 1 and 2, several states selected multiple program categories when responding to our survey. For example, Rhode Island reported that it funded a home visitation program and indicated that this program includes family support, health, and family reunification services. Thus, the responses from states that 

reported multiple categories for a program are represented by this category. dThe aggregate dollars reported in the service categories do not match the total allocations for subparts 1 

and 2 in fiscal year 2002. States have 2 years to spend their Title IV–B allocations; as a result, expenditures 

in fiscal year 2002 may include dollars from a state’s fiscal year 2001 Title IV–B allocation, as well as its fiscal year 2002 Title IV–B allocation. Similarly, some fiscal year 2002 allocations may not have been spent until 

fiscal year 2003. 

f 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you. Ms. Nelson? 

STATEMENT OF MARY J. NELSON, ADMINISTRATOR, DIVISION 

OF BEHAVIORAL, DEVELOPMENTAL, AND PROTECTIVE 

SERVICES FOR FAMILIES, ADULTS, AND CHILDREN, IOWA 

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, AND PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC CHILD WELFARE ADMINISTRATORS 

Ms. NELSON. Good morning, Chairman Herger, and Ranking 

Member Cardin. My name is Mary Nelson and I serve as Iowa’s 

Child Welfare Administrator, and President of the National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators. Thank you for the 

opportunity to relate some of the challenges we face, the strategies 

we employ, and the goals we have set to improve outcomes for the 

33 

children and families we serve. From the time someone contacts 

our agency with reason to suspect that a child is abused or neglected, to well beyond case closure, no other decision looms as 

large as child safety. An enormous responsibility is placed in the 

hands of caseworkers as they make multiple decisions that have 

the power to change a child’s life. Their judgment can determine 

whether a child is kept safe, or put at risk. We struggle to recruit, 

retain, and reward these dedicated professionals. Pay is low, work 

is demanding, caseloads are high, and tight budgets limit access to 

much-needed training and supervision. A stable and tenured workforce is critical to the work we do. 

In Iowa, the number of reports of suspected child maltreatment 

reached an all-time high in 2001, and has declined slightly in recent years. Still, our rate of child abuse is higher than the national 

average, with child neglect accounting for 66 percent of our cases. 

The use of methamphetamines has become a central driver of 

Iowa’s child protective caseloads. For example, in the Council 

Bluffs service area, almost half of the children come from homes 

where caretakers are involved with methamphetamines. The prevalence is even higher in some individual counties. With respect to 

child safety, Iowa has adopted aggressive timeframes for responding to reports of maltreatment. A report involving an immediate 

threat or high risk to the child receives a response within 1 hour, 

reports absent an immediate threat within 24 hours, and all other 

reports in 96 hours. Iowa investigates all reports screened for action. 

We have strengthened training on intake and screening. We have 

implemented structured risk and safety assessment tools. We have 

a new 30-hour training curriculum for new foster and adoptive parents that incorporates the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA, 

P.L. 105–89) and CFSR outcomes and expectations. However, time 

and budget constraints prevent us from providing training in these 

areas as extensively as we would like. Ongoing measurement of 

State performance is integral to our work. Long before the Federal 

CFSR, many States developed quality assurance systems to evaluate, monitor, and improve practice. States identify conditions that 

both enhance and limit the ability to achieve good outcomes. Some 

States have embraced structured decisionmaking that has reduced 

recidivism—reabuse or neglect—and that has lessened time in care. 

In Iowa, we have established a framework for quality assurance, 

placing a strong focus on child safety, permanency, and well-being, 

which incorporates data from our SACWIS and in-depth reviews of 

individual cases. 

As you know, States are engaged in measuring child welfare system performance through the CFSR and PIP. Iowa’s CFSR found 

that we met two of seven outcomes, and three of seven systemic 

factors. While we were pleased with some of these results, we acknowledge that we have a great deal of work to do to improve performance in the areas where we did not achieve substantial conformity. The challenge is great. State child welfare workers are engaged in ongoing work with families, as well as the oversight and 

improvement of our agencies. With respect to the Federal role in 

oversight, it has been greatly enhanced through the CFSR and PIP. 

All States are engaged in this effort to set baselines so that we can 

34 

measure progress. Beyond setting goals, States need the tools to 

achieve them. That is why we believe that Congress must reform 

title IV–E funding. It is too limited in its definition, and no longer 

in step with the work of our agencies. It cannot be used to support 

the most basic responsibilities of our agencies, such as investigating charges of abuse and neglect; nor can it be used to fund 

the initiatives contained in our PIP, such as expanding services to 

prevent placement. 

The American Public Human Services Association (APHSA) has 

long supported the de-linking of title IV–E eligibility from AFDC, 

and expanded waiver authority—and continues to do so. We know 

Congress is exploring new funding options, as well. We believe 

Congress should consider a policy change that would permit States 

to use Federal dollars for any purpose set forth in the PIP. Given 

the rigor of the approval process, the Federal Government would 

have all the tools necessary to ensure that State initiatives relate 

directly to specific outcomes. In the coming months, APHSA plans 

to further refine this idea. We believe that it is not enough to identify goals and initiatives in a PIP. Resources must also be available. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I would be 

happy to answer any questions you have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Nelson follows:] 

Statement of Mary J. Nelson, Administrator, Division of Behavioral, Developmental, and Protective Services for Families, Adults, and Children, 

Iowa Department of Human Services, and President, National Association 

of Public Child Welfare Administrators 

INTRODUCTION 

Good morning, Chairman Herger and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Mary 

Nelson, administrator of the Division of Behavioral, Developmental and Protective 

Services for the Iowa Department of Human Services. In this position, I have responsibility for program and policy in child protection, foster care, permanency, and 

adoptions as well as child care regulation, juvenile institutions, delinquency programs, dependent adult protection, mental health and developmental disability services for adults and children, family planning, and teen pregnancy prevention. I am 

also the current president of the National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators (NAPCWA), an affiliate of the American Public Human Services Association (APHSA), and am here today in that capacity. APHSA is a nonprofit, bipartisan organization representing state and local human service professionals for over 

70 years. NAPCWA, created as an affiliate in 1983, works to enhance and improve 

public policy and administration of services for children, youth, and families. As the 

only organization devoted solely to representing administrators of state and local 

public child welfare agencies, NAPCWA brings an informed view of the problems 

facing families today to the forefront of child welfare policy. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee about the review 

of federal and state oversight of child welfare programs. With over 29 years of experience with the Iowa Department of Human Services, beginning as a caseworker, 

I have seen the many changes the child welfare system has undergone. My testimony today will focus on the strategies being utilized in Iowa to address the needs 

of children and families involved with the child welfare system, particularly the role 

that the states, the Federal Government and communities can play with respect to 

the safety of vulnerable children we serve. 

THE CURRENT CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM 

Challenges 

The challenge is great. In 2001, state child protective services agencies received 

an estimated 2.7 million referrals alleging child abuse and neglect. An estimated 

903,000 were found to be victims. The majority, about 517,000 or 57.2 percent, were 

the victims of neglect. Two percent were the victims of medical neglect, 6.8 percent 

were the victims of psychological abuse, 9.6 percent were the victims of sexual 

abuse, and 18.5 percent were the victims of physical abuse. As of September 2001, 

35 

542,000 children were in foster care and 126,000 children were awaiting adoption. 

For families in need of support and children in need of protection, states are pursuing solutions in many areas and at multiple levels simultaneously. Public child 

welfare incorporates a broad array of core services including prevention, family support, early intervention, family preservation, child protection, foster care, adoption, 

guardianship, post-permanency services, and independent living. 

Safety Strategies and System Collaborations 

Core Work of the Child Welfare System 

Child safety is a central focus for America’s child welfare systems. From the time 

a mandated reporter, a family member, a concerned neighbor, or any other person 

believes he or she has reason to suspect that a child is being maltreated, through 

well beyond case closure, the focus on child safety is unwavering. No other decision 

rests more heavily on a child welfare professional than the safety decision; therefore, states have developed strategies to help guide this decision process. 

When an allegation of abuse or neglect comes in, caseworkers make broad-based 

assessments that identify current safety issues, future risks of maltreatment, and 

the family’s strengths and needs to determine the status of the case. Caseworkers 

must be skillful in considering how serious the abuse or neglect is, how likely it is 

to occur again, and what underlying causes led to the incident. The majority of cases 

that initially come to the attention of the system do not pose serious harm to the 

child. In cases where the degree of harm is relatively minor, a caseworker can and 

should look at other factors, such as the vulnerability of the child and the protective 

capacities of the family, to make the best judgment about the most appropriate safety response. In more serious cases, the safety response will include restriction of access to the child either by placing the child out of the home or restricting access 

of a maltreating caretaker. However, there may be other options if the caseworker 

assesses that the risk to the child can be mitigated by alternative responses such 

as intensive case management, mental health services, substance abuse treatment, 

parenting skills, and other interventions. 

The safety of children is dependent on good decision-making by child welfare professionals, judges, service providers, and the community. Decision-makers in child 

welfare cases must contend with the fact that what they decide to do or not do will 

directly impact the lives of children and families. A community member who calls 

in a report of suspected abuse may hesitate because of concerns for what may happen to the family. Child protection workers who remove children from dangerous 

homes must often immediately face a child’s grief at the loss of parents and the 

child’s need for a stable and nurturing family. Given the statutory requirement for 

states to make ‘‘reasonable efforts’’ to prevent the child’s removal from his or her 

home, caseworkers who have determined that a child can stay home may second 

guess if they have made the right decision. The need to continually balance potentially conflicting goals often places a premium on skilled decision-making and a need 

for a skilled workforce. 

Need for a Skilled Workforce 

Child welfare professionals courageously work in one of the most challenging professions in this country. The jobs performed by caseworkers have become more complicated as the challenges faced by families in the child welfare system have become 

increasingly complex. An enormous responsibility is placed in the hands of caseworkers as they are expected to perform multiple interventions and make judgments 

that have the power to change a child’s life. Their findings can determine whether 

a child is kept safe or put at risk. 

Child welfare systems throughout the country struggle to recruit, retain, and reward these dedicated professionals. In a survey of public agency administrators, 

APHSA found that the number one issue in preventable turnover was that ‘‘workloads are too high, demanding, or both.’’ Systems, workers, and families face many 

barriers and constraints as they work to achieve safety, success, and positive outcomes. Economic and budgetary challenges, changes in the political landscape, complex social factors, and complicated demands can impact a child welfare system’s 

ability to contain workloads. 

Child welfare supervisors play a vital role in providing support, skill building, and 

professional development to caseworkers. Supervisors are coaches, mentors, and 

evaluators responsible for the quality of services children and families receive. A 

supported, skilled, and stable workforce is crucial in child welfare practice given the 

tremendous impact caseworkers can have on helping vulnerable children and families overcome difficult life circumstances. Training, workload, risk of violence, supervision, and turnover present great challenges to providing the needed workforce supports in this field. However, the level of motivation and the level of dedication 

36 

among the child welfare workforce are assets that can contribute to meaningful and 

sustained improvements. A key to improving the workload for caseworkers is to ensure access to other human service systems that can help provide the services needed by children and families. 

Cross-system Collaborations 

The child welfare system cannot work in isolation from other critical human services programs. The system has increasingly been contending with crosscutting challenges impacting the lives of children and families including high rates of domestic 

violence, unmet medical and mental health needs, substance abuse, and poverty. 

Child protection is often the final safety net for many of the children and families 

who weren’t ‘‘caught’’ in time by other social service systems. Addressing these 

issues is often integral to the ability of a family to care properly for its children. 

Although many child welfare systems have begun to partner effectively with other 

sectors to address the multiple needs of children and families, there remain obstacles to truly connecting the supports these families need. For instance, an inpatient 

substance abuse treatment facility may not have the capacity to accommodate a 

family, causing a mother to have to lose physical custody while she is receiving 

treatment to keep her child. Even that is assuming that the parent can get into a 

treatment facility in a reasonable amount of time. Many states struggle with substance abuse treatment waiting lists that are often long due to insufficient resources 

and facilities. Once children are in the system, parental substance abuse is a significant hurdle in their path out of the system—a hurdle that requires drug or alcohol 

treatment for the parent in addition to other services for the family. The nature of 

drug and alcohol addiction means a parent’s recovery can take a considerable 

amount of time. Other problems these parents face, such as mental illness and 

homelessness, further complicate these cases. Foster care cases that involve parental substance abuse therefore place an additional strain on a child welfare system 

already overburdened by the sheer number of foster care cases. 

Numerous families that come to the attention of child protection have unmet mental health needs. Private health insurance limitations, an inadequate supply of services, and limited resources have all impacted the access to mental health services 

for both children and parents. A recent General Accounting Office study highlighted 

the critical importance of access to mental health services for children within and 

outside the child welfare system. These factors can cause a family to run up against 

the timelines set in the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), under which states 

must seek, with limited exceptions, termination of parental rights whenever a child 

has been in foster care for 15 of the previous 22 months. We have seen cases where 

the lack of adequate housing can lead to overcrowded conditions that cause high levels of stress and can ultimately lead to the maltreatment of a child. These examples 

serve to highlight how systems must work together to better address the varied 

needs of families. 

I can share with the Committee the Iowa story to more clearly illustrate how a 

system goes about its core work in safety, addresses the need for a skilled workforce, and develops cross-system collaborations. 

IOWA’S CHILD WELFARE STORY 

Challenges 

The number of reports of suspected child maltreatment in Iowa reached an alltime high in 2001, and have subsequently declined slightly and leveled off, as have 

the number of child abuse victims. Iowa’s per-thousand rate of child abuse is higher 

than national averages. Child neglect is by far the most common category, accounting for 66 percent of all substantiated cases. 

Safety Strategies and System Collaborations 

Core Work of the Iowa Child Welfare System 

Addressing child protective concerns resulting from parental use and/or manufacture of methamphetamines has become a significant part of the work of the Iowa 

Department of Human Services (DHS) and its community partners. Recent studies 

of Iowa’s child protective caseloads in the southwest region, for example, have revealed that one-third of child protective investigations conducted involved 

methamphetamines; one in four cases referred to child protection for assessment 

were referred specifically due to parental meth involvement; and 49 percent, almost 

half, of the children in ongoing caseloads in the Council Bluffs Service Area come 

from homes where caretakers have been or are involved with meth. The prevalence 

is even higher in some counties. 

The Iowa DHS has been continually working to address these and other challenges to child safety and well-being. Iowa has aggressive timeframes for responding 

37 

to reports of maltreatment—a report involving an immediate threat or high risk to 

the child receives a response within 1 hour; reports not involving an immediate 

threat, but in which the alleged responsible person has access to the child, receive 

a response within 24 hours; and reports not involving immediate threat or access 

to the child by the perpetrator receive a response within 96 hours. Iowa does not 

triage child abuse reports and investigates all reports that are screened in. We only 

screen out if a report doesn’t meet the three criteria of potential abuse—not a child, 

not a caretaker, or the allegation would not constitute the definition of abuse even 

if it were true. We’ve recently strengthened training on intake to build more consistency across the state and to emphasize a focus on screening cases in unless a report 

clearly does not meet the criteria of potential abuse. 

We have also developed an extensive manual for staff on issues to consider in assessing child safety. We have recently implemented use of standardized risk and 

safety assessment tools, as well as a family assessment that focuses on family 

strengths and needs. We have developed strong training programs for new child protective assessment workers, although these training programs have been negatively 

impacted by budget cuts in the last few years—which have reduced available training and caused higher caseloads resulting in less time for staff to take training 

classes. 

The focus on child safety extends beyond child proactive assessments and in-home 

services. The Department has recently implemented a new 30-hour training curriculum for new foster and adoptive parents that integrates ASFA and the Child 

and Family Services Reviews (CFSR) outcomes and expectations into the training. 

To the extent possible, we want to encourage and allow existing foster parents to 

go through this training as well. However, the lack of resources, money for actual 

training, and time prevents us from doing this as extensively as we would like. The 

Department also conducts record checks before foster family licensure and adoptive 

family approval—including criminal history, child abuse, and sex offender registry. 

We’ve also built a strong partnership with the Iowa Foster and Adoptive Parent Association (IFAPA) to provide a range of supports to foster and adoptive parents. For 

example, we have a contract with IFAPA to do our recruitment and retention 

project, as well as to provide other supports such as peer liaisons to new and experienced foster and adoptive parents, training, and on-going support groups. Iowa’s 

CFSR Program Improvement Plan (PIP) also includes new activities for IFAPA— 

including training foster parents on preventing child abuse, contacting new foster 

families after the first placement to help provide support to the family, and providing post-adoptive support to families when their adoption is finalized. 

Need for a Skilled Workforce 

The Department uses private agencies extensively to supervise and support foster 

parents. Due to our own high caseloads, we contract with private agencies to ensure 

face-to-face visits with children and families. We’ve also implemented policy and 

training on safety planning throughout our involvement with a child and family, 

and on safe case closure. The policy requires safety assessments, for example, when 

considering unsupervised visits, immediately before returning a child home, and immediately before closing a service case. 

Cross-system Collaborations 

Iowa’s child welfare system has endeavored to build working relationships at both 

the state and community level with partners in domestic violence, substance abuse, 

the courts, the local community, law enforcement, mental health, and education. For 

example, we are implementing Rural Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment 

Response Teams. Through these teams, six agencies are working to develop state 

protocols for collaboration among domestic violence, child protection, law enforcement, county attorneys, and others. We’re also working with seven communities to 

reduce domestic violence and child victimization by creating Family Violence Response Teams whose goal is to ensure safety, justice, stability, and well-being for 

families. 

In response to the increasing challenge of substance abuse, particularly 

methamphetamines, Iowa has taken several steps. For example, we’ve created meth 

specialist positions in our eight Service Areas. These staff provide consultation for 

our staff and the community in addressing meth abuse and working with families 

with a history of meth use, and provide case management for a limited caseload of 

families involved with meth. Iowa has also initiated Drug Endangered Children 

(DEC) projects in three communities with heavy reported meth production—including our most populous county, a rural county, and a mid-size county. These projects 

bring law enforcement, child protection workers, public health officials, medical 

practitioners, and prosecutors together to assist children who are endangered by 

38 

being exposed to meth manufacture or use in their environment. Projects focus on 

removing children from the dangerous living conditions in a drug lab, holding the 

caretakers accountable for the endangerment with prosecution, and medical and developmental assessment to address the child’s needs. 

The judicial system is a fundamental partner in child welfare. Iowa has an active 

judiciary that takes a strong interest. Our juvenile judges are knowledgeable about 

ASFA and the CFSR outcomes and processes, and take seriously their role in child 

protection and permanency. Juvenile judges and the director of our court improvement project were actively involved in developing our CFSR self-assessment and our 

PIP. Two juvenile judges actually participated in the on-site review as peer reviewers. Our PIP includes several strategies that our court improvement project will implement to strengthen the court’s role in improving outcomes for children and families. 

Community Partnership for Protecting Children 

Finally, Iowa has been a Community Partnership for Protecting Children (CPPC) 

site through the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation since 1997. In Iowa’s Community Partnership sites, community members are engaged to help find solutions in 

child welfare cases. The sites have organized a network of neighborhood and community supports. The partnership has created a network of agencies, neighborhood 

groups, and families to support the overall mission of the community child protection. Core members of networks include schools, faith institutions, mental health 

professionals and healthcare providers, substance abuse and domestic violence programs, police, child care providers, parent groups, and of course, the public child 

protective services (CPS) agency. 

The child welfare system in Iowa has begun to adopt new policies, practices, roles, 

and responsibilities to support Community Partnerships. In order to take a leadership role in the partnership, DHS has changed the way it responds to reports of 

maltreatment, while still fulfilling its legal mandate to protect children from abuse 

and neglect. This process has meant teaching staff different skills for working with 

families. If the child’s immediate safety needs are met, but the family is still in need 

of help, then the worker connects parents to the services and resources they may 

need by first conducting a thorough assessment. DHS has acted as a ‘‘safety consultant’’ to other members of the partnership network—assisting teachers, pediatricians, family support workers, and residents in determining what they can contribute to child safety in the community, and how to effectively intervene when a 

child is at risk of harm. DHS has also incorporated the key principles of the Community Partnership in child welfare policy and practice. 

The community partnership model has worked well for families in Iowa. The following examples help to highlight the benefits we’ve seen from this model. 

In one CPPC site, the community has recruited and trained Neighborhood Partners—local residents who organize events for parents and children and help families 

who may be isolated within the neighborhoods to take full advantage of local resources. They’ve also located family support workers at two of the schools in the targeted neighborhoods to assist families in identifying needed services. In another 

site, the community developed circles of support for at-risk families, as well as family partners for individual families. In this particular site, the community has developed its CPPC work in conjunction with a project called Beyond Welfare that is focused on helping families achieve self-sufficiency goals. 

We had a case in which a mother with two children, a newborn and a two-year 

old toddler, was brought to the attention of the child protection agency. A caseworker visited her home to find out about the specific allegation—a bruise on the 

two-year old. Although the family appeared troubled, the worker was unable to connect the bruise to abuse. 

The worker could have left with the hope that the family doesn’t reappear to the 

system on more serious abuse charges. But instead, the caseworker conducted a 

thorough assessment of the family. The assessment revealed a young single parent 

who was unsure of how to care for her children and was drinking too much alcohol. 

She was isolated from her neighbors, friends, and family and had no contact with 

the father of the children. 

After the assessment, the caseworker and mother developed an ‘‘individualized action plan’’. The plan targeted the family’s strengths as well as their problems, and 

brought together family members and friends with service providers in a team meeting. As a result of the meeting, the mother agreed to join a support group for young 

parents and attend AA meetings; the caseworker went to the first AA meeting with 

her. A neighbor agreed to visit every few days and help out with occasional meals 

and errands. The toddler was enrolled in day care. A family support worker helped 

39 

the mother tackle long-term challenges such as finding ongoing medical care for her 

family and getting into a job training program. 

Quality Assurance Systems 

States constantly work to improve and move their child welfare systems forward, 

as exemplified by Iowa’s efforts noted above. To assure that results are being 

achieved, it’s critical for systems to continually assess their progress. States have 

a strong history of addressing and assessing quality within their own child welfare 

systems so that these systems will better serve children and families. State data has 

been a key piece in assessing quality services. Quality assurance systems are employed to evaluate, monitor, and improve practice. State quality assurance systems 

have helped to identify conditions of frontline practice that can lead to good results—such as quality of the relationship between the caseworker and the family, 

good matching of needs and supports, good assessments, range of services available, 

resilient children, and families able to communicate and willing to ask for help. 

States have also been able to identify conditions that limited the ability to achieve 

good outcomes including caseload size, prevalence of crisis patterns, reluctance of 

family to be involved with services, dual diagnosis caregivers, lack of available treatment alternatives, and parental substance abuse. 

Some states, such as Michigan, have found through quality improvement outcome 

evaluations that tools like structured decision-making have led to a higher rate of 

permanency in 15 months, lower rates of subsequent harm to children returned 

home, less time in care, and lower recidivism rates. Here in Iowa, we have established a framework for a quality assurance and quality improvement system that 

places a strong focus on child safety, permanency, and well-being. Key components 

include: 

• provision and use of case-specific data to allow system-wide results, trend data, 

and best practices to be shared to assist in decision making; 

• use of in-depth quality service reviews (using a case review protocol similar to 

that used in the on-site CFSR review) to provide feedback on strengths and 

areas needing improvement related to child and family outcomes (especially 

safety, stability and permanency) and related to performance of the child welfare system (e.g., family engagement, service planning, service coordination); 

and 

• support for the use of evidence-based practice. 

A number of states have proactively incorporated federal performance indicators 

within their state quality assurance systems and performance-based budgeting systems to align state and federal accountability standards. 

Child and Family Services Reviews and Program Improvement Plans 

Many of the federal performance indicators that states are aligning with their 

own accountability standards come from the Child and Family Services Reviews. 

Currently, states are engaged in measuring child welfare system performance 

through the CFSR and subsequent program improvement plans (PIP) based on the 

findings of the review. The CFSR process has brought the focus on core outcomes 

and helped to create a common platform of dialogue among states. States have been 

diligently working on the CFSR and PIPs and are willing to be accountable for their 

efforts on behalf of children and families in need of support and services. 

According to an Administration for Children and Families summary of the 2001 

and 2002 CFSR final reports of 32 states, performance was stronger on the safety 

outcomes than in the permanency and well-being outcomes. State performance on 

the indicators within the safety outcomes shows that 47 percent of states achieved 

a strength rating for timeliness of initiating investigations, 41 percent achieved a 

strength rating for reducing repeat maltreatment, 50 percent achieved a strength 

rating for services to protect children and prevent removal, and 34 percent achieve 

a strength rating for reducing risk of harm to children. As of 2003, 48 states have 

had their system reviewed to assess baseline data on measures of safety, permanency, and child well-being; however, similar performance rating data are not yet 

available. 

Despite some of the positive results, states recognize that they need to continue 

to make strong efforts to address areas needing improvement. In striving to meet 

the national standards, states must be able to also support good practice. The compatibility of data across states is a serious concern, and states feel strongly that the 

baseline for each state from this first round of CFSRs should drive measurement 

of improvement rather than national standards. Several differences in state definitions and data contribute to the lack of compatibility across states. Comparing results of a very rural state with a largely urban state can prove misleading. States 

40 

often have varying definitions of abuse and neglect as well as different standards 

for substantiating abuse and neglect. The very nature of the child welfare population, where some states include certain children in their mental health and juvenile justice programs and other states do not, is another source of variation that 

contributes to the lack of comparability across states. 

For states, the CFSRs and PIPs are consistent with their commitment to improving outcomes and increasing accountability in the public child welfare system. 

APHSA and states have had a long-standing interest in moving the public child welfare system from a process-driven system to an outcomes-focused system, so that its 

success is measured by positive outcomes for children. States are committed to quality services for children and families and accountability for achieving outcomes. 

States support the outcomes-focused approach to federal child and family service reviews and the use of both qualitative and quantitative information to judge performance. However, reviews must serve as an accurate and fair measure of state performance. National standards on which performance is determined must be based 

on accurate data so that the fairness of these reviews is not compromised. 

Iowa’s Child and Family Services Review 

A key finding of the Iowa CFSR was that Iowa is in substantial conformity with 

two of the seven outcomes and three of the seven systemic factors. With regard to 

the outcomes, Iowa achieved substantial conformity with Safety Outcome 2 (Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate) and 

Well Being Outcome 2 (Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs). The CFSR determined that DHS is effective in addressing the risk 

of harm to children either through placement in foster care or through providing 

adequate services to maintain children safely in their own homes. Most stakeholders 

commenting during the onsite CFSR indicated that there is a large array of preventive and home-based services available to prevent children’s removal from their 

homes or re-entry into foster care after reunification. Stakeholders also commented 

that DHS routinely conducts risk assessments and establishes safety plans for children. The CFSR also determined that DHS makes concerted efforts to address the 

educational needs of children in the child welfare agency caseloads and is consistently effective in reunifying children with their families in a timely manner. 

With regard to the systemic factors, Iowa was determined to be in substantial conformity with the factors of statewide information system; agency responsiveness to 

the community; and foster and adoptive parent licensing, recruitment, and retention. The state did not achieve substantial conformity with the systemic factors of 

case review system, training, and service array. Information from the Statewide Assessment and the stakeholder interviews conducted during the onsite CFSR attributed many of the current difficulties experienced by DHS to recent budget cuts in 

all areas of child welfare agency functioning. In recent years, funds available for 

services, training, quality assurance, and maintenance of the management information system have been substantially reduced. 

Iowa’s Program Improvement Plan 

Iowa’s program improvement plan, based on the child and family services review, 

was submitted on January 20, 2004. The goals and strategies from the PIP address 

a variety of safety outcomes. 

Iowa’s goals to address Safety Outcome 1 (Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect) include: 

• Increasing the timeliness of initiating responses to reports of child abuse/neglect. Due to Iowa’s aggressive timeframes for responding to child abuse and neglect reports, our CFSR final report found that Iowa was timely in establishing 

face-to-face contact with children and families in accordance with state-established timeframes when reports involved immediate threat or high risk, but was 

less consistent in meeting timeframes when reports involved moderate or low 

risk. 

• Decreasing recurrence of maltreatment. Iowa did not meet the national standard for repeat maltreatment, although case reviews in the CFSR on-site review 

did not identify extensive repeat maltreatment and reviewers rated this item a 

strength in 92 percent of cases reviewed. 

• Decreasing the incidence of abuse and neglect in foster care. 

Iowa’s PIP strategies to address the safety outcomes include: 

• Enhancement of functional assessment protocols to better identify critical underlying issues; 

• Providing staff with guidelines for service planning around different issues such 

as neglect cases, domestic violence, and substance abuse; 

41 

• Expansion of Community Partnerships for Protecting Children statewide by 

July 1, 2007; • Expansion of family team meetings; • Provision of training and technical assistance on substance abuse and child welfare; • Provision of additional support to new foster parents through IFAPA, as well 

as training on preventing abuse in family foster care; • Review of cases of abuse in residential treatment on a quarterly basis; and • Development and monitoring of performance data on all three indicators and review quarterly with Service Area Managers (SAMs). 

THE FEDERAL ROLE 

The Federal Government and states have begun working collaboratively through 

the child and family services reviews and program improvement plans to focus on 

key outcomes. Through this process, there is a real opportunity for the Federal Government to better support and help enhance the capabilities of state child welfare 

systems to achieve these outcomes. 

Limitations of IV–E Funding 

• Nationally, fewer than 60 percent of the children in the child welfare 

system are served with IV–E federal dollars, and the number of children is decreasing over time. As you are well aware, states are required to 

‘‘look back’’ to old AFDC rules in effect on July 16, 1996, to determine Title IV– 

E eligibility. Not only is this administratively burdensome, but the law does not 

allow the income standards to grow with inflation. As a result, eligibility for 

federal reimbursement has decreased over time, leading to a continued loss of 

federal funding to states. • Federal IV–E funding does not support the most basic work of our 

agencies, particularly with respect to safety. For example, the investigation stage, where an agency determines the efficacy of the charge of abuse or 

neglect—the first point of contact an agency has with vulnerable children and 

families—cannot be supported with federal IV–E dollars. Furthermore, federal 

funding is disproportionately directed to funding out-of-home care—the very 

part of the system agencies seek to minimize to achieve greater permanence for 

children. Federal IV–E entitlement cannot be used to fund front-end services, reunification, or post-adoption services for children and families in 

the system. • The health and mental health of children in the child welfare system is a 

key outcome measure in the CFSR. States have helped many children and families in the system by providing wraparound services, such as comprehensive 

needs assessments, individual service plans, service plan development and review, referrals for services, service coordination and monitoring, case management, rehabilitation service coordination, rehabilitation links and aftercare, and 

service management through targeted case management (TCM). Because federal IV–E funds cannot be used for these purposes, states have funded these 

services with Medicaid money for decades. APHSA and our members are very 

concerned about recent federal actions to limit states’ ability to use Medicaid 

funds for TCM services for children in the foster care system. 

• Despite the Federal Government’s renewed emphasis on accountability 

and program improvement through the Child and Family Services Review process, IV–E funds cannot be used to achieve many of the mutually agreed-upon goals in the Program Improvement Plans. It is not 

enough to know what goals need to be achieved to help children and families 

in the child welfare system; the resources must also be available. For example, 

in Iowa’s PIP we are proposing to undertake the following initiatives to improve 

the safety outcomes for the children and families we serve, but federal IV–E 

funding cannot be used for the following: 

• One of the areas Iowa needs to work on is reducing repeat maltreatment. IV– 

E funding, however, cannot be used for individualized ‘‘wraparound’’ services 

to address the underlying causes of maltreatment based on engaging the family and implementing a good assessment—only foster care. 

• Iowa also wants to move to paying providers for results—again, IV–E can 

only be used to pay for maintenance. And, if the result the provider achieves 

is a shorter length of stay or foster care prevention, we lose IV–E funding, 

and the state and provider have fewer resources available to achieve results. 

• Iowa is proposing to expand our Community Partnership initiative and to increase wrap-around flexible funds to provide services based on individual family needs, and to allow children who need services traditionally provided in 

42 

residential care to remain in their communities. Neither of these will qualify 

for IV–E funding because they are not focused on foster care. 

• Iowa wants to include private agency staff, who deliver many of the child welfare services to children and families in Iowa, in our training. IV–E match 

for training private agency staff, however, is lower than for training our own 

staff, meaning fewer dollars available for this critical training. 

Recommendations 

• NAPCWA and the states have welcomed the opportunity to participate in the 

Children’s Bureau workgroup to make improvements to the outcomes and how 

they’re measured based on the first round of CFSRs. Some promising preliminary suggestions include augmenting AFCARS data with state data to 

paint a more complete picture; increasing the capacity of HHS regional offices and resource centers to better assist states; incorporating commitments from other systems that impact child welfare such as mental 

health and substance abuse; and supporting development and execution of 

PIP goals. 

• We support breaking the link between IV–E eligibility and the long-sincerepealed AFDC program, so that the Federal Government can share in the support of all children in the child welfare system, regardless of income. 

• We support broadening the use of IV–E funding to support investigations, 

prevention and post-permanency services, and other services to vulnerable children and families. 

• We support the continued use of Medicaid funds for targeted case management, health, and mental health services to children and families in the system. 

• We support the reform and continuation of state child welfare waiver authority 

contained in the pending welfare reform legislation, H.R. 4, that would provide 

states with a mechanism to use federal funding more flexibly over time within 

cost neutrality constraints. 

• However, in addition to the aforementioned waiver authority, we set forth another idea for your consideration. Recognizing the constraints of growing federal 

and state budget deficits, APHSA and our NAPCWA members want to be a part 

of a reasonable and cost effective approach to afford states greater flexibility in 

the use of federal IV–E funds. We are currently developing a proposal that 

would allow states to use IV–E funding for any purpose approved under 

their Program Improvement Plan. As you are aware, following the CFSR, 

states are required to review the findings and develop a PIP that specifies actions the state will undertake in an effort to improve the outcomes. The PIP 

is a negotiation between states and the Federal Government, concluding with 

a formal approval by the Federal Government. States are asked to implement 

the PIP, and the Federal Government will undertake a subsequent CFSR to 

evaluate the extent to which the state has achieved improvement or attained 

the desired outcomes set forth in its plan. 

Because the PIP is formally approved by the Federal Government, we believe 

Congress should consider a policy change that would permit states to use a federal IV–E dollar for any purpose set forth in the PIP and during the time period 

set forth in the PIP. Given the rigor of the federal approval process, the Federal 

Government would have all the tools necessary to ensure that the purposes set 

forth in the PIP relate directly to the outcomes a state seeks to achieve. 

CONCLUSION 

Child welfare systems are meeting the ongoing challenges of the many needs of 

children and families. States are working to ensure quality assurance efforts which 

allow them to monitor and improve their systems on an on-going basis. As was highlighted in the work in Iowa, states are also building effective alliances with other 

crucial human services systems and are pursuing promising new interventions. 

States are thoughtfully engaged in the program improvement plan process through 

the CFSR and are energized by the prospects of achieving much-sought-after outcomes for children and families. In the pursuit of these goals, NAPCWA and APHSA 

welcome the opportunity to work with the Administration to make meaningful 

progress. 

NAPCWA’s vision for child welfare is a society where children are free from abuse 

and neglect and live in safe, stable, permanent families—where children and families have needed supports and can help themselves. When children are at risk and 

come to the attention of the public agency, the agency can provide services and supports to them and their families to mitigate their problems and prevent them from 

being removed from their families and communities. When children must come into 

43 

care, the agency can address children and family needs expeditiously and enable a 

safe reunification or, where that is not possible, find an alternative permanent 

placement expeditiously, while assuring their well-being in the interim. This is a vision where the safety and protection of children is the shared responsibility of all 

parts of the human service agency and the larger community. It is a vision where 

the child welfare system has the capacity to improve outcomes for children and families, and the Federal Government and states are equal partners in serving all children in all parts of the system. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be pleased to respond to any 

questions you may have. 

f 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Ms. Nelson. William Bell to testify. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. BELL, COMMISSIONER, ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES, NEW YORK, NEW 

YORK 

Mr. BELL. Good morning, Chairman Herger, and Ranking Member Cardin. Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today. 

As recently as 1995, New York City may have been asked to testify 

about its failings in child welfare rather than its successes. My testimony here today is intended to serve as tangible evidence that it 

is possible to turn around a failing child welfare system. The most 

remarkable success of the past 8 years in New York City has been 

achieved over the past 2 years, where in spite of the enormous impact of a budget deficit of approximately $6 billion in each of the 

past 2 fiscal years, New York City’s child welfare system has improved. New York City has experienced record lows in the number 

of children in foster care, currently approximately 22,000, and the 

number of admissions to foster care, approximately 6,600 placements last year, 49 percent less than in 1997. 

The success of New York City’s transformation suggests that the 

actions that we have taken are not merely optional steps for 

change, but that they may constitute necessary elements in the 

blueprint for any child welfare reform. Those steps included, committing the political will necessary to sustain change, appointing 

competent executive and mid-level leadership, developing a clear 

plan of action, investing in frontline supervision, investing in frontline staff, developing and demanding strong cross-system partnerships, clearly articulating principles and standards to guide the 

work, creating and enforcing a data-driven accountability system, 

publicly reporting on outcomes for children, and giving the system 

time to improve. Successful reform has occurred in New York City 

because the full support of the Mayor is placed squarely behind 

this effort. The success or failure of the child welfare system is 

owned as much by the leader of the city as it is by the Child Welfare Commissioner and the caseworkers. If a tragedy occurs, it is 

met by an aggressive effort to understand and to improve, not by 

the sacrificial firing of the Commissioner and the caseworkers responsible for the case. 

We began our reform effort by investing in our workforce and improving the quality of frontline supervision. Staff cannot be expected to adequately fulfill their responsibilities if they are not 

trained properly, if they do not receive appropriate supervision, or 

if they are constantly afraid that their decisions will not be supVerDate May 21 2004 01:51 Jul 15, 2004 Jkt 092984 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\92984.XXX 92984
44 

ported by the agency. Since the creation of ACS in 1996, we have 

made extraordinary progress in improving the lives of New York 

City’s vulnerable children and their families. Since 1996, the ACS 

has completed over 27,000 adoptions, with the number of adoptions 

rising in each of the past 2 fiscal years. We have successfully reduced the child protective caseloads from an average of 26 cases 

per worker in 1996, to approximately 10.7 cases per worker in 

2003. The overall foster care population is less than half of what 

it was just a decade ago. In 1990, New York City comprised 13 percent of the national foster care census. Today, we represent just 5 

percent of the national census. Moreover, ACS has accounted for almost 30 percent of the total national decline in foster care since 

1999. 

Data-driven accountability has been a great part of this success. 

In 1999, ACS created the Evaluation and Quality Improvement 

Protocol (EQUIP), which gives ACS the ability to evaluate the quality of services being provided to children and families by looking 

at process, outcomes, and quality measures. After 3 years of 

EQUIP, ACS just recently introduced a performance-based contracting system, which now, for the first time, pays agencies based 

on the quality of services that they are providing to children, not 

based on the number of days that children remain in their organizations. As my words here today suggest, we believe that improvement to the child welfare system is achievable with the right ingredients. New York City’s ACS is a testament to this belief. Nevertheless, even with our tremendous progress, we have much more 

to do if we are going to achieve the level of excellence required in 

order to help New York City’s children become productive New 

York City adults. 

We believe that the Federal Government can assist in this effort 

by increasing Federal funding, increasing the flexibility that is allowed in how that funding is utilized, de-linking title IV–E funding 

from the AFDC look back, and allowing for title IV–E funding to 

be used in funding the permanency option of guardianship for children. We also believe that additional services are required in terms 

of mental health and substance abuse services for families involved 

in the child welfare system. Last, we believe that a new system 

that focuses on after-care services for young people who have 

emancipated from foster care is not only necessary, but absolutely 

required to reduce the stream of young people who leave foster care 

and end up in the penal system, in the homeless system, or on the 

AFDC or TANF system. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bell follows:] 

Statement of William C. Bell, Commissioner, Administration for Children’s 

Services, New York, New York 

Good morning, Chairman Herger and members of the House Committee on Ways 

and Means, Subcommittee on Human Resources. I am William Bell, Commissioner 

of the NYC Administration for Children’s Services (ACS). I am here today on behalf 

of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and New York City. While my testimony today is 

presented only in my capacity as ACS Commissioner, I am pleased to acknowledge 

that I am also a member of the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care and 

sit on the Executive Committee of the National Association of Public Child Welfare 

Administrators (NAPCWA). 

Thank you for inviting me here today to speak about the accomplishments of New 

York City’s child welfare system. As recently as 1995, New York City may have 

45 

been asked to testify about its failings in child welfare. I am pleased to say that 

after more than eight years of reform, I can today talk about the remarkable transformation of a child welfare system with many successes and positive outcomes. 

My testimony here today is also intended to serve as tangible evidence that it is 

possible to turn around a failing child welfare system and, as we have done in New 

York City, become recognized for numerous successes rather than failures. 

The most remarkable success of the past eight years has been achieved under the 

Bloomberg Administration. In spite of the enormous impact of record deficits of 

nearly $6 Billion in each of the past two fiscal years, New York City’s child welfare 

system has experienced record lows in the number of children in foster care (approximately 22,300, the lowest since 1987) and admissions into foster care (approximately 6,500 placements in 2003—49% fewer than 1997). These achievements occurred even though both the number of reports of abuse/neglect (55,000) and the 

number of children involved (85,000) have remained consistent each year. 

History of the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) 

In response to several tragic child fatalities in New York City in the mid-1990s, 

including the death of a six year-old named Elisa Izquierdo, who was known to New 

York City’s Child Welfare Administration, former Mayor Rudolph Guiliani focused 

his attention on improving the quality and accountability of the City’s child welfare 

system. The devastation of child abuse—and the failure of the child protection system to protect Elisa and other vulnerable children—shocked New Yorkers and the 

nation. A quote in the New York Times captured accurately that which should be 

the position of the entire country, ‘‘All of us have some responsibility. We’re all accountable.’’ By not simply assigning blame and accepting accountability and responsibility, New York City took the first of many important steps in creating one of 

the strongest child welfare systems in the country. 

The Mayor began a series of steps that we in New York City have come to recognize as a blueprint for improvement for any system that is failing in its mission of 

child protection. The success of NYC’s transformation suggests that these are not 

merely optional steps but that they constitute necessary elements for child welfare 

reform for any system: 

1. Commit the political will necessary to sustain change; 

2. Appoint competent executive and mid-level leadership; 

3. Develop a clear plan of action; 

4. Invest in frontline supervision; 

5. Invest in frontline staff; 

6. Develop and demand strong cross systems partnerships; 

7. Clearly articulate principles and standards to guide the work; 

8. Create and enforce a data driven accountability system; 

9. Publicly report on outcomes for children; and 

10. Give the system time to improve. 

Necessary Elements for Reform 

Success in New York City was not easy. Nor did it happen overnight. Reform is 

possible for even the most troubled agencies, but first there must be the political 

will and support for the agency and for change. Successful reform occurred in New 

York City because the full support of the Mayor was placed behind the effort. There 

was a public declaration that the success or failure of the child welfare agency 

would be shouldered by the leader of the city; not by the firing of the commissioner 

and caseworker following the next tragedy. 

The structure and leadership of the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) 

reflected this political will. Nicholas Scoppetta, former deputy mayor and a well-respected public servant, was appointed as the agency’s first Commissioner. The Administration for Children’s Services was also separated from the larger Human Resources Agency and elevated to become a Cabinet level agency with the sole charge 

of protecting New York City’s children. 

Strong leadership is also necessary to implement reform. Commissioner 

Scoppetta’s first action was to put together a strong management team with extensive experience and dedication to reforming the system. I was fortunate to be a part 

of this team as Deputy Commissioner for Child Protective Services. Once the team 

was in place, we thoroughly assessed the system, sought assistance and advice from 

stakeholders and experts in the field and began to develop a clear plan of action. 

We began with investing in our workforce and improving the quality of the frontline supervision and casework staff. Staff could not be expected to adequately fulfill 

their responsibilities if they were not trained properly, did not receive appropriate 

supervision, or if they were constantly afraid that their decisions would not be supported by the agency. At ACS, we have successfully changed this culture by instiVerDate May 21 2004 01:51 Jul 15, 2004 Jkt 092984 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\92984.XXX 92984
46 

tuting strong leadership throughout the agency, improving the quality of staff, providing staff with the resources necessary to do their jobs, and supporting staff, when 

appropriate, rather than using front-line staff as scapegoats when something went 

wrong. These changes have dramatically improved ACS’s ability to protect children. 

One of the most important elements of reform is time. Change does not occur 

overnight. In New York City there were years of poor practice, bad publicity, fear 

and inadequate resources to overcome. As the past eight years have demonstrated, 

however, success is possible with support and time. 

Some people believe that lawsuits are the only impetus to change. I do not. Lawsuits may be necessary to force an entrenched system to the point of beginning the 

change process; however, in and of themselves, lawsuits cannot complete the long 

arduous work of systems reform. 

Lawsuits often redirect limited agency resources into defending against the lawsuit and becoming distracted from the primary objective of protecting children. Lawsuits also reinforce the public’s distrust of child protective agencies, which can be 

very harmful to children. Change is possible without legal action and court oversight. It is possible with political will and support, increased resources, strong leadership, workforce investment, a clear plan of action, clearly articulated principles 

and standards, accountability, partnerships, ongoing advice from experts in the 

field, and time. 

Major Reform and Achievements of ACS 

Since its creation in 1996, ACS has made extraordinary progress in improving the 

lives of New York City’s vulnerable children and their families. Since taking office 

in January 2002, Mayor Bloomberg has continuously demonstrated his commitment 

to children and families by fully supporting ACS and its programs, as is seen in the 

significant accomplishments the agency has continued to achieve. 

Front-Line Practice 

One of the first areas of focus for the new ACS was the point of entry into the 

child welfare system: child protective investigations. ACS made a commitment to ensure that all staff responsible for investigating allegations of abuse or neglect had 

the resources and support necessary to thoroughly perform their duties. The goal 

was to ensure that every child that came to the attention of ACS would be protected 

from harm and only be removed from their home if necessary to prevent harm to 

the child. 

In the first years of ACS, we took several actions to improve the capacity of the 

front-line staff to conduct adequate risk-assessments and provide appropriate assistance and intervention to protect children and stabilize families. The entry-level 

standards for hiring child protective workers were strengthened to require increased 

education in social work or a related field. Compensation for the staff was also increased in an effort to attract and retain higher quality staff. Merit-based raises 

were instituted to encourage staff to succeed and to reduce turnover. ACS also provided enhanced training, creating a more intense and comprehensive curriculum for 

all new staff, as well as advanced curriculums for more experienced staff. 

In addition to increasing the quality of the staff, ACS also needed to increase the 

number of child protective investigators. When ACS was first created, caseloads 

were unreasonably high, which prevented workers from having the time or ability 

to fully investigate each case to ensure children were safe. Through aggressive hiring of quality staff, quality supervision, and enhanced accountability, we have successfully reduced the caseloads from approximately 26 per worker at the creation 

of ACS, to 10.7 per worker in 2003. 

Successfully improving the quality of practice in child protective investigations 

also required the availability of additional services to protect children and stabilize 

families without requiring a removal from the child’s home. Over the past seven 

years, ACS has dramatically increased the array and availability of preventive services to New York City’s families. While families could always request these services 

without being part of a child protective investigation, through the new training and 

higher standards of front-line staff, preventive services are now more widely used 

by child protective workers to allow children to remain at home safely with their 

families. 

In 2001, a critical milestone in ACS history was passed when, for the first time, 

more children were served by in-home preventive services than were in foster care. 

This profound shift within the child welfare system in New York City is further evidence that ACS has successfully improved the quality of case practice, training, and 

supervision for the frontline child protective specialists making decisions to keep 

families together whenever safe and appropriate. 

47 

Permanency and Adoption 

Since 1996, ACS has completed almost 27,000 adoptions, with the number of 

adoptions rising the past two fiscal years. As a result, more and more children for 

whom a return to a parent or caretaker is not appropriate or possible are living with 

permanent, caring families. This increase in the number of adoptions has occurred 

during a time when the number of children eligible for adoption has decreased with 

the foster care census. In fiscal year 1998, the number of children for whom parental rights had been terminated was 8,772. In fiscal year 2003, this number dropped 

to 4,194. This means that since 1998, ACS has increased the number of adoptions 

completed as a percentage of the total number of children eligible for adoption from 

approximately 45% to 66.6% in fiscal year 2003. 

One reason for this success is the partnerships that have been built with all of 

the entities involved in the adoption process, including: New York State Chief Judge 

Judith Kaye, the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS), 

and the New York City Family Court. In May 2003, this partnership was solidified 

through ‘‘Adoption Now’’, an initiative that seeks to address systemic barriers to 

timely adoptions. 

As part of ACS’s work towards permanency for all children in foster care, we have 

instituted several new initiatives that have been specifically designed to address the 

needs of different populations in foster care. Nationwide, the child welfare system 

has historically failed to adequately meet the needs of adolescents in foster care. 

Currently, more than half of New York City’s foster care population is over the age 

of twelve. 

This shift in population over the past several years has resulted in a focus on the 

special needs of adolescents. Under the Bloomberg Administration, ACS designed 

and implemented the ‘‘Families for Teens’’ initiative to change the culture of child 

welfare practice to ensure that all teens in foster care are provided with the care, 

skills, resources and positive relationships necessary to succeed as adults. We are 

breaking the myth that teens are not able to be adopted and we are changing practice to make sure that everyone understands and believes that teens not only need 

families, but that it is possible for them to have families and to leave foster care 

with a loving, stable support system in place. 

In an effort to move adolescents out of foster care or into lower levels of care, ACS 

has been working with teens living in group care settings, their caseworkers, and 

their law guardians to identify members of their extended family with whom they 

could be reunited and to find adoptive families eager to parent a teenager. ACS now 

requires a concurrent, family-based plan for every teen at risk of aging out of foster 

care to safeguard against releasing young adults to the myth of ‘‘independent’’ living. 

To build positive relationships in the lives of foster youth, we are also actively 

working to expand mentoring opportunities for youth in foster care by working with 

various reputable mentoring organizations in New York City. 

Teens are not the only population that requires specialized services. Infants and 

toddlers have their own special developmental, medical and emotional needs. In 

close collaboration with New York State’s Permanent Judicial Commission on Justice for Children, ACS has worked to educate its staff about infants’ unique needs 

and to boost the enrollment of young foster children in its Head Start and Early 

Intervention programs. In addition, ACS was recently awarded a large HHS grant 

that will allow us to work closely with a network of service providers in the BedfordStuyvesant community to improve the outcomes for our youngest and most vulnerable children. 

Foster Care Census 

As a result of improved investigations and risk-assessments, increased use of inhome preventive services, implementation of family conferencing and an increased 

focus on permanency for all youth in foster care, New York City’s foster care population has decreased dramatically. In 2003, New York City’s foster care population 

reached its lowest level since 1987. In November 2003, the foster care population 

in New York City was approximately 22,300, a decline of almost 21% over the past 

two years. This includes a projected yearly decline of 12.2% in 2003 alone—the largest yearly percentage decrease on record in New York City. Overall, the foster care 

population is now less than half of what it was a decade ago. 

The decrease in New York City’s foster care census has primarily driven the overall decrease in New York State and has played a significant role in the reduction 

of the nation’s foster care population. While ACS was achieving a historic decline 

in the New York City foster care census, the nation’s foster care census was rising 

to a high of 567,000 in 1999. And while the national foster care census has fallen 

only slightly since 1999, New York City’s decline has continued at a remarkable 

48 

pace. As a result, New York City’s share of the national foster care census has fallen 

from 13% in 1990 to only 5% of the most recent national figures. Moreover, ACS 

has accounted for almost 30% of the total national decline since 1999. 

Neighborhood Based Services 

A major theme in the reform efforts at ACS has been the creation and enhancement of a neighborhood based services (NBS) approach through which children who 

enter foster care are placed in their own neighborhoods, keeping them close to family and in their own school. This reduces trauma to children in care and facilitates 

family visits, where appropriate. NBS promotes permanency by providing children 

with preventive services, foster care services, health care, and other support services 

in the community where they resided before removal from their home. As part of 

the NBS approach, the contracted not-for-profit foster care agencies, which provide 

over 90% of the foster care services in New York City, were assigned to serve specific community districts in New York City, based upon an extensive assessment of 

need in every community in the City. 

As part of the NBS approach, ACS has established 25 Neighborhood Networks in 

the City’s high-needs communities. These networks connect neighborhood organizations, schools, service providers and faith-based entities to support families in their 

own communities better and leverage resources in the present fiscally constrained 

environment. 

In 2002, ACS identified that over 60% of the children in foster care came from 

18 out of 59 community districts in the City. Therefore, ACS has embarked upon 

a strategy to target these Top 18 neighborhoods. Named ‘‘Community Partnership 

to Strengthen Families,’’ the goal of this initiative is to target specific geographic 

areas with the highest involvement with the child welfare system, and then engage 

these communities in the process of collecting and analyzing the child welfare data 

within their area. 

After analyzing the data, ACS and its community partners develop a community 

specific, multi-system strategy for keeping families together safely with services and 

reducing the need for placement into foster care. In one of the first communities to 

begin this process, Central Harlem, we have found that 50% of the Central Harlem 

children that are in foster care come from just 6 out of Central Harlem’s 31 census 

tracts. Using this data to help stabilize families, we have now focused our efforts 

on the specific needs of the 24 blocks within these 6 census tracts. 

Data and Accountability 

The data being used in our neighborhood work is only one way we have incorporated data into our daily practices and reform efforts. Accurate and comprehensive data allows ACS to hold itself and its contractors accountable for their performance in achieving positive outcomes for children and complying with mandated activities. To this end, ACS created the Evaluation and Quality Improvement Protocol 

(EQUIP), which gives ACS the ability to evaluate the quality of services being provided to children and families by looking at process, outcomes and quality measures. 

EQUIP assesses the contracted agencies’ compliance with statutory and regulatory 

requirements, measures the quality of service in areas such as child safety, education, and service provision, and evaluates a set of child outcome indicators, including rate of reunification and adoption and the success in independent living after 

discharge from care. 

First used in 2000 for foster care services, this qualitative method discerns the 

meaningful differences in the quality of the foster care programs, allowing ACS to 

rank programs based upon quality of services. This information also provides ACS 

with the information necessary to develop empirically-based corrective action plans 

and to reward high quality performance by its contract agencies. And after three 

successful years of using the foster boarding home EQUIP, ACS has now developed 

a revolutionary performance based payment system that is tied directly to the quality of services provided by the contract agencies. 

In December 2003, ACS announced a performance-based rate payment system for 

foster boarding home services that rewards agencies for quality of services rather 

than the number of days a child stays in a program. The goal of this performance 

based contracting system is to ensure that all children have the opportunity to receive the same level of care, regardless of which agency is responsible for their 

placement. This new system will also move all agencies towards the highest level 

of performance and quality outcomes for the children in their care. 

New Innovative Programs 

A number of improvements and new programs have been implemented in New 

York City over the past eight years. One of these includes the use of Clinical Consultation Teams, which consist of four professionals: a Domestic Violence Specialist, 

49 

a Substance Abuse Specialist, a Mental Health Specialist, and a Team Coordinator. 

Twelve of these teams are placed in child protective field offices throughout the City 

and all provide three types of services: case-specific consultation, office-based training, and assistance with referrals for community-based resources. ACS staff can request consultations from each specialist individually, or any combination thereof, depending upon the needs present in a case. Over the past year, there have been over 

8,000 consultations. Over the next year Medical Specialists will be added to these 

teams. 

In 2002, the New York State legislature increased the age of eligibility for Persons 

in Need of Supervision (PINS) to 17 years of age, from 15 years of age. It was expected that this change would increase the number of PINS cases by 28% in the 

first year. To address this and to help stabilize families, ACS developed and implemented the Family Assessment Program (FAP), in collaboration with the New York 

City Department of Probation, to work with families who might otherwise seek a 

PINS petition in Family Court for youth who are beyond their parent’s or caretaker’s lawful control. 

FAP offers crisis intervention, screening, and referrals to connect families to preventive and community-based services before a PINS petition is necessary—hopefully obviating the need for a PINS petition or placement into foster care. After only 

six months of partial implementation, FAP turned a projected 28% increase in PINS 

cases for fiscal year 2003 into a 41% decline. Similarly, the number of PINS foster 

care placements has declined significantly, and virtually no recidivism into Family 

Court has occurred. 

Ongoing and Future Goals of ACS 

While ACS has implemented enormous change and seen many positive results, we 

still have much more to do to ensure all children who come into contact with our 

system remain safe, are provided with the highest quality of care and have their 

emotional, physical and mental needs met. ACS will continue to focus on the safety 

and well-being of all children in our system, and will expand our work in communities to empower them to ensure the safety and well-being of their children. The 

following is a list of our highest priorities for the next two years: 

1. Continue to focus on ‘‘Families for Teens’’, a New York City initiative to ensure 

that all adolescents in foster care are provided with the skills, resources and 

positive relationships necessary to succeed as adults. Several strategies will be 

employed to achieve this result: 

• ACS will continue the work already underway to reduce the number of teenagers living in congregate care settings. Our current goal is to have 600 

fewer youth placed in group care by July 2005. 

• We will double the number of foster youth who are engaged in positive mentoring relationships. Through our work with Mentoring USA, the Mentoring 

Partnership of New York and other mentoring programs, ACS is striving to 

make mentoring available to all youth in foster care. 

• ACS will release and implement the ACS Adolescent Services Plan. This 

comprehensive plan outlines the strategies and programs that ACS will provide to adolescents in foster care to prepare them for successful adult lives. 

This plan will detail policy and best practices for all staff and contract agencies to use as a guide when working with adolescents. 

2. ACS strongly believes that the system’s responsibility to foster youth should 

not end immediately when the child is discharged from foster care. We are 

committed to working towards the establishment an after-care system in New 

York City for youth who have left the foster care system—whether by being 

reunified with their families, adopted or emancipated from foster care. 

We believe that these services should be available on demand for the purpose 

of averting crisis in the lives of adults between the ages of 18 and 30 who were 

former foster children. We believe that the availability of these services could 

significantly reduce the number of former foster children who enter the criminal justice system, who become homeless, or who end up on public assistance. 

Funding is not readily available from the Federal or State governments for 

this purpose, but research indicates that young people require additional supports in the years after they leave foster care. While many youth who leave 

care have stability at the time they are discharged, life can be unpredictable 

and the child welfare system—in collaboration with other government systems—must develop plans to assist these youth in the years after they leave 

foster care. Over the next two years, ACS is committed to exploring ways to 

improve the services available to young people who have been in foster care. 

50 

ACS will work with Federal, State and City agencies, as well as private entities, to seek new sources of funding for these services. We will also establish 

partnerships and collaborations with external organizations to develop a comprehensive after-care system for youth who leave foster care. Services to be provided could include referrals and assistance in the following areas: housing, 

employment and education, finances, health and mental health, child care, and 

legal. 

3. ACS has a goal of achieving 5,000 adoptions by the end of 2005. ACS will reduce the number of children in foster care in New York City to less than 

20,000. Since January 2002, there has been a 21% decline in the total foster 

care population in New York City. Over the next 2 years ACS will continue 

to see the population decline, while also ensuring the safety of the City’s children by: 

• Continuing to provide an array of preventive services that allow children to 

remain safely with their families. 

• Continuing to expand the provision of quality training and supervisory support to front-line child protective staff, while also sustaining manageable 

caseloads, to ensure that accurate and thorough safety assessments are conducted. 

• Continuing the use of Family Team Conferencing and enhancing the effectiveness and family engagement at all Family Team Conferences and Service 

Plan Reviews. 

• Reviewing and restructuring ACS’s case management functions to be more 

focused on permanency for all children in foster care. 

• Continuing work in high need communities to understand the issues affecting each specific community and expand appropriate community supports for 

families in need of assistance. The goal is to provide families with an opportunity to seek help before reaching a crisis point and possibly prevent the 

need for out of home placement. 

How the Federal Government Can Help Child Welfare Systems 

1. Federal financing flexibility and increased funding are needed to enhance resources for services and achieve improved outcomes for children. 

The Federal Government has clearly articulated the desired outcomes for 

child welfare: children’s safety, permanency and well-being. In New York City, 

we have embraced these outcomes and have made them central to our efforts 

in reforming child welfare. 

If we as a Nation are to be successful in achieving the kind of child welfare 

system envisioned, we must take a serious look at the financing structure at 

the federal, state and local levels of government. The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) has done much to change the expectations for the child welfare 

system, but the financing structure of 1980 remains today and is out of step 

with ASFA and the work that needs to be done to achieve those outcomes. The 

bulk of federal child welfare funding is directed to out-of-home care, with IV– 

E only covering care and maintenance, and not the services—prevention, permanency and protection—that actually produce positive outcomes and assure 

that children are safe and have permanent families. 

Federal regulations clearly state that allowable costs under IV–E do not include the costs of social services provided to the child, the child’s family or foster family that provide counseling or treatment to ameliorate or remedy personal problems, behaviors or home conditions. Without the resources to provide 

services for and resolve the very issues that created the need for foster care 

placement, it is very difficult to reduce the foster care census and increase safety, stability and permanency for children. The resources must follow the outcomes, and fiscal incentives, rather than penalties, must be the driver of improvement. 

We believe that increased Federal financing flexibility and funding are needed in order to enhance resources for prevention and services. We have accomplished sweeping system changes and improved outcomes for children and families, despite the challenges imposed by a State block grant for child welfare 

services, and with the lion’s share of the needed investments undertaken with 

local dollars. 

New York City has been experiencing enormous fiscal challenges since 2001, 

requiring all City agencies to reduce expenditures. At the same time, Mayor 

Bloomberg has made it clear that he will protect children and has done everything possible to ensure that ACS maintains its ability to protect and care for 

51 

children; however, the City now bears a large portion of what should be the 

State’s financial responsibility. 

Based on New York City’s experience operating a child welfare system under 

the Family and Children’s Services Block Grant over the last eight years, we 

believe that a block grant or capped allocation of state and federal foster care 

dollars raises a number of questions that must be seriously considered. Will a 

block grant ensure adequate levels of funding to states and localities? Will 

there be equitable distribution of limited resources? Will states be required to 

make equitable distributions? Will there be a cost shift to states and localities? 

Will a safety net for vulnerable children and families be assured as needs 

change? Any proposals to increase much needed flexibility must be sure not to 

hamper the ability of local or state child welfare agencies’ to protect, support 

and achieve improved outcomes for our most vulnerable children and families 

nor undo accomplishments like those that we have worked so hard to realize 

in New York City. 

2. Reform must consider large urban jurisdictions. 

Federal proposals to address the financing dilemma must take into account 

the different structures of child welfare service delivery from state to state and 

among localities within states, especially a county-administered service system 

like New York. One size does not fit all. 

Many large urban jurisdictions, such as New York City, Los Angeles County 

and Cook County (Chicago), account for 35%–70% of their respective state’s foster care population, yet each is dependent upon the state to accurately represent their interests on the federal level. If federal approaches to reform deal 

only with the states, the operations of child welfare systems in urban areas will 

be dictated by smaller states and jurisdictions, which operate under different 

structures and face different issues. Under current federal policy, large urban 

jurisdictions are currently prohibited from applying for a IV–E waiver. They 

are dependent upon the will of the state, which may not represent its needs 

or interests. New York City would like to obtain a waiver to provide subsidized 

kinship guardianship similar to that which occurred in the State of Illinois 

under former Child Welfare Director, Jess McDonald, but we are currently excluded from taking advantage of this important means of innovation and flexibility and are dependent upon New York State to take such action. 

3. Title IV–E eligibility must be de-linked from AFDC 

Title IV–E should be amended to eliminate the requirement that links the 

eligibility of a child for foster care maintenance payments to the child’s eligibility for AFDC as it existed prior to July 16, 1996. Prior to 1996, a child’s eligibility for Title IV–E foster care payments was linked to the child’s eligibility 

for the Title IV–A (Aid to Families with Dependent Children or AFDC) program. In 1996, when Congress passed PRWORA (the welfare reform act), the 

AFDC program was ended and replaced by TANF. 

However, Congress, after much debate concerning how to determine eligibility for Title IV–E after the end of AFDC, chose to retain that prior program’s 

eligibility criteria as a condition of eligibility under the Title IV–E program. 

Thus, state agencies are required to continue to make eligibility determinations 

pursuant to the provisions of a program that no longer exists, other than for 

the purpose of making these eligibility determinations. More than seven years 

after the enactment of PRWORA, it is time to acknowledge that it is no longer 

appropriate to make eligibility determinations in this way. 

This provision was included in the welfare reform act as a placeholder and 

temporary solution. It is critical that Congress act now to address this situation 

before a continuing loss of revenue impacts states’ ability to serve children and 

families. While AFDC has been replaced by TANF, we do not believe that 

TANF should automatically become the new eligibility standard. There must be 

more discussion and further analysis on what elements should be used to determine eligibility for IV–E funding. 

4. Title IV–E Should Support Subsidized Kinship Guardianship 

In order to increase permanency and the well-being of children, the Federal 

Government needs to support assistance for guardianship, a permanency option provided under ASFA, but not funded. 

Kinship foster care placements often last longer than non-kinship foster care 

placements because some birth parents feel less pressure to seek the return of 

their children and many kinship foster parents are reluctant to push for the 

termination of the parental rights of their own family member and for the 

52 

adoption of their own family member’s child. The result is that these children 

remain in foster care and ACS and other social service districts retain the ‘‘custody’’ of such children, which requires the continuation of casework services 

and performance of administrative functions. Meanwhile, the children are deprived of permanency. More than five years of IV–E waiver experience demonstrates subsidized guardianship as a viable permanency option and all jurisdictions should have the opportunity to provide subsidized guardianship. 

5. Federal training funding should support private providers and the entire continuum of child welfare services 

Although ACS has made considerable progress in upgrading and training 

child protective staff, there is a continued need to strengthen the training of 

the staff of our contracted providers who oversee more than 90% of children 

in foster care and those who provide preventive services to families. We urge 

the Federal Government to support training more comprehensively, which 

would include providing the same enhanced 75 percent federal match rate for 

contract agency workers and recognizing that, in the child welfare system 

today, services are regularly and largely contracted out to not-for-profit providers and demand the same high quality and outcome achievement. Federal 

training dollars should also support the entire service continuum of child welfare, not just training for foster care, but also training for protection, prevention and after care, if we want quality services that lead to safety, permanency 

and well-being. 

6. Parents and children need increased mental health, medical and substance 

abuse services 

Increased funding for mental health, medical and substance abuse treatment 

services to address parents’ and children’s needs in the child welfare system 

is critical to ensuring safety, permanency and well-being, as we know that 

these issues affect many of the children and families we serve and can be barriers to the outcomes we seek to achieve. Adequately funded mental health and 

development disability systems are needed to meet ‘‘the needs of children who 

inappropriately end up in the child welfare system. 

Additionally, if we are to achieve the permanency timeframes contained in 

ASFA, the parents of children in foster care must be designated as one of the 

priority recipients of federally funded substance abuse services. 

7. Adolescents Need Enhanced Support Services 

Adolescents continue to be an increasing proportion of the children we serve 

in foster care. The special needs and challenges of the foster system’s young 

adult population require an increased federal investment in transitional and 

other support services for teens to improve their prospects as adults. 

One recent study suggests a very bleak picture for young adults emancipating from the foster care system. The study indicates that within 12 to 18 

months of aging out of foster care, 50 percent are unemployed; and 37 percent 

have not finished high school. It adds that in this same period of time, 19 percent of the young women have given birth; 33 percent are receiving some form 

of public assistance; and 27 percent of males and 10 of females have been incarcerated or have had some encounter with the criminal justice system. The 

lack of enough resources directed toward young adults in care now is costing 

us—both figuratively and literally—a higher price than ever. 

Federal funding for independent living services and education and training 

vouchers through the Chafee Foster Care Independence program has been an 

important source of federal support for this population. We propose the provision of additional federal funding for after care services so youth who leave foster care—through reunification, adoption or emancipation—have access to a 

safety net and assistance to ensure their safety and stability during the vulnerable years following foster care. 

Improvements to the child welfare system are achievable, with the right ingredients. New York City’s Administration for Children’s Services is a testament to this. 

Nevertheless, even with our tremendous progress, we have much more work to do 

if we are to achieve the level of excellence desired and required. Federal resources 

and flexibility, with accountability, are critical ingredients to maintaining and expanding reform efforts. 

Thank you again for your time and consideration of these critical issues. 

f 

53 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Bell, for your 

testimony. Now, Mr. Wayne Stevenson to testify. 

STATEMENT OF WAYNE T. STEVENSON, DEPUTY SECRETARY, 

OFFICE OF CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND FAMILIES, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, HARRISBURG, 

PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. STEVENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 

thank the Subcommittee for providing me with an opportunity to 

testify at this hearing, and to review the Federal oversight of child 

welfare programs. With regard to oversight, I would like to commend HHS for the comprehensive look it is taking in implementing 

the CFSR process. It is truly a catalyst for change, and it is moving 

States toward continuous improvement, so that we can reach positive outcomes for the children and families we serve. The Administration for Children and Families, I think, has done a tremendous 

job in doing that in an intelligent and professional manner. The 

way they have implemented this on the road, and on the streets 

in the States, has allowed several byproducts to emerge. One is the 

broad stakeholder involvement in the child welfare system, bringing all of the parties together at the table as we do the self-assessments and go through the review process. Second, because it is focused on practice, it has energized the field—we see great movement in the field, at this point, in terms of making changes. 

The second point I would make is that keeping children safe is 

a responsibility of the larger community, and that collaboration is 

critical. The child-serving systems need to work more closely together. This includes mental health services, substance abuse services, domestic violence services, intensive in-home family preservation services, and a range of other family services. These services 

should be available to all children and to all families who need 

them. As States move toward the framework, we need continued 

help from the Federal Government. First, it would be beneficial if 

all Federal offices were working under the same common framework, so that more collaboration would be possible, and that service delivery could be more effective. It is essential that all Federal 

agencies with oversight responsibilities aim for the common shared 

outcomes and performance measures that child welfare is using. 

In Pennsylvania, we have a county-administered, State-supervised child welfare system. We cannot, and do not, ask counties to 

collaborate across disciplines at the local level without also asking 

those same changes of ourselves, and providing the leadership to 

do it. The second area where States need Federal support is in 

funding, particularly for the PIPs, so that we can achieve success, 

and so not all of the funding attaches to those PIPs. Thirdly, the 

Federal Government can assist States by providing a stable funding source for child welfare that adequately funds the fullest array 

of needed services. We have title IV–B, title IV–E, and TANF; they 

are a patchwork of funding streams. title IV–E, however, is inadequate, in terms of allowing States the ability to reach all of the 

children, because of the eligibility requirements, and it is inadequate in terms of funding the fullest array of services that these 

children and families need. It does need to be expanded. 

54 

Funding for title IV–B is wholly inadequate, even with the new 

commitment. Like many States where title IV–B allocation is insufficient, Pennsylvania relies heavily on the TANF block grant to 

fund child welfare intervention services, as well as, and more importantly, primary and secondary prevention services that are not 

allowed under title IV–E. This is a critical point, and one that I 

hope you will hear closely. Absent a stable, secure funding source 

for prevention and in-home services, we have relied on TANF. The 

situation forces States to choose between providing quality early 

learning programs and family self-sufficiency programs, and funding those programs that ensure child safety and by preventing 

abuse and neglect. Oversight and accountability can identify where 

improvements are needed, and where we need to target our resources and technical assistance to improve outcomes. The missing 

component is a stable and secure funding stream to assure the 

achievement of safety, permanency, and well-being for children and 

their families. Supporting families and protecting children is a collective responsibility that requires maximum efforts from families, 

from communities, from States, from Federal Government, and 

from our business partners. By working together and pooling our 

resources, we can ensure positive outcomes for our children, and a 

healthy society for our citizens. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stevenson follows:] 

Statement of Wayne T. Stevenson, Deputy Secretary, Office of Children, 

Youth, and Families, Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 

My name is Wayne Stevenson, and I am the Deputy Secretary for the Office of 

Children, Youth and Families (OCYF) in the Pennsylvania Department of Public 

Welfare. I would like to thank the Subcommittee for providing me with the opportunity to testify at this hearing to review federal and state oversight of child welfare 

programs. 

The overall goal of Pennsylvania’s child welfare system is to ensure that our children grow up in safe, healthy and permanent homes and develop into competent 

citizens who contribute to the community. To achieve this goal, the Office of Children, Youth and Families, Bureau of County Children and Youth Programs, has developed programs aimed at preventing child abuse and neglect, protecting children 

when abuse occurs and finding permanent homes for children when it is not possible 

for them to be reunited with their birth parents. 

In regard to federal oversight, I would first like to commend the U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services (HHS) for the comprehensive look it is taking 

through the Child and Family Service Review (CFSR) process. These reviews are 

serving as catalysts for change. CFSR focuses on State performance with regard to 

the safety, permanency, and well-being of children and families who come into contact with the public child welfare system. The overarching goal is to promote continuous improvement in programs, policies, and services that will result in positive outcomes for these children and families. 

Keeping children safe is a responsibility of the larger community, not just the 

child welfare agency. Collaboration within child serving systems must be available 

and accessible if children and their families who come into contact with the child 

welfare agency are to be kept safe. This includes mental health treatment, substance abuse treatment, and domestic violence services as well as intensive, in-home 

family preservation services and a range of other child and family services. However, this type of response system requires that children and families have access 

(financially and physically) to the necessary services. 

As states continue to move toward an outcomes framework, they will continue to 

need help from the Federal Government. First and foremost, it would be beneficial 

if all federal offices were working under a common framework. Since all human 

services are interrelated, it is essential that all federal agencies with oversight responsibilities aim for common, shared outcomes. 

55 

In Pennsylvania, we have a county-administered and state-supervised child welfare system. We are not asking counties to collaborate across disciplines at the local 

level, without also making changes and providing the leadership needed at the state 

level.Therefore, just as we need to model the behavior at the state level for our 

counties, we are asking the Federal Government to be our model. 

One of Pennsylvania’s most recent initiatives—our Systems of Care Project—highlights this need for collective goals and cross-system collaboration across all childserving systems. Pennsylvania is funding this project through a system of care grant 

that we received last year from HHS. Specifically, this project is helping us to better 

serve children with behavioral health needs who are also involved with the child 

welfare or juvenile justice systems. After all, we know all too well that many children entering these systems have behavioral health needs that go unmet. 

The systems of care model promotes integration by requiring all child-serving systems to develop an individualized service plan that meets all of the needs of the 

child and his or her family—physical, emotional, social and educational. This concept of integrated case management under the authority of a single, integrated plan 

of care is one Pennsylvania strongly supports. 

Another area where states need federal support is funding to implement the Program Improvement Plan, or PIP, that is required by the CFSR. Unfortunately, since 

no additional federal dollars are attached to the PIP mandate, my state—like all 

others—must find a way to pay for critical prevention and earlier intervention services, particularly since those services are not allowable under the Title IV–E program. In Pennsylvania, the estimated cost of our PIP was nearly $70 million, and 

the proposed improvements would certainly enhance the safety, permanency and 

well-being of our children and families. To that end, states need the Federal Government to invest sufficiently in these efforts, which they prescribe. 

Another way the Federal Government can assist states is by providing a stable 

funding source for child welfare that adequately funds the required services. Currently there are three primary funding sources for child welfare: Title IV–B, Title 

IV–E and TANF. Pennsylvania’s Title IV–B allocation is approximately $25 million 

while our Title IV–E expenditures will exceed $400 million and TANF expenditures 

will be nearly $295 million for the upcoming state fiscal year. 

The Title IV–E program provides funds to States to assist with: the costs of foster 

care maintenance for eligible children; administrative costs to manage the program; 

and training for staff, for foster parents and for private agency staff. The purpose 

of the program is to help States provide proper care for children who need placement outside their homes, in a foster family home or an institution. Title IV–E is 

an entitlement program, and this means children have a right to the services it 

funds and we firmly believe that all child welfare funding should be an entitlement 

and that states should be able to fund the necessary services for all children who 

enter their doors regardless of the financial situation of the family. 

Therefore, unless the current financing structure is changed, states will not be 

able to move the child welfare system towards an outcome-based accountability system. While Title IV–E is the largest funding stream it is also very restrictive in that 

it can only be used for eligible children. The pool of eligible children continues to 

shrink as a result of the eligibility criteria that have a link to the now non-existent 

AFDC guidelines. Additionally, the eligibility is reliant on the willingness of courts, 

over which the child welfare agency has no authority, to address required child welfare issues in their rulings. While we acknowledge that Congress is looking at this 

flexibility issue and appreciate its efforts, we must make it clear that we do not support the capping or block granting of IV–E funds. 

The Title IV–B program helps State public welfare agencies improve their child 

welfare services with the goal of keeping families together. These services are primarily aimed at preventing the risk of abuse and promoting nurturing families; assisting families at risk of having a child removed from their home; promoting the 

timely return of a child to his/her home; and if returning home is not an option, 

placement of a child in a permanent setting with services that support the family. 

Like many other states, Pennsylvania relies heavily on the Temporary Assistance 

for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant to fund child welfare initiatives. The TANF 

program was established to provide assistance to needy families so that children can 

be cared for in their own homes; to reduce dependency by promoting job preparation, work and marriage; to prevent out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and to encourage 

the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. Many states, Pennsylvania 

included, have been able to utilize TANF funds to support child welfare services. 

One program we are replicating in Pennsylvania with TANF funds is the very 

successful Nurse-Family Partnership Program, a national program with positive evidence-based results in which nurses visit the homes of first time, low-income pregVerDate May 21 2004 01:51 Jul 15, 2004 Jkt 092984 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\92984.XXX 92984
56 

nant mothers with high risk factors and provide support for positive birthing experiences and parenting skills. 

Absent a stable secure funding source for prevention and in home services, we 

have relied on TANF funding. This situation forces states to choose between funding 

quality early learning programs or funding those programs that ensure child safety. 

We want to invest in our children by intervening earlier before their problems escalate and become harder to manage and more costly. The more we can invest in services that prevent child abuse and neglect, the better able we will be to advance child 

well-being and healthy child development. 

Oversight and accountability can identify where improvements are needed and 

where we need to target our resources and technical assistance to improve outcomes. The missing component is stable and secure funding to assure the achievement of safety, permanency, and well-being for children and their families. 

Supporting families and protecting children is a collective responsibility that includes maximum efforts from families, communities, states, Federal Government, 

and other business partners. By working together and pooling our resources we can 

ensure positive outcomes for our children and a healthy society for our citizens. 

f 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Stevenson. Now, Mr. Bill 

Stanton to testify. 

STATEMENT OF BILL STANTON, DIRECTOR, DEPENDENT CHILDREN’S SERVICES DIVISION, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF 

THE COURTS, PHOENIX, ARIZONA, AND PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FOSTER CARE REVIEWERS 

Mr. STANTON. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I 

am honored to have been asked to appear before you today and testify about the citizen foster care review boards, and the impact that 

they have on ensuring safety, permanency, and well-being for children. Removing a child from a home and terminating parental 

rights is one of the most powerful uses of our government’s authority. Since this decision is so severe, it calls for extraordinary checks 

and balances. The foster care review board provides that needed 

balance. Foster care review boards began in South Carolina in the 

mid-seventies. Review boards consist of citizens who volunteer 

their time to review the cases of children who have been removed 

from their homes. Volunteers meet each month to review the 

events of these children’s lives, and make recommendations to enhance the child safety, permanency, and well-being. Long after 

judges have rotated off the bench and caseworkers have moved on, 

in many cases, the most consistent presence in the child’s life is the 

review board. They bring to the table their life experience, community standards, and a belief that their involvement can make a difference. 

The fact is, citizen involvement has made a significant difference, 

not only in the lives of individual children, but in the systems 

charged with the responsibility of their care. Let me give you an 

example of a child from Arizona. Joe was a 14-year-old young man 

who had been in foster care for approximately 1 year. The caseworker reported to the review board that the child’s father was deceased. While this information was in the file, it had apparently 

never been verified. When the review board received the case to review, they sent notices of the upcoming review to the last known 

address of the father. It was soon determined that not only was the 

father alive, but he wanted to be reunited with his son. 

57 

The review board volunteers’ work doesn’t end when they leave 

the review. Volunteers actively advocate for system changes. They 

identify problems during the review process, and then they go out 

and do something about it. One example of this came in Oregon. 

The review board conducted a study of the use of the Family Group 

Decision Making program, and found that the process was being 

used in only 30 percent of the cases. The program wrote and advocated for legislation mandating the inclusion of families in case review development, and as a result, Family Group Decision Making 

is a standard practice in almost all child welfare cases in Oregon. 

In Arizona, a review board was instrumental in revamping the dependency court process. Through their active advocacy, legislation 

was passed to set strict timeframes in which the court hearings 

were to be held. In addition, review boards have worked with the 

Arizona State Supreme Court to pass a mandate that every new 

judge rotating onto the dependency bench must attend an accredited dependency training program. 

Now, there are times when the volunteers realize that the children may have some needs that the agency and government cannot 

provide. When children are placed in foster care and want to take 

piano lessons or go to football camp, additional funds will likely not 

be available. Review board Members in Arizona came together and 

formed the Arizona Friends of Foster Care Foundation, an organization dedicated to providing the extra things that many children 

would have to do without. Foster care review boards are an effective way to provide oversight as children go through the foster care 

system. The problem, however, is that there are not enough review 

programs, and that many of the programs that do exist face serious 

financial crises. For example, Montana discontinued its review program last year due to cuts in funding. Florida has seen two of its 

programs close due to cutbacks in funding. Last year, Utah’s review program funding was cut in half. The National Association of 

Foster Care Reviewers has attempted to assist States in developing 

review programs. In collaboration with HHS, we developed review 

guidelines and training materials. These guidelines give communities the flexibility to develop review boards that meet their needs, 

while following national standards. 

In 1997, Congress passed sweeping changes to the child welfare 

system with the passage of the ASFA. Although this act addressed 

many issues facing children in foster care, it failed to change the 

basic requirement surrounding the 6-month reviews. The National 

Association of Foster Care Reviewers wants to be the national voice 

for administrative review. We would like to see a requirement that 

all children in out-of-home placement be given the benefit of an 

independent review. We have thousands of volunteers and review 

staff ready to assist and make this possible. We urge you to establish review boards in all jurisdictions. Our volunteers stand ready 

to make a difference. They ask for your assistance to make the foster care review a reality for every child in out-of-home placement. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stanton follows:] 

58 

[1]nafcr.org [2] jfoxhoven@dia.state.ia.us [3]www.ojd.state.ore.us/osca/cpsd/citizenreview/index.htm 

Statement of Bill Stanton, Director, Dependent Children’s Services Division, Administrative Office of the Courts, Phoenix, Arizona, and President, National Association of Foster Care Reviewers 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee on Human Resources, I am honored to have been asked to appear before you today to testify about Citizen Foster 

Care Review Boards and the impact they have on ensuring the safety, permanency 

and well being of children. 

My name is Bill Stanton and I am the President of the National Association of 

Foster Care Reviewers (NAFCR).[1] I am also the Director of Dependent Children’s 

Services Division of the Administrative Office of the Courts in Arizona. 

Removing a child from their home and terminating parental rights is one of the 

most powerful uses of our Government’s authority. Because such a decision is so severe, it calls for extraordinary checks and balances. The Citizen Foster Care Review 

Board process provides this needed balance. 

Foster Care Review Boards began in South Carolina in the mid 70’s. Currently, 

23 states have some form of review board process in place. Review Boards consist 

of citizens who volunteer their time to review the cases of children who have been 

removed from their homes. Some volunteers from programs in Arizona, South Carolina and Oregon have remained with their programs for over 20 years. Volunteers 

meet each month to review the events of children’s lives and make recommendations 

to enhance these children’s safety, permanency, and well being. Long after judges 

rotate off the bench and caseworkers move on, in many cases, the most consistent 

presence in these children’s lives is the Review Board. 

Review Boards are comprised of volunteers, not employees of the agency, the 

court, or a treatment facility. They bring to the table their life experience, community standards, and a belief that their involvement can make a difference. 

The fact is that citizen involvement has made significant differences, not only in 

the lives of individual children, but in the system charged with the responsibility 

of their care. 

Let me give you an example of a child from Arizona. Joe was a 14-year-old young 

man who had been in foster care for 1 year. The caseworker reported to the review 

board that the child’s father was deceased. While this information was in the file, 

it had apparently never been verified. When the review board received the case to 

review, they sent notice of the upcoming review to the last known address of the 

father. It was soon determined that not only was the father alive, he wanted to be 

reunited with his son. 

Still other cases have seen review boards, during their review, discover abuses 

being suffered by children while in foster placement. Children have subsequently 

been moved to safer, healthier environments. 

The Foster Care Review Board meetings are unique. They are less intimidating 

than a court hearing and less formal than a case staffing. The Review Board members review each case every 6 months. They speak to those involved in the case. 

They ask questions. Sometimes hard questions. They make recommendations, and 

they don’t forget. When the case comes back again for review and services were not 

provided, they will ask why. Their goals are to ensure that the children are safe, 

that services are being provided, that the well being of the children are being addressed, and that there is a realistic plan to move toward permanency. 

The Review Board volunteer’s work doesn’t end when they leave the review. Volunteers actively advocate for system changes. They identify system problems during 

the review process and then do something about it. One example of this came in 

Iowa. Through their review of cases in which the termination of parental rights had 

been appealed, the Iowa Citizens Foster Care Review Board [2] identified significant 

delays. As a result of the review board’s observations and recommendations, 

changes in the Court rules were implemented, eventually reducing the length of the 

appeals process from 13.2 months to 4 months, a difference of nearly a year. 

While Oregon was one of the states that pioneered the concept of involving families in case planning through Family Decision Making, the philosophy was not routinely incorporated into actual case practice. The review board [3] conducted a study 

of the use of Family Group Decision Making and found the process was being used 

in only 30% of the cases. The program wrote and advocated for legislation mandating the inclusion of families in case plan development, and as a result, Family 

Group Decision Making is standard practice in almost all child welfare cases. 

59 

[4]www.nmcrb.org [5]www.supreme.state.az.us/fcrb [6]www.affcf.org 

In New Mexico,[4] the review boards found through their case review process, that 

over one third of the children they were reviewing were sex abuse victims. They 

found that the sex offender/perpetrator was not being held accountable through 

treatment and/or the judicial system. The review boards conducted research and collected data. As a result, the New Mexico legislature in the Fall, 2003 special session 

legislated and funded a statewide New Mexico Sex Offenders Management Board. 

In Arizona,[5] the review boards were instrumental in revamping the dependency 

court process. Through their active advocacy, legislation was passed that set strict 

timeframes in which court hearings were to be held. Review boards have worked 

with the Arizona State Supreme Court to pass a mandate that every new judge rotating onto the dependency bench must attend an accredited Dependency training. 

The review board also has developed an extensive data system that tracks all aspects of the review process. 

There are times when volunteers realize that children may have some needs that 

the agency or government can not address. When a child is placed in foster care 

and wants to take piano lessons or go to football camp, additional funds will not 

likely be available. Volunteers in Arizona came together to form The Arizona 

Friends of Foster Children Foundation,[6] an organization dedicated to providing 

extra things that many foster children would do without. 

Foster Care Review Boards are an effective way to provide oversight as children 

go through the foster care system. Community volunteers step forward to ensure the 

safety and improve the lives of these compromised children. The problem however 

is that there are not enough review boards, and that many of the programs that 

do exist face serious under funding or even closure. 

Montana discontinued its review board programs last year due to a cut in state 

funding. Florida has seen two of their programs close due to cut backs in state funding. Utah program funding was cut in half last year. These are a few examples of 

the many programs that have been affected by deep budget cuts. 

The National Association of Foster Care Reviewers has attempted to assist states 

in developing review programs. In collaboration with the Department of Health and 

Human Services, we have developed general review guidelines and training materials. This work will give communities the flexibility to develop review boards to 

meet their needs while following national standards. 

In 1997 Congress made sweeping changes to the Child Welfare system with passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (Public Law 105–89). Although this act 

addressed many issues facing children in foster care, it failed to change the basic 

requirements surrounding the six-month reviews. Section 475 (5) (b) of this act 

states ‘‘a review of each child’s status is made no less frequently than once every 

six months either by a court or by an administrative review . . .’’ NAFCR wants 

to be the national voice for administrative review. We would like to see a requirement that these reviews be independent reviews. We have thousands of volunteers 

and review staff ready to assist and make this possible. We urge you to establish 

review boards in all jurisdictions and fund them through NAFCR. Our volunteers 

stand ready to make a difference. They ask for your assistance to make Foster Care 

Review a reality for every child in out-of-home placement. 

f 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Stanton. Mr. 

Bell, I note that in your testimony you mentioned that the number 

of children who are in foster care in New York City is down significantly compared to prior years. 

Mr. BELL. Yes. 

Chairman HERGER. Can you go into why that is? 

Mr. BELL. A major reason for the reduction in the number of 

children in foster care has been an overwhelming focus, and our effort in terms of utilizing Family Group Decision Making as one of 

the measures of engaging families early on after placement. Right 

now, every foster care placement is followed by a Family Group Decision Making conference, with the parents present within 3 to 5 

60 

days after that placement, which targets our efforts around identifying the needed services, and moving aggressively to get children 

out of foster care. 

It has also been aided by our increased focus on adoption—looking at streamlining the adoption process, and ensuring that children who have been identified as unable to go back home to their 

parents can move to permanency quickly. As I indicated, we have 

completed over 27,000 adoptions since 1996. Each year, when you 

look at the percentage of children available to be adopted versus 

the ones who are, that number is increasing. In 1998, we only 

adopted about 44 percent of the children who were available for 

adoption. Last year, we adopted over 66 percent of the children 

who were available for adoption. We have also moved to a neighborhood-based environment, where we are keeping children in their 

communities. We are engaging all of the providers in those communities, including faith-based institutions, to wrap a network of services around vulnerable families where they live, as opposed to calling on government to be the parent for children. 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much. That is very impressive. Do you believe, then, that part of our goal should be to keep 

children out of foster care unless absolutely necessary? 

Mr. BELL. I think, given the trauma that occurs when children 

are separated from their families, that every effort must be made 

to complete a quality assessment up front—to make sure that outof-home placement is absolutely necessary to protect that child. I 

think it is equally critical, though, that we ensure that if we leave 

a child in their home, we also have the kind of services wrapped 

around that family to ensure that the child is going to be safe in 

their home. One of the things that we have done over the last 8 

years has been to increase the utilization from our child protective 

staff in terms of their referrals to supportive services in the family’s home. We have a wide array of preventive services in the city. 

We have moved from our child protective staff only making 30 percent of the referrals that actually go to those services each year, 

to making over 55 percent of the referrals that actually go to those 

in-home services today. 

Chairman HERGER. Do you feel that our current system, including its financial incentives, does a good job of encouraging this? 

Mr. BELL. I think that one of the reasons I have asked for greater flexibility in terms of the utilization of title IV–E funding is that 

I don’t think there are enough services available to support the 

families. One of the issues is that there are restrictions on how 

title IV–E funds can be used—largely being used for out-of-home 

maintenance as opposed to in-home support. I think that is a critical element in terms of our ability to continue to deliver services 

to families in their home. One of the critical concerns I have, is 

that there is an actual clause which says that counseling services 

are not going to be covered by the title IV–E dollars, when that is 

one of the most critical services in remedying the issues that 

brought children into foster care in the first place. 

Chairman HERGER. So, you feel, then, that more flexibility 

would assist you? 

Mr. BELL. Absolutely. I believe that more flexibility is required. 

I also think that if we go down a pathway where flexibility is being 

61 

provided at the expense of Federal participation, that would raise 

a considerable concern. We have lived under a block grant in New 

York State since 1995, and as a result, we have seen the amount 

of State participation in the funding of services for children in New 

York City decrease tremendously. New York City represents over 

70 percent of the foster care population in New York State, but 

much of this reform effort that we have funded over the last 8 

years has been largely covered by contributions from New York 

City. 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Bell. Mr. Cardin? 

Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank all of you 

for your service in this area. It is a difficult field, and I very much 

appreciate the leadership that you have brought to taking care of 

our children. First, let me say that there are a couple of themes 

that come through all of your testimonies. One is that more flexibility is needed in title IV–E funding—and I want to assure you 

that I agree with you. I think we need to give the local governments more flexibility in creating the type of programs that work 

in their community. Second, most of you have mentioned the fact 

that the eligibility for title IV–E funding doesn’t make a lot of 

sense with the look back provision. You can hear from my comments that I fully agree with that, and I would hope that we would 

be able to correct that now. 

The third issue that each of you have raised in different ways is 

that we need more resources for funding. You used the phrase 

‘‘tight budgets,’’ or not enough resources, and I agree with that. We 

are not providing the type of resources necessary to deal with the 

problems that, Ms. Ashby, you pointed out in regard to turnover 

and training dollars, and so forth. Ms. Nelson, I haven’t looked at 

Iowa’s budget recently, but I don’t believe the State is providing 

you with a lot of additional money in order to do your job. Mr. Bell, 

I compliment what you have been able to do in New York. You 

have made tremendous progress. I also agree with your statement 

where you question whether a capped entitlement is the answer to 

this. I happen to agree with you. If we don’t increase the size of 

the Federal pot, and keep the dollars fixed—in fact, limited so 

there is no growth if caseload goes up—and provide you all the 

flexibility you want, it seems to me that your State legislatures 

aren’t going to be providing you with additional resources. Are we 

really going to get salaries increased for social workers? I haven’t 

seen too many proposals where they are being singled out for pay 

raises, for recruitment dollars, or for training dollars. Are we really 

going to get the additional resources made available by local government if all we do at the Federal level is provide additional flexibilities? Is the money going to be there, Mr. Bell? 

Mr. BELL. You raise a very important question. In my written 

testimony, I actually talked about some of the concerns that I have 

in terms of the larger jurisdictions, urban jurisdictions, and their 

ability to make some independent decisions and still have access to 

resources. I think one of the statements that I have made, in terms 

of looking at what has to occur to turn around the system, is that 

there have to be clear principles and standards that are set. While 

I absolutely agree with Dr. Horn when he says the Federal Government can’t review every single case, I do believe that when we 

62 

think about standards that need to be set, the Federal Government 

has to weigh in on what those standards might be. I think that one 

of the issues or concerns that we have is that we have had to bear 

the brunt of a larger percentage of funding necessary to change the 

system in New York City. I would add that it is absolutely important for us not to just say that money is the answer, because—— 

Mr. CARDIN. I agree with that. If we were to fix the Federal dollar amount—that is, it is going to be that way, but giving you much 

more flexibility with overall Federal accountability standards, do 

you have confidence that resources will be made available locally? 

Mr. STEVENSON. Not at all. As I said, we are a county-delivered, State-supervised system. In our budget, about 42 percent is 

Federal, and that includes a sizeable portion of TANF dollars. 

About 42 percent is funded by State cash, and then the remainder 

is matched by the local county. County commissioners are struggling mightily to deal with their own budgets. Some of our counties 

are nearing bankruptcy. They can’t come up with additional matching funds. Certainly, the State is struggling with its own budget 

woes. To expect them to fill in the gap in funding as the growth 

continues, and as we try to target better services and expanded 

services so we can get better outcomes—the money is just not 

there. 

Mr. CARDIN. Ms. Ashby, I really appreciate your comments 

here. You point out that there is some flexibility in the title IV– 

B funds that could be used for these purposes—the Part 1 funds. 

So, I am just curious, if we eliminate the categorical aspect of the 

title IV–E funds, would that do much on the caseworker numbers, 

the retention of caseworks, or the pay of caseworkers? Is there anything that you see which would give us hope if we did that—that 

we would see much progress in that area? 

Ms. ASHBY. Well, I can’t answer your question directly because 

we haven’t done the work that would allow me to do that. I will 

say that there is no indication that there is excess funding for foster care maintenance. So, if more flexibility were applied to title 

IV–E, you would presume that less money would go to foster care 

maintenance, and more money would go to prevention, family supports, and other things. I will say that with regard to flexibility, 

we have not said anything in our statement, I don’t think, that directly addresses that, other than to point out that there is a great 

deal of flexibility in title IV–B right now. Yet, title IV–B, of course, 

is a limited pot of money. It is $700 million versus $6.1 billion in 

title IV–E. With respect to Part 1 and Part 2, and with respect to 

title IV–E, also, we think decisions, even in a flexible environment, 

should be driven by research and knowledge about what is needed, 

and decisions about the relative merits of the needs based on information and data. 

Mr. CARDIN. I have just one observation. You would assume 

that the title IV–E moneys that are being used for administrative— 

that States would need more money if they are going to deal with 

the caseworker retention. So, I am not exactly sure what we accomplish through the block grant approach in dealing with the core 

problems that have been mentioned. Thank you very much, Mr. 

Chairman. 

63 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Cardin. I understand, Mr. 

Bell, that you are going to need to leave soon. 

Mr. BELL. Yes. 

Chairman HERGER. I would like to recognize the gentleman 

from Washington, Mr. McDermott, to ask a question before you 

have to leave. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome you all here, and thank you for your work. In looking over 

the material that you brought from New York, Mr. Bell, it is a remarkable record. 

Mr. BELL. Thank you. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Now, the question is, if you could rank the 

things you did that made that happen, what would you put at the 

top? Is it simply cutting caseloads from 26 down to 10.7, or are 

there other things that you did in the process which made that system work more efficiently—if you want to put it that way? 

Mr. BELL. In terms of the testimony, there is a listing of about 

10 items in there. I think, the way they are laid out, that the first 

one is committing the political will. I think that there is an incredible need in all of our systems for the leader of that jurisdiction, 

whether it is a city, a State, or a county, to indicate that they are 

absolutely responsible and accountable for their child welfare system, and to elevate the system that supports vulnerable children 

to a level of prominence in government, so that everybody recognizes the importance of serving vulnerable children. I think that 

was the first step that took place in New York City. That was then 

followed by bringing in competent leadership at both the executive 

level in the organization, and at the mid-management levels in the 

organization. That was followed by—— 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Did you actually fire people, lay people off, 

or transfer them somewhere else in the city? 

Mr. BELL. Well, the next step in that process, which was looking 

at the frontline, actually resulted in almost 10 percent of our staff 

being redeployed from the agency. We elevated the requirements of 

who could become a child protective worker, who could become a 

child welfare worker, to require that people have either a social 

work background, or a background in some related field in human 

services. When ACS was created, someone with a degree in banking could come in and investigate child welfare cases, and work on 

those cases. So, it is critical to ensure that you have the most 

qualified staff on the frontline. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Did you—— 

Mr. BELL. We increased the salaries of the staff who were there. 

Then we did a comprehensive evaluation of who was going to serve 

on these cases, and if people did not meet the standard, they were 

redeployed. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Did you run into trouble with your unions, 

or with civil service requirements of the City of New York, or whatever? 

Mr. BELL. There were absolutely civil service requirements, and 

we were absolutely sued by the union when we did this. Yet we 

won, and it was held that what we were doing did not violate any 

civil service requirements. We did not break the law in any way, 

and we did not deprive unionized employees of their rights. What 

64 

we did was create a foundation on which we could build the kind 

of program that has produced the successes that are in that document that you are looking at. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. So, you are really positing that this could 

happen in any situation where the leadership went to work and 

played by the rules—they could make the kinds of changes you are 

talking about in spite of whatever the system is presently. Sometimes people say that we have to get rid of the unions, and have 

to get rid of all that, but it is not, in your opinion, necessary? 

Mr. BELL. I don’t think it is necessary. I think that unions have 

been created to protect employee rights, and they should be there 

to do that. I think that what has happened in many jurisdictions 

over the years is that the child welfare agency has been dropped 

to the lower level of the totem pole. When something goes wrong, 

the response has been to fire a commissioner or a director, to fire 

caseworkers and supervisors, and not to deal with the content of 

the entire organization. What we have done is completely change 

the entire organization—to set standards, to describe what is quality. We made sure that every worker who comes in is trained on 

understanding what they should be expected to do, and that they 

have a strong system of data that monitors and manages what is 

going on on a regular basis, and feeds that information back into 

the system so that we can hold people accountable for what they 

are doing. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. One of the things that seems inherent in 

what you are talking about is something that we did in the No 

Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107–110), and that is to require 

that every schoolteacher have training in the field in which they 

are teaching. Yet we didn’t put the money out there with it. Are 

you suggesting that national standards are useful without additional money? When you say money is not the question, it sounds 

like you are saying that the States can handle it if you simply 

leave us alone and give us a little more flexibility. I am interested 

in what your view of that whole thing of national standards—— 

Mr. BELL. I am not saying that money is not the question. I am 

saying that money is not the only answer to the question. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Okay. 

Mr. BELL. I think money will always be a question, because if 

I say that I want a Cadillac version of a system, then I cannot 

give—I don’t want to insult anybody so I won’t say Kia money to 

pay for that Cadillac—— 

[Laughter.] 

If we are going to design a system that has a certain level of 

caseloads, that has a certain quality of employees delivering the 

services, that has a certain kind of administrator who is running 

the program, and that has the kind of data system that can tell us 

what is absolutely going on—it is going to cost money, and we have 

to be willing to put that money there. That is why I say political 

will is vitally important. If I am the leader politically, then I make 

the decisions about where the resources are going to be spent. If 

we have the political will to do what is right for vulnerable children, then we are going to have to put more resources behind that. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Is there one or two things that the Federal 

Government does that gets in your way and that you would like to 

65 

get rid of? If you had your wish list, you had a magic wand, and 

you would just reach into the Federal Register and take certain 

things out, what would you take out? 

Mr. BELL. What would I take out of the Federal Register to support what we are doing? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Yes. 

Mr. BELL. I think it is a question of what would we collectively 

take a look at in terms of where we—because you don’t want to 

just take something away without analyzing the impact of removing it. I think that everybody has talked about flexibility, which is 

absolutely necessary. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. That is what I am asking. 

Mr. BELL. Right. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. What is flexibility? 

Mr. BELL. Flexibility really means that if you tell me I am going 

to give you an open-ended entitlement for title IV–E, then if I say 

that you can only get that by looking back at the standards for a 

program that was done away with in 1996 when TANF came in— 

but I am still using a 1996 measure to tell you who is eligible to 

get that government funding today—there is a question about that. 

When you say that I want to hold you to a standard—— 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. What would you—— 

Mr. BELL. A standard of production in terms of the ASFA, and 

you don’t fully fund what is necessary to do that, or you say that 

the money that I am giving you in title IV–E, you can’t use it for 

counseling when counseling is one of the most vital services in 

helping families overcome their issues, then the government is not 

fully putting the money behind it. When you put into ASFA that 

kinship guardianship or subsidized guardianship is a permanency 

option, but there is no money appropriated to support that permanency option, and you still require the termination of parental 

rights in order to get the money that is contained in the adoption 

subsidy environment, then the government is not fully putting the 

money behind it. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. We are saying one thing and doing something else, or saying two things at the same time. 

Mr. BELL. You are saying two things at the same time. Do it, 

but I am not going to support it financially. 

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

Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Bell, for your outstanding 

testimony, and the great example that you and your team are setting there in New York City—— 

Mr. BELL. Thank you. 

Chairman HERGER. In this incredibly crucial area of protecting 

those most vulnerable—our children. I do understand that you 

need to leave, so if you need to leave, you are excused. 

Mr. BELL. Thank you. 

Chairman HERGER. Ms. Ashby, I have a question for you, if I 

may. In your testimony on page 12, you note, ‘‘Some of the caseworkers we interviewed told us that they spend between 50 and 80 

percent of their time completing paperwork, thereby limiting their 

time to assist children and families.’’ Meanwhile, we know other industries, manufacturing, telecommunications, and shipping, have 

undergone revolutionary changes, allowing them to produce far 

66 

more with fewer workers. Nonetheless, we are constantly being told 

that child welfare agencies need more workers just to handle the 

same—or now a declining—national foster care caseload. My question is, can you tell us what efficiencies, improvements, or improved uses of technology, have occurred in child welfare casework 

in the last decade, and what additional changes are yet to take 

hold that might improve practice efficiency and effectiveness? 

Ms. ASHBY. The child welfare profession certainly has at its disposal many of the same technological tools that other areas of our 

economy have. For example, use of laptops, handheld computers, 

and cell phones can certainly be an aid to the caseworker out in 

the field. For example, a caseworker who has a cell phone can call 

a supervisor if he or she needs assistance or needs guidance as to 

how to handle a particular incident. Data can be entered from a 

field location into a central database if the caseworker had a 

laptop, for example, or a handheld device in some instances. So, 

certainly, the technology is used in some States and some localities, 

but it is not used widely enough for a number of reasons. As we 

talked about in the last hearing we had on this topic about the 

data system, SACWIS, many of the States have systems in various 

degrees of development, but very few States have systems that are 

totally complete and that can link the various systems within the 

State that need to be linked, or with the county levels, in order to 

allow some of these things to occur. In addition to technological advances, however, there are other things—telecommuting, for example. A caseworker, rather than having to go into a central office, 

and then leave to make a home visit, could make the visit directly 

from his or her home, if that made sense logistically. 

The computer systems that are available, SACWIS, could have 

prompts that make it easier to enter data. Caseworkers could be 

involved in the actual development of the systems, which would 

make them feel more comfortable to use, and give them more of a 

feeling of ownership of the data systems. One of the difficulties we 

found in looking at the use of data systems, or looking at the development of SACWIS, was that caseworkers didn’t feel in some cases 

comfortable with using the system, or with entering certain data 

into the system. Training is another issue. In order to use the data 

systems, in order to take advantage of some new approaches, the 

caseworkers have to be trained, and sometimes they have to be 

trained in things that change their position culturally. There are 

various other things. Management, for example, could set aside a 

period of time—a number of hours, a day of the week—where the 

caseworkers are to devote their time to entering information into 

the system. One of the difficulties we encountered in looking at the 

data systems was that caseworkers complained that they had difficulty balancing putting data into the system versus visiting the 

homes and making recommendations for services, and so forth. So, 

maybe management has to step in and say, all right, a certain period of time has to be devoted to this. Perhaps in the system of accountability for the child welfare workers, there could be something 

built in that would cause or encourage the workers to use some of 

these efficiencies—certainly by entering data. For example, awards 

systems and appraisal systems could be one method. So, yes, there 

are a number of ways that there could be efficiencies. Some of 

67 

these are being used. Others are not. States are working toward 

developing their SACWIS, but they have a ways to go. 

Chairman HERGER. Just to follow up on that, to what degree 

would you say that States are focused on making their current 

workers maximally effective through the use of better technology as 

opposed to just adding more workers? 

Ms. ASHBY. I think the States—and I can’t give you a precise 

percentage here—are at the point that they realize they are going 

to have to find some other ways of doing business. As we have been 

talking about this morning, there isn’t a whole lot more money 

available from either the Federal Government, or from the State 

and local governments, that are going to provide a lot more workers. Perhaps some more. There needs to be a combination, I 

think—and States recognize this—of increased efficiencies, as well 

as additions to the workforce. I guess a major issue is adding to 

the workforce, but also keeping workers who are in place. Turnover 

is a big problem. So, to the extent that the current workers can be 

retained, their training is not wasted; they get better over time because they have practiced their discipline, so to speak. That would 

also be helpful. I do think States recognize that they are going to 

have to do some things differently. 

Chairman HERGER. Ms. Nelson, would you like to comment on 

this, as well? 

Ms. NELSON. Sure, and what I might do is speak about some 

of the things that we have done in Iowa. We do have a fully functioning SACWIS. We very much engaged our frontline staff in the 

development of that system, and on an ongoing basis. We routinely 

get input from our staff regarding how the system could work more 

efficiently for them, and we set aside resources specifically to implement ideas that come from our frontline staffs. Again, the system is continually improving in response to their ideas of how it 

can be more helpful. We have built into our system alerts that help 

them manage their workload—they alert them to when things are 

due, so that they, again, can better manage their time. We are also 

working on sharing information between our SACWIS and other 

systems, again, so that workers have more access to information, 

and don’t have to enter as much information in. 

One of the things that we are working on in particular, right 

now, is enhancing the capacity of our system to provide information 

to frontline staff which actually informs their practice and gives 

them feedback about their cases. Which types of cases are, in fact, 

the ones where we have a repeat maltreatment? What is the profile 

of cases where children are reentering care? We have been feeding 

that back to our workers, and then training our frontline staff and 

frontline supervisors regarding how to use the data system for that 

purpose. We have been training them regarding how to go in and 

take a look at how their caseload and their outcomes compare to 

others, what kinds of cases seem to be having better outcomes, and 

then using that, again, getting them more comfortable with that so 

they can use that to inform their own practice. I think one thing 

I would want to emphasize is, it is not an either/or. It is not improve technology or have an adequate number of workers. I think 

both are really important. The last thing I might mention is that 

for us, the idea of adding handheld computers is not something 

68 

that we are in a financial position to do. So, there are things that 

we think probably have some merit, and we would be interested in 

doing those at some time, but we are not in a position to make that 

kind of investment at this time. So, we put our energies into how 

to use the SACWIS that we have, and make it the optimum tool 

for our frontline staff and managers. 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HERGER. Yes? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. May I ask a question—a second one? 

Chairman HERGER. Yes. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you. I just want to ask what Ms. 

Ashby is talking about—the whole question of how you use your 

workers. I suspect that her inability to get data is because every 

one of your States is using a different set of papers. What effort 

is being made by the organizations, the national organizations, to 

come up with a uniform form to be used by every State, so that 

you could get national data—so you could actually compare what 

is happening in various States? The question sort of buried in that, 

I guess, is, if you had that kind of thing, would you have the ability 

to protect kids? You can have a three-line form that will be the 

same everywhere in the United States, but it would not deal with 

the situations which happen in every State at some point. You 

have some kid that gets in a situation, and they are killed or die, 

or whatever, and then there is all this hand-wringing and fingerpointing and everything. I realize that a lot of the data gathering 

that is done is really done as a defensive mechanism against that 

event. There is some line between getting enough data, and giving 

a method by which you can evaluate cases, and over-papering, 

which it seems to me is often our response in these kinds of situations. So, I would like to hear what you have done both locally, 

and, then, is there a national effort to do anything comprehensive 

so you all would be using the same form? 

Mr. STEVENSON. Let me just speak to the national perspective 

on that. Pennsylvania, by the way, does not have a SACWIS. We 

made an effort to develop one, and we found the data bleeding from 

one case record into another case record, which was making it even 

more unsafe for kids in Pennsylvania. So, we have crashed that 

system, and we are starting over. There are not that many, as was 

pointed out, federally approved SACWIS programs in place. I have 

actually had staff in those States that do have federally approved 

systems doing CFSR, case record reviews, and have reported back 

to me that even those systems that are federally approved were 

crashing on a regular basis. So, technology is not necessarily the 

answer. Nor do I think that the cost neutrality requirement under 

SACWIS can be achieved by reducing staff. That just isn’t going to 

happen. I support what Ms. Nelson was saying there. 

I would have to go back to the point I made earlier about funding. I think that because child welfare is a patchwork of funding, 

much of the paperwork is tied to determining eligibility, documenting allowable services, and that nature of things. I think that 

is really a critical issue. If we can get one ongoing funding stream 

that is an entitlement for kids, that would reduce a great deal of 

the paperwork, time, and effort. With regard to another aspect of 

69 

technology that I would offer, most States are moving to an evidence-based strategy for delivering services. So, we are using technology. We are using social work technology, political science technology, and psychology technology. We are applying the most effective service delivery models that are in place, and we are only 

funding those. We are moving in that direction. I am sorry, I took 

your definition and broadened it a little bit. I think that we are 

using technology, but in a very broad way. You are going to be 

hearing from the National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators later today. They have a national working group that 

is working on data, and looking at how data can be drawn together, 

streamlined, standardized, and made more accurate and comparable between States. You might want to ask that question later. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. In sum, are you saying that data is mostly 

for funding—— 

Mr. STEVENSON. No, I am saying a good—— 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Justification rather than for following the 

case and the problems of the kid? 

Mr. STEVENSON. I am saying a good bit of it is, yes. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Okay. The balance is what, at this point? 

Mr. STEVENSON. Is documenting the services—— 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. No, but is it 60 percent for billing and 40 

percent for kids, or—— 

Mr. STEVENSON. Well, it is all for accountability, but automating the case record is a critical thing. It does save some time, 

and particularly if you use mobile technology, so that you can interact with it wherever you are. 

Ms. NELSON. I might mention, just briefly, a couple of things 

the National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators is 

doing. We do have a work group, a task force focused on technology 

and data and how it can better inform our work. We are working 

on a common framework for how we look at our data, bringing up 

the floor across States of capacity building, and the ability to use 

the data that they have. One of the challenges, I think, of trying 

to standardize the data across States, is that data is based on how 

your system works and what your State laws are. For example, 

how do you define child abuse in your State? What is the standard 

of evidence? So, I don’t know that we could input data exactly the 

same way across the States, as long as States set their own laws 

on what the definition is, and what the standards of evidence are. 

On the other hand, I think what we are focused on—and we work 

with the Child Welfare League of America on that, as well—is 

building that common capacity and common framework for how we 

look at data, so that we are looking at it comparably. 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HERGER. Again, I want to thank our panelists for 

testifying before us today, and helping us on this very important 

issue. As I mentioned earlier, we will now break for lunch and return at 1:30 p.m. With that, the hearing stands in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman HERGER. Good afternoon. I would like to welcome 

back our witnesses and continue the hearing. I would like to invite 

our next panel to have a seat. This afternoon, we will be hearing 

70 

from the Honorable William Frenzel, a former Representative in 

Congress from the State of Minnesota, and Chairman of the Pew 

Commission on Foster Care; Shay Bilchik, President and Chief Executive Officer for the Child Welfare League of America; Monsignor 

Kevin Sullivan, Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer of 

Catholic Charities USA; and Thomas Atwood, President of the National Council For Adoption (NCFA). Before we begin, I would like 

to express my condolences to Mr. Atwood and his colleagues on the 

recent passing of William Pierce, the founding President of NCFA. 

I know Bill did a lot of work with Members of this Subcommittee 

over the years. As current Chairman of the Subcommittee on 

Human Resources, I would just like to say how thankful we are for 

his dedication and work on behalf of children. Mr. Frenzel to testify. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BILL FRENZEL, CHAIRMAN, 

PEW COMMISSION ON CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE 

Mr. FRENZEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I request unanimous 

consent that my statement be made a part of the record—— 

Chairman HERGER. Without objection. 

Mr. FRENZEL. I will proceed extemporaneously. Mr. Chairman, 

I am accompanied by the Staff Director of the Pew Commission, 

Ms. Carol Emick, and two other members of my staff. They have 

been working with your staff and are anxious to continue to do so. 

The Pew Commission’s charge is a simple one—to improve the system—and we are vigorously involved in trying to produce recommendations for your Committee. Going over to page 2 of my 

printed testimony, where there are some enumerations of what we 

are trying to do, I need to say first that the Commission has not 

finalized recommendations, and probably won’t for another couple 

of months. So, this testimony is going to be short on specifics—as 

the Subcommittee knew when we were invited. I don’t dare outguess my Commission. They are all smarter than I am, and they 

know a great deal more about the subject than I do. I am mostly 

the traffic director rather than the determiner of policy. 

Thus far, our Commission is zeroing in on the areas that are delineated beginning on page 2. In our recommendations on financing 

for children in foster care, the financing system needs to give the 

States greater flexibility in how they can use Federal funds to 

serve maltreated children. It is an obvious statement. How to do 

it is something that we haven’t determined yet, but we have a lot 

of ideas, and we are proceeding. Second, while that flexibility is 

being achieved, we would like it to be accomplished with greater 

accountability by States for the outcomes for children. There are 

questions that need to be asked. Are fewer children entering foster 

care? Are greater numbers leaving? Are adoptions from foster care 

and family reunification increasing? What is the percentage of children returning to foster care? How are the children who have been 

in foster care for the longest time getting along? There needs to be 

more accountability, we believe. The CFSR is a good start, and 

Congress was correct when it mandated such accountability—but 

there are ways to improve it. 

Thirdly, with respect to the financing structure, we think it 

should encourage States to build the full continuum of services for 

71

abused and neglected children—from prevention to post-permanency. We believe that caseworkers and judges should be able to 

tailor services to a child’s or family’s specific needs, especially if 

doing so avoids the need to place the child in foster care, or allows 

a child to leave foster care safely, as soon as possible. The system 

has to encourage all participants; and we think that can be improved. Fourth, we think that Federal financing should encourage 

the States to test and evaluate new services and practices. I suppose spelled another way, it is w-a-i-v-e-r. We think the waivers 

have yielded some good results, but we think the program can be 

improved; we are anxious to make recommendations in that regard. 

Fifth, we believe that any reordering of how the Federal Government provides funding to the States has to maintain risk sharing 

between the State and Federal Government, and avoid cost shifting 

to the greatest extent possible, either by the States or by the Federal Government. Title IV establishes a shared responsibility. Neither side of that partnership can stand to see erosion of their responsibility. Now, the Subcommittee is also working in the area of 

court reform. Much of what we will recommend there is eventually 

going to go to State legislatures, to Supreme Court chiefs, and to 

various other court systems—but nevertheless, there will undoubtedly be some incentives which might be provided by the Federal 

Government. We are looking at coordination between child welfare 

services and courts, better sharing of information, and more emphasis on the child and family court system. We are a long way 

from home. We have been at work for 9 months. We expect to be 

able to report back to you, Mr. Chairman, perhaps as early as May 

if we are lucky. We are looking forward to that meeting; we hope 

it will be a profitable one. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Frenzel follows:]

Statement of the Honorable Bill Frenzel, Chairman, Pew Commission on 

Children in Foster Care

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cardin, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for your invitation to testify today. 

For the last nine months, I have been privileged to chair the Pew Commission 

on Children in Foster Care, a task I share with my colleague, former Representative 

Bill Gray. This independent, nonpartisan commission, funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts, includes some of the wisest and most experienced individuals in the 

field of child welfare. You heard from one of them this morning, New York City 

Commissioner William Bell. The other members of our Commission are no less impressive. 

Like this Subcommittee, we want to see the nation take better care of children 

who have been abused or neglected. We want to reduce the number of children who 

need to enter foster care. We want to help children leave foster care for a permanent 

family as soon as they safely can. We also recognize that this is a responsibility 

shared by the Federal Government and the states, as well as by courts in every 

state. 

The Pew Commission’s charge is to develop practical, fiscally responsible, policy 

recommendations to reform federal child welfare financing and strengthen court 

oversight of child welfare cases. Every problem in child welfare cannot be attributed 

to federal financing or to the courts, but many have roots there. Federal dollars flow 

relatively easily to pay for foster care for poor children, but they are much less 

available for other services that may avoid the need for foster care or shorten the 

time a child must stay in care. And while courts are critical decision-makers for 

every child in foster care, judges are often hampered by crowded dockets and unnecessary bottlenecks in the court system.

By late spring of this year, we expect to offer policy recommendations that can 

be embraced by bipartisan leaders, including this Subcommittee, at the federal and 

state levels. This is no easy task, but our Commission members have accepted the 

challenge with enthusiasm. They see much common ground, beginning with fairly

72

universal dissatisfaction with the current structure of federal funding for child welfare services. 

Our optimism is also based on knowledge that some states and jurisdictions have 

made great improvements. Illinois cut its foster care population in half since 1997, 

more than doubled adoptions from foster care, and—under a federal waiver—implemented a cost-effective, subsidized guardianship program. New York City cut its foster care population almost in half between 1996 and 2003. Chief justices in Michigan, California, New York, Utah, Minnesota and other states have made improving 

outcomes for children in abuse and neglect cases a top priority. They are seeking 

ways to ensure that children do not languish in foster care. Imagine the progress 

that could take place with a more rational financing structure and better-performing 

courts. 

While the Commission has not finalized any recommendations, we have agreed 

that any financing recommendations should include several key elements: 

First, it should give states greater flexibility in how they can use federal funds 

to serve maltreated children. Children who have been abused and neglected have 

a wide range of needs. Some may be better served by early, in-home intervention; 

others by intensive services that pave the way for reunification or support the transition to an adoptive home. Yet our current federal financing structure largely encourages a one-size-fits all response by directing the great majority of federal dollars 

to foster care, and providing only a relatively small amount to other important services. 

Second, greater flexibility must be accompanied by greater accountability by 

states for outcomes for children. Are fewer children entering foster care and are 

greater numbers leaving? Are adoptions from foster care and family reunifications 

increasing? What percentage of children return to foster care? How are the children 

who have been in foster care the longest faring? 

The Child and Family Services Reviews have made a good start at measuring 

states’ progress. Congress was right when it required such accountability. Independent experts and state administrators have told us that the reviews have been 

helpful, while also suggesting ways to improve the process. Our Commission is looking carefully at how to build on this strong start, so that states and the Federal 

Government can more accurately measure how children are faring. 

Third, we think that any financing structure should encourage states to build the 

full continuum of services for abused and neglected children, from prevention to 

post-permanency. We believe that case workers and judges should be able to tailor 

services to a child or family’s specific needs—especially if doing so avoids the need 

to place a child in foster care or allows a child to leave foster care safely as soon 

as possible. 

Fourth, we think federal financing should encourage states to carefully test and 

evaluate new services and practices. The child welfare field needs continued rigorous investigation into what works for vulnerable children and troubled families. 

In this regard, the child welfare waivers have yielded promising results. HHS’ recent guidance has made the waiver process somewhat easier and more attractive 

for states that want to experiment. Our Commission wants to continue to encourage 

innovation and creativity in this field. 

Fifth, any reordering of how the Federal Government provides funding to states 

must maintain risk-sharing between the federal and state governments and avoid 

cost-shifting to the greatest extent possible—either by the states or by the Federal 

Government. Title IV establishes a shared federal-state responsibility for abused 

and neglected children. Neither side of that partnership can stand down. 

As the Subcommittee examines the question of how to improve federal and state 

oversight of child welfare, I urge you to remember the critical role of the courts. No 

child enters or leaves foster care without a judge’s consent. Judges are responsible 

for ensuring that states have made reasonable efforts to reunite children and parents, and that the ASFA timelines are met in every case. 

Yet state and local courts face many challenges that hinder effective oversight of 

these cases and can unnecessarily prolong children’s stays in foster care. The handful of courts around the country that have the ability to track and analyze cases 

have decreased the average length of time a case is open and have identified populations, such as infants, whose special needs might otherwise go unnoticed. Our 

Commission is looking for ways to strengthen juvenile and family courts, to engage 

state courts in the development and implementation of state plans, and to develop 

policies to improve court performance and oversight.

Thank you for your attention this afternoon and for your commitment to this critical area. The Pew Commission looks forward to returning to you in a few months 

with our best suggestions, and to working with you to achieve real progress.

f

73

Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Frenzel. Now, 

Mr. Shay Bilchik to testify. 

STATEMENT OF SHAY BILCHIK, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CHILD WELFARE LEAGUE OF AMERICA 

Mr. BILCHIK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to address this Committee on behalf of the 1,100-member 

agencies of the Child Welfare League of America—both public and 

private nonprofit agencies. What I believe is very clear at this point 

of the hearing, Mr. Chairman, is that there are many forms of 

oversight that are actually built into the child welfare system at 

every level of operation. They are greatly impacted by both quality 

of practice, and the resources, as you have heard over and over 

again this morning—needing to support them and make them 

meaningful. Some are complementary, others are simply different 

in terms of focus and purpose. What they do have in common, however, is that none of these forms of oversight have been fully developed. Each is limited, either by lack of time, information, authority, 

funding, or other factors. 

In theory, the child welfare system is intended to be one of the 

most thoroughly scrutinized public activities in our society. Multiple layers of oversight functions have been created. However, it 

is not clear that any particular oversight mechanism has been implemented which is sufficient to achieve anything beyond sporadic 

localized success—for example, what you heard about today in New 

York City. The bottom line is that effective oversight is entirely dependent on sound information. Regardless of the location or scope 

of a particular oversight mechanism, it relies on four principal 

sources of information that can be more broadly categorized as 

community-based, externally based, part of case management, or 

regulatory function. 

These four sources are individual and family case records, resulting from an investigation, in casework context, and clinical and 

court activity. Second, direct reports from people who are served by 

the system, or who work in the system. This includes administrative reviews, quality assurance interviews, testimony, research, and 

evaluation. Third, they come from formal reports of aggregate information about children, families, and interventions—part of what 

you began to probe this morning. This includes management information systems, research, and evaluation. Fourth, statements of intent, expectation, or standards, that are part of formal plans, policies, and regulations. This includes budgets, policies, reports, and 

issue briefs. The unfortunate reality, Mr. Chairman, is that the information generated within these areas is often inconsistent, incomplete, and years behind. In order for any of the existing mechanisms to achieve a higher level of effectiveness, basic information 

from all four sources must be used in a more integrated, consistent 

manner. 

If one looks at the more common oversight mechanism, two conclusions are obvious. One, the basic concept behind most mechanisms is generally well conceived, and given adequate investment, 

would create the potential to enhance the overall strength of the 

system. Two, oversight mechanisms usually do not function at a 

fully developed level, and fall short of realizing their potential. So, 

74

while there appears to be no dearth of efforts to provide child welfare oversight, these efforts are neither integrated nor funded in a 

manner that allows them to be as effective as they can possibly be. 

The Subcommittee should make its decisions on how to improve 

oversight based on a critical understanding of answers to the following questions. One, does each function have good access to complete information from each of the four principal sources to help 

draw sound, long-term conclusions about the performance of the 

system? Does it have the capacity to analyze that information? 

Does it have the authority, or access to authority, to act on those 

findings? How does each mechanism combine access to the system 

with appropriate objectivity? How do existing mechanisms support 

each other? Are they complementary, or are they competitive? 

Then we must also pay attention, while asking these questions, 

to the fact that nearly all States have undergone their CFSRs. Now 

it remains to be seen how States will implement their PIPs, which 

are likely to require more rather than fewer resources. In other 

words, what we should be looking for is an incentived funding plan 

to support and further motivate successful implementation of the 

States’ PIPs, not a punitive, escalating approach that ultimately 

hurts those we wish to serve and protect—our children. We urge 

Congress to comprehensively review and take action on what is 

truly needed to build the system of care, so that children are protected. We urge Congress to focus on the current CFSR as its primary focus. To be an effective system, that system of review must 

have clear measures that can tell you about the quality of service 

being delivered, and must be able to measure the soundness of outcomes for children. That information must be consistent across 

State lines and jurisdictions. Finally, the system must have a way 

to enforce accountability, but enforce accountability in a way or in 

a manner that ensures greater safety and permanence for our children. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cardin, we look forward to working with 

you in this effort. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bilchik follows:]

Statement of Shay Bilchik, President and Chief Executive Officer, Child 

Welfare League of America 

My name is Shay Bilchik, I am the President and CEO of the Child Welfare 

League of America (CWLA). CWLA welcomes this opportunity to offer testimony on 

behalf of our 1,000 public and private nonprofit child-serving member agencies nationwide for the hearing to review the oversight systems designed to prevent abuse 

and neglect of children, including those under State protection. This hearing represents an important opportunity to review the existing federal, state, and local 

oversight mechanisms in place and to take a look at what needs to be done to ensure that all children in this country are protected from abuse and neglect. 

Existing Child Protection Oversight Mechanisms 

There are many forms of oversight built into the child welfare system at every 

level of operation. Some are complementary. Others are simply different. None have 

been fully developed. Each is limited by lack of time, information, authority, funding, or other factors. 

The child welfare system may, in theory, be one of the most thoroughly scrutinized public activities in our society. Multiple layers of oversight functions have 

been created. However, it is not clear that any particular oversight mechanism has 

been implemented with sufficient depth or breadth to achieve anything beyond sporadic, localized success. Therefore, we currently work within a system that depends 

on the poorly coordinated actions of a variety of inadequately staffed overseers who 

must carry out their duties with often inadequate information and insufficient authority to implement corrective actions. 

75

The best course of future action is to select a small set of complementary core 

mechanisms and concentrate on developing each element to a more complete level 

of effectiveness. 

Effective oversight is entirely dependent on sound information. Regardless of the 

location or scope of a particular oversight mechanism, it relies on four principal 

sources of information:

• Formal reports of aggregate information about children, families, and interventions. This includes management information systems, research, and evaluation. 

• Individual and family case records resulting from casework, contracts, and clinical and court activity. 

• Direct reports or commentary from people who are served by the system or who 

work in the system. This includes administrative reviews, quality assurance 

interviews, testimony, research, and evaluation. 

• Statements of intent, expectations or standards that are a part of formal plans, 

policies, regulations. This includes plans, budgets, regulations, policies, reports, 

and issue briefs.

The information generated within each of these areas is often inconsistent, incomplete, or years behind current dates. The data from each element are usually not 

universally available within the full range of oversight mechanisms and, even when 

widely available, may be presented or organized with considerable variability. In 

order for the any of the existing mechanisms to achieve a higher level of effectiveness, basic information from all four sources must be used in a more integrated, consistent, and balanced manner. In general, an inadequate investment is made in the 

basic tools and activities necessary to provide this information. 

The wide range of existing oversight mechanisms can be best understood by placing them within three broad categories: Community/External; Case Management 

Process; and Regulatory. 

Community/External 

Community-based or external oversight mechanisms include a wide variety of 

elective and appointive, policymaking, review and comment, monitoring, and planning bodies that are mandated to exercise some degree of scrutiny and to maintain 

accountability from the child welfare systems. 

Examples include:

• Governor’s Offices of Children 

• Ombudsman 

• State Legislative Committees 

• City and County Boards 

• Appointed Commissions 

• Citizen Advisory Groups 

• Gubernatorial or Legislative Task Forces or Panels 

• Public Advocates 

• Court Appointed Monitoring Panels

In addition to these state and local efforts, every state also has some form of child 

fatality review process that includes a review of every child death when the child 

either died while in agency custody or within 6 months of leaving custody. Some 

states require that these fatality reviews be conducted on every child who dies in 

the jurisdiction (city or county), regardless of whether they were in agency custody 

at the time. 

Case Management Process 

The core child welfare process includes a set of standard authorities, functions, 

and review procedures that are inherently intended to provide ongoing oversight at 

all stages of the case management process. 

Examples include:

• Supervision 

• Courts 

• Administrative Reviews 

• Citizen Case Review and Foster Care Review Boards 

• Quality Assurance 

• Utilization review 

• Contract monitoring 

• Fatality Review and Critical Incident Review 

• Multi-disciplinary Teams 

• Certification and Eligibility

76

Regulatory 

Regulatory functions are used within child welfare to establish standards against 

which capacity or performance is measured and rewards or penalties are imposed. 

Federal law or programs require many of these. 

Examples include:

• Child and Family Service Reviews (CFSR) 

• Program Improvement Plans (PIP) 

• Title IV–E (of the Social Security Act) Audits 

• Title IV–B (of the Social Security Act) State Plans 

• Adoption Foster Care Analysis Review System (AFCAR) 

• State Automated Child Welfare Information Systems (SACWIS) 

• Other State Plans—such as Medicaid state plans 

• Licensing and Certification 

• Voluntary Accreditation

If one looks critically at the more common oversight mechanisms two conclusions 

are obvious:

1. The basic concept behind most mechanisms is generally well conceived 

and, given adequate investment, would create the potential to enhance the 

overall strength of the system. 

2. Oversight mechanisms usually do not function at a fully developed level 

and fall short of realizing their potential.

A quick review of a few of the most important oversight functions helps to illustrate these points.

Oversight Mechanism Weaknesses

Legislative Committees • Dependent on relatively old aggregate 

information 

• Insufficient time to integrate and analyze information 

Casework Supervision • Workloads prohibit consistent, detailed reviews 

• Inconsistent access to consumers 

• Often questionable data from automated information systems 

Quality Assurance • Some states lack formal systems 

• Often don’t have adequate resources 

to select adequate samples or to gather information from consumers 

Federal Child and Family Service Reviews (CFSR) • Inadequate case sampling 

• Aggregate information is compromised 

by inconsistent definitions and reporting among states 

Virtually all existing oversight mechanisms are only partially developed and inadequately funded. It would be advisable to reduce the number of functions, many of 

which are duplicative, to concentrate on a core of more reliable oversight mechanisms. It would be important to make decisions based on a critical understanding 

of answers to questions like those that follow:

• Does each function have good access to complete information (not solely based 

on one data source or perspective) from each of the four principal sources to 

draw sound long term conclusions. 

• Does it have the capacity to analyze the information? 

• Does it have the authority (or access to authority) to act on findings? 

• How does each mechanism combine access to the system with appropriate objectivity? 

• How do existing mechanisms support each other? 

• Are they complementary or competitive?

There appears to be no dearth of efforts to provide child welfare oversight. However, these efforts are neither integrated or funded in a manner that allows them 

to be as effective as possible 

77

Impact of State Budgt Cuts 

A discussion of how to improve oversight of the child welfare system cannot ignore 

the reality that the best oversight cannot make up for a lack of resources and needed services. A system that can detect inadequacies does little good if those inadequacies cannot be corrected. 

In 2003, CWLA surveyed states to determine the impact of recent state budget 

cuts on their child welfare systems. CWLA’s survey revealed that virtually every 

state has developed spending or reduction plans for their child welfare agencies over 

the past three years. Forty states reported formal spending reduction plans and two 

states reported informal plans. The average percentage cut is approximately 8%, 

with a range of 0–3% to over 20%. 

As a result of these financial constraints:

• States have made significant reductions in staffing and services within their 

own agencies. • Child welfare agencies are limiting their services to only those traditional core 

services related to child protection. Many states indicated that they now focused 

on their ‘‘core’’ mission, defined as child protection (investigation, removal, and 

placement). Programs that do not serve children in this population are being 

reduced or eliminated, such as homeless youth programs, child care subsidies, 

before and after school programs, teen parent counseling, and youth in transition. • There is strong evidence that preventive and early intervention services are diminishing across the country. Consequently, state have been providing more expensive services (even if this conflicts with the original objective of reducing expenses). • Over two-thirds of the states have plans to reduce or eliminate contracts with 

private agencies and to eliminate or cancel specific service program areas. Program areas affected include: in-home services, day treatment, family support 

prevention programs, foster care training, after-school programs, supervised visitation programs, emergency shelter programs, child care, domestic violence, 

family preservation services, and family resource centers. • States are reducing or eliminating adoptive and foster parent recruitment and 

support. These changes conflict with the legislative permanency requirements.

In light of these actions, we have to evaluate the impact on the child welfare system. We are confident that states are making every effort to implement changes 

that enable them to continue to protect traditional services for children. However, 

we asked many states what their thoughts were on the implication of these spending reductions on services for children. In the long run, they see:

• Decreasing capacity to provide all services;Increasing caseloads and waiting 

lists for services; • Decreasing preventive services, which may result in a need for more expensive 

future treatments; 

• Decreasing in-home support services, resulting in more out-of-home care (even 

as states report the desire to turn to more in-home services); 

• Decreasing support to foster parents, which may result in fewer foster parents 

in the system 

• Longer lengths of stay for children in foster care; 

• Decreasing permanency options for kids; 

• Decreasing ability to record information into information systems in a timely 

manner; and 

• Cuts in other state agencies, including mental health, substance abuse, and 

Medicaid, will likely result in cost shifting, with children moving among jurisdictions to seek services.

If deficits continue, we will likely see even further reductions in states’ abilities 

to provide services. Given that nearly all states have undergone the federal Child 

and Family Service Reviews, it is also unclear how states will implement their Program Improvement Plans which are likely to require more, rather than fewer, resources. 

CWLA’s Call for Comprehensive Child Welfare Reform 

CWLA urges Congress to comprehensively review and take action on what is truly 

needed to build the system of care so that children are protected. CWLA recognizes 

that the child welfare system, as currently constructed, cannot protect all children 

adequately. Failures occur. They are not limited to any single state. These failures 

will continue to occur until we put into place a comprehensive child protection system. We are overdue in implementing an improved and strengthened system. True 

78

child welfare reform will hinge on an improved system of shared financing responsibilities among federal, state, local, and tribal governments. 

The national child welfare system continues to be in need of:

• A reliable, responsive, and predictable method of guaranteed funding, for a full 

range of essential services, as well as placement and treatment services. 

• A means of maintaining consistent focus on safety, permanency, and well-being 

as outcomes for children. 

• Rigorous standards combined with strong federal and state accountability mechanisms. 

• Recruitment and support of adequately trained child welfare professionals, foster and adoptive parents, mentors, and community volunteers. 

• Resources that enable parents to provide adequate protection and care for their 

own children.

Without all of these elements in place the well-being of many of our country’s children will continue to be lacking. 

New Investments Needed 

Increase Support for Prevention and Early Intervention Services 

Resources are needed for primary prevention services that can prevent many families from ever reaching the point where a child is removed from the home. Prevention and early intervention services play a vital role for children and families in 

communities. Family support, home visiting, and in-home services enable many parents to gain competence and confidence in their parenting while addressing other 

family concerns. Child care, housing, and job training/employment are services that 

enable families to stay together to the fullest extent possible. These and other preventive services need to be much more available to families early on, as well as 

when a crisis occurs. 

Community-based child protection programs have demonstrated that many families can be helped before there is a need for protective intervention with the family. 

Often, the family can identify what is needed and be connected to resources—and 

contact with the formal child welfare system can be averted. Often, after a formal 

report has been made, a child can be maintained safely at home with sufficient supports, clear expectations, and monitoring. At all points in the continuum, however, 

ongoing, targeted assessment must be taking place. Both the initial child protective 

services investigation and placement prevention services require appropriate immediate assessments of the family, the child and the community. CWLA supports the 

Act To Leave No Child Behind (H.R. 936) that would allow states to claim reimbursement under the Title IV–E foster care program to address these needs. 

Increase Funding for Promoting Safe and Stable Families 

CWLA supports increased funding to $505 million for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program (PSSF). States use these funds for family support, family preservation, adoption and family reunification. Since 2001 when this program was last 

reauthorized, Congress has had the ability to add $200 million to the $305 million 

in mandatory funding. Despite the best efforts of members of this Subcommittee, 

Congress had never approved more than $405 million for PSSF. 

Restore Funding for the Social Services Block Grant 

CWLA again calls for the restoration of funding to $2.8 billion for the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG, Title XX of the Social Security Act). In 2000, SSBG represented 17% of all federal funding for child welfare services. While SSBG funds can 

be used for an array of social services, such as child care or services for the aging, 

states chose to spend these funds on child welfare services more than any other 

service area. In federal FY 2001, child protection and child foster care services each 

accounted for 22% of SSBG expenditures; 43 states used SSBG funds to address 

child protection services; and 35 states used SSBG to fund foster care. 

As part of the 1996 TANF law, SSBG funding was to be restored in FY 2003. That 

commitment has never been fulfilled. Restoring full funding to $2.8 billion for SSBG 

would fulfill a congressional promise and provide needed resources to states in these 

difficult budget times. 

Support the Adoption Incentives Fund 

CWLA supports full funding of $42 million for the Adoption Incentives Fund. This 

is an important fund that provides resources to the states to encourage the adoption 

of children. Increased funding is especially needed to help states reach the new target of facilitating the adoption of older children. Congress, led by the work of this 

79

Subcommittee, reauthorized the Adoption Incentives fund just last year. Despite 

that effort, the 2004 funding does not provide the full $42 million. 

Implement Program Improvement Plans 

Many states have now undergone their federally mandated Child and Family 

Services Reviews. States are now putting together Program Improvement Plans that 

outline what improvements are needed to better ensure that children are protected. 

Many states will struggle to implement these plans unless resources are provided. 

Legislation pending before the Subcommittee sponsored by Representative Benjamin Cardin (H.R. 1534) offers an innovative approach that would target funds to 

assist states in the implementation of their Program Improvement Plans. H.R. 1534 

would provide grants to states to help implement program improvements and would 

provide an additional bonus for the most successful states. 

Adopt Strategies to Better Support the Child Welfare Workforce 

A well-trained, reliable, and experienced workforce is a critical element to making 

children safer. Legislation pending in this subcommittee introduced by Representative Pete Stark (H.R. 2437), as well as H.R. 1534 mentioned earlier, includes a number of workforce strategies including expanded access to training for new and current child welfare workers. In the U.S. Senate, Senator Mike DeWine has sponsored 

legislation (S. 407) that expands college loan forgiveness to this part of our nation’s 

workforce. 

Change the Eligibility for Title IV–E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance 

To ensure child safety, permanency, and well-being, federal funding should be provided for all children in out-of-home care. Congress has mandated legal and permanency protections for all foster and adopted children, however, federal funding is 

only available to pay for the costs of children who are eligible for Title IV–E of the 

Social Security Act. The current law links Title IV–E eligibility to archaic standards 

that each state had in place under their 1996 AFDC eligibility standards. 

Since AFDC no longer exists, this continues to be an administrative burden on 

the states. Even more critical, however, is the fact that as time goes by, fewer and 

fewer children will be eligible for federal support. Data gathered by the Urban Institute indicates that as of 2000, approximately 57% of all children in out-of-home 

placement were eligible for Title IV–E funding. Some states may be able to serve 

less than one-third of their children in out-of-home placement through the use of 

Title IV–E foster care fund. If the current eligibility link remains, fewer and fewer 

children will be eligible for federal foster care and adoption assistance. 

Expand Family Reunification Services 

Reunification is the first permanency option states consider for children entering 

care. Yet, in many ways, it is the most challenging option to achieve in a planbased, permanent way. Forty-three percent (239,552) of children in care on September 30, 2000, had a case plan goal of reunification with their parents or other 

principal caretaker while 57% (157,712) of the children who exited care during FY 

2000 returned to their parent’s or caretaker’s home. Successful permanency through 

reunification requires many things, including skilled workers, readily available supportive and treatment resources, clear expectations and service plans, and excellent 

collaboration across involved agencies, at a minimum. The Act To Leave No Child 

Behind (H.R. 936) would allow states to claim reimbursement under the Title IV–

E foster care program to address these needs. 

Support Kinship Permanency and Guardianship 

One area that can serve as an important tool in providing children with a safe 

and permanent setting is the use of guardian kinship care arrangements. Some 

states have used various resources to fund this permanency option. A few states 

have utilized federal Title IV–E funds to support guardianship through the use of 

Title IV–E waivers. 

CWLA supports a federally funded guardianship permanency option available 

through Title IV–E to allow states to provide assistance payments on behalf of children to grandparents and other relatives who have assumed legal guardianship of 

the children for whom they have committed to care for on a permanent basis. Kinship guardianship assistance agreements and payments would be similar to the 

adoption assistance agreements in that they would take into consideration the circumstances and the needs of the child. 

Kinship care, when properly assessed and supported, has been shown to provide 

safe and stable care for children who remain with or return to their families. Twenty-five percent of children in care are living with relatives, some of who will not be 

able to return to their parents. States vary in their use of relative homes for foster 

80

care even though federal regulations state that there is a preference for relative 

placements. States are challenged to provide the financial, social, and legal supports 

that are needed to ensure safety and permanency in kinship placements. Generally 

there is a lack of case management and support services made available to relative 

and legal guardian providers. 

Conclusion 

CWLA believes that important and necessary reforms must be enacted to ensure 

a consistent level of safety and care for all of America’s children. We look forward 

to working with this subcommittee to develop a comprehensive child welfare reform 

proposal that meets all the needs of America’s the most vulnerable children and 

families and ensures that every child is protected. A part of that reform must include improvements to oversight systems designed to ensure the safety of our children.

Monsignor Kevin Sullivan. 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Bilchik. Now to testify, 

f STATEMENT OF MONSIGNOR KEVIN SULLIVAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CATHOLIC CHARITIES, ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK 

Monsignor SULLIVAN. Good afternoon, and thank you for this 

opportunity to testify—sadly—on behalf of half-a-million vulnerable 

children in these United States, who tonight will sleep in foster 

care homes, not their own homes. I am the Executive Director of 

Catholic Charities USA, the Archdiocese of New York. We have 

more than 100 agencies serving New York City and the lower Hudson Valley—a full, comprehensive range of services. Today, I want 

to focus on just one of these critical services: foster care. My goal 

is to demonstrate how important it is to provide the funding that 

can help prevent the foster care tragedies that so appall us when 

they make front-page news. 

Each year in New York, we provide foster care and group care 

for more than 7,000 children and adolescents. In addition, we provide for thousands of services to those in preventive services, also. 

We agree with, as so many of the other panelists today have spoken of, the need for increased resources in preventive care, adoption services, and reunification. However, those resources cannot be 

provided at the expense of the foster care component of the child 

welfare system. If you will pardon me—we can’t rob Peter to pay 

Paul. We can’t continue to under fund a system that has children 

in significant danger. We are talking about children placed in foster care because they have been burned, because they have been 

beaten and starved—children that might never have been read to, 

children who have never been held. We have to keep faith with 

those half-million children in foster care. We need to make sure 

that the funds are available to provide enough social service professionals, to provide sufficient supervisors, to ensure that they are in 

a safe haven where growth and learning are possible. We need to 

make sure that the foster parents are reimbursed to ensure that 

they can provide a decent home. 

The reasons are simple. Children are in foster care because some 

judge has determined that they have been so badly abused or neglected that they cannot remain safely in their own homes. The foster care component of the system makes a simple, difficult, and arrogant assertion. It says, we the people can provide better care for 

81

these children than their parents. Ladies and gentlemen, if we 

don’t provide the resources to make that happen, then we open ourselves to similar charges of neglect. The foster care system needs 

additional reimbursement to guarantee the safety of children in 

care, and to ensure that we provide the remedial services needed 

to rebuild their already damaged lives. Permit me to focus on two 

areas where Federal leadership is critical. The first is ensuring 

consistent quality of staffing and foster care parents. The current 

system creates instability. Resources—I can speak most about New 

York State—are woefully inadequate. Some residential care facilities and foster care agencies have closed because they could not retain or attract quality staff. Staff turnover, as you have heard in 

some of those agencies, is as much as 40 percent. Foster care parent recruitment is troublesome, and turnover high, at least in part 

because of low reimbursement. 

Complicating these problems, and intensifying the need, is the 

fact that our agencies report that 50 percent of the children in foster care have special medical, psychological, and educational needs. 

These needs must be assessed, addressed, and monitored by caseworkers who are carrying minimum caseloads of 25 families, and 

all for a starting salary well under $30,000 a year. Foster parents 

must handle these problems in their homes, and facilitate those 

needs being met by various practitioners, all for about $20 per day, 

per child. The second area for Federal leadership concerns the 

funding mechanism, which others have spoken about. Unfortunately, there is a misperception that the extension of block grants 

to foster care is the silver bullet of greater flexibility and targeting 

resources. In New York, we have had an experience with foster 

care—and they don’t work. At the end of the day, the flexibility 

which theoretically exists is de facto undermined by the lack of resources. In New York City, funds were diverted from foster care to 

other services, leaving a strapped system even more pressed for 

critical resources. Unfortunately, block grants in foster care will 

have a far greater resemblance to snake oil than silver bullets. Finally, I thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of that 

particular component—foster care—which can’t be overlooked for 

those half-million children whose lives have already been damaged 

and need to be rebuilt so that they can live in greater dignity in 

the future. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Monsignor Sullivan follows:]

Statement of Monsignor Kevin Sullivan, Executive Director and Chief 

Executive Officer, Catholic Charities, Archdiocese of New York, New York 

Good afternoon. Thank you for allowing me to testify on behalf of the most vulnerable children and families in our nation. 

I am Monsignor Kevin Sullivan, Executive Director and CEO of the Catholic 

Charities of the Archdiocese of New York. More than 100 Catholic Charities agencies serve ten urban, suburban and rural counties in New York City and the lower 

Hudson Valley. We provide a comprehensive range of services to people of all religions and ethnicities who are in need. We are the oldest and one of the largest providers of child welfare services in the US. 

Our focus today is one of these critical services: foster care. My goal is to demonstrate how important it is to provide the funding that can help prevent the foster 

care tragedies that so appall us when they make front-page news. 

Every year New York Catholic Charities agencies provide foster and group care 

for more than 7000 children and adolescents. While we agree that more resources 

are needed for prevention, reunification, and adoption, foster care cannot be allowed 

82

to falter. We cannot continue to under fund a system that responds to children in 

significant danger. We are talking about children who have been burned, beaten, 

and starved—children who have never been held or read to. We must keep faith 

with the half-million children in foster care. We must make sure funds are available 

to provide enough social service professionals and sufficient supervision to insure 

that these children are in a safe haven where growth and learning are possible. We 

must also make sure that foster parents are adequately reimbursed to provide a decent home. Can anyone in this room disagree about the importance of our responsibilities to and for children in foster care? 

The reasons are simple: children are in foster care because a judge has determined they have been so badly abused or neglected that they cannot remain in their 

own home. The foster care system makes a very difficult, yet arrogant assertion: We, 

the people, can take better care of these children than their parents. Ladies and gentlemen, if we do not provide the resources to make this happen, we open ourselves 

to similar charges of neglect. The foster care system needs additional reimbursement to guarantee the safety of children in care and to ensure remedial services 

needed to rebuild their damaged lives. 

Permit me now to focus on two areas where federal leadership is critical to ensuring adequate resources to a strained system. 

The first area for leadership is insuring the consistent quality of staffing and foster care parents. The current system creates instability. Resources in New York 

State are woefully inadequate. Some residential care facilities and foster care agencies have closed because they could not attract nor retain qualified staff. Foster parent recruitment is troublesome and turnover high at least in part because of low 

reimbursement. Staff turnover can be as high as 40% in some agencies. 

In addition, our agencies report that 50% of the children in foster care have special medical, psychological and educational needs. These needs must be assessed, 

addressed and monitored by caseworkers who carry minimum caseloads of 25 families, all for a starting salary well under $30,000 a year. Foster parents must handle 

those problems in the home and facilitate those needs being met by various practitioners—all for $20 per day per child. 

The second area for leadership concerns the funding mechanism. Unfortunately, 

there is a misperception that the extension of block grants to foster care is a ‘‘silver 

bullet’’ of greater flexibility and targeting resources. In New York we have an experience with foster care block grants that I believe tells another story. Initially, the 

NYS block grant to counties showed some promise of more investment in prevention 

and rehabilitation services to natural parents. After a few years, however, as state 

and county budget problems worsened, these bright promises dimmed. In NYC 

funds were diverted from foster care to other services, leaving a strapped foster care 

system even more pressed for critical resources. Theoretical flexibility was undermined by de facto lack of resources. Block grants for foster care will bear a far 

greater resemblance to ‘‘snake oil’’ than ‘‘silver bullets.’’ They utilize a funding 

mechanism that cannot be counted on to provide consistent financial support for the 

stability our foster children need. 

Positive strides have been made in enhancing prevention services and encouraging timely permanency planning. More needs to be done. Allow me to commend 

this committee for looking at ways to do this. I strongly urge you not to do anything—even if well intentioned—to make the foster care system more precarious. I 

would be remiss to go no further. I plead that you find a way to enhance the funding 

to this system that often serves an average of two years as the home of last resort 

for our damaged children. During those two critical years, the system must not 

allow children to languish; rather it must restore and rebuild those lives. Thank you 

the opportunity to share these ideas.

testify, Mr. Thomas Atwood. 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Monsignor Sullivan. Now to 

f STATEMENT OF THOMAS C. ATWOOD, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, 

ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 

Mr. ATWOOD. I thank you, Chairman Herger, and Mr. Cardin. 

Founded in 1980, NCFA is an adoption research, education, and 

advocacy nonprofit. Chairman Herger, I thank you for your kind 

83

words about William Pierce. Indeed, there are quite literally tens 

of thousands of children and adults today who are enjoying loving, 

permanent families because of Bill Pierce’s work. To my testimony—ASFA’s encouraging results suggest three valuable lessons 

for the Subcommittee’s policymaking: first, the importance of 

standards and measures; second, the importance of incentives and 

accountability; and third, the importance of flexibility for States. 

These lessons are elaborated in NCFA’s written testimony. According to reports, the Jackson children were subjected to inexcusable 

and hideous treatment by their adoptive parents. One case of cruelty which the Jackson children suffered is one too many. It is important to keep in mind, however, that the main problem facing 

our child welfare system today is the suffering of children languishing in foster care—not the rare case of abusive adoptive parents. It is statistically predictable that in a population of 1.7 million households with adopted children, there would be some examples of horrendous abuse. Unfortunately, child abuse and neglect is 

a tragic fact of life in some families, whether adoptive or biological. 

However, NCFA cautions against enacting extraordinary new 

measures which impose requirements on adoptive parents that are 

not expected of biological parents. Adoptive parents are as attentive to their children’s needs as biological parents are. Congress 

should be reticent to enact a policy that treats them differently. 

The average age of children waiting to be adopted out of foster care 

is 8.3 years, and they have been in continuous foster care for an 

average of 44 months. The average age when the waiting child was 

removed from his or her family is 4.7 years. The average American 

hears these numbers and rightly wonders, how can it take so long 

for the child welfare system to determine that these children’s biological parents cannot or will not parent them. In our testimony, 

NCFA suggests five policy ideas regarding how Federal and State 

officials can address these problems more effectively through the 

oversight of child welfare programs. First, through performancebased measures and incentives for courts. Perhaps the biggest 

problem with the child welfare system today is dysfunctional family 

courts that entrap children in never-ending hearings and technicalities that effectively doom them to miserable childhoods. A major 

part of the problem is the lack of performance measures and incentives for family courts, that policy makers and the public can use 

to praise courts for good performance, and hold them accountable 

for poor performance. Our written testimony suggests steps for establishing accountability—including specific performance-based 

measures. 

Second, through flexible funding for States. Present law regarding how States spend their foster care funding is too restrictive. 

States should have the flexibility to customize their funding to the 

specific challenges of their respective foster care populations and 

systems. We support the concept contained in President Bush’s 

child welfare program option. Third, through ASFA enforcement. 

Some judges simply ignore ASFA’s 15/22 rule, for example. In effect, they deny children loving, permanent families through adoption, often in the name of family preservation, even when it is apparent that there is no real family to preserve. Federal and State 

officials should require courts to follow the 15/22 rule and to comVerDate jul 14 2003 00:34 Jul 16, 2004 Jkt 092984 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\92984.XXX 92984
84

ply with ASFA’s speedier hearing schedules. Fourth, through caseload standards. In many tragic stories of the foster child who dies 

or is abused, the social worker was carrying too large a caseload. 

States should have appropriate caseload standards, and meeting 

caseload standards should be a high priority in social service department budgets. 

Fifth, and last, through collaborations with the private sector to 

recruit and prepare adoptive parents. There are 471 married couples for each foster child waiting to be adopted, and many potential 

single parents, too. There are three places of worship for each child 

waiting to be adopted and every major faith calls its believers to 

care for orphans. This year, the Children’s Bureau funds a demonstration project to develop a national network of adoption advocacy programs that recruit adoptive parents from faith-based communities. Federal, State, and local officials should work with communities of faith to recruit adoptive parents. Private adoption 

agencies are another resource. The public system already turns to 

private agencies for home studies. Adoptive parent preparation is 

another way private adoption agencies can help relieve the very 

stretched public system. Chairman Herger, I refer you to NCFA’s 

written testimony for further details on today’s topic, and I thank 

you for the opportunity to work with you to achieve better results 

for America’s deserving foster children. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Atwood follows:]

Statement of Thomas C. Atwood, President and Chief Executive Officer, 

National Council for Adoption, Alexandria, Virginia 

Chairman Herger and Members of the Subcommittee: 

My name is Thomas C. Atwood. I am president and CEO of the National Council 

For Adoption. On behalf of the National Council For Adoption, I submit this testimony on the subject of federal and state oversight of child welfare programs. 

The National Council For Adoption (NCFA) is an adoption research, education, 

and advocacy nonprofit whose mission is to promote the well-being of children, 

birthparents, and adoptive families by advocating for the positive option of adoption. 

Since its founding in 1980, NCFA has been a leader in promoting adoption and child 

welfare policies that promote adoption of children out of foster care, present adoption as a positive option for women with unplanned pregnancies, reduce obstacles 

to transracial adoption, make adoption more affordable through the adoption tax 

credit, and facilitate intercountry adoption. 

Observations Regarding Recent Policies 

It is useful to note at the outset several observations about recent developments 

in adoption and foster care policymaking. These experiences provide valuable lessons and insights for the issue of what federal, state, and local officials can do and 

should be doing to ensure the safety, permanency, and well-being of children: 

Success of ASFA: The results of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 

(ASFA) have been encouraging. Since its enactment, adoptions out of foster care 

rose from 31,000 in 1997 to 51,000 in 2002. From 1998 to 2002, an average of 

more than 13,000 additional children per year—more than 65,000 additional children in all—were adopted than would have been otherwise. Over the same fiveyear period, more than 230,000 foster children were adopted, about the same 

number as were adopted in the previous ten. 

Importance of Standards and Measures: ASFA proves that in order to improve the performance of the child welfare system, federal and state officials need 

to establish specific standards and then regularly measure and report actual performance relative to these standards. The most important standards and measures established by ASFA include: states’ baselines for the number of children 

adopted out of foster care; the requirement to initiate proceedings to terminate 

parental rights for children who are in foster care for 15 of the previous 22 

months; the aggravated-circumstances exception to family-reunification requireVerDate jul 14 2003 00:34 Jul 16, 2004 Jkt 092984 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\92984.XXX 92984
85

ments; and the requirements for earlier permanency hearings and concurrent case 

planning. 

Importance of Incentives and Accountability: ASFA also proves the effectiveness of ‘‘carrot and stick’’ policies that reward good performance through such 

policies as the Adoption Incentives payments to states for exceeding their baselines for children adopted out of foster care, and exercise accountability for poor 

performance through possible reduction of funding. Congress was right to pass the 

Adoption Promotion Act of 2003, reauthorizing the Adoption Incentives and increasing the incentives for adoptions of foster children and youth ages nine and 

up. 

Importance of Flexibility: Finally, the success of ASFA shows the importance 

of allowing states the flexibility to address the particular concerns and needs of 

their respective foster care populations and systems. Under ASFA, the Federal 

Government established standards, measures, incentives, and accountability. But 

ASFA largely left it to the states to determine the best ways to achieve the standards, given their respective needs and circumstances. While it is constructive for 

the Federal Government to work with the states in setting standards and incentives for the child-welfare system’s performance, it would not serve the best interests of children and families for the Federal Government to dictate a one-size-fitsall operations plan for our diverse 50 states. 

Other Positive Policy Developments: Other initiatives that are helping, and 

will help, to promote safety, permanency, and well-being of children in foster care 

are: education and training vouchers for youth who age out of foster care; the 

Children’s Bureau’s test project to develop a national network of adoption advocacy programs that recruit adoptive parents from faith-based communities; funding increases to Promoting Safe and Stable Families, which funds adoption promotion and support services; www.adoptuskids.org, the Children’s Bureau 

website, profiling children in foster care waiting to be adopted; and the national 

public service advertising campaign featuring First Lady Laura Bush and Bruce 

Willis, and other public education campaigns at the state and local levels. 

Fairness for Adoptive Families 

Before moving on to policy suggestions, please consider one other general comment. The case of the Jackson children in New Jersey has appropriately come to 

the attention of this Subcommittee. According to reports, the Jackson children were 

subjected to inexcusable and hideous treatment by their adoptive parents. One case 

of the cruelty the Jackson children suffered is one too many. If proven guilty, the 

Jacksons and the officials who oversaw their adoptions should be punished severely. 

It is important to keep in mind, however, that the main problem facing our child 

welfare system, by far, is the suffering of children languishing in foster care, not 

the rare case of abusive adoptive parents. 

According to the Census Bureau report, Adopted Children and Stepchildren: 2000, 

in the census year there were 2.1 million adopted children living with their parents 

in 1.7 million households, 1.6 million of those children under the age of 18. Sadly, 

there are abusive adoptive families, just as there are abusive biological families. It 

is statistically predictable that in a population of 1.7 million households there would 

be some examples of horrendous abuse. Unfortunately, child abuse and neglect is 

a tragic fact of life in some families, whether adoptive or biological. 

However, the National Council For Adoption cautions against leaping to dramatic 

new conclusions about adoption, or adoption policy, based on the aberrant Jackson 

case. Adoption is an extraordinarily successful social institution in promoting child 

welfare. It is indisputable that children adopted out of foster care fare better than 

those who languish there. The benefits of adoption for children include higher scores 

on measures of family adjustment, emotional and developmental functioning, and 

self-esteem. Adopted children are more likely to attend college and less likely to 

abuse drugs. Adoption into their own family gives children security, well-being, and 

love that foster care cannot. 

One of the chief reasons adoption has been so successful in meeting the needs of 

children is that law and society have respected adoptive parents as the real parents 

and treated them essentially the same as biological parents. NCFA cautions against 

enacting extraordinary new measures that impose requirements on adoptive parents 

that are not expected of biological parents, such as requiring adoptive parents to 

provide medical information and submit their child to post-adoption medical examinations. Adoptive parents are as attentive to their children’s needs as biological parents are. Congress should be reticent to enact a policy that treats them differently. 

Treating them differently creates a second-class status for adoptive parenting, which 

86

would violate children’s best interests. The time to examine adoptive parents’ suitability as parents is prior to adoption. 

Policy Recommendations 

The average age of children waiting to be adopted out of foster care is 8.3 years. 

The average age when the waiting child was removed from his or her family is 4.7 

years. The average American looks at these numbers and wonders how it can take 

so long for the child welfare system to determine that these children’s biological parents cannot or will not safely and responsibly parent them. To ensure child safety, 

permanency, and well-being, federal, state, and local officials should redouble their 

efforts to free foster children for adoption at younger ages, as well as make special 

efforts to encourage adoptions of older foster children and youth. 

The greatest obstacles to child safety, permanency, and well-being today include: 

family courts that do not keep timely schedules or comply with the mandates of 

ASFA; excessive social worker caseloads; inadequate parent recruitment and preparation efforts; and lack of experience with effective models for post-adoption services, as well as for services to foster children and youth with case goals of emancipation or long-term foster care. Following, for the Subcommittee’s consideration, are 

policy suggestions regarding how federal and state officials might oversee child welfare programs in ways to address these problems:

Performance-Based Measures and Incentives for Courts: Perhaps the biggest problem with the child welfare system today is dysfunctional family courts 

that entrap children in a never-ending process of hearings and legal technicalities 

that effectively doom them to miserable childhoods, and even danger in unsafe 

households. A major part of the problem is the lack of performance measures and 

incentives for state courts and court systems that policymakers and the public can 

use to praise courts for good performance and hold them accountable for poor performance. 

To address this problem, the federal and state governments should take steps 

to establish an effective accountability system for state courts including: (1) defining clear performance standards to apply to family courts and court systems; (2) 

measuring court performance according to these standards; (3) reporting these 

performance measures to policymakers with authority over the courts and to the 

general public; and (4) developing incentives and accountability systems, at the 

state and federal levels, that promote improved performance. 

The courts themselves should use this information to target areas for improvements, and policymakers and child welfare advocates should use them to monitor 

the courts and hold them accountable. States and the Federal Government should 

use these data to develop incentives and regulations that improve courts’ processing of foster care cases. Among the data regarding family courts for which 

HHS and states should develop standards and publicize performance are:

• Average length of time between review hearings. 

• Percentage of review hearings that are postponed. 

• Numbers of placements children experience while in foster care. 

• Numbers of review hearings children experience while in foster care. 

• Percentage of children in foster care 15 out of the last 22 months who are 

exempted from initiation of proceedings to terminate parental rights, and the 

reasons given for these exemptions. 

• Lengths of time from entry into foster care until termination of parental 

rights. 

• Numbers of disruptions of placements, by type of placement.

Flexible Funding for States: Present law regarding how states spend their 

IV–E foster care funding is too restrictive. States do not have the flexibility to customize their child welfare systems to the unique needs of their children, youth, 

and families. The National Council For Adoption supports the concept contained 

in President Bush’s flexible funding proposal, the Child Welfare Program Option. 

This option would allow states to maintain the federal funding of their foster care 

program as is, or to receive these funds as a flexible grant over five years, to support a range of child welfare services, such as parent recruitment and training, 

family counseling and post-adoption services, and vocational counseling, job placement, and mentoring for foster youth. 

The proposal’s flexibility offers states the opportunity to be timely and effective 

in addressing the specific challenges of their respective foster care populations 

and systems. This approach is consistent with the proven model for federal-state 

partnerships discussed in ‘‘Importance of Flexibility’’ in this written testimony. 

87

Part of the flexible funding plan should be protections against negligence of 

states’ foster care populations by requiring states to: adhere to the child safety 

protections mandated by ASFA; maintain existing levels of investment in their 

child welfare programs; and continue to participate in the Administration for Children and Family’s Child and Family Service Reviews. Besides allowing more strategic targeting of foster care resources, greater flexibility would encourage the discovery of creative, new ways to promote child welfare. 

ASFA Enforcement: The Federal Government should enforce state compliance 

with ASFA in certain key areas. Influenced by ‘‘family preservation’’ ideology, 

some judges simply ignore the ASFA requirement to initiate proceedings when the 

child has been in foster care 15 out of the previous 22 months. This ideology, 

which asserts that the biological connection must be maintained at almost all 

costs, denies children loving, permanent families in the name of ‘‘family preservation,’’ even when it is apparent that there is no real family to preserve. Using 

ASFA’s ‘‘stick,’’ the Federal Government should require states to follow the 15/22 

rule. 

The Federal Government should also target for enforcement states’ compliance 

with hearing schedules. Considering how long it takes the child welfare system 

to free children for adoption, it is clear that problems with hearing schedules continue. Finally, the Federal Government should evaluate whether ASFA’s aggravated-circumstances exception from reasonable efforts to reunify families has been 

adequate to protect children. Given aggravated circumstances, perhaps states 

should be required to initiate proceedings to terminate parental rights, rather 

than only being allowed not to make reasonable efforts. 

Caseload Standards: Whenever there is a tragic story about a foster child who 

dies or is abused, almost invariably, part of the report is that the social worker 

was carrying an unmanageably large caseload. Federal, state, and local officials 

responsible for the child welfare system should do everything in their power to 

ensure that foster care and adoption workers have appropriate caseloads, so that 

children in public care receive the professional attention and protection they deserve. Social workers and their supervisors should have clearly established, appropriate caseload standards. The standards should be highly public, as should the 

child welfare system’s actual performance measured against these standards. 

Meeting caseload standards should be a high priority in evaluating supervisors’ 

performance and in social service department budgets. 

Collaborations to Recruit and Prepare Adoptive Parents: Federal, state, 

and local officials can collaborate more effectively with the private sector to recruit parents to adopt children out of foster care. According to HHS’s most recent 

information, there are nearly 117,000 children waiting to be adopted out of foster 

care. Though that number is trending down, it is still tragically large. But here 

is a larger number: There are 55-million married-couple US households, 471 married couples for each foster child waiting to be adopted. There are many single 

Americans who can be part of the parenting solution for foster children, too, especially for older children. If federal, state, and local officials continue to promote 

adoption, there are more than enough loving American families to provide permanent homes for these deserving children. 

Communities of faith present an excellent opportunity for adoptive parent recruitment. There are nearly 400,000 places of worship in the United States, three 

for each child waiting to be adopted, and every major faith calls its believers to 

compassion and admonishes them to care for orphans. This year, the Children’s 

Bureau funds the first year of a five-year demonstration project to develop a national network of adoption advocacy programs that recruit parents from faithbased communities to adopt children out of foster care. This concept has tremendous potential to benefit foster children through adoption. Federal, state, and local 

officials should move ahead with communities of faith to explore this creative opportunity. 

Private adoption agencies are another resource for promoting adoptions out of 

foster care, through their ability to provide parent preparation services. As parents are recruited, the public system will be further stretched to provide the parent training necessary for foster care adoptions. The public system already turns 

to private agencies to assist with home studies. As the child welfare system does 

a better job of recruiting adoptive parents, parent preparation is another way private adoption agencies can help relieve the already very stretched public system.

Chairman Herger, in recent years there has been significant progress made in 

finding loving, permanent families for America’s foster children. But there is much 

more to be done through improved federal and state oversight of child welfare programs. The National Council For Adoption looks forward to continuing to work with 

88

you and the Subcommittee to achieve still better results for America’s deserving foster children.

you a question, if I could. In your testimony, you discussed the imChairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Atwood. I would like to ask 

f portance of accountability for the courts in the child welfare system. In your opinion, what are some of the biggest problems courts 

face in protecting children and ensuring timely hearings? What are 

some of the more important measures Congress might consider to 

make State courts more accountable? 

Mr. ATWOOD. The measures that we refer to in our written testimony are the average length of time between review hearings, the 

percentage of review hearings that are postponed, the number of 

placements children experience while in foster care, the number of 

review hearings children experience while in foster care, the percentage of children in foster care during 15 out of the last 22 

months who are exempted from initiation of proceedings to terminate parental rights and the reasons given for those exemptions, 

the length of time from entering into foster care until termination 

of parental rights, and the number of disruptions by type of placement. This is a lot easier said than done, I realize, but the mandate 

is there. It has to happen. It is clear that when you look at the performance of the executive branches of the States in response to the 

ASFA, you can see how measures, incentives, and accountability 

can be quite productive. We have had tremendous increases in the 

number of children adopted out of foster care as a result of these 

incentives that were put in place. We need to find a similar mechanism for the courts. The courts have not kept pace with the responsiveness of the executive branch agencies. So, I don’t have all the 

answers, but I certainly would suggest that these points that I listed contain some of them. 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much. The gentleman from 

Maryland, Mr. Cardin. 

Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, let me just compliment all of you for your testimony—but also for the work that 

you are doing. My only regret is that this isn’t being covered by C–

SPAN, because I think this is the type of message America needs 

to hear—what is happening with children. Mr. Frenzel, we appreciate your continued public service. I know your report will be coming out in the spring; we hope it will be as early as possible. You 

may not be aware, but this is an election year——

[Laughter.] 

So, we are going to try to get our work done a little bit earlier 

this year. If we can get Bill Frenzel and Bill Gray together on a 

report, I know it is going to be fiscally responsible, accountable, 

and compassionate—so we look forward to your recommendations. 

I think it could be extremely helpful to us as we go through our 

work here, and we have had a chance to chat. I think you are moving in the right direction, and we really are looking forward to your 

work; we thank you for your continued leadership. 

Mr. FRENZEL. Thank you, Mr. Cardin. Schedule us for the first 

week in May. 

89

Mr. CARDIN. Good. We appreciate that. Mr. Bilchik, I always 

appreciate your work and the work of your organization. I think 

you really should underscore the point of your survey that revealed 

that virtually every State has developed spending or reduction 

plans for their child welfare agencies over the past 3 years. That 

shouldn’t shock us. It just points out the fact that if we think that 

the States are going to have the political or the financial will to 

come forward with additional resources, it is not going to happen. 

Mr. BILCHIK. The survey that we did of all the States and the 

District of Columbia in mid-year 2003 did reveal that virtually 

every State planned on cutbacks, and narrowing the scope of services back to child protection, foster care, adoption, and eliminating 

perhaps some services that normally prevent families from entering the child welfare system, or support them once they have left. 

So, if we are looking at the CFSRs, and we are seeing that virtually every State is struggling with being rated in a way to show 

they are really in compliance with the standards, then we need to 

be looking to how we create a formula to make it work. Relying too 

much on the States, if the Federal Government says we are going 

to cap what we do here, is going to be a formula for disaster, because the States aren’t going to have the resources to do it themselves. It truly needs to be a partnership. 

Mr. CARDIN. I agree with you. That is why I would just urge, 

as we look at the reform of the Federal role in this regard, it has 

to be mindful of the realities of what is happening to the States. 

So, if we develop how we want child welfare reform nationally, we 

have to recognize the fact that these are difficult times for our 

States with regard to budgets. Frankly, there have been very few 

times, even during good times, that States have significantly increased their investments in this area. So, we need to develop a national policy. Monsignor Sullivan, Ranking Member Rangel warned 

me about you—that you would be very inspirational to our Committee—and you were. You made a point that I really want people 

to stop and think about: it is by our orders that we are basically 

the parents for children that are in the foster care system. 

Mrs. Johnson—when she was Chair of this Subcommittee—

worked with me on a bill dealing with children aging out of foster 

care, between 19 and 21 years of age. What we said at that time 

is that if you were a parent, you wouldn’t give up your child at 18 

years of age. You still support your child. You still provide help for 

your child. I dare say today that for American parents, as they look 

at schools to send their children to for part of the day, or look at 

summer camps that they are going to send their children to during 

the summer, would not tolerate the type of supervision that we 

have in foster care if it was their children—and that should be the 

test. We should be willing to make the investment necessary to 

protect these most vulnerable children, and I think you have given 

us the standard that I hope we will use as we evaluate what we 

should be doing at the Federal level on our policy regarding the 

child welfare system. So, I really want to thank you for at least 

planting in our minds the roles that we need to play. 

Monsignor SULLIVAN. Mr. Cardin, thank you very much. The 

reason why I think it is critical to focus on that foster care component, is because it is the unique part of the system. All the other 

90

stuff is absolutely critical—the preventive service and the reunification. Kids are in that foster care system for around an average 

of 2 years. For 2 years, we have that responsibility, because we 

have said they have to be there, and the choice is whether we let 

them languish for those 2 years, or during that period of time we 

provide the resources so that they begin to rebuild those damaged 

lives. So, I thank you for highlighting that. 

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Atwood, I want to join the Chairman to compliment the work that you have done in this area. So many lives 

have been affected by your work in a very positive way; we are 

very proud of what we have been able to accomplish, and what you 

have been able to do with changes in the policies. Thank you. 

Mr. ATWOOD. If I might just offer one or two thoughts on the 

funding aspect—NCFA does, indeed, also support the full funding 

of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families amendments of 2001, as 

the Bush Administration proposed. Again, I refer to ASFA. The 

power of ASFA was standards, measures, incentives, and accountability. There was some money in there with the adoption incentive 

payments for States, but it was tied to performance. So, if we are 

going to talk about funding increases, I would suggest that we tie 

them to incentives, and that we look for incentives for the courts, 

most specifically, to improve their performance. 

Mr. CARDIN. I would just point out, there are proposals here 

that would offer a bonus incentive based upon performance that I 

would urge you to take a look at, because they are aimed at just 

what you are talking about, by providing carrots, incentives, for 

States to respond—particularly as it relates to training and supervision of their caseloads, and reducing their caseloads. I think that 

is the right way to proceed. On the money, the additional funding, 

we are suggesting mandatory funding for the Promoting Safe and 

Stable Families amendments of 2001. It would be a lot easier than 

fighting that battle every year. 

Chairman HERGER. I thank our witnesses for being here, and 

would like to invite our next panel to come forward to testify. 

Mr. BILCHIK. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman HERGER. Yes? 

Mr. BILCHIK. I have some information. The panel this morning 

talked about the comparability of data, and I brought forward some 

reports that might help the Committee. 

Chairman HERGER. Without objection, we will submit that for 

the record. 

Mr. BILCHIK. Thank you very much. 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you. 

[The information follows:]

Issue Brief 

Child Welfare League of America October 2003

Can States Be Compared Based on Child Welfare Data? 

State and county agencies run the nation’s child welfare systems, providing a 

wide range of services including child protection, family preservation and support 

services, foster care, adoption, and often juvenile justice and mental health services. 

Over the last 10 years the child welfare field has seen a significant growth in the 

availability and use of data to help understand and administer child welfare programs. 

On a national level, the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System 

(NCANDS) and the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting Systems 

91

1 National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information. Statutes-at-a-Glance. Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect. (Retrieved September 2003 from: http://www.calib.com/

nccanch/statutes/define.cfm). 2 Ibid 

3 Utah Division of Child and Family Services. (2003). Child Protective Services Allegation Survey Report. Salt Lake City Utah: Author. 4 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and 

Families. (2003). Child Maltreatment 2001. Wahington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 5 Child Welfare League of America. (July 2001). National Working Group Highlights: Child 

Abuse and Neglect Fatalities: Clarification Survey Results. Washington DC: Author. 6 Ibid.

(AFCARS) have become important sources of information about children in the child 

welfare system, providing a national picture of child maltreatment and foster care. 

Moreover, the Federal Government is using the data from these systems to inform 

the Child and Family Service Review process. With these national data sets available, the question often arises: What do the data show us about how states 

compare in their ability to ensure the safety, permanency, and well-being 

of children in the child welfare system? 

Comparisons among states based exclusively on national child welfare data 

sources can be misleading and should not be used to judge the effectiveness of one 

state versus another. While the national data sets provide good national estimates, 

they lack reliability for interstate comparisons due to variations in state laws, policies, definitions, and data collection processes. The reliability of the data increases 

when each state establishes a baseline and monitors itself over time. Also, the reliability increases when states with similarities in their child welfare systems, such 

as those serving both child welfare and juvenile justice populations, are grouped together for a comprehensive analysis. The Federal Government is currently addressing some areas of variation among the states’ data. Following are just a few examples that show why data cannot be compared across the states without additional 

information and analysis.

• Child abuse and neglect—Each state and the District of Columbia defines 

child abuse and neglect differently in their state statutes and policies. While 

there are similarities among these 51 or more definitions of child abuse and neglect, the differences prevent reliable comparison of the data. For instance:

• Some states capture categories such as abandonment and emotional or mental 

injury in their laws, while others do not.1

• Some state laws include threatened harm in the definitions, while others do 

not.2

• Some states investigate educational neglect, while others do not. Some states 

investigate fetal exposure or addiction to alcohol or other harmful substances, 

while others do not.3

• States require different levels of evidence to substantiate a report of abuse or 

neglect.4

• Child abuse and neglect fatalities—A child death may be counted as a maltreatment fatality in one state, but not in another. A few of the factors that 

limit the reliability of the maltreatment fatality data include the following:

• About half the states investigate incidents that appear to be accidents (such as 

swimming pool drowning) to determine whether abuse or neglect played a role 

in the death, while other states do not.5

• Some states incorporate the numbers from their child fatality review teams, 

while others do not. Also, the composition of the child fatality review team, the 

role of the team in reporting child deaths, and the extent of the review or investigation when a death occurs, varies considerably from state to state.6

CWLA National Data Analysis System Issue Brief

• Child maltreatment in foster care—There are nuances in the child protection and foster care data that make it difficult to accurately compare data 

across states. The Federal measure on child maltreatment in foster care uses 

the foster parent and facility staff perpetrator categories from NCANDS and the 

foster care population in AFCARS. In this measure:

• When a child is abused or neglected by a relative foster care provider, the incident is captured differently among states. Since the care giver is both a relative 

and a foster care provider, the relative relationship may be captured in the perVerDate jul 14 2003 00:34 Jul 16, 2004 Jkt 092984 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\92984.XXX 92984
92

7 Child Welfare L eague of America. (October 2002). National Working Group Highlights: 

Child Maltreatment In Foster Care: Understanding The Data. Washington DC: Author. 8 Ibid.

9 Child Welfare League of America. (April 2002). National Working Group Highlights: Placement Stability Measure and Diverse Out-of-Home Care Populations. Washington DC: Author. 10 Ibid. 11 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and 

Families. (2003). Safety, Permanency, Well-being. Child Welfare Outcomes 2000: Annual Report.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

petrator data in some states (not the foster care relationship), which is not part 

of the Federal measure on child maltreatment in foster care.7

• Residential facility staff are counted as perpetrators of maltreatment in most, 

but not all, states. The victims in these cases are not always in foster care, and 

thus the measure of maltreatment in foster care in these states has the potential to be inflated.8

• Placement stability—Data on placement stability contains several discrepancies in how states count the number of children’s placements, and reflects 

considerable variation in the populations served by the child welfare agencies. 

For instance:

• A child in foster care may spend a short time outside of his or her foster home 

(or other placement), receiving services in a hospital or detention or incarceration placement. States vary as to whether they count these as placement 

changes. In 2000 59% of states counted medical hospital stays, 65% counted detention or incarceration placements, and 76% counted placements in psychiatric 

hospitals. There were also differences in circumstances and timeframes in 

which these placements were counted.9

• Some child welfare agencies serve the juvenile justice population, and some juvenile justice youth are included in the national data.10 Since placement issues 

are different in juvenile justice, the placement stability data may be affected. 

Therefore, when analyzing placement stability data it is important to group 

states that serve similar populations or limit the data to just the child welfare 

population. 

• Relationship between outcomes—The child welfare field is just beginning to 

study how measured outcomes correlate and interact with one another. There 

is evidence that performance in one outcome area affects performance in another, adding another complexity to cross-state comparison. For example:

• Analysis of Federal outcome data demonstrated a relationship between high 

percentages of reunification within 12 months and high re-entries within 12 

months. Likewise, states with low reunification tended to have low re-entries 

within the 12-month periods.11 Therefore, when assessing reunification outcomes it would be critical to evaluate data and policies relevant to re-entries, 

and perhaps other areas, at the same time. 

The child welfare field lacks crosscutting standards and definitions that would 

allow reliable comparison among states. The two Federal data sources provide important national information as well as a basis to work toward more comparable 

data. Relevant policy guidance begins to add clarity, but clear, common operational 

definitions are needed to enhance inter-state reliability in the data. Also, additional 

research is needed to understand the relationship between different performance 

measures. 

Much can be learned by comparing state child welfare programs, allowing states 

to share their successes and challenges in ensuring the safety, permanency and 

well-being of children. Data play an important role in such comparisons, but significant time and resources must be invested in understanding the nuances of the data. 

NDAS helps present some of the variations through footnotes, text-based tables, and 

National Working Group Highlights bulletins. Further information about data nuances and data quality may be gathered directly from the states of interest.

Prepared by Kristen Woodruff, Project Manager for the National Working Group To 

Improve Child Welfare Data, kristen@cwla.org.

to the table. We will be hearing from Curtis Mooney, President of 

Chairman HERGER. Again, I would like to invite our next panel 

f DePelchin Children’s Center in Houston, Texas, here today on beVerDate jul 14 2003 00:34 Jul 16, 2004 Jkt 092984 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\92984.XXX 92984
93

half of the Alliance for Children and Families; Mr. Thomas Birch, 

Legislative Counsel for the National Child Abuse Coalition; 

Courteney Holden, Executive Director of Voice For Adoption; Jack 

Trope, Executive Director of the Association on American Indian 

Affairs; and Christopher Klicka, Senior Counsel for the Home 

School Legal Defense Association. Mr. Mooney to testify. 

STATEMENT OF CURTIS C. MOONEY, PH.D., PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DE PELCHIN CHILDREN’S CENTER, HOUSTON, TEXAS, ON BEHALF OF THE ALLIANCE FOR 

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES 

Mr. MOONEY. Mr. Chairman, I am here today on behalf of the 

Alliance for Children and Families, an organization in which my 

nonprofit agency is a member. The Alliance for Children and Families is a nonprofit membership association representing 320 child 

and family service organizations in North America. By training, I 

am a social worker, and for the past 28 years, I have devoted my 

life to working with children who have been abused and neglected 

in the private sector. I am the President of DePelchin Children’s 

Center in Houston, Texas. DePelchin provides a full array of services for children and families, including prevention services, mental 

health services, foster care, adoption, emergency shelter, residential treatment, and post-adoption services. There is a growing consensus among national advocacy groups, child welfare providers, as 

well as many State officials and policy makers, that the current 

mechanism for funding the Nation’s child welfare system needs revision and must be revamped. The Alliance for Children and Families believes that the following major topics need to be reflected in 

the discussions that lead to the framing of a meaningful child welfare reform. 

Child safety cannot be measured by physical safety alone. The 

physical scars of trauma heal much faster than the emotional ones. 

There must be a common definition for child safety that is consistent throughout the States, which includes not only physical 

safety, but behavioral and emotional well-being, as well. Once this 

common definition has been established, it is vital that resources 

are dedicated to the training of staff, judges, and mandatory reporters—every child, every time. Any refinancing of the child welfare system must assure that standards of care, caseload and supervisory ratios, and expectations for child welfare outcomes do not 

get reduced in large urban, often poor areas across the country—

or, as in West Texas, across vast areas of land with little population. Safety, permanency, and well-being measures should be a 

child’s everyday experience in the child welfare system—not just 

ultimate system outcomes. To achieve this, we must have a system 

that invests in and expects quality, and places the highest value 

on assuring that the adequate case management supervision and 

services are there for children. 

Prevention, family based services, and successful reunification of 

families must be our highest priority, and over time, a focus on 

these areas will reduce the number of children in out-of-home care. 

To provide these programs as we transition from a system that has 

focused on out-of-home care will require a sustained effort and additional resources over at least a 3- to 5-year period of time. The 

94

children in our system today often have serious and severe physical, behavioral, and emotional needs. When their needs cannot be 

met through a family centered, in-home service, we must assure 

that the first placement is the best placement. Oftentimes, these 

children experience repeated failed services and placements that 

have had devastating results on them. To accomplish this, we need 

funding specifically directed to recruitment, placement development, training, oversight, and ongoing support and services. The 

current Federal commitment to a shared partnership of research 

institutions, Federal and State agencies, and community-based 

service providers is outstanding. Any system changes may continue 

the incentives States now have to conduct research and evaluation. 

Continuous quality improvement works. The child welfare system, including contracted service providers, must be funded and required to have the internal capacities for continuous quality assurance and improvement. Improvement should not be driven by highprofile cases or audits alone. The child welfare system is comprised 

of many partners, agencies, and funding streams. Future success 

for this system requires both the Federal and State governments 

to identify the agencies and funding streams that must work together for the sake of the children and families, and ensure that 

those entities adopt a common set of child and family centered outcomes and values and are accountable for them. The deteriorating 

state of the child welfare workforce can no longer be ignored. In 

fact, we have reached a crisis point, needing both Federal and 

State response. Adequate education and training, continued competence, quality of supervision, pay, benefits, and caseloads of critical frontline staff must be addressed. A clear connection between 

poverty and family violence must be addressed, as well. Safety, permanency, and well-being of children must include an assessment of 

the family’s ability to assure the child’s needs can be met, or identify what must be done so that those needs can be met. 

The Federal Government should—if changes are made to title 

IV–E funding—be considered for poverty as the funds are distributed. The outcomes of the title IV–E demonstration project and 

waivers should guide the way for child welfare reform. They have 

allowed us to test out what works and what doesn’t. Let us begin 

our reform there, and in the future when we have something that 

works well and is cost neutral, all States should be able to implement it without a waiver. As a provider of services in Texas for 

many years, and as a representative of the Alliance for Children 

and Families’ 320 agencies, I can tell you that the nonprofit sector 

takes seriously our mission to provide services to people in need. 

Our communities are generous, and give us resources to help children and families beyond those covered under State and local contracts. However, we too often find ourselves having to use these 

precious resources to supplement State and local contracts which 

should be paying for the services they purchase in full. I want to 

thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mooney follows:]

95

Statement of Curtis C. Mooney, Ph.D., President and Chief Executive Officer, DePelchin Children’s Center, Houston, Texas, on behalf of the Alliance for Children and Families 

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Subcommittee, I am testifying here 

today on behalf of the Alliance for Children and Families, an organization of which 

my nonprofit organization is a member. The Alliance for Children and Families is 

a nonprofit membership association representing 320 child and family serving organizations in North America. Member organizations, such as DePelchin Children’s 

Center, provide an array of community-based programs and services to all generations, and serve close to 8 million people each year in more than 6,700 communities. 

Motivated by a vision of a healthy society and strong communities, the Alliance’s 

mission is to strengthen the capacities of North America’s nonprofit child and family 

serving organizations to serve and to advocate for children, families and communities. 

I have spent the past 28 years working at four agencies in three states with children who have been abused and neglected. I am a social worker by training with 

a Masters in Social Work from Washington University in St. Louis and a Ph.D. in 

Social Work Administration from the University of Texas in Arlington, Texas. For 

the last 7.5 years I have served as the President and CEO of DePelchin Children’s 

Center in Houston, Texas. One of Houston’s oldest charities, DePelchin provides 

some 30 different programs in the three broad areas of a) prevention of child abuse, 

b) children’s mental health services, and c) child welfare services including foster 

care, residential treatment and adoption services. My agency provides services to 

over 20,000 individuals annually. We are funded via United Way, individual contributions, state and federal grants, and contracts with the state of Texas for child 

welfare services and health insurers for mental health services. 

By holding this hearing, the Subcommittee has taken up a timely topic that merits our individual attention. There is a growing consensus among national advocacy 

groups, child welfare providers, as well as many state officials and policymakers 

that the current mechanism for funding the nation’s child welfare system needs revision, and must be revamped. Child welfare funding has eroded, and scant attention has been paid to maintaining adequate funding for children in the foster care 

system, who often have severe physical and psychological needs. It is imperative 

that any proposed changes promote and invest in increased prevention and early 

intervention, while assuring the protection, permanency and wellbeing of our country’s most vulnerable children. 

The Alliance believes that the following major topics need to be reflected in discussions that lead to the framing of meaningful child welfare reform:

• Through experience, trauma research, and neuroscience, we now have a clearer 

understanding that child safety cannot be measured by physical safety alone. 

There must be a common definition for child safety that is consistent throughout the states which includes not only physical safety but behavioral and emotional wellbeing as well. It should be noted that research has shown that neglect in boys is more harmful to their developing brain than physical abuse. • Any refinancing of the child welfare system must respond and be responsive to 

every child regardless of where a child lives. We must assure that standards 

and expectations for child welfare outcomes do not get reduced in large urban 

(often-poor) areas across the country. Quality standards in relation to caseload 

size, supervisory ratios, and minimum standards of practice should be funded 

and expected for all children. • Safety, permanency, and wellbeing are often only considered as ultimate system 

outcomes. These measures should mark a child’s experience in the child welfare 

system and should be expected and achieved in every day practice. To achieve 

this we must have a system that invests in and expects quality and places the 

highest value on assuring adequate resources for maintaining reimbursement 

rates to assure highly competent and professional staff services and placement 

resources. 

• Prevention, family-based services and successful reunification of families should 

be our highest priority. It should be noted that to build the necessary capacity 

needed in these areas will take a sustained one-time effort of additional resources over at least 3–5 years before the system will begin to see a steady and 

real decrease of children in placement and a realization of those savings for reinvestment in the front-end of the system. 

• We must recognize and respond to the often serious and severe physical, behavioral, and emotional needs of children in the system today. The Federal Government should continue an entitlement funding mechanism for children with 

these special needs, to ensure that family centered services, including residenVerDate jul 14 2003 00:34 Jul 16, 2004 Jkt 092984 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\92984.XXX 92984
96

Statement of Curtis C. Mooney, Ph.D., President and Chief Executive Officer, DePelchin Children’s Center, Houston, Texas, on behalf of the Alliance for Children and Families 

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Subcommittee, I am testifying here 

today on behalf of the Alliance for Children and Families, an organization of which 

my nonprofit organization is a member. The Alliance for Children and Families is 

a nonprofit membership association representing 320 child and family serving organizations in North America. Member organizations, such as DePelchin Children’s 

Center, provide an array of community-based programs and services to all generations, and serve close to 8 million people each year in more than 6,700 communities. 

Motivated by a vision of a healthy society and strong communities, the Alliance’s 

mission is to strengthen the capacities of North America’s nonprofit child and family 

serving organizations to serve and to advocate for children, families and communities. 

I have spent the past 28 years working at four agencies in three states with children who have been abused and neglected. I am a social worker by training with 

a Masters in Social Work from Washington University in St. Louis and a Ph.D. in 

Social Work Administration from the University of Texas in Arlington, Texas. For 

the last 7.5 years I have served as the President and CEO of DePelchin Children’s 

Center in Houston, Texas. One of Houston’s oldest charities, DePelchin provides 

some 30 different programs in the three broad areas of a) prevention of child abuse, 

b) children’s mental health services, and c) child welfare services including foster 

care, residential treatment and adoption services. My agency provides services to 

over 20,000 individuals annually. We are funded via United Way, individual contributions, state and federal grants, and contracts with the state of Texas for child 

welfare services and health insurers for mental health services. 

By holding this hearing, the Subcommittee has taken up a timely topic that merits our individual attention. There is a growing consensus among national advocacy 

groups, child welfare providers, as well as many state officials and policymakers 

that the current mechanism for funding the nation’s child welfare system needs revision, and must be revamped. Child welfare funding has eroded, and scant attention has been paid to maintaining adequate funding for children in the foster care 

system, who often have severe physical and psychological needs. It is imperative 

that any proposed changes promote and invest in increased prevention and early 

intervention, while assuring the protection, permanency and wellbeing of our country’s most vulnerable children. 

The Alliance believes that the following major topics need to be reflected in discussions that lead to the framing of meaningful child welfare reform:

• Through experience, trauma research, and neuroscience, we now have a clearer 

understanding that child safety cannot be measured by physical safety alone. 

There must be a common definition for child safety that is consistent throughout the states which includes not only physical safety but behavioral and emotional wellbeing as well. It should be noted that research has shown that neglect in boys is more harmful to their developing brain than physical abuse. • Any refinancing of the child welfare system must respond and be responsive to 

every child regardless of where a child lives. We must assure that standards 

and expectations for child welfare outcomes do not get reduced in large urban 

(often-poor) areas across the country. Quality standards in relation to caseload 

size, supervisory ratios, and minimum standards of practice should be funded 

and expected for all children. • Safety, permanency, and wellbeing are often only considered as ultimate system 

outcomes. These measures should mark a child’s experience in the child welfare 

system and should be expected and achieved in every day practice. To achieve 

this we must have a system that invests in and expects quality and places the 

highest value on assuring adequate resources for maintaining reimbursement 

rates to assure highly competent and professional staff services and placement 

resources. 

• Prevention, family-based services and successful reunification of families should 

be our highest priority. It should be noted that to build the necessary capacity 

needed in these areas will take a sustained one-time effort of additional resources over at least 3–5 years before the system will begin to see a steady and 

real decrease of children in placement and a realization of those savings for reinvestment in the front-end of the system. 

• We must recognize and respond to the often serious and severe physical, behavioral, and emotional needs of children in the system today. The Federal Government should continue an entitlement funding mechanism for children with 

these special needs, to ensure that family centered services, including residenVerDate jul 14 2003 00:15 Jul 16, 2004 Jkt 092984 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\92984.XXX 92984
97

tial care and treatment, are available and effective. Too often, these children 

experience repeated failed services and placements due to lack of quality assessment and placements that do not meet their needs. 

• Currently, the federal commitment to facilitating a shared partnership of research institutions, federal and state agencies and community-based service 

providers is outstanding. Any system changes must continue the incentives 

states now have to conduct research and evaluation. 

• The child welfare system, including the agencies holding city and state contracts for provider services, must be funded to possess the internal capacities 

for continuous quality assurance and improvement. The federal Child and Family Service Reviews are but a starting point for achieving quality assurance 

within the system. The ability for child welfare systems to improve themselves 

should not be based on the latest high-profile case or audit. Instead, a portion 

of federal and state funding should be dedicated to internal quality improvement within child welfare organizations. 

• In order for a child welfare system to be successful, we must interact on a daily 

basis through both policy and funding with multiple federal agencies and funding streams as they play out at the local level. Both the Federal Government 

and state governments need to clearly identify these agencies and funding 

streams and assure that we are working together to adopt and achieve a common set of child and family-centered outcomes and values that will guide them 

in their daily work and accountabilities. For instance, it is time that Medicaid 

and the child welfare system work together in a concerted way to assure that 

the unique physical and behavioral health needs of children in the child welfare 

system are being met. 

• The deteriorating state of the child welfare workforce can no longer be ignored, 

and in fact is at a crisis point needing both federal an state response. Adequate 

education and training, continued competence, quality of supervision, pay and 

benefits of critical front-line staff must be addressed. The Alliance supports legislation such as Representative Cardin’s bill (H.R. 1534) that works to reduce 

the many substantial barriers to maintaining a qualified and effective human 

services workforce. 

• It is time that we address the clear connection between poverty and family violence. Safety, permanency, and wellbeing of children must include a family’s 

ability to assure the needs of a child can be met and work with these families 

to improve their economic security. Since we now know clearly that there is a 

correlation between the stresses of poverty and the neglect and abuse of children, these families simply are at a higher risk. 

• The outcomes of the IV–E Demonstration Projects and Waivers should guide the 

way for child welfare reform. Before significant reform policies can be crafted, 

an analysis of those states using flexible funds with current IV–E dollars should 

be conducted. The challenges and lessons learned from these states can be used 

effectively to revamp the current child welfare system to better serve children, 

families and communities. In the future, once a demonstration program has 

proven success through outcomes and cost neutrality, all states should be able 

to implement the program without a waiver. 

Alliance Key Concerns Regarding the Administration’s Flexible Funding Proposal 

The Administration has attempted to respond to the needs of the child welfare 

system with a proposal that would dismantle the current entitlement system and 

restructure the Title IV–E foster care program. While legislation has not yet been 

introduced, many aspects of the Administration’s proposal have been revealed 

through congressional testimony and public conversations with Administration officials. 

The Alliance for Children and Families and its member agencies have many concerns about reform of the child welfare financing mechanism. Any such reform must 

provide states with guaranteed federal funds and a long-term partnership necessary 

to both meet the varied needs of vulnerable children and their families as well as 

systematically reform a system long overlooked by the Federal Government. Service 

delivery systems as complex and critical as child welfare cannot be reformed overnight by simply extending flexibility to a dwindling pool of resources. 

The ‘‘look back’’ provision for foster care streamlines the IV–E process, but maintaining the provision for Adoption Assistance accomplishes just the opposite. An assessment of the child’s household income at removal is required at time of adoption; 

a IV–E determination would have to be completed regardless. If the eligibility determinations remain a part of the foster care process, the ‘‘look back’’ must be corrected 

to reflect current Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) eligibility standVerDate jul 14 2003 00:15 Jul 16, 2004 Jkt 092984 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\92984.XXX 92984
98

ards. If eligibility determinations are eliminated from foster care, the ‘‘look back’’ 

provision should be eliminated from adoption determinations as well. 

State flexibility, while desirable, transfers a greater share of responsibility and 

risk for the child welfare population to the states. The partnership between the Federal Government and states in providing services to abused and neglected children 

must be maintained and states should be discouraged from diminishing their investment in the child welfare system once receiving federal dollars. Additionally, Congress should create appropriate and minimum standards in areas such as caseload 

size, and give guidance to participating states to ensure the progress of child welfare 

reform. A continued federal match opportunity for states will leverage additional resources from state legislatures. 

Conclusion 

As a provider of services in Texas for many years, and as a representative of the 

Alliance’s 320 nonprofit family service agencies, I can tell you from experience that 

the nonprofit sector takes very seriously our mission to provide service to all people 

in need. However, we are increasingly finding that our contracts with state and 

local agencies do not provide adequate funding for the expectations for which they 

carry. We stand ready to be full partners with you, the state, and our communities 

but that partnership must go both ways. As an independent sector, we have demonstrated the knowledge, experience, and commitment to work with you as a partner in developing any changes necessary in policy, minimum standards and practices in the child welfare system. 

The Alliance for Children and Families would welcome the continuing opportunity 

to share the voices of America’s service providers with the Subcommittee as it deliberates on the child welfare system. 

I would like to thank the Subcommittee for giving me the opportunity to testify, 

and would be happy to answer any questions at this time.

to testify. 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Mooney. Mr. Thomas Birch 

f

STATEMENT OF THOMAS L. BIRCH, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, 

NATIONAL CHILD ABUSE COALITION 

Mr. BIRCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Tom Birch, and I 

am here as the Legislative Counsel of the National Child Abuse Coalition, which is a collaborative effort of some 30 national organizations to bring focus to the issues of prevention of child welfare 

abuses and provision of treatment and services for abused and neglected children. I very much appreciate the opportunity to testify 

here today, and also the efforts of this Subcommittee to constantly 

work toward strengthening our response regarding preventing 

abuse and protecting children. At this point in the hearing, I realize that the messages that I bring have been brought to you already, but I would like to provide some kind of framework, and 

talk about the need to invest in preventive services, and to look at 

closing the spending gap in services to protect children who have 

been abused and neglected. When we look at how we as a nation 

spend on child welfare services, we see that we are actually investing in an outcome that no one wants—the placement of children in 

foster care. We are spending well over $16 billion each year in Federal, State, and local dollars to subsidize the foster care and adoptive placements of children who have been so seriously abused and 

neglected already that they are in danger of no longer being safe 

when left at home. By contrast, a fraction of that amount is spent 

on prevention of abuse and neglect, and on intervention services to 

protect children from abuse. 

99

No one would argue that we should not be paying to protect the 

children who have been the most seriously injured. Far less attention in our policy, our funding, and our discussion is directed at 

preventing harm to children from ever happening in the first place. 

Let me give you a sense of how the Federal dollars work out here. 

When we look in the current fiscal year with title IV–E, over $7 

billion is being paid for out-of-home placement. By contrast, funds 

coming from title IV–B and from a share of title XX, a small 

amount contributed from the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA, P.L. 93–247), together add up to less than $900 

million for preventive and interventive services. For every Federal 

dollar we spend on foster care and adoption subsidies, we spend 

less than 13 cents of Federal child welfare funding on preventing 

and treating child abuse and neglect. We will never stop the flow 

of children into our Nation’s foster care rolls unless we put together 

additional resources to help States and communities build their capacity to support preventive services and treatment services, as 

well. Putting dollars aside for prevention is sound investing, not 

luxury spending. 

We looked at what we should be spending to improve child protective services, and to support preventive services, and we discovered a spending gap in this country of almost $13 billion in prevention and protection. Spending in Federal, State, and local dollars 

in preventive and protective services amounted to only about $2.9 

billion of the estimated $15.9 billion total cost of what we ought to 

be spending on those services. We looked at the Urban Institute’s 

most recent report on child welfare spending. States reported 

spending $20 billion—that is in Federal, State, and local dollars—

on child welfare in 2000. Of that, they could categorize a little over 

$15 billion in terms of how they had spent it. Some $9.1 billion was 

for out-of-home placements for foster care, $1.8 billion on administration, $1.9 billion on adoption, and $2.9 billion on what was 

called ‘‘all other services.’’ That is the piece that I am talking 

about—prevention and intervention. We looked at the cost to Child 

Protective Services first—what we ought to be spending on investigating the reports of child abuse and neglect, and then what we 

ought to be spending on providing some basic services. We came up 

with a total cost of $5.9 billion, and again, when we compare that 

with the actual dollars spent, the gap shows that Child Protective 

Services funding comes up nearly $3 billion short. 

When we considered the cost of preventive services, we looked at 

what it would mean to provide preventive services to the 3 million 

children—the victims of maltreatment identified by the national incidence study. About $10 billion is what we ought to be spending 

there, so we are way short on what we need. What does the spending gap mean in terms of the child welfare workforce? Well, 90 percent of States report having difficulty in recruiting and retaining 

child welfare workers because of low salaries, high caseloads, insufficient training, and high turnover of child welfare workers. When 

we look at caseloads for child welfare workers, the average is double the recommended caseload amount. Our present system is overworked and inadequate to the task—we need to reorganize our current child protection system to come within the framework of a 

broader family support system. I will stop there. I look forward to 

100 

[2]Fluke, J.D. (2001). Dynamics of Unsubstantiated Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect. American Humane Association. [3] U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (2002). Child Maltreatment 2000,. Washington, DC. U.S. Government Printing Office. [4] Courtney, M.E. (1998). ‘‘The Costs of Child Protection in the Context of Welfare Reform’’. The 

Future of Children, Vol. 8, No. 1. [5] U.S. General Accounting Office (2003). HHS Could Play a Greater Role in Helping Child 

Welfare Agencies Recruit and Retain Staff (GAO–03–357). [6] U.S. General Accounting Office (1995). Child Welfare: Complex Needs Strain Capacity to 

Provide Services (GAO/HEHS–95–208). [7] U.S. General Accounting Office (2003). HHS Could Play a Greater Role in Helping Child 

Welfare Agencies Recruit and Retain Staff (GAO–03–357). [8] Alliance for Children and Families, American Public Human Services Association, Child 

Welfare League of America (2001). The child welfare workforce challenge: Results from a preliminary study. Dallas. 

and child protective services. (Of the $20 billion, states spent $7.9 billion in federal 

funds, $7.9 billion in state funds, and $2.2 billion in local funds). There were some 

increases in state and local child welfare spending in 2000 over 1998, when the 

Urban Institute last looked at these numbers, but that was when states were feeling 

flush. It’s not the case now. 

First, consider the cost to child protective services of 1) investigating the reports 

of child abuse and neglect that were accepted in 2000 and 2) providing some basic 

services to the victims of child maltreatment in that year. When we look at the expense of investigating the 1.726 million children who were screened in for further 

assessment, plus the expense of providing services to the 879,000 substantiated 

child victims and to the 385,000 children in unsubstantiated reports who also received some services, we come up with a total cost of $5.9 billion. 

We should not, here, overlook the unacceptable fact that nearly half the victims 

of child maltreatment in fact receive no services at all. One of the great tragedies 

of our system for protecting children is the hundreds of thousands of children—over 

392,000 (45%) victims of child abuse in 2000—who received no services whatsoever: 

suspected abuse reported, report investigated, report substantiated, case closed. 

A recent analysis of unsubstantiated reports of child abuse and neglect found that 

a perceived lack of services would influence a caseworker’s decision to unsubtantiate 

a report of abuse, often resulting in a recurring report and continuing harm to a 

child.[2]

The CPS spending shortfall amounts to a failure to invest in a system that could 

successfully protect children from abuse and neglect. When examining the actual 

dollars spent, the gap in CPS funding—a spending shortfall of nearly $3 billion— 

must be held accountable for many of the barriers to the adequate protection of children. Failing to invest in a working child protection system results in a national 

failure to keep children free from harm. Second, consider the cost of preventive services—$10 billion if offered to the three 

million child maltreatment victims identified in the HHS National Incidence Study 

III [3]—and I am not even talking about cost of offering voluntary, universal preven- tive services to families. That’s a total cost of $15.9 billion. Yet, in 2000, states spent 

only $2.9 billion in federal, state and local funds on protective and preventive services for children. Our national child welfare policy represents a morally unacceptable failure to invest in this system. 

These are conservative cost figures. When adjusted to account for inflation, data 

indicate that investigations by child protective service agencies cost approximately 

$990 per case. The cost per case to provide basic in-home services such as homemaker assistance or family counseling is $3,295.[4] These costs are low to start with. 

Pay scales in child welfare are generally low and noncompetitive—significantly 

lower, for example, than salaries for teachers, school counselors, nurses and publichealth social workers [5]—which brings these costs in at an unrealistically low level. 

What does the spending gap mean in terms of the child welfare workforce? Ninety 

percent of states report having difficulty in recruiting and retaining child welfare 

workers,[6] because of issues like low salaries, high caseloads, insufficient training 

and limited supervision, and the turnover of child welfare workers—estimated to be 

between 30 and 40 percent annually nationwide.[7] When we look at caseloads for 

child welfare workers, the average is double the recommended caseload, and obviously much higher in many jurisdictions.[8]

The Case for Prevention 

Our present system of treating abused and neglected children and offering some 

help to troubled families is overworked and inadequate to the task. We need to reorganize the current child protection system to come within the framework of a broader family support system. Hundreds of thousands of children are currently identified 

101 

[9] C.S. Widom (1992). The Cycle of Violence. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. [10]S.R. Morgan (1976). The Battered Child in the Classroom. Journal of Pediatric Psychology. [11] H.P. Martin & M.A. Rodeheffer (1980). The Psychological Impact of Abuse in Children. In: 

G.J. Williams. Traumatic Abuse and Neglect of Children at Home. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. [12] V.J. Felitti, R.F. Anda, et al. (1998). Relationship of Childhood Abuse and Household Dysfunction to Many of the Leading Causes of Death in Adults. The Adverse Childhood Experiences 

(ACE) Study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. [13] R.D. Duncan, et al. (1996). Childhood Physical Assault as a Risk Factor for PTSD, Depression, and Substance Abuse: Findings From a National Survey. American Journal of 

Orthopsychiatry. Washington, DC: National Institute on Drug Abuse. [14] C.S. Widom, et al. (1995). Alcohol Abuse in Abused and Neglected Children Followed-up: 

Are They at Increased Risk? Journal of Studies on Alcohol. Washington, DC: National Institute 

of Justice. [15]S. Davies-Netzley, et al. (1996). Childhood Abuse as a Precursor to Homelessness for Homeless Women With Severe Mental Illness. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health. [16]Fromm, Suzette (2001). Total Estimated Cost of Child Abuse and Neglect in the United 

States. Prevent Child Abuse America, Chicago. 

as having been abused, but receive no services to prevent further abuse. We must 

focus attention on children and families known to the system in order to prevent 

reoccurrence of abuse, as well as provide services to families earlier, before problems 

become severe. 

For more than twenty years, the Federal Government’s attention has concentrated 

on a restricted approach to child abuse and neglect, in many ways preventing the 

development of a major federal attack on the problem. As a result, the prevention 

of child maltreatment of children, which lies at the root of many of this nation’s social ills, has been marginalized. 

We know that child abuse prevention fights crime, because research has shown 

us time after time that victims of child abuse are more likely to engage in criminality later in life, that childhood abuse increases the odds of future delinquency 

and adult criminality overall by 40 percent.[9]

We know that preventing child maltreatment helps to prevent failure in school. 

Typically abused and neglected children suffer poor prospects for success in school, 

exhibiting poor initiative, language and other developmental delays, and a disproportionate amount of incompetence and failure.[10] Ensuring that children are 

ready to learn means ensuring that children are safe at home with the kind of nurturing care that all children deserve. 

We know that preventing child abuse can help to prevent disabling conditions in 

children. Physical abuse of children can result in brain damage, mental retardation, 

cerebral palsy, and learning disorders.[11]

Groundbreaking research conducted by the Centers for Disease Control in collaboration with Kaiser Permanente shows us that childhood abuse is linked with behaviors later in life which result in the development of chronic diseases that cause 

death and disability, such as heart disease, cancer, chronic lung and liver diseases, 

and skeletal fracture. Similarly, the CDC research shows that adult victims of child 

maltreatment are more likely to engage in early first intercourse, have an unintended pregnancy, have high lifetime numbers of sexual partners, and suffer from 

depression and suicide attempts.[12]

We know that women who suffered serious assaults in childhood experience more 

episodes of depression, post-traumatic stress, and substance abuse, demonstrating 

a relationship between childhood trauma and adult psychopathology,[13] as well as 

links between childhood neglect and later alcohol problems in women.[14]

Finally, looking at the consequences of child maltreatment, we find that among 

homeless people, many of them, especially homeless women, reported serious family 

problems or a history of sexual or physical abuse as children that predisposed them 

to homelessness as adults.[15]

An analysis of the costs of child abuse and neglect in the United States looking 

at the direct costs of hospitalizations, chronic health problems, mental health care, 

child welfare services, law enforcement intervention, and the judicial process totals 

over $24 billion annually. When we add the indirect costs from special education, 

additional health and mental health care, juvenile delinquency and adult criminality, as well as lost productivity, the total annual cost of child abuse and neglect 

in the United States amounts to more than $94 billion.[16] We cannot sustain this 

drain of human and financial capital when we know how to support families and 

prevent abuse from occurring in the first place. 

Preventing child abuse is cost effective. Over ten years ago (1992) a report by the 

General Accounting Office looking at evaluations of child abuse prevention efforts 

102 

[17] U.S. General Accounting Office (1992). Child Abuse: Prevention Programs Need Greater 

Emphasis (GAO/HRD–92–99). 

found that ‘‘total federal costs of providing prevention programs for low-income populations were nearly offset after four years.’’ [17]

Community-based, in-home services to overburdened families are far less costly 

than the damage inflicted on children that leads to outlays for child protective services, law enforcement, courts, foster care, health care and the treatment of adults 

recovering from child abuse. A range of services, such as voluntary home-visiting, 

family support services, parent mutual support programs, parenting education, and 

respite care contribute to a community’s successful strategy to prevent child abuse 

and neglect. To be eligible for federal child welfare assistance, states should be required to develop a prevention plan including effective programs identified to carry 

out the prevention work of community-based programs serving families and children. 

In 2002, the deplorable state of child protective services was a visible issue in the 

gubernatorial races in three states: Florida, New Jersey and Maryland. Public officials were called to respond to the deplorable state of child protection in their states, 

and the public demanded more attention to improving the capacity of communitybased services to support parents and prevent abuse, and to treat the victims of 

abuse and neglect. It is our collective responsibility and our duty to America’s children and the nation’s future to work toward that goal. 

f 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Birch. Now we will hear 

from Courteney Holden. Ms. Holden? 

STATEMENT OF COURTENEY ANNE HOLDEN, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, VOICE FOR ADOPTION 

Ms. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much 

for the opportunity to testify. My name is Courteney Anne Holden, 

and in addition to volunteering as a court-appointed special advocate in my home State of Washington, I am also the Executive Director of Voice For Adoption. Voice For Adoption is a membership 

organization. We speak out for the Nation’s 126,000 waiting children in foster care. First and foremost, the adoption community 

wants to thank you for all your hard work on the reauthorization 

of the adoption incentive program during last year’s session. Voice 

For Adoption applauds the new focus on moving older children into 

adoption. In my short time this morning, I want to touch briefly 

on five areas included in my written statement that Voice For 

Adoption believes need the attention of Congress and the Federal 

Government in order to help ensure the promise of adoptive families for every child. 

The first is post-adoption services. If we truly want to ensure 

that children get permanent families, much more must be done to 

provide post-adoption services. The grief and the loss that foster 

children experience does not disappear once the adoption is finalized. A proven way to avoid adoption disruption is by providing 

services, such as respite care, family support groups and counseling, and adoption competent mental health services. Post-adoption services and support is a way for States to ensure that adoptive placements are successful. As a first step, we recommend that 

States be required to support adoptive families by reinvesting their 

incentive dollars on post-adoption services. This is especially important with the new focus on older children. The older a child is when 

he or she is adopted, the more likely the adoption is to disrupt. 

Congress should also take steps to ensure that States are spending, 

103 

as required by Federal law, at least 20 percent of their Promoting 

Safe and Stable Families program funds on adoption promotion 

and support. We urge you to explore other strategies, as well, in 

your broader discussions of child welfare financing. 

Second, we urge you to take steps to make sure that all children 

adopted from foster care are eligible for title IV–E adoption assistance. The adoption assistance program is an extremely effective 

program that helps move thousands of waiting children into permanent families. As we all know, adoption is cost effective. The typical 

administrative costs associated with foster care, such as ongoing 

training, agency supervision, and periodic case reviews, disappear 

once the child is adopted. Unfortunately, due to an outdated AFDC 

eligibility requirement, not all children adopted from foster care 

qualify for assistance. Congress can help support foster care adoptions by eliminating the administratively burdensome requirement 

in Federal law that makes only children removed from poor families eligible for adoption assistance. 

Third, we ask that you eliminate the disincentives to adoption by 

requiring that adoption assistance payments be at least equal to 

the foster care payments for which the child would have been eligible. When foster care payments are higher than adoption assistance payments, as they are in some States, it creates a disincentive 

for foster parents to adopt children. States should provide adoptive 

children with at least the same level of support and benefit, including therapeutic and specialized rates, that they would have received in family foster care. This change in the adoption assistance 

program would help move waiting children to adoptive homes. 

Fourth, continued improvements are needed to address inter-jurisdictional barriers to children being adopted. The special needs 

adoption community is excited about the new Federal adoption 

website. This multifaceted media tool will help highlight waiting 

children and recruit other families across the country. Yet inter-jurisdictional barriers to adoption need to be addressed to help aid 

the website’s success. 

Several years ago, adoption workers, advocates, researchers, and 

families, including many Voice For Adoption members, convened in 

Chicago to strategize about solutions and overcoming barriers to 

inter-jurisdictional placements. I am happy to provide the Committee with a copy of the report from the meeting, which includes 

a number of recommendations to address these barriers. Finally, as 

you consider reforms in adoption and other aspects of child welfare, 

Voice For Adoption asks that you take steps to address the racial 

disparity in the child welfare system. There is a disproportionate 

number of minority children in care today. This inequity needs to 

be addressed. Recruitment of families who reflect children in State 

custody is imperative. Many children of color are entering Caucasian homes through adoption, and parents need to be prepared to 

deal with race-related issues by training families when trans-racial 

placements occur, in order to prepare families to handle the unique 

responsibilities in trans-racial parenting. I thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Holden follows:] 

104 

Statement of Courtney Anne Holden, Executive Director, Voice For 

Adoption 

Chairman Herger, Ranking Member Cardin and distinguished members of the 

subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to testify on federal and state oversight of child welfare programs. My name is Courteney Anne Holden. In addition 

to volunteering as a court appointed special advocate in my home state of Washington, I am also the Executive Director of Voice for Adoption or VFA for short. 

VFA is a membership advocacy organization. We speak out for our nation’s 

126,000 waiting children in foster care. VFA members recruit families to adopt special needs children and youth. Our members also provide vital support services both 

before and after finalization to help adoptive families through challenges they often 

face. We, like you, are dedicated to finding permanent loving homes for every waiting child in foster care. 

First and foremost, the adoption community thanks you for all your hard work 

in reauthorizing the Adoption Incentive program during last year’s session. VFA applauds the new focus on moving older children into adoption. However, it is important that states support these adoptive families by reinvesting their incentive dollars on post-adoption services. 

Research shows that the older a child is when he or she is adopted the more likely 

the adoption will dissolve. The grief and loss that foster children experience does 

not disappear when the adoption is finalized. A proven way to avoid adoption disruption is by providing support services such as respite care, family support groups 

and counseling, and adoption competent mental health services. Post-adoption services and support is a way for states to ensure that adoptive placements are successful. 

Also, many states do not take full advantage of the ability to fund post-adoption 

services through the adoption promotion and support provision of the Promoting 

Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) program. State should spend at least 20 percent 

of their PSSF flexible funds on post-adoption services and support. 

Another extremely effective program in moving waiting children to permanency 

is the Adoption Assistance program. This program provides adoptive families with 

monthly subsidies to cover costs such as adoption camps, tutoring, and extraordinary health care costs due to the child’s special needs. Of the 50,000 children 

adopted from foster care in 2001, 88 percent received state or federal assistance. As 

we all know, adoption is cost effective. The typical administrative costs associated 

with foster care such as ongoing training, agency supervision, periodic case reviews 

and judicial hearings disappear. Thousands of children and families have benefited 

since the program’s inception in 1980. 

However, financial barriers to foster care adoptions still exist and the Adoption 

Assistance program needs to be modernized. Due to an outdated AFDC eligibility 

requirement, not all children adopted from foster care qualify for the assistance. 

Congress can help support foster care adoptions by eliminating this administrative 

burdensome requirement. 

Moreover, levels of support that children receive can vary, often foster care payments are higher, in effect creating a disincentive to adopt the child. States should 

provide adopted children with at least the same level of support and benefits (including any therapeutic or specialized rates) they would have received in family foster care. Nationally, payments made on behalf of an eight-year-old child average $14 

per day, a fraction of what the Department of Agriculture suggests is needed to 

raise an average child, let alone a child with serious disabilities. Making these few 

changes to the Adoption Assistance program would go a long way in moving waiting 

children into permanent homes. 

The special needs adoption community is excited about the new federal adoption 

website. This multi-faceted media tool will help highlight waiting children and recruit forever families across the county. Yet, interjursidictional barriers to adoption 

need to be addressed to help aid the websites success. 

Several years ago, adoption workers, advocates, researchers, and families including many VFA members convened in Chicago to come up with solutions to overcoming barriers to interjursidictional placements. Which state pays for the adoptive 

home study and the varied home study fees were just some issues that where addressed. I am happy to provide committee members with a copy of the report from 

the meeting. 

Additionally, last week the Children’s Bureau at HHS convened a workgroup on 

the identical subject. VFA is thrilled that Majority Leader Tom Delay’s staff, Dr. 

Cassie Bevan and Susan Smith with Illinois State University Center for Adoption 

Studies are participating. However, there are some notable absences on the 

workgroup, including adoption exchanges and agencies that specialize in the placeVerDate May 21 2004 01:51 Jul 15, 2004 Jkt 092984 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\92984.XXX 92984
105 

ment of African American and Latino children. Also absent are grantees that focus 

on overcoming geographic barriers such as Oregon’s Team Work for Children. This 

group has an Adoption Opportunities grant to finds collaborative ways to overcome 

barrier and is working with states such as Washington, Idaho and California. There 

are three other states with AO grants on this topic including Texas, Colorado and 

Alaska. This past fall, VFA awarded the Adoptions Across Boundaries recognition 

to Oregon for their commendable work in overcoming barriers to cross-jursidictional 

placements. VFA urges the Children’s Bureau to expand the workgroup before their 

next meeting. 

VFA is not the only organization that places priority on addressing geographic 

barriers. Organizations like the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys (Quad A) 

and the American Public Human Services Association (APHSA) are working within 

their membership to address this issue too. It is VFA’s hope that all groups and the 

Children’s Bureau can work together to find consensus and help improve adoptive 

and foster care placements across state lines. 

There are a disproportionate number of minorities, 45 percent are Black non-Hispanic and 12 percent are Hispanic, in the child welfare system. This inequity needs 

to be addressed. Recruitment of families who are reflective of children in state custody is imperative. Many children of color also enter Caucasian homes through 

adoption, and parents need to be prepared to deal with race-related issues. Training 

families when transracial placements occur is crucial in order to prepare families 

to handle the unique responsibilities of transracial parenting. 

VFA also looks forward to the release of the Pew Commission’s Report on Youth 

in Foster Care. We truly appreciate that focus on child welfare that the Commission 

has brought. We also look forward to today’s Packard Foundation briefing on a report and survey of foster care. 

Waiting children are languishing too long in state care. These are just a few 

issues that will help eliminate barriers and accelerate adoptions. The 126,000 children and youth who cannot safely return to their birth parents are depending on 

us. 

On behalf of waiting and adopted children and their families, thank you again for 

this opportunity to address the subcommittee. I am happy to answer any questions 

members might pose. 

f 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Ms. Holden. Now Mr. Jack 

Trope to testify. 

STATEMENT OF JACK F. TROPE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION ON AMERICAN INDIAN AFFAIRS, ROCKVILLE, 

MARYLAND 

Mr. TROPE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Committee. The Association on American Indian Affairs, of which I am the Executive Director, is an 80- 

year-old Indian advocacy organization. We have a broad-based program, one part of which is in the field of Indian child welfare. We 

have been involved in child welfare for decades. We were instrumental in obtaining the enactment of the Indian Child Welfare Act 

(P.L. 95–608), and since its enactment, we have worked on policy 

with tribes to negotiate tribal-State agreements, and we have provided training to, among others, State employees and officials on 

Indian child welfare. We have also had a longstanding interest in 

the issue of adequate funding for tribal child welfare programs, 

having testified before this Committee as far back as 1990 on these 

issues. We applaud the Subcommittee for its efforts to continually 

look at these issues, because they are vitally important. 

Obviously, the perspective that we have to offer has to do with 

our work with Indian children, and we have some specific recommendations about that—but I think some of our observations 

are more broadly applicable to all children involved with the sysVerDate May 21 2004 01:51 Jul 15, 2004 Jkt 092984 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\92984.XXX 92984
106 

tem. First of all, I would like to say, in terms of Indian children 

and the safety and well-being of Indian children, we believe, like 

many others, that increasing the resources available to children in 

need, and families in need, is essential. One way in which this can 

be done for Indian children that is different than other children is 

to tap into tribal resources. As you probably know, Mr. Chairman, 

tribal governments are separate governmental entities from States. 

They provide child welfare services to children within their own 

communities, but they also have a vital interest in those children 

that are involved with State systems. We have worked with tribes 

to negotiate tribal-State agreements that cover a whole variety of 

items, including things like joint planning, decisionmaking and 

service delivery, early notice to tribes, maximum support to families to adjust to placements and to deal with particular cultural 

needs, training exchanges, and so forth. We believe that one way 

in which more resources can be brought to bear for Indian children 

is through encouraging tribal-State agreements that provide Indian 

children and families who are in the State system with access to 

tribal resources, tribal families, and tribal communities. 

We would note, however, that in order for tribes to effectively 

participate in those kinds of agreements, they also need resources. 

Once again, I would remind the Committee that many Indian children are not under State systems. They are under tribal systems 

and under tribal jurisdiction, and we do have Federal programs— 

most specifically the title IV–E foster care program—that do not 

provide for direct funding to tribes, and that is an oversight that 

this Committee, we hope, will address. Congressman Camp is sponsoring legislation to do that, and we applaud him for that. We 

know that this issue is being considered on the Senate side—and 

that this legislation might be part of the welfare reform reauthorization passed by the Senate. If that is the case, we hope that 

Members of this Subcommittee will advocate for it in conference. 

In addition, for tribes and States to really work together effectively 

in a partnership for Indian children, it is very important that 

States have a commitment to the unique needs, circumstances, and 

legal framework that pertains to Indian children. Right now, the 

Indian Child Welfare Act is a unique law that applies to Indian 

children, and there is no Federal oversight of the implementation 

of that law. We urge you to designate a Federal agency to do that. 

More broadly, I want to talk about a couple of things that I think 

are applicable to non-Indian children. One is based upon something 

that is very typical in Indian communities—namely, strength-based 

family healing systems. These are systems where families come together with extended family, community members, tribal employees, and whoever is appropriate, to develop plans to deal with troubled families. It is a concept very similar to what Mr. Bell talked 

about in his testimony, when he talked about his Family Group Decision Making, and bringing neighborhood resources and neighborhood supports in for families. We think anything that can be done 

to encourage these types of approaches would be very positive. The 

other thing I would mention is that when we think about permanency from a tribal perspective, permanency isn’t just about moving a child from one nuclear family to another. It is about maintaining that child’s connections with community, with extended 

107 

family, and with culture. This idea ties into the notion of Family 

Group Decision Making, and is a way to effectively deal with these 

problems outside of the legal system. In conclusion, I would like to 

mention one thing a family court judge once told me. She said that 

she felt like an emergency room doctor. She said she patches up 

families, and makes profound decisions in their lives based on inadequate and conflicting information. Thus, I think that whatever we 

can do to provide supports for families and keep these problems out 

of the legal system, is a good thing for all children. I want to thank 

you again for having us here, and I hope as you go forward you 

will include us and other organizations that are familiar with the 

needs of Indian children in developing your legislation. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Trope follows:] 

Statement of Jack F. Trope, Executive Director, Association on American 

Indian Affairs, Rockville, Maryland 

Chairman Herger, Ranking Minority Member Cardin and other members of the 

Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting us to testimony before the Subcommittee. 

The Association on American Indian Affairs is an 80 year old Indian advocacy organization located in South Dakota and Maryland and governed by an all-Native 

American Board of Directors. We have been involved with Indian child welfare 

issues for decades and played a key role in the enactment of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. We have not only developed policy and been involved in legal proceedings, but also worked with tribes to negotiate tribal-state partnerships to better 

serve Indian children and have provided training to state employees and officials 

about Indian child welfare. We have also had a long standing interest in the issue 

of adequate funding for tribal child welfare programs, having testified before this 

subcommittee about this issue as far back as 1990. 

We applaud the subcommittee for holding this oversight hearing and allowing 

non-governmental organizations and individuals to offer testimony on how state systems might better protect the safety and well-being of children and promote permanency. 

Obviously, the perspective that we have to offer has to do with our work with Indian children. There are many recommendations that we could present to the subcommittee. However, in part because of the short time frame that we have had to 

prepare this testimony, we will focus upon only a few—those least likely to be identified by other witnesses. Some of the recommendations that we will offer will be 

applicable only to Indian children. However, we believe that some of our recommendations will also have broader applicability. 

Safety and Well-being 

There are several principles with which everyone involved in child welfare agrees: 

children should remain with their families wherever possible; if a child is in imminent risk of harm, it is appropriate to remove the child from his family to ensure 

that the child is safe; and if removal has taken place, reunification of the child with 

his or her family is in most cases the first option that should be considered. 

We believe that an important way to accomplish these goals is to increase the 

availability of support services for families in crisis. In the context of Indian children, we believe that this means increasing the possibility that Indian families involved with the state or county systems will have access to tribal services and resources, in addition to those provided by the state or county. 

An effective way that we have found to accomplish this end has been through the 

negotiation of tribal-state agreements that specify how the state will handle Indian 

child welfare cases and provide for tribal involvement in that process. The agreement between the tribes in Washington and the state of Washington, which we 

helped negotiate, is an example of such an agreement. That agreement, among other 

things, provides for joint planning, decision making and service delivery, early notice to tribes and cooperation, maximum support to children and families to adjust 

to placements, maximum support and services to care providers regarding cultural 

needs, training exchanges and some state funding for tribal programs. 

In order for tribes to effectively participate in such agreements, however, they 

need to have resources. Currently, tribes struggle to maintain child welfare programs through a patchwork of funding—some BIA money, extremely limited funds 

through Title IV–B, tribal resources which are also usually limited and, in rare cirVerDate May 21 2004 01:51 Jul 15, 2004 Jkt 092984 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\92984.XXX 92984
108 

cumstances, state support. Through an oversight when the law was enacted, tribes 

are not eligible for the Title IV–E foster care/adoption assistance entitlement program. It is important to remember that tribal governments are distinct from state 

governments and tribal nations exercise their own inherent sovereignty. Even aside 

from negatively impacting the ability of tribes to productively contribute to state efforts to protect Indian children, it must be emphasized that the lack of resources 

impacts the tribe’s ability to adequately serve Indian children living in Indian country under tribal government jurisdiction. These children suffer high rates of poverty 

and abuse and neglect, but yet are virtually left out of this federal program. It is 

tragic that we have a federal entitlement program to assist abused and neglected 

children who must be removed from their homes, but have limited it to state governments and the children under their jurisdiction. 

We urge the subcommittee to rectify this problem and specifically wish to thank 

Representative Camp of this Subcommittee for introducing and seeking the enactment of H.R. 443 that would provide direct tribal funding under the existing Title 

IV–E program. We understand that the Senate is still considering whether to include this provision in its Welfare Reauthorization bill. If it is included, we urge the 

members of this Subcommittee to advocate for the provision in conference. 

In addition, for these state-tribal beneficial partnerships to develop fully, the state 

must have a commitment to proper implementation of the Indian Child Welfare Act. 

Currently, no federal agency takes responsibility for overseeing whether states are 

complying with the ICWA. We believe that if Congress were to mandate that a specific federal agency or agencies audit states for ICWA compliance, this would help 

protect Indian children. 

Finally, there are some lessons to be learned from Indian tribes that might have 

a positive impact upon all children. One of the most ubiquitous elements found in 

tribal codes on child welfare are alternative dispute resolution provisions. These provisions typically provide for informal conferences with the family and tribal employees and/or community members that seek to develop a plan to remediate the problem and obviate the need for court action. Many tribes also have mechanisms for 

developing plans after a petition has been filed—a consent decree with the family 

or something similar. The focus is to heal everyone in the family as the best way 

to ultimately provide for the well-being of the child. It builds upon the strengths 

that are normally present even in troubled families, strengths can often best be 

identified through involvement of extended family members or other community 

members in such processes. 

We believe that these strength-based family healing systems can have application 

beyond Indian children. Having been involved in family court proceedings as an attorney, I can state unequivocally that the adversarial process is not well adapted 

to child abuse and neglect situations. One family court judge of my acquaintance 

once likened herself to an emergency room doctor—often trying to make difficult decisions having dramatic impacts upon families with only limited and often conflicting information available. It seems to us that promoting conflict resolution systems that build on strengths and that pull together all possible supportive parties 

and resources in pursuit of a solution would improve the safety and well-being of 

all children. Obviously, there are certain egregious abuse cases where such an approach would not be feasible and we are not suggesting this type of process would 

be appropriate for all situations. But severe abuse cases are a small percentage of 

the overall child welfare caseload; many more cases involve allegations of neglect 

and inadequate parenting. We believe that a family/community non-adversarial 

process would be highly feasible in most of these cases. 

Permanency 

We believe that child welfare systems and Congress must look at permanency in 

an expansive way. Too often, permanency is thought of as replacing a dysfunctional 

nuclear family with another functional nuclear family. We think that this is too narrow of a view. 

In almost all Indian cultures and communities, a child is thought of as belonging 

not only to his or her parents, but to his grandparents, uncles, aunts and other 

members of his extended family. Where there is a clan system, that can also be an 

important source of identity. Moreover, a child also has a broader sense of belonging 

to the child’s tribe and his or her culture as well. 

This is reflected in many tribal codes. Tribes frequently recognize the rights of 

extended family, grandparents and traditional custodians to participate in judicial 

and informal proceedings and continued visitation with such individuals is frequently mandated by tribal courts or codes even where parental rights have been 

terminated. Extended family is defined in many codes to include a large number of 

people beyond those typically included in non-Indian definitions—people such as 

109 

clan and band members, individuals who traditionally assist with parenting, any 

person viewed by the family as a relative, first cousins of parents (defined as aunts 

and uncles), step-family and godparents. Concepts such as grandparents may include brothers and sisters of the child’s lineal grandparents. 

I experienced the importance of these connections first hand when I was Director 

of the Western Area Office of the Save the Children. We worked closely with a number of tribal communities, including Navajo communities. When we would hold 

youth summits, we would usually start by having the teenagers introduce themselves to each other. Most of the Navajo youth would automatically introduce themselves through reference to their clan and extended family relationships. 

For most Indian tribes, any concept of permanency that would sever a child’s relationship with important family and community members who are capable of providing love and support to the child (or that would sever a connection with the tribe, 

tribal culture or, where applicable, clan) makes no sense. We believe that this is 

true for many non-Indian children as well—certainly, at a minimum, there are other 

ethnic groups that have a similar sense of family and community. Maintaining a 

child’s non-parental connections, unless they are demonstrably harmful to a child, 

promotes a child’s well-being and sense of permanency in the larger sense. Many 

states have been expanding the use of kinship care, which we believe to be a positive development. In thinking about child welfare issues, we hope that Congress will 

define permanency to include the network of relationships that can benefit a child, 

and not just focus upon the nuclear family. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, we recommend the following: 

Indian-specific recommendations 

• Encourage tribal-state agreements on Indian Child Welfare Act compliance 

• Provide tribes with adequate resources for child welfare programs, particularly 

by making tribes eligible for the Title IV–E Foster Care Adoption Assistance 

program, as proposed by Rep. Camp in H.R. 443 

• Mandate federal audits of state compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act 

General recommendations 

• Encourage the development for certain types of child welfare cases of alternative dispute resolution systems that involve extended families and communities in a strength-based, non-adversarial problem-solving process 

• Define permanency to include a continued connection between a child and his 

or her extended family and community 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony and to appear before the 

subcommittee. 

f 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Trope; we will do precisely 

that. Now I would like to turn to Mr. Christopher Klicka for his 

testimony. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER J. KLICKA, SENIOR COUNSEL, 

HOME SCHOOL LEGAL DEFENSE ASSOCIATION, PURCELLVILLE, VIRGINIA 

Mr. KLICKA. Thank you very much. It is a great privilege to be 

here, and I hope I can add some good thoughts to child welfare reform. I am coming from a fairly unique perspective. I have been 

Senior Counsel of the Home School Legal Defense Association for 

18 years, and I have dealt with over 1,000 social worker situations 

where families, innocent families, were turned in by anonymous 

tipsters. These anonymous tipsters a lot of times had prejudice 

against the home schoolers because they were teaching their children at home, and they tended to fabricate many allegations to get 

the family in trouble. Other situations where it is simply a relative—maybe it was a religious thing where they didn’t like it because it was a Christian family. For about 95 percent of these 

110 

1,000 or more allegations that I have dealt with, the source has 

been an anonymous tip. This hasn’t always been the case—where 

social workers at the local level pursued anonymous tips in such 

a thorough and complete manner. What their normal mode of operation is, regardless of whether the tipster is identified or not, they 

seek to come into the family’s house, and they seek to interview 

every member in the family—including the children—and many 

times they like to do that separately. Sometimes they like to just 

do a strip search. It is very traumatic for the families. I have given 

in my written testimony many, many examples of situations that 

have occurred, and what happened to the families. 

Now, the two solutions that I am recommending—because what 

I am hearing from many of the panelists is that there really isn’t 

enough money being spent to fight child abuse. There are cutbacks—Shay Bilchik said 8-percent cutbacks—and the caseloads 

are meanwhile getting bigger and bigger. In my experience, I see 

that one of the areas in which social workers are wasting their 

time is with anonymous tips, because they tend to be false. So, I 

am recommending that Congress require some sort of changes 

throughout the States in order to get their Federal funds to require 

tipsters to reveal their identity when they call in. Of course, their 

identity would be kept confidential by the social worker, but then 

the consequences of giving false testimony or a false tip should be 

made very clear. I believe that this will curtail tremendously these 

false allegations on which social workers are wasting their time, 

spinning their wheels, and traumatizing innocent families in the 

process. The second suggestion would be to require some sort of 

statutory mechanism where victims of intentionally false allegations would be able to pursue their tipsters with criminal charges. 

Real abuse is taking place, and children are being hurt and even 

killed. We need a child welfare system to investigate, stop, and 

prosecute this horrible abuse—like what happened recently in New 

Jersey. By limiting the investigation of anonymous tips and penalizing false tipsters, social workers will have far fewer cases to investigate, and the referrals will be far more accurate. This way, 

they can give the requisite time and attention to real child abuse 

cases instead of being spread thin pursuing anonymous tips that 

usually turn out to be unfounded. I give a lot of statistics on how 

for over half of all the people who are investigated for child abuse, 

the information turns out to be unfounded—and there is a large 

percentage of those that are anonymous tips. I have found that if 

people have to identify themselves, they are going to be a lot more 

careful about using the system to hurt people. Also, I have talked 

with many social workers one-on-one. There was a social worker in 

Georgia who confessed that 90 percent of all her cases turned out 

to be unfounded, and she felt like she was just spinning her 

wheels. In Alabama and Florida, I met two social workers who now 

are home schooling their children, and they said 60 to 70 percent 

of their cases were unfounded. Thousands of families are being 

hurt by this process. 

Just to give you one example of the many that I document in 

here, there is a family in Wisconsin, a home-schooled family, and 

this was the tip that the anonymous tipster gave. The caller was 

concerned because the children were all thin, and thought that reVerDate May 21 2004 01:51 Jul 15, 2004 Jkt 092984 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\92984.XXX 92984
111 

moval of food was a possible form of discipline. The caller thought 

this discipline may have been a practice of the parents’ religion, 

which is thought to have been born-again Christian. The caller 

thought that these parents give a lot of money to the church and 

spend little money on groceries. The caller’s last, somewhat passing 

concern, was that the mother was home schooling her children. The 

tip turned out to be bogus. The only true thing was that they were 

actually home schooling. I think this Committee should take a look 

at the possibility of having some compliance procedures that States 

would follow that would enable their investigations to go much 

smoother, and not have to waste so much time pursuing false allegations. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Klicka follows:] 

Statement of Christopher J. Klicka, Senior Counsel, Home School Legal 

Defense Association, Purcellville, Virginia 

My name is Christopher J. Klicka, and I serve as Senior Counsel of the Home 

School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA). Since 1985, I have counseled and legally 

represented nearly a thousand home school families who were harassed by social 

workers investigating child abuse tips they received from their child abuse hotlines. 

Ninety-five percent of the tips were anonymous. The other attorneys in our organization have handled a similar number of these legal conflicts. 

I have seen first hand the trauma innocent families have experienced at the 

hands of social workers pursuing anonymous tips. 

The Home School Legal Defense Association is a nonprofit legal advocacy organization dedicated to protecting parental freedom generally and promoting the right 

to home school. At this time, we represent over 76,000 member families (i.e. approximately 250,000 children and 150,000 parents.) 

Over these last 18 years, I have drafted state legislation on child welfare reform, 

lobbied on this issue before state legislatures and the Congress, and written and 

spoke extensively on the abuses of families by the present child welfare system. As 

a constitutional attorney who has represented hundreds of families involved in child 

welfare legal conflicts, investigations, and court cases, I have been exposed to many 

abuses in the child welfare system. 

What happens when anonymous tips are allowed to be used to justify entry into 

a home or private interviews with children is that enemies can phone in a tip. People who are disgruntled with the family can phone in a tip. People who don’t like 

the fact that a particular family is homeschooling can call in a tip and turn that 

family’s life upside down. 

The purpose of my testimony is to offer some possible solutions to real abuses that 

I have encountered over the years. By incorporating these reforms, Congress and 

the states can save money and encourage states to enable their child welfare workers to better stewards of their time. 

The two solutions I recommend are: 

1. Require all tipsters to reveal their identity and address to the social worker. 

The social worker will keep this information confidential but warn them of consequences of giving intentionally false information. This will prevent the majority of bogus allegations that anonymous tipsters give who use the system to 

get back people. 

2. Require all states to have a statutory mechanism for victims of intentionally 

false allegations to pursue the tipsters with criminal charges. 

Real abuse is taking place. Children are being hurt and even killed. We need a 

child welfare system to investigate, stop, and prosecute this horrible abuse of children. By eliminating the investigation of anonymous tips and penalizing intentionally false tipsters, social workers will have far less cases to investigate and the 

referrals will be far more accurate. This way they can give the requisite time and 

attention to real child abuse cases instead of being ‘‘spread so thin’’ pursuing anonymous tips that usually turn out to be unfounded. Eliminating investigation of anonymous tips will largely stop tipsters from using the system to harass people they 

do not like or are prejudiced against. Eliminating anonymous tips will also better 

protect innocent families parental and 4th amendment rights. 

112 

Pursuing False Allegations Reduces Time and Attention to Investigating 

Real Abuse Cases 

I have talked with over 1,000 social workers over the last 18 years, many whom 

have indicated that they waste much of their time pursuing anonymous tips that 

turn out to be fabrications. After resolving a false allegation with a particular Chicago social worker over the phone, the social worker informed me that well over 50% 

of all referrals, most of which are anonymous, to her child welfare agency are ‘‘unfounded.’’ Unfortunately, she complained, many of the cases are deemed unfounded 

after families are broken apart and children are put in foster homes. 

A social worker in Georgia, after we resolved a fabricated allegation concerning 

a homeschooler, confessed that 90% of all the cases of alleged child abuse she handled turned out to be ‘‘unfounded.’’ She explained that she spent most of her time 

‘‘spinning her wheels’’ pursuing anonymous tips. She felt the number of false allegations coming into her office were on the rise. 

In Alabama and Florida, I met two former social workers who were now home 

schooling their children. Both admitted that intimidation was a routine procedure 

which they were taught and which they always used to get their way. Their goal, 

in fact, was to get into the house and talk with the children, no matter what the 

allegation. Both of these social workers admitted that 60% to 70% of their cases 

were ‘‘unfounded’’ and mostly anonymous. 

Since so many social workers are ‘‘spinning their wheels’’ pursuing anonymous 

tips that often turn out to be false, they waste much money and time their time. 

It would be far more effective to find the real child abusers if anonymous tips were 

prohibited. Requiring tipsters to identify themselves to the social worker would virtually completely prevent social workers from having to investigate false allegations. 

Of course, the tipster identification would be protected by the social worker until 

the conclusion of the case. This way, the social workers could spend their time pursuing real allegations and catching real child abusers. 

Thousands of Innocent Families are Traumatized Over Anonymous Tipsters 

Using the System to Hurt People 

I can provide much-documented abuses of social workers using anonymous tips 

and how families were traumatized. For example, in Wisconsin, a home school family was reported by an anonymous tipster. I secured a copy of the report by the social worker which said: 

‘‘The caller was concerned because the children were all thin and thought that removal of food was possibly a form of discipline. The caller thought this discipline 

may have been a practice of the parents’ religion which was thought to have been 

Born Again. The caller thought that these parents give a lot of money to the church 

and spend little money on groceries. The caller’s last, somewhat passing concern, 

was that [the mother] home schools her children.’’ 

As usual, the anonymous tip was bogus. It is apparent from the report that the 

caller was biased against both the fact that the family was home schooling and that 

they were born again Christians. The social worker insisted on entry into the home 

and interrogate the children. 

One family had recently moved to Florida. Within weeks, they were visited by a 

truant officer who questioned the legality of their schooling. The truant officer left 

and reported them to the Health and Human Services department. A few days later, 

an HHS agent appeared at the door and demanded to interview the children within 

24 hours or he would send for the police. The allegations were that ‘‘the children 

were home during school hours and the children were sometimes left alone.’’ I explained the legality of their home schooling and denied the ‘‘lack of supervision’’ 

charge. (The family only had one car and the father took it to work leaving the 

mother at home). I then called his bluff and refused to have the children interviewed. After talking with the parents, we allowed him to come by the door and see 

the children only from a distance. He finally closed the case because he had no evidence except an anonymous tip. 

A really outlandish investigation involved a home school family in New Jersey. 

In the first visit, the agent from the Division of Youth and Family Services accused 

the mother of kidnapping some of her children because she had so many children. 

The mother produced birth certificates to prove the children were hers. The following year, another agent came by and said that someone called and reported that 

the ‘‘children were seen outside during school hours.’’ She demanded to enter the 

house but, under my instruction, the mother refused. Although she knew it was only 

an anonymous tip, the agent then said she would be back with the police. She never 

came back that day, showing that she was only bluffing. 

In California, a single mother was contacted by a social worker with allegations 

that ‘‘children were not in school, mother was incapacitated, and caretaker was abVerDate May 21 2004 01:51 Jul 15, 2004 Jkt 092984 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\92984.XXX 92984
113 

sent.’’ I talked with the social worker and she admitted the allegations were based 

solely on an anonymous tip. However, she insisted on talking with the children separately. When I objected, she said she would get a police officer and that she did 

not need a warrant. We held our ground and she settled for a meeting with the 

mother and a witness only. 

One of our member families had just moved into Alabama two weeks earlier and 

had not really met anyone in their neighborhood yet. However, the Department of 

Human Resources agent received an ‘‘anonymous tip’’ that the children had 

‘‘bruises’’ and demanded a ‘‘strip search!’’ When I refused to allow a ‘‘strip search,’’ 

the agent became upset and stammered, ‘‘No one else ever refused a strip search 

before!’’ She also implied the family had something to hide. 

The above comment of the social worker in Alabama is a common response which 

I hear from social workers frequently concerning all kinds of demands. They are 

personally offended that we would refuse to let them into the home or interview the 

children. Many of them insinuate the family must be guilty even though they have 

nothing but an anonymous tip. 

In Appendix I, I relate more true accounts of social workers harassing innocent 

parents over the last few months. All these examples simply demonstrate the desperate need for consistency in applying a constitutional standard in the all the state 

child welfare codes. 

Court Precedent: the Fourth Amendment and Anonymous Tips and Social 

Workers 

The 4th Amendment applies to all 50 states. It guarantees: 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no 

Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or 

things to be seized. 

Yet social workers do not believe it applies to them and they pursue anonymous 

tips to the detriment of innocent families 4th amendment rights. 

It is time for the Congress to take the lead to protect these precious 4th Amendment rights of the over 1 million innocent parents being abused by the state child 

welfare systems, largely by anonymous tipsters.. 

Below are some of the key cases that define how the 4th Amendment applies to 

social workers. 

The Home School Legal Defense Association won its first significant case in this 

area in 1993, when the Alabama Court of Appeals construed the term ‘‘cause shown’’ 

in a state child abuse investigation statute to mean ‘‘reasonable or probable cause 

to believe that a crime is being or about to be committed,’’ since any other reading 

might conflict with the Fourth Amendment. H.R. v. Dept. of Human Resources, 609 

S.E.2d 477 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993). In H.R., HSLDA represented a low-income home 

school mother who was contacted by a social worker over some allegations of child 

abuse and educational neglect. Under counsel from HSLDA, the family refused to 

allow the social worker to come into the home or to interrogate the children. In 

order to muscle this family, charges of child neglect were brought based on no evidence whatsoever: only based on an anonymous tipster who admitted she did not 

have personal knowledge of the family’s situation. 

However, a hearing was held on whether an anonymous tip was enough to require 

the social worker to enter the home and interrogate the children. The lower court 

agreed that it was and issued a search warrant. 

HSLDA appealed the decision to the Alabama Court of Appeals on the basis that 

the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution requires government officials to have 

‘‘probable cause’’ (some kind of reliable evidence) to enter individuals’ homes. The 

Alabama Court of Appeals reversed: 

We suggest, however, that the power of the courts to permit invasions of the privacy protected by our federal and state constitutions, is not to be exercised except 

upon a showing of reasonable or probable cause to believe that a crime is being or 

is about to be committed or a valid regulation is being or is about to be violated. . . . 

The ‘cause shown’ [in this case] was unsworn hearsay and could, at best, present 

a mere suspicion. A mere suspicion is not sufficient to rise to reasonable or probable 

cause. 

H.R. v. Department of Human Resources, 609 So. 2d 477 (Ct. Civ. App. ALA 1993) 

In the years since 1993, court after court has rejected the myth that social workers are exempt from the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. 

114 

In Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 1999), for example, a case we litigated, the unconstitutional strip search took place on October 27, 1994. The federal 

district court denied the social worker’s summary judgment motion for qualified immunity, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed that ruling on Aug. 26, 1999. 

The Fourth Amendment rights case was originally filed February 24, 1995, by 

HSLDA on behalf of Robert and Shirley Calabretta in the Eastern District of California federal court, after a Yolo County policeman and social worker illegally entered the Calabretta home and strip searched their three-year-old daughter. The policeman and social worker forced their way in the home over the objections of the 

mother based simply on an anonymous tip. The tipster merely said she heard a cry 

in the night from the Calabretta home, ‘‘No Daddy no!’’ After the coerced entry, interrogation of the children, and the strip search of the three-year-old, no evidence 

of abuse was found and the officials ended the investigation. The police officer and 

social worker said ‘‘thank you’’ and left. 

The Ninth Circuit came down hard against the social workers for violating the 

4th Amendment: 

We held, years before the coerced entry into the Calabretta home, that even in 

the context of an administrative search, ‘‘[n]owhere is the protective force of the 

fourth amendment more powerful than it is when the sanctity of the home is involved. . . . Therefore, we have been adamant in our demand that absent exigent 

circumstances a warrant will be required before a person’s home is invaded by the 

authorities.’’ 189 F.2d at 817, quoting Los Angeles Police Protective League v. Gates, 

907 F.2d 879, 884 (9th Cir.1990). 

The reasonable expectation of privacy of individuals in their homes includes the 

interests of both parents and children in not having government officials coerce 

entry in violation of the Fourth Amendment and humiliate the parents in front of 

the children. An essential aspect of the privacy of the home is the parent’s and the 

child’s interest in the privacy of their relationship with each other. 189 F.2d at 820. 

The precedent is very clear. The 4th Amendment does apply to social workers. 

This landmark decision of Calabretta v. Floyd, makes it perfectly clear that social 

workers are bound to obey the U.S. Constitution when investigating child abuse 

cases. With respect to the Fourth Amendment, the Ninth Circuit settled the social 

worker question once and for all. No longer can social workers enter a home without 

either a warrant or probable cause of an emergency. It is a myth that Child Protective Services agencies are exempted from the Fourth Amendment’s prohibitions 

against illegal searches and seizures. 

In another case in California, on Tuesday, May 18, 1999, at approximately 3:00 

p.m., two social workers from Child Protective Services arrived at the DeSantis 

home to investigate an anonymous complaint of child abuse. The social workers insisted upon entry to investigate allegations of physical abuse, to examine the utilities, and to make certain that the children had adequate food and clothing. 

‘‘You do not have my consent to enter, but the gate is open,’’ Mrs. DeSantis told 

the workers. Despite the mother’s objections, Debbie Mulvane and Sandy Knabb 

pushed through the gate and marched into the house. 

Once inside, they strip-searched the two younger children and subjected the seven 

year old to a traumatizing private interview. As the social workers left, they stated 

that the referral was a hoax and the case would be closed. 

On March 2, 2000, HSLDA filed a civil rights lawsuit on behalf of the DeSantis 

family against the social workers for violating the family’s Fourth Amendment right 

against entry without a warrant. 

After long negotiations, the social workers finally agreed to pay Mr. and Mrs. 

DeSantis $40,000 to avoid a trial. 

In another HSLDA case, Marsh v. Bellanca, based on anonymous tip, officials entered a home without consent. On February 1, 2001, HSLDA filed a civil rights suit 

against the Riverside County child welfare agency. A social worker visited one of 

our member fathers in Riverside, California, and advised that he was investigating 

child neglect and abuse because the son was not registered in public school. Even 

though it was July 20, 2000, and school was not in session, the father explained 

that his son was enrolled in a private school. The social worker admitted the report 

was anonymous. 

Nevertheless, the worker insisted that the child needed to be interviewed. The father objected, but the two uniformed officers accompanying the worker pushed their 

way past him. Mr. Marsh advised the officers that they had entered against his will 

and that he was going to contact his attorney. The social worker inspected the 

child’s sleeping quarters and then interviewed the child out of the presence of the 

father. Mr. Marsh gave the social worker the name and phone of the private school, 

as well as the birth dates of himself and his wife. The officials left, but indicated 

that the investigation may not be over. 

115 

In addition to the 4th Amendment rights, parents also have ‘‘the fundamental 

right to direct the education and upbringing of their children’’ as guaranteed under 

the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The United States Supreme Court 

made it clear that these are, in fact, fundamental federal rights. In Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), the Court struck down a Washington state statute that 

allowed juvenile courts to order third party visitation without any showing of parental unfitness or harm to the child. The Court ruled that this statute deprived parents of a federally protected liberty interest without due process of law. 

This affirms a long line of U.S. Supreme Court case starting with Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), and Parham v. J.R., 442 US 584 (1979). The 

treatment many parents are receiving at the hands of social workers pursuing anonymous tips, violates parent’s fundamental rights to direct the upbringing of their 

children. 

Solutions to Reform the Child Welfare System 

I offer two solutions to prevent unnecessary trauma to families while saving state 

and Federal Governments millions of dollars in following ‘‘wild goose chases.’’ 

1. Anonymous Tips: As a condition of receiving federal funds, states should be 

mandated to require all reporters of child abuse to give their names, addresses 

and phone numbers. This will curtail false reporting and end harassment using 

anonymous tips. The appropriate legislation should be amended by adding a 

requirement that ‘‘each state must establish provisions and procedures to assure that no reports shall be investigated unless the person making such a report provides such person’s name, address and telephone number and that the 

information is independently verified.’’ 

2. False Reporting: As a condition of receiving federal funds, states should be required to make it at least a class C misdemeanor to knowingly make a false 

report. ‘‘States shall establish penalties for any individuals who knowingly or 

maliciously makes a false report of any type of child abuse or neglect that includes a provision stating that such persons shall also be liable to any injured 

party for compensatory and punitive damages and a provision requiring that 

all reporters be informed of the penalties for false reporting and that the call 

is being recorded.’’ 

Seventeen (17) states have penalties for false reports in their child welfare code. 

Conclusion: Congress Needs To Free Social Workers to Pursue Real Abuse 

Cases 

Real abuse is taking place. Children are being hurt and even killed. We need a 

child welfare system to investigate, stop, and prosecute this horrible abuse of children. By eliminating the investigation of anonymous tips and penalizing intentionally false tipsters, social workers will have far less cases to investigate and the 

referrals will be far more accurate. This way they can give the requisite time and 

attention to real child abuse cases instead of being ‘‘spread so thin’’ pursuing anonymous tips that usually turn out to be unfounded. Eliminating investigation of anonymous tips will largely stop tipsters from using the system to harass people they 

do not like or are prejudiced against. Eliminating anonymous tips will also better 

protect innocent families parental and 4th amendment rights. 

APPENDIX I 

True Accounts of Social Workers Wasting Time Pursuing Anonymous Tips 

and Traumatizing Innocent Families. 

Michigan: ‘‘What Is the Fourth Amendment Again?’’ 

Mr. and Mrs. A* were enjoying an extended out-of-state trip with their family. 

While checking their answering machine, they discovered a message from a local 

child protective services worker. Mr. A called CPS to find out what was going on. 

Apparently, an anonymous person had alleged that Mr. A’s children were being 

‘‘beaten’’ and that one had a black eye. The charges were completely false, but the 

CPS worker insisted that, as soon as they arrived back from their trip, he come into 

their home and interview each child, including their three year old. 

Upon my advice, the family submitted a statement from their doctor, giving the 

family a clean bill of health and several character references. 

116 

However, the CPS worker still insisted that the law required him to come into 

the house and interview the children. When I challenged him that this was not in 

the law, he was not able to produce any authority to the contrary. 

When I told the CPS worker we simply wanted to protect the family’s Fourth 

Amendment rights, he asked ‘‘What is the Fourth Amendment again?’’ This man 

has been a social worker for 20 years, and yet he did not know what the Fourth 

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says! The Fourth Amendment is the key Due 

Process protection that every law enforcement officer must follow. 

I reminded the social worker that he had no right to enter the home and interview the children without a warrant or court order signed by a judge. The anonymous tip he had received was false and did not rise to the level of probable cause. 

After 30 minutes of discussion, the situation was finally resolved to the satisfaction 

of the parents, and the social worker determined that allegations were unfounded. 

Kentucky—Social Worker Says Home Schooling Without Certified Teacher 

Illegal 

Pendleton County, Kentucky—Two of the most common legal difficulties home 

schoolers face are anonymous tips to social services by people who are not familiar 

with all the facts of a situation or government officials who do not know the law. 

Last week, a single mother in Kentucky faced both problems during an unpleasant 

social services investigation. 

Mrs. T, who home schools her three children, was making preparations to move 

out of her house. As part of these preparations, the electricity was turned off. Unfortunately, the house she was planning to move into was not immediately available, 

so she and her children temporarily moved in with her mother, who lives close by. 

An unknown person reported the T family to the Kentucky Department of Children and Families, claiming that the children were living in a house without any 

electricity and were not attending school. 

When a social worker came to Mrs. T’s door while the family was packing, Mrs. 

T explained the circumstances. However, the social worker demanded entry to talk 

to the children about their schooling. Claiming that home schooling is illegal in Kentucky unless the teacher is state-certified, she threatened to remove the children 

from the home. 

Mrs. T called HSLDA, and HSLDA immediately informed the social worker that 

Kentucky law allows parents to teach their children at home, and that Mrs. T was 

in full compliance with the law. After the local public school confirmed that Mrs. 

T had indeed sent in her notice this year, the social worker agreed to drop all of 

the allegations. 

Nevada—Family Successfully Handles Hostile Investigation 

NEVADA—Mrs. P was at the library around lunchtime with several of her children, who began telling her that they were ‘‘starving.’’ Evidently, someone overheard them and called in an anonymous tip to Child Protective Services, claiming 

that the children were ‘‘starving and dirty.’’ This complaint resulted in an aggressive investigation. 

A few days later, a social worker visited Mr. and Mrs. P at home. They explained 

the situation at the library and brought the children to talk to him, so that he could 

see they were well fed. But that wasn’t enough—the social worker then demanded 

to enter the home, which Mr. and Mrs. P respectfully denied. 

When the P family told HSLDA about the investigation, HSLDA contacted the social worker and explained that the Fourth Amendment protected our member’s right 

to deny his entry without a warrant or an emergency. 

Several weeks passed. Suddenly, the social worker showed up on the family’s 

doorstep, again demanding entrance. Mr. and Mrs. P called HSLDA and handed the 

phone to the social worker. After HSLDA reiterated the family’s rights and the family showed the official that they had food on hand, he yelled at Mrs. P and left. 

The next day, the social worker’s supervisor called Mrs. P and, after vigorously 

complaining that the family had been ‘‘uncooperative,’’ informed her that the case 

was unfounded. 

Missouri—HSLDA Defends Family from False Allegations 

The W family in Missouri, Home School Legal Defense Association members, was 

visited by a social worker investigating allegations that their children were not in 

school. 

When the social worker arrived at their door, Mr. W immediately called HSLDA. 

We talked to the social worker to discover the specific allegations from the anonymous tipster and then explained Mr. and Mrs. W’s constitutional rights. 

In response to the allegation of truancy, we told the social worker that the W family was home schooling in compliance with Missouri law. While she quickly dropped 

117 

that claim, as required by state law, she still insisted upon investigating other allegations, including that of physical neglect and unsafe living conditions. 

We advised Mr. and Mrs. W to have their children examined by their family pediatrician. The doctor gave them all a clean bill of health and wrote the social worker 

a letter to this effect. 

In addition, we were able to find a friend of the W family who was a police officer. 

He examined the house and reported to the social worker that there were no unsafe 

conditions. 

After we supplied the social worker with all this information, the W family had 

no further contact from her. 

Indiana—Social Workers Refuse to Disclose Allegations 

Based on only an anonymous tip of ‘‘possible child neglect,’’ social workers from 

the Jackson County Office of Family and Children contacted Mr. and Mrs. Bailey* 

demanding to enter their home to interrogate their child. When the Baileys asked 

about the allegations against them, the social workers refused to provide them with 

any information. 

The Baileys immediately contacted Home School Legal Defense Association for assistance. When we talked to the social workers, they refused to reveal the allegations either, even though a newly-passed federal law states that social workers are 

supposed to explain what the allegations are when they first contact the family. Attorney Tom Washburne of HSLDA followed up with several letters to the attorney 

who represents the Office of Family and Children, but they still refused to cooperate. 

Finally, the social workers laid down an ultimatum—either surrender the child 

for an interview on the still-unknown allegations, or face court action. The Baileys 

decided to stand on their Fourth Amendment rights, so the social workers’ attorney 

filed a motion with the court to force an interview with the Baileys’ child. However, 

even in this motion, the Office of Family and Children never disclosed the content 

of the anonymous allegations. 

HSLDA quickly opposed this motion, since the court would have to rule blindly 

on whether to grant a warrant. We argued that the constitutional right to due process requires that parties be informed of the factual basis for allegations against 

them before a hearing so that they may be able to prepare. Indiana law has long 

recognized that parents have a right to know the nature of the allegations against 

them before a hearing. Under state law, when the attorney filed the motion with 

the court, he was supposed to also file a statement of facts explaining the allegations. In addition, under Indiana law, anonymous tips are not sufficient for a court 

to issue a warrant. 

Apparently realizing that this was a losing battle, the social workers’ attorney finally called HSLDA and told us the nature of the anonymous tip. 

After discussing the matter with the family, we discovered that a stranger had 

misinterpreted some perfectly innocent behavior. Armed with the facts, the Baileys 

were then able to resolve the matter with social services quickly. 

Texas—Neglect Case Dismissed 

The Wilson family in Longview, Texas was surprised to be contacted by the Child 

Protective Services based on an anonymous tip that their children were being neglected. The parents wisely refused to let the social workers talk to the children. 

A week later, the social worker returned escorted by a deputy sheriff. 

The allegations were ‘‘children are malnourished, they used homeopathy, had 

home births, no social security numbers for the children, homeschooled, unsupervised near lake, sores on children, and 14-month old was not fed any solids.’’ 

HSLDA was able to prove that these allegations were completely false. 

The social worker demanded to interview the children. HSLDA offered to allow 

an interview as long as a third person was present. Instead of responding, the social 

worker obtained a court order to gain entry into the family’s home. Providentially, 

the Wilson family was on vacation and the summons was never delivered. 

Upon review of the allegations in the social worker’s affidavit to obtain the court 

order, HSLDA discovered that the social worker had misstated the facts. We 

reached the social worker’s supervisor and worked out an understanding to withdraw the court order if the social worker interviewed the children with the parents 

present. The supervisor found no evidence of abuse and stated: ‘‘This has been a 

mistake.’’ The investigation has been closed and all allegations have been dismissed. 

A formal complaint has been issued against the social worker who obtained the 

court order. 

118 

Texas—Education Neglect When School’s Out? 

In July, the Lewis family was turned into the Child Protective Services by an 

anonymous tipster. One of the allegations was that the family homeschools their six 

year old child. The tipster indicated that the child cannot read. The fact is that the 

child can read, at the level of a six year old. Furthermore, this allegation is truly 

absurd as school is not in session; therefore, no educational neglect can occur. 

To show the extent that some anonymous tipsters will go to try to get a family 

in trouble, they asserted that the children swim in a ‘‘feed trough.’’ The family lives 

in the city and has no close proximity to any feed troughs, which simply demonstrates that the tipster was malicious. HSLDA has communicated with the CPS 

worker that she has no right to enter into the home, nor to talk to the children separately. We believe that this situation will resolve quickly. 

Florida—Homeschoolers Face Aggressive Child Protection Investigators 

The Wilkins family was homeschooling their children in Palm Bay, pursuant to 

the Florida home school law. Little did they know their life would turn upside down 

when the Dad was seen lightly spanking their two-year old on the diaper in a parking lot. 

The anonymous tipster called the police who met the homeschool father at the 

home when he returned. The father showed the police the 2-year old and they were 

satisfied that there was no injury. However, the incident was referred to the Florida 

Department of Children and Families. A social worker came to the home and talked 

at length with the parents and children. Although the social worker found no evidence of abuse, she demanded that the parents: 1) take 22 weeks of parenting classes through the County, 2) have a social worker visit once a month for an indefinite 

period of time to see how they are doing, and 3) sign a statement of release allowing 

the social worker to get documents and medical records from any source they 

choose. Then she indicated that they would seek a court order if the family did not 

cooperate. 

At this point the family contacted Home School Legal Defense Association because 

they did not believe that the law required them to fulfill the demands of this social 

worker. 

HSLDA Attorney Chris Klicka contacted the child protective investigator who at 

first did not want to back down from her demands. She indicated that the family 

was at risk. When Chris Klicka asked why, she told him the Wilkins have a large 

family (four children), they homeschool and have a low profile in the community, 

and they do not have daily contact with trained people who can detect child abuse, 

such as those who run the local public school. She also admitted that the children 

look fine and there was no marks on them, nor any concerns that abuse was actually taking place. 

After much discussion on the phone, the social worker insisted that she would 

need to get a court order if her earlier demands were not satisfied. HSLDA immediately responded with a 4-page letter explaining that the Florida statutes say ‘‘corporal discipline of a child by a parent—for disciplinary purposes, does not constitute 

abuse when it does not result in harm to the child.’’ This statute further explains 

that corporal punishment would only be abusive if there were clear-cut injuries 

(sprains, dislocations, or significant bruises). Furthermore, Mr. Klicka pointed out 

that in order for a child to be taken from a family, or a court order issued, there 

must evidence that the children are under substantial risk of eminent abuse or neglect. 

In this case, the fact that they have a large family homeschool, and no contact 

with daycare centers or public schools, is not sufficient evidence to constitute a substantial risk of abuse. 

Mr. Klicka ended the letter by establishing the constitutional and statutory right 

of a family to homeschool and the fact that if her risk factors were applied, every 

homeschool family in the state of Florida would be guilty of abuse. 

The social worker finally withdrew her demands and the family is able to continue homeschooling without further harassment. 

Florida—Social Worker Attempts to Intimidate Family with Police 

The Morris family in Orlando was homeschooling, but the parents decided to separate for a time due to some marriage issues. When the family returned to the home 

where the father was still staying, they were surprised to be met by a child protective investigator. 

Apparently, an anonymous tip came from someone out-of-state, who invented a 

false story about the father. The family immediately called HSLDA after the social 

worker came back a second time. The social worker demanded to interview the children and demanded entry to the house. HSLDA Attorney Chris Klicka argued with 

119 

[1] American Humane Association, Highlights of Official Child Neglect and Abuse Reporting 

1986, p. 10. 

the social worker over the phone for thirty minutes while she waited on the doorstep. Finally, in exasperation, after getting one police officer, she said, ‘‘I will get 

four more police officers.’’ Attorney Klicka responded, ‘‘You can get a whole army 

of police officers, but you still cannot come into the home without a warrant.’’ An 

anonymous tip is not sufficient evidence to get any type of court order. 

This homeschool family had restored their relationship, but it was nearly broken 

asunder by the harassment of the social services. Finally the child protective investigator and the police left the house without gaining entry and interviewing the children. At this time, a family has been left alone. 

Michigan—Several Contacts 

An anonymous tipster told the Empire Child Protective Services that Mr. and 

Mrs. Frankfurt’s daughter was not being properly socialized and was ‘‘isolated’’ by 

homeschooling. This Home School Legal Defense Association member family contacted our office for help. 

HSLDA Senior Counsel Christopher Klicka explained to the social service agent 

that these allegations were false and supplied references who could vouch for the 

parents’ responsible care of their child. The girl was thriving in her homeschooling 

program and was active with a local weekly science class, 4–H club, church, and 

other youth-related activities. She had just taken two trips during the last two 

weekends to other states. 

In the face of clear evidence disproving the allegations, the social workers dropped 

the case. 

No Interview Needed 

Macomb Child Protective Services contacted the Johns family in Macomb County, 

concerning anonymous allegations that the father had a serious kidney illness and 

was not receiving sufficient care. On our member’s behalf, HSLDA attorney Chris 

Klicka explained to CPS that Mr. Johns was not only receiving good care, but could 

care for himself. Suspicious that the daughter was caring for her father rather than 

homeschooling, CPS insisted on interviewing her privately. HSLDA established that 

the allegations were false, providing documentation and a letter describing the law 

and the Fourth Amendment limitations of CPS. CPS finally closed the case. 

False Allegations 

In Dowagiac, an anonymous tipster accused the Marris family of having a messy 

home, using drugs, and neglecting the medical condition of their daughter. After 

CPS attempted several times to visit the home to enter and interview the child, the 

Marris asked HSLDA for assistance. HSLDA provided alternative evidence that the 

allegations were false and CPS closed the case as ‘‘unfounded.’’ 

Colorado—Allegation of ‘‘Small’’ Child 

Mr. and Mrs. Stein of Parker County, Colorado, were quietly homeschooling their 

four children when a Child Protective Services (CPS) worker contacted them with 

an anonymous allegation that one of their children was ‘‘small’’ and that they were 

neglecting medical attention to this child. 

The family contacted Home School Legal Defense Association for assistance. We 

demonstrated to the social worker that the allegation was false and provided a letter from the ‘‘small’’ child’s pediatrician that gave the child a clean bill of health. 

Based on this communication, the CPS worker declared the allegation had ‘‘no validity,’’ and the situation was resolved. 

* Names of families changed to protect privacy. 

APPENDIX II 

Unfounded Cases are Artificially Increasing Child Abuse Statistics While 

Parents’ Rights Suffer 

Here are a few statistics showing the great percentage of cases that are unfounded. Many of the unfounded cases are results of anonymous tips. 

In a single representative year (1986) the American Humane Association (hereafter, ‘‘AHA’’) reported 2,086,112 allegations of abuse or neglect.[1] Unfortunately, 

most of these allegations turned out to be either false or trivial. After investigation, 

only 737,000 of these cases of reported abuse or neglect were found to be valid. The 

120 

[2] Id., at 11. [3]More than 65 percent of all reports of suspected child maltreatment in 1978 turned out to 

be unfounded. U.S. National Center on Child Abuse, National Analysis of Child Neglect and 

Abuse Report 36 (1978), Table 28 (DHEW 1979), at 18, table 5. Another study reported in over 

half of the cases investigated parents never mistreated their children. U.S. National Center on 

Child Abuse and Neglect, National Study on the Incidence and Severity of Child Abuse and Neglect 11, (DHHS 1981), at 16, Table 3–5. [4]Dean K. Knudsen, Ph.D., Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Purdue University, 

Child Protective Services, Discretion, Decisions, Dilemmas, Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, 

Springfield, Illinois, (1988), p. 81. [5] Id., at 23. Because of the use of different data sources, the numbers in the AHA study vary 

from chart to chart. This particular chart totals 784,000 cases of maltreatment while at page 

10, AHA uses the number of 737,000 of confirmed cases. [6] ‘‘Is DCYS Running Out of Abusers?’’ Christian Home Schooling News, Vol. 2, No. 4, April/ 

May 1992, Manchester, New Hampshire, p. 3. [7] Ibid. [8] Richard Wexler, Wounded Innocents: The Real Victims of the War Against Child Abuse, 

(Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1990). [9]Wexler, Wounded Innocents, p. 14. [10] Ibid., p. 15. 

other 1,349,000 were unsupported by evidence.[2] AHA’s percentage of substantiated 

cases are generally consistent from year to year.[3]

Other studies have consistently shown similarly low levels of validity for child 

abuse and neglect allegations. One study involving an actual review of every case 

for a 20-year period from one county determined that only 39 percent of all reported 

cases of abuse or neglect were substantiated.[4]

While 737,000 is still a large number of abused and neglected children, even this 

figure bears further analysis to avoid overstating the problem. AHA offers the following breakdown by type of abuse or neglect. 

Major Physical Injury 21,000 

Minor Physical Injury 115,000 

Other Physical Injury 84,000 

Sexual Maltreatment 132,000 

Deprivation of Necessities 429,000 

Emotional Maltreatment 71,000 

Other Maltreatment 34,000 [5]

In New Hampshire, the Department of Child and Youth Services (DCYS) data 

shows that in 1991, there was 6,434 abuse reports. Believe it or not, 5,524 of those 

reports turned out to be false! This means 86.2% of all child abuse reports were 

false. The statistics over the last eight years show that the number of founded cases 

is dropping and yet the number of false child abuse reports is rising. In 1984, 54% 

of the child abuse reports turned out to be false. There were 3,855 abuse reports 

of which 1,814 were founded and 2,041 were false. In 1990, 86% of the child abuse 

reports were found to be false. There were a shocking 5,616 abuse reports with only 

709 which were proven to be founded or legitimate abuse allegations and 4,907 

turned out to be false child abuse reports! [6] The system is out of control. Many 

thousands of innocent families are being abused by the system. Furthermore, Representative Gary Daniels of New Hampshire has federal statistics that demonstrate 

that approximately 62% of children taken from their homes were taken without justification.[7]

An important book was published in 1990 that confirms much of reports above 

and provide important documentation of the frequent abuses of the modern child 

welfare system: Wounded Innocents, by Richard Wexler (1990).[8]

In his book, Wounded Innocents, Wexler warns: 

The war against child abuse has become a war against children. Every year, we 

let hundreds of children die, force thousands more to live with strangers, and throw 

a million innocent families into chaos.[9]

He demonstrates further that the hotlines, used often by anonymous tipsters, 

have become a ‘‘potent tool for harassment.’’ He states, through the state child 

abuse laws, ‘‘We have effectively repealed the Fourth Amendment, which protects 

both parents and children against unreasonable searches and seizures.’’ He shows 

the child welfare system often denies due process to the ‘‘accused’’ child abusers.[10]

Wexler also confirms the AHA statistics above. In actuality, number of approximately 2 million abused children represents only the number of cases reported by 

tipsters. In actuality, over half of the reported cases are false. In fact, in 1987 alone 

there were 1,306,800 false child abuse reports. Sexual maltreatment, which is commonly argued for the need to increase the power of social workers, only makes up 

121 

[11] Ibid., p. 86–88. [12] Ibid. p. 87. [13] Ibid., p.198. 

15.7 of all reports. Minor physical injury constitutes only 13.9 percent and severe 

physical injury only constitutes 2.6 percent.[11]

This means for every 100 reports alleging child abuse: 

• at least fifty-eight are false 

• twenty-one are mostly poverty cases 

• six are sexual abuse 

• four are minor physical abuse 

• four are unspecified physical abuse 

• three are emotional maltreatment 

• three are ‘‘other maltreatment’’ 

• one is major physical abuse.[12]

After he shows that the ‘‘child abuse panic’’ is a myth and an excuse to give unconstitutional powers to the social service agencies, he documents the terrible abuse 

children receive in foster homes and juvenile homes. The true accounts and statistics are sobering and shocking. In Kansas City, a study was done showing 57% of 

children in foster care to have been placed in ‘‘high risk of abuse or neglect’’ situations.’’ [13]

f 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Klicka. I noticed 

in your written testimony, as well as your oral testimony, you do 

make reference to a number of anecdotes and personal stories 

about individuals who have been harmed by false reports of abuse 

or neglect. Do you have any national data that would support your 

suggestion that this is an increasing problem? Have there been any 

studies on this point, including any discussion of the amount of 

caseworker attention and resources across States or the Nation devoted to pursuing false reports? Naturally, not all reports will turn 

out to be accurate, so a certain number of reports will not result 

in a finding of abuse or neglect, but what actual data is there that 

would suggest we should be concerned about this growing number 

of false reports, and the impact that it has, not just on the families 

involved, but on others of need? 

Mr. KLICKA. When CAPTA was reauthorized, I testified at that 

hearing a year and a half ago, and Congressman Hoekstra’s Committee asked specifically if we could get some data on that. They 

were going to put into the bill a requirement that new data be kept 

regarding anonymous tips—and it didn’t happen. That didn’t get 

added into the legislation. So, to my knowledge, there isn’t real 

clear recordkeeping on which of them are anonymous and which 

are not anonymous, but I am still doing some deeper research in 

that area. 

Chairman HERGER. Okay, thank you. Mr. Birch, in your experience, what types of prevention activities have proven most successful in preventing the placement of children in foster care, and do 

you know what the cost of these programs is compared to the cost 

of placing a child in foster care? 

Mr. BIRCH. There are a range of services which are available to 

a community that has a really successful strategy for prevention. 

The service that probably has recieved the most attention and the 

most positive results is the nurse home visiting program, which is 

being implemented in four or five communities around the country. 

More broadly, home visiting is a service that has existed for decVerDate May 21 2004 01:51 Jul 15, 2004 Jkt 092984 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\92984.XXX 92984
122 

ades—it is common practice in Great Britain, and it is one that has 

been the subject of hearings on Capitol Hill in past years. So, that 

is one that I certainly would call to your attention. I would also add 

to that, parenting education, parent support groups, respite care, 

family support, and family resource centers. There is not one single 

approach, because families are different; those approaches need to 

be available broadly. When we looked at the costs and the spending 

gap that I talked about in my testimony, we looked at an expense 

of about $3,250 a year for a simple kind of home visiting service 

for a family—much cheaper than what we are paying otherwise to 

support children in foster care. 

Chairman HERGER. Very good. Again, I want to thank each of 

our witnesses for testifying. I would like to release you at this time, 

and call up our final panel today. I would like to welcome those individuals who have traveled here today to provide us firsthand 

knowledge on the child welfare system. Your perspectives will provide important information for us to consider as we work to ensure 

that these systems better protect children from abuse and neglect. 

We will now be hearing from Cathy Burge from Naples, Florida; 

Lisa Gladwell from River Edge, New Jersey; and Marie O’Hara 

from Barnegat, New Jersey. Ms. Burge? 

STATEMENT OF CATHY BURGE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 

Ms. BURGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this opportunity. I feel that my case represents only one of thousands 

where the States do not monitor vulnerable children in custody 

battles. As a frame of reference, I would like you to read what U.S. 

Supreme Court Justice William Brennan said about the family. It 

ends with, ‘‘Contemporary life offers countless ways in which family life can be fractured and families made unhappy. The children 

who increasingly live in these families are entitled to the chance 

to sustain a special relationship with both their fathers and their 

mothers, regardless of how difficult that may be. No society can assure its children there will be no unhappy families. It can tell 

them, however, that their government will not be allowed to contribute to their pain.’’ Members of this Subcommittee, our child 

welfare program is a broken system, and the biological parent and 

child relationship is not being protected—many families like mine 

are in pain. I would like for you to feel the pain we have endured. 

My custody case, my most recent custody case, began in California 

in 2000. I immediately and illegally lost custody of my 2 sons, ages 

9 and 11 years, who I had raised as a single mother for 6 years. 

I had been a mother for 18 years. Child Protective Services in California assisted the angry, vindictive father of my sons to legally 

steal my children and deny them of any further relationship with 

their mother. 

Months before, the father promised my sons that with the help 

of his big law firm, Higgs, Fletcher & Mack, LLP, they would be 

living full-time with him. They were taught to keep many secrets. 

In 1995, when my sons were much younger, their father refused to 

return them after a 1-week visit. The judge in Illinois found him 

to be guilty of wrongfully withholding them, and immediately ordered that my sons return to California with me. My sons were 

permanently affected by what common people call kidnapping. For 

123 

18 months after the most recent custody battle, I spent thousands 

of dollars on legal fees, forensic psychologists, and testing, yet 

Child Protective Services stood by their initial support of the father 

even though our trial in 2001 showed that none of these allegations 

were substantiated. Meanwhile, 14 months had passed and I had 

only seen my children a couple of hours per week during supervised visits. After the trial, the judge ordered that I be reunited 

with my sons, and we were ordered to reestablish our 50–50 parenting time. Child Protective Services and the judge did not admit 

any mistakes in this 14-month litigation. After the trial, the father 

stated to my sons that they would never live with their mother 

again—and they have not. They believed him. They feared him. 

The father controlled their thinking. 

One of my sons contacted Child Protective Services in 2002 and 

declared to them that he had lied for his dad, and he just wanted 

to be with his mama. They said many times to him that the abuse 

he described in his dad’s house was not bad enough to change custody. Was that a decision that Child Protective Services should 

make, or should they have investigated to find the truth? Were the 

same standards applied to me in 2000, or were they protecting 

themselves? Judge Judith Stern in the San Diego family court system did not protect my children’s rights, as Justice Brennan said, 

to a relationship with both parents. She did not even enforce her 

own rules. Child Protective Services never protected my sons, and 

they never investigated the source of the complaint. Not one professional, friend, neighbor, medical doctor, or teacher supported the 

father’s complaints. In fact, it was shown in the trial that our 

court-appointed, independent evaluator was a business partner 

with the father’s therapist. Who is responsible for the trend in 

California of fathers being successful in gaining custody, according 

to the California National Organization for Women? A devoted 

mother like me should never suffer a parentectomy, as I have, and 

no children like my sons should ever lose their mother at such a 

tender age. 

My sons are now 13 and 15 years old. Every day, I long to see 

them, listen to them, fix their favorite meals, shop for and wash 

their clothes, share my thoughts with them, laugh and play with 

them, and just spend the family time with them that I had taken 

for granted. I long to see all three of my children together, and especially for my mother to have time with them. I want my sons to 

know our extended family the way my daughter does. I would like 

my parental rights and my custody restored as soon as possible, 

and I request that this Committee investigate the abuse and injustice that has occurred to my family and thousands more, so that 

this pattern will not be repeated. Divorce will not decline in our 

lifetime, so our courts must protect the rights of children when the 

two parents divorce, and one parent cannot tolerate the other parent’s involvement in the children’s lives. Our constitutional rights 

need to be protected. When you consider the foster children, adopted children, and all the children in the system, please do not forget 

the children whose biological parents are fighting over them. 

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Burge follows:] 

124 

Statement of Cathy Burge, Naples, Florida 

I feel that my case represents only one of thousands. 

As a frame of reference, I would like you read to you what U.S. Supreme Court 

Justice Brennan said about the family ending with . . . 

‘‘Our society’s special solicitude for the family reflects awareness that it is through 

the family that we inculcate and pass down many of our most cherished values, 

moral and cultural . . . As a result we have long recognized that the freedom of 

personal choice in matters of family life is a fundamental liberty interest protected 

by the Fourteenth Amendment. 

A fundamental element of family life is the relationship between parent and child. 

The intangible fibers that connect parent and child have infinite variety. They are 

woven throughout the fabric of our society, providing it with strength, beauty, and 

flexibility. It is self-evident that they are sufficiently vital to merit constitutional 

protection. . . . We have thus been vigilant in ensuring that government does not 

burden the ability of parent and child to sustain their vital connection . . . 

Contemporary life offers countless ways in which family life can be fractured and 

families made unhappy. The children who increasingly live in these families are entitled to the chance to sustain a special relationship with both their fathers 

and their mothers, regardless of how difficult that may be. 

No society can assure its children that there will be no unhappy families. It can 

tell them; however, that their Government will not be allowed to contribute to their 

pain.’’ 

Members of this Committee, our Child Welfare Program is a broken system 

and the parent and child relationship is not being protected and many families like 

mine are in pain. I would like for you to feel the pain that we have endured. 

Background: 

My custody case began in California in 2000. I immediately and illegally lost custody of my two sons, ages 9 and 11, whom I had raised as a single mother for 6 

years; I had been a mother for 18 years. CPS in California assisted the angry, vindictive father of my sons to ‘‘legally’’ steal my children and deny them of any further 

relationship with their mother. Months before, the father told my sons’ that with 

the help of his big law firm (Higgs, Fletcher, and Mack) they would be living fulltime with him. They were taught to keep many secrets. 

In 1995, when my sons were much younger, their father refused to return them 

after a 1-week visit. The judge in Illinois found him to be guilty of ‘‘wrongfully withholding them’’ and immediately ordered that my sons return to CA with me’’. My 

sons were permanently affected by what common people call kidnapping. 

For 18 months after the most recent custody battle, I spent thousands of dollars 

on legal fees, forensic psychologists and testing; yet, CPS stood by their initial support of the father, even though our trial in 2001 showed none of his allegations were 

substantiated. Meanwhile, 14 months had passed and I had only seen my children 

a couple hours per week during supervised visits. 

After the trial, the judge ordered that I be reunited with my sons and we were 

ordered to re-establish our 50/50 parenting time. CPS and the Judge did not admit 

any mistakes in this 14-month litigation. After the trial, the father stated to my 

sons, that they would never live with their mother again. They believed him. They 

feared him. The father controlled their thinking. 

One of my sons contacted CPS in 2002 and declared to them that he had lied for 

his dad and he just wanted to be with his Momma. They said many times to him 

that the abuse he described in his dad’s house was not bad enough to change custody. Was that a decision that CPS should make or should they have investigated 

to find the truth? Were the same standards applied to me in 2000 or were they protecting themselves? 

Judge Judith Stern in the San Diego family court system did not protect my sons’ 

rights to a relationship with both parents. She did not even enforce her own rulings. 

CPS never protected my sons and they never investigated the source of the complaint. Not one professional or friend or neighbor or medical doctor or teacher supported the father’s complaints. In fact, it was shown in trial that our court-appointed ‘‘independent’’ family evaluator was a business partner with the father’s 

therapist. 

Who is responsible for the trend in California of father’s being successful in gaining custody, as documented by CANOW? 

A devoted mother, like me, should never suffer a Parentectomy, as I have, and 

NO children, like my sons, should ever lose their mother at such a tender age. 

My sons are now 13 and 15 and every day I long to see them, listen to them, fix 

their favorite meals, shop for and wash their clothes, share my thoughts with them, 

125 

laugh and play with them and just spend the family time with them that I had 

taken for granted. I long to see all three of my children together again and especially for my Mother to have time with them. I want my sons to know our extended 

family the way my daughter does. 

I would like my Parental Rights and my Custody restored as soon as possible. I 

request that this committee investigate the abuse and injustice that has occurred 

to my family and thousands more so our children will not repeat this behavior. 

Divorce will not decline in our lifetime. Our courts MUST protect the rights of 

children when the 2 parents divorce and one parent cannot tolerate the other parent’s involvement in their children’s lives. THIS MUST BE STOPPED! Our constitutional rights need to be protected. 

When you consider the foster children, adopted children, and all children in the 

system, please do not forget the children whose biological parents are fighting over 

them. Initiate the measures to insure their constitutional rights to a relationship 

with both of their parents and their family. 

I tried to defend myself against cruel charges and I tried to protect all three of 

my children’s right to their family, as they had always known it. I learned that the 

Family Court System does not have the Child’s Best Interest in mind. Further, 

1. They do not protect the children. 

2. They do not preserve the relationship with both parents. 

3. They are not monitored or held accountable by the system. 

4. They do not enforce their own rulings. 

5. The system is designed to protect itself, not the children. 

6. It is a gravy train for the individuals working in the system. 

7. There seems to be no education in such important matters as Parental Alienation, Brainwashing Children, and the ability of a parent (usually the father) 

to buy the system. 

f 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Ms. Burge. Ms. Gladwell? 

STATEMENT OF LISA E. GLADWELL, RIVER EDGE, NEW JERSEY 

Ms. GLADWELL. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and Members 

of the Subcommittee. It is an honor to be asked to speak to you 

about my family’s tragic experience at the hands of the New Jersey 

child welfare system, and my pursuit of assistance and justice from 

Federal and State agencies, including the Children’s Bureau, State 

legislators, law enforcement, the Governor of New Jersey, New Jersey Administration of the Court, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese 

of Newark, the civil rights community, and advocacy groups, and 

so forth. My name is Lisa Gladwell. I am a corporate professional, 

homeowner, taxpayer, churchgoer, volunteer, and neighbor—a 

hardworking, productive asset to my community. In 2000, I was a 

doting mother to two beautiful 2- and 3-year-old boys. I, unfortunately, like millions of other mothers in this country, was also afflicted with the disease of alcoholism. I was a binge drinker—not 

enough to affect my employment, but certainly enough to have consequences in my personal life. I was a loving, nurturing mother. I 

never abused my children. Yet by virtue of my disease, when active, I placed them in a position of endangerment. 

On April 30, 2000, my husband and I sought my family’s help for 

my alcoholism. This was not the first time; I had been in recovery 

once previously. The path we chose that day, asking for assistance, 

was the beginning of a terminal journey for my family. Shortly 

thereafter, my family of origin filed for permanent custody of my 

sons, because alcoholism will not be tolerated in my family. After 

entering a program, marital counseling, and the restabilization of 

my recovery and home life, the family court ordered my children 

to return home. The Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) 

126 

immediately filed for legal custody. It quickly became painfully obvious DYFS’s only goal was termination. The DYFS strongly advised my husband to leave our marriage and ‘‘become autonomous,’’ 

claiming it was his only chance to reunite with his children. Fully 

compliant, we were bewildered that, despite laws to the contrary, 

under no circumstances was reunification considered—nor was the 

best interest of my sons. During our legal pummeling by DYFS, the 

agency utilized and rewarded lying and stealing, and illegal, unethical, and damaging tactics in order to terminate our parental 

rights. This New Jersey goliath blatantly violated all the rules in 

his battle with us. I wrote every organization, Federal and State 

agency, and individual and politician, for assistance and guidance 

on what was happening, as well as what was not—no legally required reasonable efforts, criminal and unethical contact on the 

part of the State as well as the foster parents, neglect, and psychological abuse of my children. The DYFS did nothing to shield their 

intent to terminate my family from the beginning, which by virtue 

of my family’s position today, was supported by the court. The foster parents have forbidden us any contact with our children. My 

sons’ great-grandmother died last Christmas without holding her 

great-grandchildren for over 3 years. All my children’s paternal relatives have been severed from their lives. 

The well-intentioned foster care and adoption system functions 

on simplistic laws of supply and demand. The basic flaw in its application to New Jersey’s child welfare system is that children are 

not commodities. Statistically, all adoptions are positive key performance measures for the State—bonus points, bonus dollars. On 

the other hand, reunification of children with their families earns 

no bonus moneys. For high-demand, easily adoptable children, family reunification is not an option. It is considered an unnecessary 

expense, a drain on resources, costing the State thousands of bonus 

dollars, and is statistically unfavorable. My children were targeted 

before they reached the system. The foster mother, my biological 

sister, through corrupt connections within the State, sought and received the State’s assistance in her mission to adopt my children 

after failing in her attempts without DYFS’s involvement. Her reward? The foster parents have been receiving and are slated to receive support, services, allowances, and special subsidies until my 

now 6- and 7-year-olds reach adulthood. They will receive community standing, moneys, and services for years, and the State receives Federal support bonuses and a few pats on the back—a winwin situation, right? Only if children were commodities. Legal 

guardianship and kinship care was dismissed because the financial 

compensation was less than foster care, and the arrangement was 

not permanently guaranteed. Instead, the foster parents of my two 

young sons were receiving thousands of dollars in support from my 

husband and I, while also collecting full compensation and benefits 

from the State. Although identified as criminal fraud, this investigation sits inactive in the Burlington prosecutor’s office, awaiting 

cooperation from DYFS. 

The DYFS cries of insufficient funding. Their cries of insufficient 

funding ring hollow in the wake of their support of foster and adoptive parents who defraud the system and benefit financially from 

vulnerable children. These State-sanctioned, criminal parents are 

127 

the people paid for and charged with raising children to be responsible, virtuous human beings. Are all DYFS foster placements and 

adoptions bad? No. Are there foster and adoptive parents out there 

who are truly motivated by compassion, benevolence, and love? 

Yes. Well-intentioned caseworkers, foster parents, service providers, and advocates become demoralized and discouraged when 

the corrupt overshadow the charitable works they struggle daily to 

perform. To use Federal funds to finance State-sanctioned kidnapping and support fraud is iniquitous. Most importantly, to not do 

right by our children when afforded the opportunity to make a difference is to turn our back on humanity. The DYFS could not operate in its corrupted form if it weren’t for the blessings of the New 

Jersey judiciary. The agency by itself would not have succeeded if 

not supported by a judiciary who ignored its responsibility to ensure that laws are upheld. Through submission, the New Jersey judiciary has given DYFS permission to behave unethically and illegally. Regrettably, the Federal Government and children’s rights 

groups have had to intervene where the judiciary fell short. Thank 

God, because their actions gave my incredible nightmare credibility. The public won a glimpse into the horror hidden for years 

under a cloak of confidentiality and unchecked power. 

The federally-ordered reforms taking shape within New Jersey 

are a source of future hope. What is to happen to us—those of us 

who have and are still being victimized by the corrupt child welfare 

system? Just as taxation without representation was the driving 

force behind the birth of our Nation, funding without accountability 

is irresponsible, and this tyranny must stop. Money thrown at corrupted bureaucracies is not responsible, and taxpayers’ hardearned dollars being utilized to destroy children, families, and to 

reward criminality, is reprehensible. It is time the government did 

what it was created to do—govern. Based on my own tragic experience, we need not create new bureaucracies, but establish some enforceable Federal accountability by every State receiving Federal 

funds. Through my journey, I could not find one organization with 

the fortitude, tenacity, willingness, or ability to investigate—let 

alone assist in my family’s plight. Harsh, maybe, but please understand that this is my family that is being annihilated by a corrupt 

bureaucracy, supported by resources bestowed by the Federal Government. I have been in recovery for well over 2 years—1 day at 

a time, despite DYFS’s efforts. New Jersey’s corrupted child welfare machine has nearly bankrupted me emotionally, financially, 

professionally—but not spiritually. New Jersey may have illegally 

terminated my family, but I am and always will be Colin and 

Dillon’s mommy. 

I know God will not allow my children to remain victims, and 

their paternal family to be made martyrs. I yearn for my family to 

be the poster family for reunification—part of the solution, not a 

discarded carcass of absolute power corrupting absolutely. From 

the State of New Jersey, victims deserve acknowledgement of responsibility and amending actions—fundamental prerequisites for 

change. Until New Jersey’s leaders take action to reverse the injustice and repair damage done to the victims, there will be no reform. 

From the Federal Government, the U.S. taxpayers deserve some 

assurances that the States receiving their moneys are held accountVerDate May 21 2004 01:51 Jul 15, 2004 Jkt 092984 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\92984.XXX 92984
128 

able and responsible for upholding what is truly in the best interest of children and families. Until that time, illegal kidnapping and 

family executions will continue. Thank you for your hope and help. 

I anxiously await the opportunity to be part of the solution—to 

support, preserve, and cultivate healthy families so that they may 

protect and nurture our most priceless resource, our children. May 

God bless your work. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gladwell follows:] 

Statement of Lisa E. Gladwell, River Edge, New Jersey 

Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, 

It is a contentious honor to be asked to speak to you about my family’s tragic experience at the hands of the ‘‘NJ child welfare’’ system and my pursuit of justice 

and assistance from the federal and state agencies (including the Children’s Bureau), state and federal legislators, federal and state law enforcement, the Governor 

of New Jersey, New Jersey Administration of the Court, the Catholic Church, U.S. 

Council of Catholic Bishops, The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark, the ACLU, 

civil rights groups, community groups, advocacy groups, family, attorneys, and the 

Lord. 

My quest has opened my eyes to the frightening reality of the bureaucratic value 

of the dollar over ethics and principles. . . . Where truly good intent is eclipsed by 

the evil it attracts . . . And how absolute power corrupts absolutely . . . 

My Family’s Story 

I am a logistics professional: I have worked for over twelve years for one of the 

largest consumer product corporations in the world. I am a homeowner, taxpayer, 

churchgoer, volunteer and neighbor: a hard working, productive asset to my community and those I encounter. 

In 2000, I was a doting mother to two beautiful, 2- and 3-year-old boys and a dedicated wife to their dad. I, unfortunately, like millions of other mothers in this country, was also afflicted with the disease of alcoholism. I was a binge drinker, not 

enough to have an affect on my employment but certainly enough to have consequences in my personal life and relationships. I was a loving and nurturing mother. I never abused my children, but by virtue of my disease when active, I placed 

them in a position of endangerment. 

On April 30, 2000, my husband and I sought my family’s help for my alcoholism. 

This was not the first time, for I had been in recovery once previously. The path 

we chose that day, asking for assistance, was the beginning of a terminal journey 

for my family. Shortly thereafter, my family of origin filed for permanent custody 

of my sons, for alcoholism will NOT be tolerated in the family. 

After entering a program, marital counseling and the re-stabilization of my recovery and home life, the family court ordered my children to return home. DYFS immediately filed for legal custody. Initially we maintained some guarded hope that 

the best interest of our children would be paramount to the state and family preservation was at the very least, an option. Despite our full cooperation, it quickly became painfully obvious the Division’s only goal was termination. 

During our legal pummeling by DYFS the agency used and rewarded lying, stealing, illegal, unethical and damaging tactics in order to terminate our parental 

rights. The ‘‘Goliath’’ of New Jersey (DYFS) blatantly broke all the rules (policies) 

in his battle with David (vulnerables-other families and us ‘‘in the system’’). 

I wrote every organization, federal and state agency, individual and politician I 

found about our unfolding nightmare. I wrote and wrote, for assistance and guidance on what was happening as well as what was not: no reasonable efforts, criminal and unethical conduct on the part of the state as well as the foster parents, neglect and psychological abuse of my children, etc. The Division did nothing to shield 

their intent to terminate from the beginning which, by virtue of my family’s position 

today, was supported by the court. 

DYFS strongly advised my husband to leave our marriage—‘‘become autonomous’’—they claimed it was his only chance to reunite with his children. Fully compliant, we were filled with anger, sadness, frustration and bewilderment discovering 

that under no circumstances was reunification considered. Nor was the best interest 

of my sons. 

The foster parents have forbidden us any contact with our children. MY sons’ 

great grandmother died last Christmas without holding her great grandchildren for 

three years. All my children’s paternal relatives have been severed from their lives. 

129 

Foster Care/Adoption 

The well-intentioned foster care and adoption system functions on simplistic laws 

of supply and demand. The basic flaw in the theoretical application of rudimentary 

economics to New Jersey’s child welfare system is that children are NOT commodities . . . 

States receive reward monies from the Federal Government when children are 

adopted. Statistically, all adoptions are positive key performance measures for the 

state: bonus points/bonus dollars. On the other hand, reunification of children with 

their families earns no bonus monies. For ‘‘easily adoptable’’ children, family reunification is often not an option: it is considered an unnecessary expense, a drain on 

resources, costs the state in thousands of dollars in bonuses and is statistically unfavorable. 

My children were targeted BEFORE they reached the ‘‘system.’’ Although healthy 

and young, they are classified as ‘‘hard to place,’’ being siblings. The foster mother, 

my biological sister, through corrupt connections, sought and received the state’s assistance in her mission to adopt my children after failing in her attempts without 

DYFS’s involvement. Her reward? The foster parents have been receiving and are 

slated to receive support, services, allowances and special subsidies for each until 

my now six and seven year olds reach adulthood. They will receive community 

standing, monies and services for years and the state receives federal support, bonuses and a few pats on the back. A ‘‘win-win situation,’’ right? Only if children are 

commodities. 

Legal guardianship and Kinship Care were dismissed because the monies were 

less than foster care and the arrangement was not permanently guaranteed. Instead, the foster parents of my two young sons were receiving thousands of dollars 

in support from my husband and me while also collecting compensation from the 

state. 

The Commissioner of Human Services has identified this as against policy. My 

county’s prosecutor characterized this as criminal. And since then it has resided, inactive, in the prosecutor’s office awaiting cooperation from DYFS. Fraudulent? 

Criminal? Illegal? Certainly unethical. 

DYFS/Human Services cries of insufficient funding ring hollow in the wake of 

their support of those foster and adoptive parents who defraud the system and benefit financially from vulnerable children. And, these state-sanctioned parents are the 

people paid for, and charged with, raising children to be responsible, virtuous 

human beings. 

Are all DYFS foster care placements and adoptions bad? Of course not. Are there 

foster and adoptive parents out there who are truly motivated by compassion, benevolence and love? Thank God many are! Is New Jersey unique? I doubt it. 

Unfortunately, the bad taints the good. Well intentioned caseworkers, foster parents, service providers, advocates all are disheartened, disparaged and discouraged 

when the corrupt overshadow the charitable and beneficial work they struggle daily 

to perform. 

To use federal funds to finance state-sanctioned kidnapping and support fraud is 

iniquitous. Most importantly, to not do right by our children when afforded the opportunity to make a difference, individually and/or collectively, is to turn your back 

on humanity. 

The Judiciary—Credit where Credit is due 

DYFS could not operate in its corrupted form if it weren’t for the blessing of the 

New Jersey Judiciary. The agency by itself would not have succeeded if not supported by a judiciary who ignored its responsibility to ensure laws are upheld. It 

is the judiciary that has the authority and obligation of ensuring all parties are held 

accountable and responsible: to protect rights while rendering justice. Through submission, the New Jersey judiciary has given DYFS permission to act unethically and 

illegally. 

Regrettably, the Federal Government and child advocacy groups have had to intervene for enforcement of law where the New Jersey judiciary fell short. Thank 

God, for their actions gave my INCREDIBLE nightmare credibility. The tenacity of 

Children’s Rights, on behalf of vulnerable children won the public a glimpse into the 

horror hidden for years under a cloak of confidentiality and unchecked power. 

I am hopeful that the newly created Office of the Child Advocate will have sobering impact on the bureaucratic operations and thus, positively impact the children 

of New Jersey. But, this office alone is not and can not be the only safeguard 

against a landslide of corruption, crime and gluttony by the public servants charged 

with NJ child welfare. 

130 

The federally ordered reforms taking shape within New Jersey are great and a 

source of future hope. But what is to happen to those of us who have and are still 

being victimized by the corrupt ‘‘child welfare’’ system? 

Responsibility, Accountability and Hope for Vulnerable Children and Families 

Just like the resistance to taxation without representation was the driving force 

behind the birth of our nation, funding without accountability is irresponsible and 

this tyranny must cease. 

If the Federal Government is truly for the people, if Human Services is truly 

HUMAN SERVICES, it is time they stood up and took responsibility. Money thrown 

at corrupted bureaucracies is not responsible. And taxpayers’ hard earned dollars 

being utilized to destroy children, families and reward criminality is reprehensible. 

It’s time the government did what it was created to do—govern. 

Based on my own tragic experience, we surely need not to create new bureaucracies, but to establish some enforceable federal accountability by every state that 

receives federal funding. I could not find one organization with the fortitude, tenacity, willingness and ability to investigate, let alone assist in my family’s plight. 

Harsh? Maybe, but please understand that this is MY family that is being annihilated by a corrupt bureaucracy supported by resources bestowed by the Federal Government. 

I know God would not allow my children to be victimized and their paternal family to be made martyrs in vain. I speak from my heart, and through my pain, that 

of my family as well as countless other vulnerables maimed and destroyed by an 

easily manipulated system devoid of principles, accountability and safeguards. 

I have been in recovery for well over two years—one day at a time—DESPITE 

DYFS’s efforts. New Jersey’s corrupted child welfare machine has nearly bankrupted me emotionally, financially and professionally, but, not spiritually. New Jersey may have illegally LEGALLY terminated my family, but I AM and ALWAYS 

WILL be Colin and Dillon’s mommy. 

I yearn for my family to be the ‘‘poster family’’ for reunification, part of the solution—not another discarded carcass of absolute power corrupting absolutely. 

From New Jersey, victims deserve acknowledgement of responsibility and amending actions, fundamental prerequisites for change. Until New Jersey’s leaders take 

action to reverse the injustice and repair the damage done to the victims, there will 

be no reform. And, from the Federal Government, those financing the system, the 

United States taxpayers deserve some assurances that states receiving their monies 

are held accountable and responsible for upholding what is truly in the best interest 

of children and families. Until that time, illegal legal kidnapping and execution will 

continue. 

Thank you for your hope and help. I anxiously await the opportunity to be part 

of the solution: to support, preserve and cultivate healthy families so that they may 

protect and nurture our most priceless resource, our children. May God bless your 

work. 

f 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Ms. Gladwell. Ms. O’Hara? 

STATEMENT OF MARIE C. O’HARA, BARNEGAT, NEW JERSEY 

Ms. O’HARA. Congressman Herger, ladies and gentlemen, thank 

you for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of my 

children, and the children of the United States of America. My 

name is Marie O’Hara. I am a divorced mother of four young children. My experience with the child welfare system and the State 

of New Jersey over the past few years has brought me here before 

you today. I would like to begin by suggesting that more, indeed, 

than increased funding, quality information systems, and additional cell phones are needed to ensure the safety and well-being 

of our Nation’s most valuable and most vulnerable resource, our 

children. An agency which truly focuses on the physical, mental, 

and emotional safety and well-being of our youth must be founded 

on compassionate service. Two years ago, based on an investigation 

initiated by the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office in Tom’s River, 

131 

New Jersey, and simultaneously investigated by the DYFS, it was 

determined and confirmed by a Child Protective Services psychologist that my 3-year-old daughter had, quote, ‘‘experienced inappropriate sexual contact with her father while at visitation.’’ 

Without enough evidence to proceed, and my unwillingness to let 

my young children testify, the prosecutor’s office did not pursue the 

case further. Via subsequent court-ordered mediation, I agreed to 

a supervised visitation schedule for my young daughter and her father without overnight privileges. The following November of 2002, 

based on an allegation made by my abusive ex-husband and eldest 

son, all four of my children were abruptly removed from my custody and care by a DYFS special protective response unit worker, 

and subsequently placed with their father. Although there was no 

justification for removal, and DYFS acted on sketchy evidence, I 

have not seen or spoken to my 2 oldest boys—who at the time were 

11 and 9 years old—since. It has been 15 months. Six months later, 

my third son, age 7, stopped coming to visit. The last time I saw 

my daughter, now 5 years old, was this past December. Nothing is 

being done to resolve this. As the employees of the Preferred Visitation and Foster Care Services of New Jersey informed me, they 

are not allowed to ask my children why they no longer want to visit 

me—nor are they allowed to physically handle my children. 

Based on my ex-husband’s allegations, our local police department filed charges of child abuse and neglect. I was arrested and 

paid $5,000 in order to post $50,000 bail. I spent an evening in jail. 

Shortly thereafter, the unfounded charges were administratively 

dismissed by the prosecutor’s office—but DYFS did not stop there. 

Prior to their removal, my children and I enjoyed a close and loving 

relationship. I had been a stay-at-home mom, volunteering in each 

of their schools, participating in their extracurricular activities, and 

teaching their religious education classes. My children have since 

been denied this privilege, as I have been cut off completely from 

their lives, and unable to attend even a school function. As child 

support ended abruptly with the children’s removal, and after a 

year of surviving on a small income supplemented by excess student loan money and the charity of friends and family, I have been 

forced to sell our home. My legal costs are already in excess of 

$40,000, while my ex-husband enjoys a free ride that is being funded by our State and Federal Government. Prior to, as well as after, 

my children’s removal, DYFS never performed an investigation of 

our family. They never even saw my home, never interviewed a 

teacher, and never interviewed a pediatrician, a dentist, an eye 

doctor, a neighbor, or a school psychologist—no one. The DYFS has 

used precious dollars to act as the vehicle for the complete severance and alienation of my children from me. 

Even though New Jersey’s courts have emphatically ruled that 

children cannot be removed from a parent charged with abuse unless the court conducts a thorough evidentiary hearing, makes specific factual findings, and follows the rules of evidence, this has not 

been so in my case. We are just in trial now, 15 months after their 

removal. In order for our country’s human resources to serve our 

children and families more effectively, they must be held to a higher standard. Everyone else in our country who regularly is involved 

in the lives of children must be highly qualified—as is so clearly 

132 

defined in this Administration’s No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. 

Yet DYFS caseworkers, having fewer credentials than teachers and 

school psychologists, have more power—and they are abusing it. 

More funding is not the issue. My experience proves that funds intended to protect our Nation’s most vulnerable and most valuable 

children in crisis are being squandered on vindictive custody litigation—litigation perpetrated by individuals adept at manipulating 

our system. No one is driving the bus. My children are at the 

mercy of a system that is governed by laws that no one has the 

power or courage to enforce. The individuals who are charged with 

the well-being and welfare of children hide behind a veil of secrecy. 

This confidentiality, actually intended to protect our most vulnerable from further harm, oftentimes serves to prevent them from 

being justly and expeditiously free from the bondage of incompetent 

child welfare agencies. 

Based on my experience, I offer you the following suggestions for 

State child welfare programs: solicit investigations and reports 

from all professionals who touch the lives of children of suspect 

parents. Higher qualifications, and increased training for all 

human services workers, including family court judges and lawyers. Limiting the power of caseworkers and their supervisors in 

their ability to make life-altering decisions on behalf of children 

without proper procedure, training, and investigation. Expediting 

court proceedings. Preservation of family financial security. Working more closely with educators and community members. National 

standards need implemented for investigation procedures. The imposition of fines for those who use the system for personal gain. Implementation of ongoing training in domestic abuse—and how it affects parent-child relationships. Accountability of caseworkers to 

follow court orders. Many of the court orders issued in my case 

were not followed through on. Those that were, occured only after 

several certified letters were sent, and only by my personal efforts. 

Greater emphasis on family preservation and reunification. Combining State child welfare agencies to increase accountability. 

Audio or videotaping all supervised visitations. Participation in 

counseling and therapy for all family members. 

I am sorry that I have gone over time. I would just like to say 

that one of my ideas is that education already has many, many of 

the things that we need in place to protect our children—they are 

already doing that job. Therefore, we need to combine efforts so 

that child welfare workers work more closely with educators. In addition, child welfare workers need to be certified; this could be accomplished by working with our State universities. Presently, child 

welfare employees are not even social workers, yet they have the 

ability and the decisionmaking power to take our children. My children are already poisoned against me. They have experienced 

something called parental alienation. The last visit with my 5-yearold daughter took place during the last week of December. I am not 

even allowed to look at her. I have no contact with any of my children. The visitation supervisor, when I asked her why my daughter 

wouldn’t come, said she couldn’t ask her why she wouldn’t come, 

but that she had looked down and said, ‘‘I never want to see my 

mommy again.’’ She was looking at the floor. I brought pictures of 

133 

my family. I love my children. Thank you very much for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. O’Hara follows:] 

Statement of Marie C. O’Hara, Barnegat, New Jersey 

Congressman Herger and committee members, thank you for the opportunity to 

appear before you today on behalf of my children and the children of the United 

States of America. 

My name is Marie O’Hara and I am a divorced mother of four young children. 

My experience with the child welfare system in the state of New Jersey over the 

past few years has brought me here before you today. 

I would like to begin by suggesting, that more indeed than increased funding, 

quality information systems, and additional cell phones, are needed to ensure the 

safety and well-being of our nations most valuable and most vulnerable resource, 

our children. An agency which truly focuses on the physical, mental and emotional 

safety and well-being of our youth must be founded on compassionate service 

My experience is as follows: Two years ago, based on an investigation initiated 

by the Ocean County Prosecutors Office and simultaneously investigated by the Division of Youth and Family Services, it was determined and confirmed, by a Child 

Protective Services psychologist, that my three-year-old daughter had, ‘‘experienced 

inappropriate sexual contact with her father while at visitation.’’ 

Without enough evidence to proceed and my unwillingness to let my young children testify, the Prosecutors Office did not pursue the case further. Via subsequent 

court ordered mediation, I agreed to a supervised visitation schedule for my young 

daughter and her father, without overnight privileges. 

The following November of 2002, based on an allegation made my abusive ex-husband and eldest son, all four of my children were abruptly removed from my custody 

and care by a DYFS Special Protective Response Unit worker. As the worker informed me that further investigation would be necessary, I agreed to sign an informed consent placing the children in the custody and care of my former motherin-law and which included a provision for immediate communication and visitation. 

The SPRU worker assured me that the investigation would take only a few days 

and that a visit would be set up immediately. Although there was no justification 

for removal and DYFS acted on sketchy evidence, I have not seen nor spoken to my 

oldest two boys since, who were eleven and nine at the time. 

Within twenty four hours, the boys were placed with their father and a short time 

after that, Elizabeth was placed in his unsupervised custody as well. When questioned about why the children were placed with their father while he was still under 

supervised visitation status, the SPRU worker said that the appearance of his name 

on this list was ‘‘a mistake.’’ 

Based on my ex-husbands allegations, our local police department filed charges 

of child abuse and neglect. I was arrested and paid $5,000 in order to post $50,000 

bail. Shortly thereafter, the unfounded charges were administratively dismissed by 

the Prosecutors Office. 

Despite daily attempts, my first contact with my youngest two children was during a supervised visit nearly five weeks after our separation. My oldest two children, 

based on the first caseworker’s communication with their father, did not want to see 

me. Six months later my third son stopped coming to visits and the last time I saw 

my daughter, now five, was the last week in December. Nothing is being done to 

resolve this as the employees of Preferred Visitation and Foster Care Services inform me that they are not allowed to ask my children why they do not want to visit 

with me, nor are they allowed to physically handle the children. 

Prior to their removal, my children and I enjoyed a close and loving relationship. 

I had been a stay-at-home-mom, volunteering in each of their schools, participating 

in their extra-curricular activities, and teaching their religious education classes. 

My children have since been denied this privilege as I have been cut-off completely 

from their lives and unable to attend school functions. The state contracted psychologist who diagnosed my daughter’s abuse at the hands of her father, is now the psychologist treating the children. She has vehemently denied me information on the 

frequency of their visits or their progress, sighting HIPAA restrictions. In addition 

she has defied a court order to reintroduce the children to me. 

As child support ended abruptly with the children’s removal, and after a year of 

surviving on a small income supplemented by excess student loan money, and the 

charity of friends and family, I have been forced to sell our home. My legal costs 

are already in excess of forty thousand dollars while my ex enjoys a free ride that 

is being funded by our state and federal taxes. 

134 

My children were excellent students who often received academic and behavior 

recognition. I was responsible for making and keeping their doctor, dental and eye 

appointments and, as our oldest son suffers from acute allergies and asthma, I persevered through alternate treatments and months of weekly and bi-weekly, allergy 

injections. The DYFS case workers ignored my requests for their father to attend 

to these important parental responsibilities. Only recently, after several certified letters, did a case worker contact my ex and request that he do so. 

I persevered in taking the children to counseling, although their father did everything he could to prevent the children from talking to anyone. The children were 

taught by him to be secretive, to spy, and to be afraid of me. They were told repeatedly to call DYFS or police in order to undermine my parental authority and ultimately steal custody. Each time our family was investigated, as a result of these 

calls, they found no evidence of abuse. Although I explained this to the DYFS caseworkers, that my ex was abusing the system and poisoning the children against me, 

all of my concerns have been repeatedly ignored. 

Prior to, as well as after my children’s removal, DYFS never performed an investigation of our family they have simply taken my ex-husband’s word on everything. 

Our long-time family pediatrician, who is highly reputed in our area, attempted numerous times to contact DYFS and was ignored. When he finally did reach someone 

he was given the impression that they had already made up their minds despite 

what anyone had to say; they ignored his qualified professional observation that he 

had never suspected any abuse. 

DYFS has used precious dollars to act as the vehicle for the complete severance 

and alienation of my children from me. It has been nearly fifteen months since this 

nightmare began, and although the criminal charges against me for the same alleged incidents have been dismissed and expunged, I have still not even had a 

phone conversation with any of my four children. We are just now going through 

the fact finding. 

Even though New Jersey’s courts have emphatically ruled that children cannot be 

removed from a parent charged with abuse unless the court conducts a thorough 

evidentiary hearing, makes specific factual findings, and follows the rules of evidence, this has not been so in our case and, although I trusted DYFS to follow the 

law and to do the right thing, when my attorney pointed this out in a motion last 

summer, DYFS did not even bother to respond to the motion. None of my complaints 

or legal arguments was ever denied. Yet, I still have no contact at all with any of 

my children. 

In order for our country’s human services to serve our children and families more 

effectively, they must be held to a higher standard. Everyone else who regularly is 

involved in the lives of children must be ‘‘highly-qualified,’’ as is so clearly defined 

in this Administration’s No Child Left Behind Act. Everyone else in our country who 

touches the lives of children are ‘‘held to a higher standard,’’ yet DYFS case workers, having fewer credentials than teachers and school psychologists, have more 

power, and they are abusing it. 

It is my contention that more funding is not the issue, it is my humble observation that funds intended to protect our nations most vulnerable, children in crisis, 

are being squandered on vindictive custody litigation, perpetrated by individuals 

adept at using the system. 

No one is driving the bus. My children are at the mercy of a system that is governed by laws that no one has the power or courage to enforce and whereby the 

individuals who are charged with the well-being and welfare of children hide behind 

the veil of secrecy which is in place for the protection of our children yet often times 

serves to prevent them from being justly and expeditiously freed from the bondage 

of incompetent child welfare agencies. 

Based on my experience, I offer you the following suggestions for state and federal 

Child Welfare Programs. 

• Mandatory investigations/reports, from all professionals who touch the lives of 

children of suspect parents 

• Higher qualifications and increased training of all human services workers including family court judges and lawyers 

• Limiting the power of case workers and their supervisors in their ability to 

make life altering decisions on behalf of children without proper procedure and 

investigation 

• Expediting court proceedings 

• Preservation of financial security 

• Working closely with educators and community members 

• National standards for investigation procedures 

• Imposition of fines on those who ‘‘use the system for personal gain.’’ 

135 

• Mandatory and ongoing training in Domestic Abuse and how it affects parent/ 

child relationships • Accountability of case workers to follow court orders • Greater emphasis on family preservation/reunification • Combining state child welfare agencies to increase accountability • Mandatory audio/video taping of all supervised visitation • Mandatory participation in therapy for ALL family members • Mandatory and regular follow-up of all placements outside of the residential 

home • Greater accountability for ensuring that children who are removed are receiving 

care that is equal to or greater than that received in the environment from 

which they were removed • Immediate and mandatory assignment of family advocate 

I am not alone, due to carelessness, poor training, failure to follow proper procedures, and law, DYFS case workers along with the human services agencies they 

work with, are acting in ways that too often damage the families they are charged 

with protecting. 

f 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Ms. O’Hara, and 

each of you for your moving testimonies. I want to thank you, Ms. 

O’Hara—you had a number of suggestions for us. I would be interested if any of you have any further suggestions which we at the 

Federal level might implement to improve the child welfare system—that might help it to work better. In your opinion, an area 

that you feel is the biggest flaw, and that you think—yes, Ms. 

Burge? 

Ms. BURGE. I heard a lot of discussion about more data, more 

forms—information technology. I am a demographer by training, so 

I mentioned that the divorce rate is not going to decline for populations like ours. The divorce rate is about 70 percent right now, 

so you can apply that number to the number of children who are 

going to be part of a custody case. It isn’t about more forms. I work 

in information technology. It is easy to automate this process. It is 

about education. It is about the ridiculous things that judicial officers—first of all, the caseworkers have no knowledge of parental 

alienation, brainwashing, and what one vindictive parent can do 

against the other. These children are suffering at the hands of a 

parent that wants to punish the other parent. That is one of the 

outcomes of divorce. So, I don’t think it is about data. I think it 

is really about education. 

Ms. GLADWELL. During my nightmare with the New Jersey 

child welfare system, I had gotten in touch with the Children’s Bureau. I spent a lot of time, I sent a lot of documentation to them, 

and so forth—both Dr. Wade Horn, Dr. Orr, and the people in her 

department. After doing that for about a year and a half, and asking what could be done, knowing that millions and millions of dollars were flowing into the State of New Jersey, who has—not all 

parts of it are corrupt. Not all people in it are corrupt. The system 

itself is broken, and they have admitted that. Millions of dollars 

are still going into New Jersey. The response from the Children’s 

Bureau was, ‘‘There is nothing we can do. We do audits’’—which 

New Jersey just failed, and one of the ways they failed was on the 

basis of family reunification. There is no accountability there at all. 

In New Jersey, at the end of September, the Governor just appointed an Office of the Child Advocate. I have hope for that office, 

but that is not the do-all and end-all in New Jersey, or for other 

136 

children in the country who may be experiencing the same thing. 

There has to be some type of justice, and a way to get through this 

system when it is corrupt and broken. Everyone I have talked to, 

including Children’s Rights, who had won the lawsuit, said, ‘‘This 

case is absurd,’’ but no one can do anything. This is my family— 

my family. ‘‘Oh well, I am sorry,’’ doesn’t cut it. ‘‘Oh, yes, we are 

going to do this in the future based on what happened to your family.’’ I don’t want to be a victim any longer. I don’t want my children to be either. I want my family back, and I want my children 

to be afforded the opportunity to enjoy their parents, and viceversa, and grow up in a healthy family. Thank you. 

Ms. O’HARA. I would just like to offer briefly, as I said in my 

testimony, no one is driving the bus. Actually, I have been having 

a recurring nightmare about my car accelerating and leaving without a driver. I finally figured out what that meant. My children are 

on a bus with no driver. The judge has, in fact, made several court 

orders that DYFS—as I have already said, but I just think this is 

so important—does not have the ability to enforce. They cannot enforce them. They will tell the judge—they will make lame excuses 

for it, but I don’t believe they have the education or the qualifications to actually follow through. Then the judge says, ‘‘Well, I don’t 

know what I can do,’’ because the judges are relying on the expert 

opinions of the child welfare workers who are not experts. That is 

the best way to put it. We really need help quickly, because my 

children—it has been 15 months, and all 4 of my very young children are poisoned against me. Getting a child back from parental 

alienation is nearly impossible. I am not going to give up, but once 

this has happened, once the mother-child bond is severed, this is— 

it has become a nightmare. I don’t know how to impart that upon 

you. My children already don’t want to see me. They say that they 

hate their mother. They no longer love me. I can show you photographs. You can talk to the schoolteachers, the psychologists, and 

everyone else in our lives—my community members. We had a 

beautiful, loving relationship, and it is gone. Thank you. 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you. Mr. Cardin? 

Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank our witnesses for being here. We look at the statistics, we look at the numbers, we look at what is happening out on the streets—and you all 

put a face on it. I know it is not easy for you to be here, and I appreciate very much your willingness to present this testimony. I 

think it helps us to try to get a complete picture of the tragedies 

that occur within our current system. 

Child custody, visitation issues, are difficult issues. One thing 

that I have learned over my years as an attorney and as a legislator, is that you can’t pass a law that takes care of the circumstances of a family that requires a system, people who are 

trained, judges who are willing to spend the time necessary to 

make decisions that are in the best interests of the child and family, and that is consistent around the country. So, we are struggling 

to figure out what is the appropriate role for children who are vulnerable. How can we help to make sure that families are kept together, and that the child’s interest is maintained? Clearly, the relationship with their parents is what we always envision as the 

preferred route. It is by law the preferred route. We want family 

137 

reunification where possible, and I am afraid there are people who 

get hurt. Sometimes we say, well, maybe there are not that many— 

but if it is one, it is a tragic situation, and I think your testimony 

here today points out how people’s lives are affected and ruined as 

a result of decisions that are made within our system. Although we 

must do what we can to protect the interests of the child, we need 

to do a much better job in having a system that is compassionate 

for all interests. I thank you all for giving that dimension to our 

hearing. 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Cardin. Again, I want to 

thank each of you for your moving personal statements, and for 

taking the time, trouble, and expense to come here today. In any 

hearing like this, we hear from a number of government officials 

and representatives of associations and agencies, but it is always 

tremendously useful to hear firsthand from people like yourselves 

who have actually been involved with programs, and live with the 

consequences every day. That has been your role today, and you all 

filled it well. We will keep your experiences and the many families 

who no doubt share your experiences in mind as we consider ways 

to try and improve this system. Again, many thanks for your 

thoughtful testimony and for joining us here today. At this time, 

I would like to thank all of the witnesses for their testimonies 

today. This series of hearings we have held since we first learned 

about the alleged abuse of the four boys in New Jersey has been 

very informative. Our witnesses today have provided useful information for us to consider as we contemplate what our next steps 

may be to better ensure that children are safe. I look forward to 

continuing to work with each of you as we continue our oversight 

of the child welfare system. With that, the hearing stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:08 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the record follow:] 

Statement of Edith J. Beauchamp, Greenbelt, Maryland 

Chairman Herger, Congressman Cardin, and other distinguished members of the 

Subcommittee. Thank you for your consideration of my written testimony for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing to Review Federal and State Oversight 

of Child Welfare Programs. My name is Edith Beauchamp, and I am an adoptive 

mother of two siblings, whom I adopted just over a year ago from the Department 

of Children and Families in Miami-Dade County, Florida after being their foster 

mother for a year and a half. I am also a senior-level IT executive, having held the 

role of Chief Information Officer with four different organizations. My testimony 

today will bring together these unique perspectives on Oversight of Child Welfare 

Programs. 

Achieving safety, security and permanency for our most vulnerable children depends on the people assigned to care for them 24/7. Yet assignment of temporary 

foster parents as well as possible pre-adoptive parents—the function of placement—is an OPTIONAL activity for states to undertake in automating their child 

welfare systems. 

In addition, as I discovered in my own path to parenting, we arbitrarily limit the 

possible choices of homes for foster children, so that in regions like Miami-Dade 

County we have high concentrations of children in shelters because ‘‘there aren’t 

enough homes’’ and simultaneously high concentrations of potential adoptive parents with foster care training who wait with ‘‘empty homes.’’ How is it possible to 

have both high supply and high pent-up demand to adopt children and not be able 

to achieve equilibrium? 

138 

[1]From HHS’ AFCARS website, chart entitled, ‘‘Trends in Foster Care and Adoption as of 11/ 

01/02’’ with the subtitle ‘‘(FY 2000 and FY 2001 estimates will not be revised before Spring 

2003)’’. [2]From US Census and INS data: approximately 50,000 private adoptions and 30,000 adoptions of children from other countries in 2000. 

High supply and unmet demand to adopt children is not just a regional issue; it 

is a national crisis. How else can we explain that close to 130,000 children a 

year [1] in this country await permanent homes, which is one and a half times the 

annual total of all private and foreign-born adoptions in the US? [2] Yet the public 

perception is that there aren’t enough children to adopt. 

So these are the topics that I want to share with you today: 

1. The critical nature of the placement process and just how broken it is in this 

country; 

2. The path to parenthood for an adoptive foster parent; and 

3. Why and how the mechanisms that HHS and the individual states have established for oversight should be changed. 

The Critical Nature of the Placement Process and A Path to Parenthood: 

Caseworkers may visit with the children once a month for a half hour, but foster 

parents make critical decisions regarding their care every day: what they will eat, 

which pediatrician to see and when, which day care or school to enroll them in or 

to home school them, who they can play with, whether they get new clothes or toys, 

and how often they are hugged. 

Thousands of children in the United States are ‘‘warehoused’’ in shelters and 

group homes, not even placed in family settings. Often, when a child is taken into 

custody by the state, sometimes in the middle of the night, a temporary placement 

is made to a shelter. ‘‘Temporary’’ sometimes stretches into weeks, months and even 

years. I found my children in a shelter, as related below, and to this day, my daughter remembers her three-week stay there as terribly frightening. It was almost three 

years ago now, and she was only three then, but the stay is etched in her mind. 

With minimum-wage workers coming and going throughout the day and night, and 

a large dormitory-style room full of cribs and cots, she remembers this place the way 

most adults would probably remember a stay in the hospital: hard to sleep, and institutional. Shelters are no place to keep children warehoused, no matter how well 

run and clean. We have to have a process to rapidly move children into loving homes, and as my experience and that of my friends may illustrate, recruitment is not so much the problem in finding enough homes as is the lack of an 

adequate placement mechanism to reduce the wait times and help the staff 

with the matching process. My husband and I were among the one in five couples of childbearing age 

that are infertile, or 5 million couples according to the Center for Disease 

Control. The infertility industry is a $5 billion a year industry in this country, and 

completely unregulated—‘‘self-regulated’’ they call it. The treatments are expensive, 

physically debilitating, and can be life-threatening. A friend of mine, undergoing the 

same treatments as I, was induced into a five-day coma in the intensive care unit 

to relieve the fluid build-up in her lungs as a result of the infertility drugs. According to this month’s (February 2004) issue of ‘‘O’’ Magazine, Oprah Winfrey’s enterprise, you are more protected by oversight getting a tattoo than undergoing infertility treatments. 

What I want you to understand is the pain and the lengths and depths to which 

couples will go to achieve parenthood, and the latent demand for adoption, because 

as with us, adoption is usually turned to as a solution after one has exhausted the 

infertility treatment options. The lack of access to effective adoption strategies in 

this country, particularly across state lines, has left many couples believing that 

they must simply give up on the dream of being a parent if medical treatments are 

unsuccessful. 

In our case, there wasn’t an ‘‘us’’ anymore after a nine-year marriage and going 

through four years of the treatments, but it didn’t dampen my desire to be a ‘‘Mom.’’ 

As I researched adoption, I learned of several agencies in South Florida that sheltered children for the State, and which advertised adoption on TV. What I learned 

is that each had different criteria for placing children in their care, and each 

worked only with the parents whose home studies they completed, and the 

children were limited to that group of parents. The children were limited to 

a small pool of possible parents instead of all the hopeful couples (and singles) in 

the state, or just the county even, as possible homes. 

In fact, this limiting of placement to those parents each agency has 

worked with directly appears to be universal. The limitations can be within 

139 

the same agency to a particular shelter. For example, the Children’s Home Society 

in Miami has a significant number of children in its care at any point in time, yet 

the Children’s Home Society in Minnesota has as its sole mission to facilitate Russian adoptions. How can we have over 130,000 children a year in the US waiting 

for permanent homes and no coordinated ‘‘distribution mechanism’’ for locating and 

placing them with prospective parents? There is no central database of all parents 

in each state interested in adoption. There are no objective standards even within 

finite geographic regions for the process of conducting home studies and background 

checks. As I learned in Miami, there wasn’t even a better system than a whiteboard. 

Florida has the third highest concentration of children in foster care, with the exception of California and New York. Miami-Dade County had 16% of the state’s 

total, or 5,000 per year. I wondered what were the forces that prevented these children from being adopted by parents in other states with lower populations of foster 

children? I was soon to learn that even in a county with a large concentration of 

foster children, the placement process itself was a barrier to timely placements, favored ‘‘those we already know’’ over people who have never fostered before, and was a highly manual process. 

Through word of mouth, I learned of an option to adopt directly from the State 

of Florida and applied to the state’s Department of Children and Families in the 

fall of 1999. I had already decided that I wanted to adopt siblings, preferably a boy 

and a girl or two girls, so that they would have a better sense of family, and because 

siblings were harder for the state to place together. After completing an extensive 

series of background checks and training courses, and visits to my home by several 

caseworkers, I was approved for four children because of the size of my home. I respectfully asked that they reduce this to two, because as a single, working mother, 

I felt it would not be fair to the children to take in more. Two children with one 

parent require four times the attention of a single child with two parents who can 

share the effort. 

I asked that I be designated as a ‘‘strictly adoptive’’ home, because with all the 

losses in my life, I did not wish to be in a position to give back a child I had loved. 

I wanted to be considered for children that had already been terminated from their 

parents. That’s when my licensing counselor told me that they didn’t have 

a computer system for ‘‘strictly adoptive’’ homes, but she would give my name 

to the county’s adoption counselor. That’s when my real wait began. I didn’t realize that by not accepting the foster care designation, I would not get a permit to receive children in my home, which would actually prevent an adoption placement, even for children with TPR. 

I lost the placement of a 5 year old boy and his 7 year old sister, two children 

who had been on the state’s waiting list for at least two years, because when the 

caseworker called to move them to my home as a pre-adoptive placement and 

learned I did not have a foster license, she had to find a temporary home that was 

licensed, and then when they were happy in that home, she was reluctant to move 

them again. So I contacted my home study caseworker, and told him I was rethinking my classification and wanted to find out more about being a ‘‘foster resource 

parent’’—a classification for foster parents who wish to adopt the children if the biological parents’ rights are eventually terminated from the children. Some paperwork 

had to be updated, but eventually I was issued my foster license in March of 2001— 

a year and a half after I had first applied to adopt. Still I waited with an empty 

home, and there were many other couples and singles like me in the county, designated as Foster Resource homes, but without children. 

Despite now having my foster license, even volunteering to work at the shelters 

to read to children or hold babies proved difficult. At the direction of the District 

Director for DCF, whom I had met at a volunteer mentoring group for foster-adoptive parents, I was given a list of eight shelters with state contracts by the placement office, and of those, only one director would allow me to visit. I met my children there, met their caseworker with the help of the shelter director, but had to 

write a petition letter to actually have the placement finalized with me. The placement office didn’t have these children on their ‘‘radar’’ yet, because they were in 

Protective Services as abuse and neglect victims, and had not yet been officially 

transferred to ‘‘foster care.’’ Then the ‘‘preferred placement’’ was to be to a home 

that already had four children, requiring a waiver to accept two more, because one 

of the children had been placed there for two months the year before. Ultimately, 

due to my petition, in May 2001 the placement was re-reviewed by both the Protective Services and Foster Care departments and unanimously moved to me. My children were only in the shelter three weeks, but may have languished there far longer 

had it not been for the unusual set of circumstances that allowed me to meet them 

and work around the normal processes. The TPR took a year and a half, and it was 

December 2002, when the adoption was completed—three years after my initial apVerDate May 21 2004 01:51 Jul 15, 2004 Jkt 092984 PO 00000 Frm 00143 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\92984.XXX 92984
140 

plication to the state. My friends who introduced me to this option gave up on it, 

and privately adopted a little girl from Haiti through the INS. 

Why And How The Mechanisms That HHS And The Individual States Have 

Established For Oversight Should Be Changed. 

The Why: 

You heard testimony from Dr. Wade F. Horn, Assistant Secretary for Administration of Children and Families at the Department of Health and Human Services 

that the timely achievement of permanency outcomes, especially adoption, for children in foster care is the weakest area of State performance. Judging from HHS tables of the annual number of children in foster care in each state, and total annual 

number adopted by state, this appears to range from a low of 4% to a national average of 9.5% per year adopted by non-relatives. My two were counted in the 2,206 

adoptions reported from Florida in 2002. 

Dr. Horn testified that AFCARS, one of the ‘‘principle mechanisms for Federal 

oversight’’ collects case level information on all children in foster care and those 

adopted, and it also includes information on adoptive and foster parents. However, 

this data is demographic only, and aggregate at best, and with data reported only 

twice per year, it takes HHS as long as two additional years to validate the data. 

This is hardly timely, and certainly not useful in tracking successful outcomes for 

children that can be responsive. With all due respect, I would hardly deem this 

‘‘oversight.’’ 

The data structure required for submitting AFCARS data, designed in 1993, is 

available on the ACF website. It asks no question about whether the children 

have siblings and whether those siblings have separate placements. This not only 

might be, but also should be, a factor in their foster placement and adoption. My 

children have three older siblings. There is no provision to determine the number of other children in the foster care setting, although ‘‘group home’’ as 

a classification is defined as from seven to 12 other children. Although it 

asks whether an adopted child has moved to another state, it is in the format of 

a Yes/No answer, which fails to provide information on which state the child has 

moved to. We’ve moved twice since the adoption, and I can tell you that it has averaged three months each time to transfer into the new state system for Medicaid. 

I mean this facetiously, but what is the point of asking, ‘‘Date of Placement in Current Foster Care Setting,’’ when we are still validating data two years after the 

fact? Hopefully the child has been adopted by then. 

The GAO reported that many states have different interpretations for answering: 

‘‘Number of Placement Settings?’’ This is a very different question if your system 

is designed to track whereabouts, which are necessary for safety and security reasons, versus specific foster care assignments. All systems should be designed to 

track both. A child might be given to a different foster parent over a weekend to 

provide respite time for the foster parent of record, for example. At least under Florida law, babysitters are not allowed unless the sitter is another licensed foster care 

parent. The respite home may be the current whereabouts, but not the current assignment to a foster parent. Foster parents MUST be compelled to report the whereabouts of a child at any point in time, and the States should have a method for recording this information electronically. Hopefully both questions can be recorded 

separately so that the data purposes are not commingled. 

There are many deficiencies in the design of AFCARS; these are just a few examples, and the design of AFCARS is under review. However, I contend that the whole 

approach to the system for AFCARS, along with SACWIS, requires a complete redesign and not just a ‘‘tweaking.’’ 

Over the last decade, $2.5 Billion has been spent automating state child welfare 

systems (SACWIS), and the best we can do is report data on 500,000 children two 

years after the fact? Further, only 29 states have operational systems, and of those, 

only 5 have been fully accredited by HHS. Without mincing words: that is an abysmal track record after a decade of effort and that level of spending. The 

GAO has written numerous reports pointing out these failures and has indicated 

that HHS failed to define the problem to be automated but rather suggested the 

states attempt to solve it on their own, with HHS telling them when they ‘‘got it 

right.’’ Throwing money at a problem without defining the problem is not a solution. 

I informally interviewed several state IT staff on an ad hoc basis, and as examples 

learned: 

1. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, not counted in the ‘‘operational’’ group, 

spent $65 million on an effort to automate its child welfare system and was 

told by HHS to go back to the drawing board, an effort slated to begin again 

next summer. 

141 

2. The State of Maryland has spent over $20 million, and is only now nearing 

operational readiness with the software, although PC’s were purchased for 

each caseworker close to four years ago which up to now have been used for 

email. The concern is that the hardware, running the Windows NT operating 

system, may be obsolete for this rollout. 

Both of these states have in common that their child welfare systems are administered at a county level with state oversight. In Pennsylvania there are 67 separate 

counties, each with its own methods and procedures. A Pennsylvania state adoption 

clearinghouse told me that there are 67 different versions of home study forms used, 

for example, because every county does it differently, and ‘‘individual family court 

judges want different questions asked.’’ I suspect that Pennsylvania is not the only 

state with this problem, and that it is far more likely to be prevalent not just in 

every state but also with every privatized agency in every state, as I learned about 

in Florida. 

In total, AFCARS is designed to receive information from 3,230 counties, including US Territories. It is incomprehensible to believe that the demographics and 

legal systems are so different that we require 3,230 different system designs. 

It is not surprising then, with so many different approaches and a lack of standards, that the Interstate Compacts for the Placement of Children across states are 

still wholly manual processes, and rarely used for foster care placements except for 

transfers of children to other relatives, or where large urban cities border other 

states, such as the District of Columbia with Maryland and Virginia. Your colleague 

in the Senate, Senator Larry Craig, stated in the magazine Adoption Today that 

there are ‘‘more hurdles in adopting in this country, especially if it is an out-of-state 

adoption’’ than adopting internationally. 

Dr. Horn concluded by stating that States would continue to be required to: 

a. Adhere to ‘‘requirements for conducting criminal background checks and licensing foster care providers’’; 

b. Obtain ‘‘judicial oversight over decisions related to a child’s removal and permanency’’; 

c. Meet ‘‘permanency timelines’’; 

d. Develop ‘‘case plans for all children in foster care’’; and 

e. Prohibit ‘‘race-based discrimination in foster and adoptive placements.’’ 

I recommend that those five mandates should form the basis to establish a National Child Welfare IT Task Force to create a Program-Management Office 

and Global Architectural Approach to designing a comprehensive national child 

welfare tracking system. The mission of the Task Force would be to: Create 

a streamlined nationwide system of placing, tracking, counting, classifying, protecting and coordinating children and service delivery to children in the foster care 

system that can be easily implemented at the local, county, state and federal level 

to unify the delivery of care to children and yet also enable community-based efforts 

to care for children. 

The real key is to facilitate data interchange among all the jurisdictions 

and organization involved in the process. We need to define and create a 

national infrastructure that is at once centralized (the data) and distributed (some data and processes). 

I’d also like to add one more mandate, or rather supplement Dr. Horn’s list: 

f. Provide a national ‘‘interstate’’ system for matching foster/pre-adoptive homes 

with waiting children (the 130,000 annual average since 1998), not just those 

desperate few (3,700 currently) already TPR’d without a permanency solution. 

The need also to monitor case management metrics, such as timely abuse and neglect investigations and regular visits to children in their homes is also an ongoing 

requirement, and perhaps a subset of d). 

The How: 

Economies of scale in system design and cost of implementation can be achieved 

when commonalities and best practices are recognized and shared, rather than completely separate efforts. National guidelines and directions would go a long way to 

reducing the rework as each state and many counties develop wholly separate systems. Ideally several states could take advantage of similar software modules, the 

way that software modules or custom packages are ‘‘vertically marketed’’ to likebusinesses. 

With many states facing fiscal crises, state funding for developing appropriate information systems has been cited as a significant barrier to timely completion of 

their SACWIS projects. This is all the more reason to have clear established guidelines for the future. More importantly, process efficiencies can be achieved when 

142 

data exchange is standardized, and counties and states can effectively and efficiently transfer child welfare information. 

Every state is different in demographics, population size and laws affecting children in foster care. California has very different needs than Vermont, and the cities 

of Los Angeles or Chicago or Philadelphia each has greater automation needs for 

foster care than some entire states. However, standards for information can be established recognizing differences in scope, scale and processes. For example: ‘‘What 

is a case?’’ differs from state to state. Is it a single child or a single legal case representing several children in one family? Of course it is possible in establishing 

standards also to establish conversion tables that allow for necessary state or regional variations. 

In the 35 states with county-administered systems, developing these standards is 

critically important. There are too many computer efforts that begin by automating 

in the same fashion what had previously been a manual process, rather than reengineering the process to take advantage of the new efficiencies of the computer 

architecture. Another common design mistake, when lots of focus groups are gathered, is to fail to differentiate between what is desired because of habit, versus what 

is a true processing or data need in the intrinsic nature of the work. In particular, 

if the variations occur simply in the format and semantics of a form that each county prefers, then creating 67 (e.g. Pennsylvania) separate programmatic versions of 

what is in essence a similar process that could be database driven for the essential 

and required variations in content, is highly wasteful and expensive to maintain in 

an ongoing fashion. Poor design leads to high cost. 

A significant number of caseworkers were provided with systems that have simply 

converted what used to be manual forms into online forms that they now must type 

into the computer. Rather than relieving their burden, this process adds to it, because with so much of the data gathering happening in the field, it is difficult to 

carry around a laptop and type the data in the presence of the foster family, assuming the jurisdiction had money for laptops or even PDA’s. The caseworker should 

be focused on interacting with the family and children and observing. My caseworker reported having to go into the office on her days off on Saturdays to re-enter 

her forms just to keep up with the paperwork requirements of the new Florida computer system. Clearly, design guidelines are needed that take into account these 

‘‘human factors.’’ 

Today’s computer technology is highly scalable. ‘‘Open systems’’ standards for software and hardware, as well as internet/intranet technologies, are being adopted by 

many governmental Chief Information Officers (CIO’s) for their jurisdictions and 

agencies, making standards around hardware and software more flexible and ‘‘interoperable’’ than when AFCARS was conceived in 1993. The same software will run 

on many varieties of computers and operating systems. 

The states arelooking to the Federal Government for guidelines. In the 

absence of any other legislative mandate or regulation, however, HHS has 

no choice but to carry on the programmatic directives of the past, and the 

States to attempt to comply. 

The technical assistance furnished by HHS to the states has been focused on helping them to implement the current reporting requirements, the AFCARS requirements from 1993, which is like a ‘‘finger in the dike,’’ rather than a proactive Program Management Office and Global Architectural role which would facilitate consensus on national standards. Placement is largely ignored by these efforts. Rather 

than looking at developing standards as strictly a Federal requirement, however, it 

should be looked at as a necessary collaborative process, which all levels of government have a stake in. Further, this mandate must come at a policy-setting 

level, and therefore cannot be left to mid-level state staffs to ‘‘work out.’’ 

Many industries have developed information exchange standards, beginning in 

the early 90’s with invoice and ordering information, a set of structures and processes known as EDI, or ‘‘electronic data interchange.’’ Today, far more information 

than strictly financial transactions is exchanged among businesses due to industry 

standards-setting committees that established the formats for the information. My 

recommendation is to mandate a similar standards development process for information exchange in child welfare among all agencies involved in service delivery to 

children and their families and monitoring of outcomes. 

With 500,000 children in foster care and approximately 40,000 caseworkers nationwide, we are not talking about an extensive amount of data by comparison with 

other Federal requirements. The trick is not the size of the system, but the design, 

and in getting everyone to agree to data standards for exchange among all the different jurisdictions, and on the appropriate process flows to move children into permanency, whether through reunification or out-of-home placement. Reducing the 

143 

waiting time and the number of waiting children is the goal. This will be the 

real work of the Task Force. 

Does this mean every entity and jurisdiction must operate the same way? 

Certainly not. If anything, it will enable innovation. No two stores always operate the same way, unless they are part of the same chain, and certainly retail 

vendors selling completely different goods operate differently. Data interchange between suppliers and stores is in widespread use in retail, however. What they 

must agree on is the standards for the information they must exchange in 

order to work together effectively. This is precisely the goal we need to enable 

private/public partnerships, community-based family services, cooperation between 

Foster Care Review Boards and the family court system, the mental health providers, and linkages among various jurisdictions and agencies, etc. This is what developing national standards is all about. 

To draw on another example from business: many companies today have established systems to help them keep track of the information on all their interactions 

with their customers, and to manage those relationships. After numerous mergers 

and acquisitions, large companies discovered their customer information was fragmented across numerous operational and financial systems. In the IT industry we 

call it a ‘‘data warehouse’’ which allows you to generate specialized reports and 

views of information by pulling it together from all your operational and financial 

systems. 

Child welfare demands a focus on the children and their families and on processes 

that will rapidly highlight deviations or delays that hinder successful outcomes. 

With so many jurisdictions and agencies involved in service delivery, it is critical 

that there be a method to bring this data together. Let me give you a personal example: After my children were adopted, I sold my home in Miami and moved to a 

suburb of Philadelphia. I called the Adoption After Care unit of Florida’s Department of Children and Families to let them know my new address. They had to use 

email to send a note to someone in the Miami-Dade County finance office to change 

my address in their accounting system’s ‘‘vendor’’ file. How much more fragmented 

can a process get? 

Once the mandate for a standards setting process is agreed to, the first step in 

establishing effective standards is to study the variations in policies and practices 

among the target organizations, in this case specific states and counties. However, 

rather than pore over manuals and legal regulations, the easiest and most efficient 

way to study these differences is to let the computer do the comparing. 

For example: 

1. Developing national standards on home studies: By collecting electronic copies 

of the home study form from as many jurisdictions in every state as possible, 

and from privatized agencies as well, we can electronically convert the questions and upload each question into a database tagged by source, which we can 

query for keywords and phrases to identify questions in common to most, and 

questions that are unique. In this fashion we can develop a result set showing 

the number of occurrences of a particular question or topic, and in which jurisdictions they originate. Then a cross-functional committee could evaluate the 

reported findings, with representation from independent associations, state 

agencies, or others that should or wish to be involved in establishing the standards. 

2. For criminal background checks for foster parents: Although perhaps disconcerting to some to create linkages to Justice Department information, for 

background checks, there certainly is an overlap. The work just completed by 

the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative with help from the National 

Association of State CIO’s for Homeland Security may prove a useful source 

for information about current state IT infrastructures and a starting point for 

streamlining this function. 

3. For the data structures: Most states have at least started to develop SACWIS 

systems, and it is important not only to develop standards for the future but 

also a migration path for each State to ‘‘get there,’’ which requires understanding the starting point. By extracting the ‘‘data dictionaries’’ (file formats, 

layouts and relationships) from their existing systems, we can do a comparison 

electronically and develop data mapping reports and definitional documentation. 

Here are examples of possible additional benefits from developing data interchange standards and a national or regional ‘‘data warehouse(s)’’ of child welfare information: 

144 

• Certain functions could be ‘‘web-enabled’’ so appropriate individuals would have 

direct access to update information, reducing the data entry load on the caseworkers. 

• With appropriate standards for privacy and security and ‘‘need to know’’ access, 

records on the children could be stored in an accessible format, such as health 

records (with appropriate HIPAA compliance), so that caseworkers don’t have 

to spend time chasing these down and can more easily print them out for foster 

parents to have ready access to immunization records, allergies, and other vital 

information on special needs children, which is essential in the first week of 

placement for school enrollment, doctors’ visits, etc. and often difficult to come 

by. 

• Research data would be more robust and could be aggregated from the specific 

records, keeping private the information on individuals. For example, knowing 

the specific drugs used by parents (methamphetamines, crack cocaine, 

OxyContin, etc.) is useful to the court preparation for a TPR, but aggregated 

at a county level, and mapped using Geographic Information tools, could demonstrate dramatically the specific patterns of drug use across the country and 

in specific regions, and correlated with other family service data could demonstrate the highest concentrations of need for planning purposes, without a lot 

of effort. 

CONCLUSION: 

The 10-year effort to automate child welfare by leaving it to each individual state 

has done little to streamline the complex process of managing case loads and ensuring successful outcomes for children in the child welfare system, as the data on 

adoptions demonstrates. Oversight at a Federal level has been hampered by the lack 

of completed state efforts. 

Solving the problem of a high number of children waiting for adoptive homes, as 

well as matching them with the large number of Americans interested in adopting 

children requires: 

A national mandate to establish the design of a national child welfare information system infrastructure that is standardized, and can be integrated and distributed among all the jurisdictions and agencies at a state, county and local level. 

Every child should have a family. 

f 

Statement of Patricia de Santos, Claremont, California 

I wish to convey my research and experience dealing with the children’s welfare 

system. My perspective is especially important because despite the enormity of the 

legislature’s efforts and policy writings the ultimate policy must be able to affect the 

proposed intent. The children, my great nephews, and myself I have cared for over 

the past ten years are the people this children’s welfare policy affects. Therefore, 

I hope my perspective will be of interest to you. 

BRIEF BACKGROUND 

In 1994, I took in a sibling group of three infant boys. These brothers had been 

placed in three separate fosters homes, two in the State of Hawaii and one child 

in the State of California. I am the boys’ maternal great aunt and the placement 

of the children with me achieved unification of the three brothers. Over the following eight years I worked diligently not only providing support for the reunification services, which ultimately failed, but also for the boys special needs as all were 

later diagnosed with psychological problems (ADHD) and mental health disorders 

(Bipolar). These were extreme needs and I was never wavered in my efforts for the 

children or my intent to adopt all three children. 

Nevertheless, in July of 2001, our family was ‘‘blown-up’’ by our social workers. 

What is more disturbing is that a false report regarding my care of the children was 

generated and used to prohibit the return of the children to me. When the two older 

boys, then 8 and 9 years old, were deported by the County of Los Angeles back to 

their jurisdictional State of Hawaii, Hawaii investigated. The investigation determined that the allegations in the false DCFS report were ‘‘unfounded.’’ I obtained 

custody of my two older boys in December of 2001. Unfortunately, Los Angeles 

County has not and will not return custody of my youngest son, which effectively 

has separated the three brothers. 

145 

PURPOSE OF THE SUMMARY 

I bring my story to you because in my search to understand what happened to 

my children and me in July of 2001, I necessarily initiated legal proceedings. 

Through these legal processes I reviewed, for the first time, the social workers’ reports. Although, for many years the reports of my care of the children was favorable 

it was not complete. In fact, the over-simplification of my extreme efforts in caring 

for three special needs children from infancy was an egregious omission of the facts 

necessary to fully evaluate our situation. Moreover, when our last social worker 

began her relationship with us her representations and information to me were false 

based on her reports to the court AND her reports to the court were misrepresentations of the truth. Attached to this summary are two documents: 1) my research thesis with my findings overlaid on my own experiences, entitled, Disrespecting Children: Disclosing the Adverse Effects of Children’s Public Policies. An Autobiographical Case Study, and 2) a copy of a letter addressed to Robert R. Walmsley, a children’s attorney, describing a chronological summary of the events that transpired 

during my family’s relationship with our social worker. 

In further research of the problems I was encountering with the Los Angeles 

County Department of Children and Family Services I began to uncover horrendous 

accounts of vile behavior by social workers and the children’s welfare system. Who 

would believe that the benevolent positions of protectors of children would behave 

in such ways? Until I researched this enigma I had no idea of the autonomous 

power social workers and children’s welfare implementers possess. Until I reviewed 

hundreds of case records I did not understand the full extent of absolute immunity. 

Until I pursued public policy in my graduate work I did not realize the inherent 

government failure connected with children’s public policies. I came to realize the 

difficulties of implementing children’s public policy but most importantly, I saw why 

there is such a distortion within the children’s welfare system and the protection 

of children. 

The most devastating failure of the children’s welfare system is that the funding 

bureaucracies within the system are in direct contradiction with the best interest 

of the child. Social services is in a position of serving two masters, the money 

stream which comes from legislators, and, doing what is best for the kids. In any 

bureaucratic system it must remain solvent and therefore social services look to 

these veins of income to remain self-sufficient. Unfortunately, when a decision is 

made based on funding it is inherently done against the best interest of the child 

because you don’t put the child first. In order to do what is in the best interest of 

the child the child must be first and foremost. Double-talking this pursuit leads to 

a murky grave of this system. Clearly, the purpose of your sub-committee is a reflection of this failing. 

A SUMMARY OF DISRESPECTING CHILDREN 

My thesis is a dissection of three specific children’s policies, 1) The Special Education System, 2) The Foster Care System (Dependency), and 3) the Juvenile Delinquency System. Although this sub-committee is looking specifically at the children’s 

welfare system, I believe, you cannot effectively address a problem in one system 

without affecting another system. These systems are the links of a child’s life and 

they cannot be addressed in isolation. To do so would be like fixing a broken arm 

while allowing the body to be ravaged by cancer. It is a daunting task, to step back 

and look at the enormity of the effort, but if it is not done correctly and completely, 

the problems you are addressing in this hearing are doomed to be repeated with 

horrendous and continued social consequences. The goal is to help and protect children. My research, my findings, and my experience determined that the bureaucracy 

itself is also part of the problem. 

The Special Education system is a support system where a majority of children 

placed in Foster Care need to be. Nevertheless, this system is burdened and therefore excluding of as many as can be determined to fall above the very low standard 

for learning disability. Children in the foster care system often decline in their educational performance, but stay at borderline. Not enough to get them special education services, but receiving a minimal education at best. And if a foster parent 

were inclined to pursue special education services on behalf of the child, the process 

is delayed (despite statutory requirements) and the current Foster Care System is 

notorious for moving children multiple times. If by some luck the child stays in the 

same home for more than one year, the uphill bureaucracy of getting a borderline 

child are impossible as many children who fall below the standard are continually 

declined special education services, procedurally or effectively. 

[This segment is a description of the wall of obstacles in the way of children in 

the foster care system to find support for their educational needs.] 

146 

The Foster Care System is inherently a brutal system. Children are continually 

removed from a home with little or no evidence. Those families who attempt to fight 

Child Protective Services are immediately portrayed as deviant, dysfunctional, combative, or worse. Yet the natural instinct for any parent is to protect your child 

without concern for yourself. Many of the families that react in this instinctive manner are characterized as abnormal. When an intrusion enters the Constitutionally 

protected domain of the home, there must be safeguards to these psychological dynamics. Otherwise, the abuses that occurred to my family and me and to many families whose stories are told and untold will continue to the detriment of the children 

the system is designed to protect. 

Now, add in the enormous and autonomous power social workers have acquired 

over the years in implementing children’s welfare policy. In an effort to protect children legislators have provided social workers, (fallible human beings) an immune 

license to tear up, split apart, and destroy families without accountability. Why does 

this happen? Because, it is allowed to happen. The basic rule of law is that no one 

should have the absolute power of authority over anyone else without a check and 

balance. The children’s welfare system has lost this check and balance. 

But most important is the life of the child in foster care. It has been well established that children are inherently placed at great risk once put in the children’s 

welfare system and they are subjected to enormous cruelty while in the child welfare system. Talk to anyone who has lived inside the system. The reason for this 

are many, but one major factor is simply that once in the system the child becomes 

anonymous. There is no one who knows the child, (e.g. history, moods, problems, 

fears), that can effectively understand the child’s reactions and behaviors while in 

foster care. Psychological care providers do not live with the child. And the attention 

a child is rationed is cruelty beyond belief. 

Children are complicated beings and to diminish their individuality to the need 

for food, shelter and school is to ignore the entire basis for this Congressional inquiry. And children live life minute by minute. The slow moving wheels of the juvenile court system, not to mention noteworthy Congressional hearings and public policy-making, will leave a child slowly suffering a fate they do not understand. For 

this reason, as this issue is again on the table, please put the time in to do a complete job so children will not needless have to suffer the waiting of another tragedy 

to occur to convene another subcommittee. 

To understand what is needed from legislators, legislators must first re-evaluate 

the basic structure of what has grown into an enormous bureaucratic system, children’s welfare. Consider it renovation, if you will. This system as it was designed 

in the middle of the 20th Century no longer stands tall in light of recent knowledge 

of social behavior and social public policy. In an effort to protect children we, as a 

society, have made them prisoners. What other victim is taken and incarcerated in 

a strange location, incommunicado? What other victim’s voice is muted by those assigned to protect them? 

[This segment is a recount of the malicious and false information used by our social workers to affect their goal of removing a child from a safe and loving home, 

against statutory prohibitions, for the purpose of punishment and personal gain. 

Please also see attached letter to Mr. Robert R. Walmsley, children’s attorney.] 

The Juvenile Delinquency System is the last stop before the criminal justice system completely swallows up the life of another individual. Sometimes it is justified, 

sometimes it is a road that one lacks the skills to get off of, and sometimes it is 

both. But for those children that come from the Foster Care System, it is an abhorrent testament of the children’s welfare system. The child does not fail, the system 

fails the child. 

[This segment is the result of the failure of the special education and foster care 

systems.] 

CONCLUSION 

I am an educated woman who, through a series of circumstances, found herself 

a single mother of three special needs children. The children and I formed a family, 

by design and direction of the Department of Children and Family Services. We 

lived together for eight years. These three children who were injured by their biological parents at infancy were later brutalized by their social workers and the system designed to protect them. To what end? It was proven that the social worker 

report was false and I was guilty of no wrongdoing. My children suffered and continue to suffer from bureaucratic abuse. AND, MY STORY IS NOT UNIQUE. 

In the summer of 2001, our social workers portrayed me as a negligent, non-caring, self-serving caregiver/mother. At that time anyone looking at our case and at 

the depictions of me by the social workers would not have known of the deceptions 

being waged. It has taken over two years to bring these malicious acts by the social 

147 

workers and the system to light. This is in part because the system itself refused 

to acknowledge its own actions. 

To first determine the problem is you must examine the credibility of the system. 

No human being or system is infallible. The system that is currently allowing 

abuses of the authority over children and families is also not infallible. In addressing the problems connected with the problems in the care of the children in New 

Jersey look to the system and the players as a whole. Any one story is only a symptom of the whole system. 

My thesis is my research and my experience based on an academic format. I 

would be willing to stand up to any further scrutiny of the facts of my story. I welcome any interest. 

f 

Pompano Beach, Florida 33064 

January 28, 2004 

Chairman Wally Herger 

Subcommittee on Human Resources 

Committee on Ways and Means 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Sir, 

I have but one voice, one pen, but let it be known to you and your committee that 

my words are uttered in the hearts of every member of my family and every generation of family to come ‘‘that we will never experience the joy, the laughter, the hope 

of two wonderful children that were ripped from our lives and lineage by the Department of Social Services in Massachusetts’’. 

If I fail to communicate to you the how this intrusion touches their lives and ours, 

then you sirs, are equally responsible. They have not only taken from us our anticipated and expected right to pursue life, liberty and happiness, they have taken from 

us our right to love. I ask that you not think of my grandchildren as you read my 

letter to you, I ask only that you think of your own. 

Six years ago, I called to the Department of Social Services. My daughter is an 

addict and for her sake, and the sake of her daughter, I called this Agency for help. 

The records will show that Department of Social Services spent nine of their ten 

days investigating the reporter and after one three hour visit to the reported, determined the report vindictive in nature. A few months later, a second report was filed 

and substantiated. The child remained in the custody of her mother for the next 5 

years during which time a second child was born. During her pregnancy and under 

the ‘‘born alive’’ statutes in Massachusetts, I attempted to get protection from the 

courts for this unborn child but my petition was denied. Three months later this 

child was born prematurely and with chronic asthma due to Placenta Abruption associated with drug use. He was then taken into custody by the Department of Social 

Services. My daughter entered several Drug Rehabilitation Facilities with her children and in spite of the chronic non-compliance and continued drug use, they remained in her care for the next five years under the watchful blind eye of DSS. My 

daughter was terminated from one facility for drug use, another for threatening a 

caseworker. She was put out and put up in a hotel in the middle of December with 

two children in tow. She spent the better part of a year in several shelters with her 

children. The incidents that occurred from 1998 to 2003 included, domestic violence, 

drug use, rape, threat of bodily harm with a weapon (gun), physical abuse, mental 

abuse and abandonment. These incidents are documented in the files and at no time 

was anything done to protect the children. The Agency protected it’s decision. 

Compounding the issue of drug use, my daughter was finally diagnosed with serious 

mental disorders yet the Department of Social Services having no knowledge of this, 

once again, returned the children to her care and custody. In the process and relying 

upon the outcome of the original complaint and diluted reports of a drug addict, this 

family has had no contact with these children in almost six years. Had the Department attempted to contact family members to secure assistance with respect to the 

intervention and care of these children, none of this would have happened. 

This Agency continues to stand firm with respect to it’s decisions regarding the 

safety and well being of these children. This Agency stands firm in spite of the fact 

that it did not meet six of the seven safety and well-being requirements of the Federal Government. This Agency is given license, without recourse, to help or harm. 

This is unacceptable. 

The Department will submit that lack of funding, communication and data systems is responsible for the problems. There was no lack of communication in this 

148 

case. One should ask, ‘‘How often does this type of response happen?’’ You won’t 

hear about it or read about it because the children didn’t die, but they very well 

could have. It will be recorded as another ‘‘success’’ story because ultimately the 

children were ‘‘adopted’’. 

The problem sir, is this Agency depends upon the ability of human beings to handle situations, that for all purposes, was never intended to be their responsibility. 

A State cannot function like a family. They are disposed to extreme prejudice and 

inflated opinions. These prejudices and opinions are unavoidable and at no cost to 

them. With this in mind, it can no longer be a matter of ‘‘fixing or correcting’’ a 

system that is destined to fail, no matter how much funding, computers and data 

system you provide. The Government, if it intends to help at all, would better serve 

these children by first alerting family, keeping in mind that is not and never should 

be a family’s obligation to live up to the State’s definition of family. Some families 

are poorer than others, but rich in love. Some family’s in spite of a States preoccupation with size of rooms, and ability to send them to college, are more than 

able to provide these children with what they need most, ‘‘familiarity and LOVE’’. 

The State does not love the children in their care and no one knows that better than 

the children they serve. The State(s) are rapidly earning themselves a reputation 

of marketing children, sanctioning abuse and held above the law when through neglect or omission children are beaten, raped, starved and murdered. NOT ONE 

CHILD should ever be threatened by a system that is supposed to protect them. 

More and more children are dying and it is nothing new. The public and the Government have been and continue to be aware of the statistics. It has been happening 

for years, ten maybe twenty and all the hearings in the world are not going to 

change it. 

If we are going to have to endure this intolerable system than at least, at minimum, make them accountable. If they were held responsible for the decisions they 

make, no matter what the ‘‘excuse’’, I can assure sir, that their performance would 

change dramatically. If rewards (Adoption Bonuses) are available then it stands to 

reason that there must be consequence and accountability. The qualifications and 

experience of those who control the quality of care for the children would miraculously improve. There is no greater persuasion than risk. 

I hope my voice rings true in your ears for a long time to come and the next time 

you see a picture of a dead child in a newspaper, you will either pat yourself on 

the back for trying to be part of the solution, or hang your head in shame. 

Respectfully, 

f 

Judith G. Evans-Baxter 

Voice Application Specialists International, Inc. 

Woodstock, Georgia 30189 

February 6, 2004 

The Honorable Wally Herger 

2268 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Mr. Chairman, 

I am writing this letter today to introduce our company Voice Application Specialists (VAS) International, Inc. a Georgia based voice biometrics company who has developed an application we believe will greatly enhance the accountability and overall 

protection of our children nationwide. 

I recently viewed the testimony from your January 28th 2004 Subcommittee meeting you held with respect to some of the issues regarding the Child Welfare problems in this country, and am sending this letter as per the instructions for submittal of written statements, and sent a similar letter to Mr. Shay Bilchik. 

As we all know the issues around our children’s safety are paramount and the 

purpose of this outreach is to provide a solution we developed around our technology, offering some tremendous relief for our at-risk children. 

VAS’s software application TrueStudentID uses a person’s voiceprint to verify 

them, in the same manner as other biometric technology. The accuracy rate is over 

99.99967% and sadly to write there are some children as young as ten years old 

using this in the State of Florida (through our partner Voicevault the world leaders 

in voice verification) but shows how easy and flexible the system is. 

With TrueStudentID the child is enrolled in the system by simply dialing into a 

toll free telephone number asking to speak their name and to repeat the numbers 

1–10. The whole process takes about 65 seconds, and the child’s voiceprint is enVerDate May 21 2004 01:51 Jul 15, 2004 Jkt 092984 PO 00000 Frm 00152 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\92984.XXX 92984
149 

rolled in the voice vault, that has the highest security related hardware and software in the world. 

In cases where children may be at risk in a home or foster family, and where a 

state Division of Family and Children’s Services has placed them in one of the ratings assigned by the state, voice verification can also be used to check on a child 

in the interim period. Again, nothing replaces the on-site visit by the caseworkers, 

but is another verifier. 

We have gone one step further in this verification process and that is with the 

caseworker. As we know, some caseworkers either from sheer overwork or from forgetting to stop by and see an at-risk child, have written down on a log that they 

did in fact visit the child at the home, only to find out later they did not but no 

matter what the case, a better control and daily verification process is needed. 

TrueStudent enrolls the caseworker the same as we have done for the child, then 

dials out to the child’s home during the day (whether it was a pre-determined time 

to meet or just a drive-by) asks for the caseworker by name and ask him/her to repeat a set of 4 numbers randomly given and changed by the algorithms each time 

the user is asked their name. 

Once they have been asked to provide the name and numbers the caseworker is 

either positively identified within less than one second, and if they are not who they 

‘‘say’’ they are, an instant notification is sent back to a pre-determined number (by 

telephone, fax, pager, or e-mail) to a supervisor in the form of an alert management 

overview. 

We are currently working with one of the major cell phone distributors with their 

use of camera technology to be able to take a picture of the child, upload it to a 

database and send it along with a voiceprint. If the child’s parents do not have a 

telephone, the caseworker simply dials into the toll free number and the child is 

asked to repeat his name, and a set of numbers. 

Either way we have a voiceprint of the child who can be accurately identified by 

a caseworker (or a police officer), and by calling out to the child’s home and using 

Automatic Numbering Identification (ANI) we can also see if the call was trying to 

be call-forwarded to another number or a cell phone. 

This application is used as a trust by verify role, and in the event a caseworker 

has a problem getting to a house, the supervisor will have an almost immediate notification, and if needed a third level notification can be sent to a local supervisor. 

There is also a latchkey application for the child who may be arriving home who 

may not have a parent/guardian nearby. In this instance TrueStudent would dial 

out to the home during a pre-set time period ask for verification of the child, and 

the parent would then receive a notification either through a phone, pager, fax or 

e-mail of the status of the call (and would continue to call up to four times if needed 

until the parent arrived home). 

How do we know this works? We have been working in the voice applications 

business since the late 1980’s and wrote some of the functional specifications for a 

very similar application used in home detention based environments for low risk 

prisoners who currently number over 170,000 nationwide. We designed 

TrueStudentID to secure the safety of some of the at-risk children and to provide 

an additional layer of accountability. 

This enrollment system uses a tool free number, so a child who has been enrolled 

in one state, who moves to another (due to a parents transfer etc. . .) will then be 

enrolled in the new state without any problems. The only change would be in the 

telephone number being dialed and the new caseworker. 

Clearly, our intention with the enrollment process in all the above cases is to provide further documentation AFTER a caseworker has visited a child’s home, and a 

verification that those parents/guardians who may want to try and continue to 

abuse these at-risk children, that there is another verification tool, and random 

check of the child than can be verified within less than a second, and an alert management system designed to have a call placed to a local police officer for a ‘‘driveby’’ if the child’s voice does not match the voiceprint. 

Sadly, Mr. Chairman one of the reasons for your meeting was due to the recent 

case in Collingswood, New Jersey, and we presented this application to the Speaker 

of the House of New Jersey 6 months BEFORE this case, due to the other problems 

the state of New Jersey was having, and believe could have helped those children 

as well as to verify the caseworker’s claims of when they were there. 

What is the cost for this? Since this is a secure hosted environment, and no hardware or software is needed, we charge a flat $5.00 per day for each person who is 

verified (with a maximum of four in-bound of out-bound calls). The initial enrollment phase can be a pilot program of where we would take a high problem area 

and implement a program there, and the $5.00 per day is ONLY spent when calls 

are in fact placed. 

150 

Chairman Herger, I am not trying to sell you anything, but to present a proven application that can assist every state agency throughout the U.S. and could be a 

deterrent to those who continually want to harm children. 

We plan on sending a similar letter to Secretary Tommy Thompson to seek funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and other institutions, and 

would welcome any others you may feel can assist. 

Lastly, Chairman Herger, my husband who is the chief architect of the 

TrueStudentID will be in DC during the second week of March, and after reading 

this if you or members of your staff would like to meet with him please have someone from your staff reach me directly at 770–591–3400. 

Sincerely yours, 

Maricriz Nolan 

CEO/Chairman of the Board 

Æ