U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

74–734—PDF 2011

S. HRG. 112–447 

INNOVATIONS IN CHILD WELFARE WAIVERS: 

STARTING ON THE PATHWAY TO REFORM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 10, 2011 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Finance 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana, Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

RUSSELL SULLIVAN, Staff Director 

CHRIS CAMPBELL, Republican Staff Director 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Baucus, Hon. Max, a U.S. Senator from Montana, chairman, Committee 

on Finance ............................................................................................................ 1 

Wyden, Hon. Ron, a U.S. Senator from Oregon .................................................... 2 

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from Utah ................................................. 7 

WITNESSES 

McNeely, Charlie, alumna of the Oregon foster care system, Portland, OR ...... 4 

Murdock, Jojo, alumna of the California foster care system, Santa Barbara, 

CA .......................................................................................................................... 8 

Allen, Crystal Ward, executive director, Public Children Services Association 

of Ohio, Columbus, OH ........................................................................................ 11 

Bell, Dr. William, president and chief executive officer, Casey Family Programs, Seattle, WA .............................................................................................. 13 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL 

Allen, Crystal Ward: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23 

Responses to questions from committee members ......................................... 26 

Baucus, Hon. Max: 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30 

Bell, Dr. William: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32 

Responses to questions from committee members ......................................... 38 

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G.: 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43 

McNeely, Charlie: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45 

Responses to questions from committee members ......................................... 49 

Murdock, Jojo: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51 

Responses to questions from committee members ......................................... 54 

Wyden, Hon. Ron: 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 2 

COMMUNICATIONS

Advocates for Children and Youth ......................................................................... 57 

American Humane Association ............................................................................... 58 

Center for Public Policy Priorities (CPPP) ............................................................ 66 

Colorado Counties, Inc. (CCI) ................................................................................. 69 

County Welfare Directors Association of California (CWDA) .............................. 70 

First Focus ............................................................................................................... 75 

Youth Villages .......................................................................................................... 80 

(1) 

INNOVATIONS IN CHILD WELFARE WAIVERS: 

STARTING ON THE PATHWAY TO REFORM 

THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in 

room SD–215, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Max Baucus 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Wyden, Cantwell, Nelson, Hatch, and Snowe. 

Also present: Democratic Staff: Russ Sullivan, Staff Director; 

Diedra Henry-Spires, Professional Staff; and Amber Roberts, Tax 

Exempt Organization Specialist. Republican Staff: Chris Campbell, 

Staff Director; and Becky Shipp, Health Policy Advisor. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM MONTANA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE 

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. 

In its 1981 report to Congress, the Select Panel for the Promotion of Child Health said, ‘‘Children are one-third of our population and all of our future.’’ Today we discuss the future as represented by the more than 423,000 children in the child welfare 

system. 

We will consider an expansion of waivers which allow States to 

create alternatives to traditional child welfare programs. These alternatives can improve outcomes for youth in foster care or at risk 

of entering foster care. 

Today, we have two main goals. First is to examine how waivers 

have influenced child welfare practice. Second, to learn whether a 

reestablished waiver authority can be improved. Can these waivers 

be targeted to identify and redefine best practices? Can they work 

better to increase safety, quality, and permanency outcomes for 

children and youth? 

In 1994, Congress gave the Department of Health and Human 

Services the authority to approve State demonstration projects. The 

demonstration projects gave States flexibility in the use of certain 

foster care funds which are generally used only for traditional child 

welfare programs. 

The demonstration projects allowed States to develop alternatives to enhanced care for children in the system. They provide 

early intervention and crisis intervention services. They reduce outof-home placements and improve outcomes for children in the system. 

2 

The number of children in the foster care system has declined by 

more than 80,000 over the last 10 years, and by nearly 40,000 over 

the last 2. Many child welfare experts believe the success was 

achieved, in part, because of States’ use of demonstration waivers. 

Waivers give significant financial and administrative authority to 

States. They give States the flexibility they need to develop, implement, and conduct rigorous evaluation of alternative child welfare 

practices. 

We must have a real understanding of the opportunities and 

challenges that come with child welfare waivers. There are currently waivers in seven States that remain active under short-term 

extensions, but Federal legislative authority to approve new child 

welfare waivers expired on March 31 of 2006. Congressional action 

is necessary to give HHS the authority to approve new waivers. 

This committee has long benefitted from the presence of several 

child welfare champions. We are ready to engage on the question 

of renewing this authority. We have learned a great deal from child 

welfare waivers in the past. We learned that funding preventive 

services, like substance abuse treatment, helps keep families together. 

We learned that placing kids with relatives in kinship care and 

guardianship makes a difference in finding permanent homes for 

kids. We learned that post-adoption services help adoptive families 

form successful, lifelong bonds. We learned, when foster care is the 

only option, State child welfare officers can partner with other 

State agencies. This partnership can provide additional services for 

kids and help them feel included and part of the community. 

These realizations led to the Fostering Connections and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008. This bipartisan law made improvements. That law has been quite successful, but more needs to be 

done. As stakeholders, we have come to value prevention, safety, 

permanence, and quality. Unfortunately, our child welfare system 

still has inconsistencies. It does not incentivize the behaviors we 

value most. 

We value keeping families together whenever safely possible. We 

value permanency through adoption and kinship care over aging 

out of the system. So why, for example, do we use Federal child 

welfare dollars only to pay for foster care placements? We have to 

ask ourselves these tough questions. It is time to look at other 

ways to structure our system. 

So let us explore whether or not a new wave of child welfare 

waivers can help us find solutions. Let us work to answer some of 

the tough questions that remain as we move forward. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Baucus appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I would now like to turn to my colleague from 

Oregon, Senator Wyden, for any statement he may want to make. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, Mr. 

Chairman, I want to thank you for scheduling this hearing. I think 

it is important for folks to know that Chairman Baucus is probably 

as busy as any elected official on the planet, trying to juggle myrVerDate Nov 24 2008 21:22 Jul 10, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\74734.000 TIMD
3 

iad issues relating to the tax system, and certainly what is going 

on now with respect to working out the budget. 

Chairman Baucus, it seems to me it is a measure of your passion 

for kids that, in the middle of all of this, you have said we have 

to have this hearing. We have to look at the way to go to bat for 

these young people. So, I am very grateful for the chance to sort 

of drop in and do an introduction, and I am going to be coming 

back. But I want people to know that, with all that you have on 

your plate, to have created this opportunity this morning where we 

are going to make sure we look at these issues, is a measure of 

your passion for kids. I just so appreciate your doing it. 

I think, Mr. Chairman, for those who are going to be following 

this morning’s hearing, the story of Charlie McNeely, it just takes 

your breath away. To have found yourself in foster care at the age 

of 3, and in effect navigating your way for more than 2 decades 

through all of this to where you are now, is just an extraordinary 

story, and we are so glad to be able to welcome you. 

And I was struck by something you said in your testimony. You 

said that when you entered the foster system, you did not really 

know what was going on. Well, that is not all that surprising, because you were 3. I have 3-year-olds, and they kind of think they 

know what is going on, but they do not really know what is going 

on. So extra points for your candor. [Laughter.] 

But you sure know what is going on now, because you look at 

what you have accomplished. You are on your way to graduating 

from Portland State University. We are very proud of them. You 

are going to be earning dual degrees in Public and Community 

Health. You are from the Northeast, an area I have lived in and 

spent a lot of time in. I am sure it was a rocky couple of decades. 

You are going to be telling your story. To know that you have managed, over that period, to come so far and really be on the cusp now 

of having a wonderful life and a lot of opportunities, is an account 

that the U.S. Senate needs to know more of. So we are glad you 

are here. 

As I said, I am going to be parachuting back and forth. But the 

fact that Chairman Baucus has made it possible for us at this time 

to look at issues like how more young people can find their way to 

where you are today, is what the Senate needs to hear about. So, 

we welcome you. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator, very, very much. Thank you 

for your passion for kids, your own and others. [Laughter.] 

Senator Hatch is on his way. He is not here at the moment, obviously, but he will be here soon. When he does arrive, he will want 

to make a statement. 

But now it is my honor to introduce the four of you. This is quite 

a deal. I appreciate this very much. Charlie McNeely, as Senator 

Wyden has described, is an alumna of the Oregon foster care system and a student at Portland State. 

Jojo Murdock is from the California foster care system and a student at the University of California at Santa Barbara. It is very 

pretty out there. It is probably not raining like it is today. [Laughter.] 

4 

And Crystal Ward Allen, executive director of the Public Children Services Association of Ohio. Welcome, Ms. Allen. 

And Dr. William Bell. You are the only doctor here. President 

and chief executive officer of Casey Family Programs in Seattle. 

So, thank you all very much for taking the time to appear today. 

I will start with you, Charlie. Why don’t you just tell us what is 

on your mind? And any printed statement you have is automatically included in the record. Do not worry about that. Just say 

what is on your mind and what you think, and just go for it. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLIE McNEELY, ALUMNA OF THE OREGON 

FOSTER CARE SYSTEM, PORTLAND, OR 

Ms. MCNEELY. Well, hello. I am Charlie. I just want to say that 

I am really excited to be here, and I am really passionate about foster care reform. I really thank you guys for being here and being 

as passionate, and just your presence alone shows that change is 

coming. So, I am glad about that. 

And I am also excited that I got to meet Ron Wyden. That was 

the first time. We got a picture together, and hopefully he accepts 

my friend request on Facebook, because now he is on there. 

[Laughter.] So, we will see how that goes. I will let you guys know. 

The CHAIRMAN. Are you going to invite me to be a friend? 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. MCNEELY. Oh, of course. I just need your picture first as 

proof. [Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. We can work on that. 

Ms. MCNEELY. All right. 

So I just want to thank you, Chairman Baucus and Ranking 

Member Hatch, who is not here right now. But I just want to thank 

you guys and the members of the Senate Committee on Finance, 

and I thank you for inviting me to come here today to share my 

story. 

I am 24 years old, a foster care alumna from Oregon. I am here 

to talk to you about a simple word that is important, and that is 

connections, and how important that is in foster youths’ lives. I 

think connections help us build relationships and also help to define us outside of foster care, and not to only think of ourselves as 

being a foster youth. 

I was placed in foster care at the age of 3 with my four other 

siblings. Both my parents were drug abusers, so we were placed— 

it was an immediate—we were removed immediately from the 

home. And at the time, now that I am looking back and when I was 

asked to do this, I thought my main goal was to think of ways of 

how the process could have been less traumatic or how we could 

have been prevented from entering foster care in the first place. 

So I think with my parents, I would have liked to have seen 

more preventative services as far as maybe classes they could have 

taken or help they could have had with their drug addiction, and 

prevention from me and my siblings having to be split up in foster 

care. I think that would have been really helpful and less traumatic. 

And today, my relationship with my parents is going in a positive 

direction, so I am grateful for that. But it is really hard to kind 

of reestablish that relationship when you have had no preparation 

5 

while you were in foster care to have a relationship with your bio 

family and to reconnect. 

Since being placed in foster care, I have met a lot of uncles, 

aunts, and cousins who felt they only had one option, or none, and 

that was to either take me and my siblings in or to stay away. And 

I wish that my foster parents and other State workers were more 

active and willing to make an effort to keep me and my siblings 

together and use my extended family as resources to help us stay 

together, whether that would have been picking us up for weekends and making that connection with the other State workers to 

have us, I guess advocate for us, for our relationships, and to see 

how important that was to us. 

I have discovered that most foster youth, like myself, end up reestablishing relationships with their biological relatives, often reconnecting with their biological parents. And I have learned that 

this is not only true for me, but through a summer internship I had 

at Foster Club and other advocacy work I have done, I find this to 

be a reoccurring theme among foster youth, that once we leave the 

foster care system or exit out, that is who we, 9 times out of 10, 

go back to try to reconnect with, to try to find some type of identity 

or a sense of belongingness. 

Since it is clear that young people are likely to reconnect with 

birth family members, whether they have aged out of the system 

or live with kin or whether they are adopted, the system should 

provide services that help foster youths stay connected with their 

biological family and build healthy relationships while they have 

the support and safety net of the foster care system and while still 

in the foster care system. 

Some of my most difficult and disconnected periods in foster care 

were my stays in group homes and congregate care facilities, and 

I say this because a lot of it was damaging to my relationships and 

the healthy connections I did have while in foster care. Being in 

group homes and congregate care is usually most times meant for 

at-risk youth. For me, it was just the lack of a foster home placement, so that is why I was placed into these facilities. 

And I remember just kind of feeling like I did something wrong 

or I was a criminal, or something like that, or I did something to 

deserve to be there because I could not have connections with my 

siblings, I was not able to do simple things like call them. I had 

to earn phone privileges to talk to them, and to see them I had to 

have it be State-approved well in advance just to make sure that 

we stayed connected. 

And also, my grades suffered in school, I remember, because I 

did not have the option of going to a public school while in a group 

home. Many group homes are set up like that. So the only academic work you are given is at the group home, or the only academic studying you have is at the group home and whatever they 

set up. It is not really sufficient or adequate at all. 

So I think for us as foster youth to stay connected and to make 

the whole process a little bit easier—I talked about relationships 

and how important that is, but also a sense of feeling normal. I 

think normalcy is very important because, whether or not they stay 

connected, they still have a sense of identity through extracurricular activities and feeling like they belong and they are not 

6 

an outcast, for example, like going to prom or joining a basketball 

team or having sleepovers. Normal activities that you will see your 

peers doing, you did not feel like you had a choice or were a part 

of. I think the foster care system, for me, at least, did not advocate 

for me to be involved in those things at all. 

And I do not know whether the limitations on foster youths’ participation in extra-curricular activities is due to transportation 

costs, a young person’s lack of awareness about how they might be 

involved in their school or community, the foster care system, or 

the lack of foster parents knowing their limits. But I think overall, 

just to normalize the childhood for a foster youth through those activities could help a great deal. 

I want to go back to talking about my siblings. One of the most 

difficult disconnections in foster care was those relationships. I 

think it hindered a lot of what my relationships are—how my relationship is with them right now. And for the most part, me and my 

siblings are all we have, and I think that right now I am currently 

taking care of my brother, who still is in care. 

I just would like to see a lot of resources that are available to 

me right now as being a guardian of my younger brother, and 

whether that is help in crisis situations, mental or behavioral 

issues, things that might come up for him because he is an at-risk 

youth. So I want to help him, naturally, but I am not really sure 

of the resources and the services that are out there for me. 

So overall, I think that I and my family made it out of foster 

care, and we are going through the process pretty well. Today, I 

do not want to give you a sad story. I think I am a pretty good success. Today I work at the Immigrant and Refugee Center of Oregon 

at an elementary school. Like Senator Ron Wyden said, I will be 

graduating next year, so I am really excited about that. And while 

I am proud of my success, I realize that a lot of the foster care systems still have insufficiencies, and I just want to be there to help 

change that. 

So I just want to thank you for having me here today and sharing my story. Again, thank you, Senator, and Chairman Baucus, 

Senator Hatch, and committee members, for inviting me here to 

share and just listen to me. I really appreciate this opportunity. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you very much, Ms. McNeely. That 

is very, very interesting. I promise a lot of questions, and also a 

lot of praise for all that you have done. 

Ms. MCNEELY. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McNeely appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like, now, to introduce Senator Hatch. 

Senator Hatch has a few words he would like to give. Senator 

Hatch is a real champion for kids. We have worked together several times to help kids. The one that comes to mind most specifically is the Children’s Health Insurance Program. In fact, he and 

I were talking yesterday about other efforts to help kids. I was impressed, and Senator Hatch was rattling off numbers, the number 

of kids who are not yet covered by Children’s Health Insurance, 

and so forth. But anyway, I would like him to say a few words. 

Senator Hatch, you missed a good part of Charlie McNeely’s testimony. 

7 

Ms. MCNEELY. Yes, he did. 

The CHAIRMAN. But she is good. 

Senator HATCH. I did. I have two committees going simultaneously, and I have to get back to Judiciary. So, I am sorry I 

missed some of it, but I was very interested in what I did hear. I 

am very proud of you. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH 

Senator HATCH. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing. Thank you as well for the bipartisan manner in 

which this hearing was put together. 

The Senate Finance Committee has a long history of collaborative work on child welfare issues, and I am pleased that that tradition is continuing. 

Now, the purpose of this hearing is for the members of the committee to determine if extending the option to States to apply for 

child welfare waivers could improve outcomes for children and 

youth in, or at risk of going into, foster care. 

If history is any guide, giving States greater flexibility and greater options will likely result in better outcomes. I firmly believe that 

policy experimentation at the State level in our 50 laboratories of 

democracy leads to positive outcomes for citizens in the States in 

which they live. Our founders understood this when they created 

a Federal Government of limited powers and maintained the fundamental sovereignty of the States. 

Mr. Chairman, if the committee determines that it is in the best 

interest of children and families to do so, naturally I will work with 

you to craft legislation to give States that flexibility. 

It is said that a society is measured by how it treats its weakest 

members, including, of course, its children. By this standard, there 

is much we can do to improve. 

Our Nation’s child welfare system is in desperate need of reform. 

The current foster care financing structure is currently unsustainable. Federal priorities are misplaced. The majority of Federal 

funds for child welfare are directed at the least desirable outcome, 

that is, removing a child or children from the home and placing 

that child in foster care, often disrupting families and separating 

children from their siblings. 

A very small percentage of Federal funds is spent on evidencebased family preservation activities, which have demonstrated success in helping families stay together. Once in foster care, children 

and youth are routinely isolated and restricted from participating 

in normal, age-appropriate activities. Children and youth in foster 

care are often prevented from playing sports, attending school 

events, field trips, or even summer camp. Older youth in foster care 

can be inappropriately medicated and segregated in substandard 

congregate care facilities. 

The current system does not adequately serve youth transitioning out of foster care. Every year, nearly 30,000 young people exit 

foster care without a permanent family or a meaningful connection 

with a caring adult. It is not uncommon for these young people, 18 

years old, to have their few belongings placed in a garbage bag and 

subsequently driven to a homeless shelter. It is not surprising they 

8 

have much higher rates of unemployment, homelessness, incarceration, and, of course, drug and alcohol abuse. 

A number of States have indicated that, with some flexibility in 

the financing structure of child welfare, they could develop and implement innovative strategies that can reduce the number of children and youth entering foster care, while also improving the circumstances for children in the child welfare system, including 

those in foster care. 

Today, I am happy to note that we will hear from witnesses who 

will speak to the need of reform and the need to reform the child 

welfare system, from a State that has shown what can be done 

with flexibility, and how an expansion of waivers could result in 

improved outcomes for children and youth in care, as well as greater capacity for States to keep struggling families together. If the 

committee elects to expand State waiver authority and if innovative State practices produce the desired results, I believe we will 

be on our way to developing a blueprint which could lead to comprehensive child welfare reform. 

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you, our expert panel of witnesses, for being here today, and I will look forward to reading your testimony. Forgive me for having to go back 

to the Judiciary Committee for a while. We often find, in these split 

times, that we just have to do the best we can. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Hatch, very much. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Hatch appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I would now like to call on you, Jojo. You have 

a similar, but a little bit different, perspective from Charlie. 

Ms. MURDOCK. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Charlie was very interesting, and I know you 

will be, too. Why don’t you go ahead? 

STATEMENT OF JOJO MURDOCK, ALUMNA OF THE 

CALIFORNIA FOSTER CARE SYSTEM, SANTA BARBARA, CA 

Ms. MURDOCK. Yes. She is amazing. 

Well, first, I just want to say—— 

The CHAIRMAN. She thinks you are. [Laughter.] 

Ms. MURDOCK. Well, thank you very much. I will also be requesting a Facebook——[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I will get that photo right away. 

Ms. MURDOCK. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I need yours. 

Ms. MURDOCK. Yes. We will exchange. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. 

Ms. MURDOCK. First of all, I just want to say it is such an honor 

to be here and just hearing you guys speak showed me how important that we are to you guys, and that every day I stand in the 

gap for these youths. It does my heart good to see that there are 

people who care and who are doing something on a bigger level to 

change their lives. So, Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member Hatch, 

and members of the committee, thank you so much for inviting me 

to testify today. 

9 

I thank the members of the committee for their commitment to 

creating a better life and a brighter future for the children who are 

living in foster care today. 

My name is Joscelynn ‘‘Jojo’’ Crowley Murdock, and I am 26 

years old. And I entered into the California foster care system as 

a little girl, at the age of 8, and I aged out as a young woman at 

the age of 18. Now, I know the old saying goes that, whatever 

doesn’t kill you makes you stronger, and I am definitely a stronger 

person for everything I have been through in my life. But I still 

cannot help but play the ‘‘what if’’ game. What if the system had 

made slightly different choices for me, what would my life have 

been like then? 

As I sit back and I ponder on that question, I always go back to 

where it began for me. It started way before I entered into the system. It started with my biological family. I remember us being a 

happy one—maybe not a perfect one and maybe not as healthy as 

everybody thinks that it should have been. But nonetheless, we 

were happy. It was my mom, my two sisters, and me. And you 

know, when you are a little kid, all you care about is being together, and that is what we were: we were together. 

But the reality was, my mom had it really hard. She was a single 

mother of three. We were dirt poor, and she struggled constantly 

with mental illness. I remember bouncing all over the place, living 

in shelter homes, living on the streets, in so many different locations. It was a struggle for her to find child care for three girls 

when she had no support and little to no money. I look at that and 

I just know that it is hard for a normal set of parents, and I wonder what could have been different for her, what if they would have 

given her more support. 

And soon enough, she realized that she could no longer do this; 

she could no longer put us through this with being evicted, and her 

grandparents who raised her passing away, so she decided that she 

had to do what was best for us and make the hardest decision any 

mother could, and that was giving us away. She decided to go with 

giving us to our biological fathers, which would have been great, 

other than the fact that we did not know who my father was, or 

where my father was, for that matter. So she kept me. She took 

giving my two sisters away really hard, and went further into her 

own little world. 

Soon enough, I was all alone. I was by myself. That led to eventually me being taken away due to child neglect. They tried adopting me out when I first went into care, but when it was explained 

to me, it was explained that I would be getting a new family. And 

why did I need a new family? I was 8. I already had two sisters 

and a mom. And they already yanked me from my home, and to 

take that from me just—I could not handle that thought. I was not 

ready to let that go. I wonder what if somebody would have explained adoption to me just a little bit differently. 

The next thing that I wonder about is that I did—I had an aunt 

and uncle whom I later on met in life, and they are amazing, a 

solid, good family who could have cared for me. But yet, no one 

sought them out. No one took that time to really search for my relatives, and so it always left me wondering, what if somebody would 

have done that? 

10 

And then lastly, I spent 10 years in the foster care system. Ten 

years of birthdays being a foster kid. Ten years of going without 

a family to call my own. Ten years of feeling unloved and unwanted. That was 10 years too long, in my opinion. 

The other thing I wonder about is, I spent 10 years in the same 

home and nobody reapproached me about being adopted again. It 

broke my heart a little bit to think, did they not think I wanted 

that chance to make a connection with my foster mom? And if they 

would have, and if they would have said it is just adding to my 

family and not taking away, I think I would have reconsidered 

being adopted, even as a teenager. And I do not want to say everything the system did did not work for me, because there were 

things that did. One of those things they did well was that they 

kept me connected with my older sister, Cynthia. 

The reason that was so important, those summer visits, those 

letters, was because, when I aged out at the age of 18, when ILP, 

the Independent Living Program, gave me my duffel bag, my 

microwave, and all my household necessities, my prepared package, 

because I was one of the successful ones; when that moment came 

and everyone was so excited for me—not that my foster mom and 

me did not have a great connection, not that they did not have good 

intentions—but the truth was, I was terrified, you guys. I had no 

idea what being on my own meant. I just knew, this is what foster 

kids did: we hit 18 and we aged out. 

My foster mom told me her door was open, but that relationship 

requires a 2-way street. And, if you do not understand, how do you 

go down that street, how do you travel that road? For me, I got 

onto that plane to my older sister, headed to Hawaii, and I cried 

the entire time there. I bawled, because I was leaving everything 

I knew behind. I felt like I was being yanked out. Not that I did 

not love my sister, and I was glad we had made that connection, 

but I was being moved again. The system left me, and that is the 

way that I felt. 

So I spent a year and a half trying to figure out what I was doing 

in Hawaii, and, regardless of my grand plans and my idea of whatever their idea of permanency was, I worked part-time, did not attend college, and ended up back in California anyways. Luckily for 

me, I did have a supportive foster mom. She loves me. She always 

makes me feel loved. She is my guardian angel, in my opinion, my 

blessing in disguise. She has been supportive of me 100-percent. 

She always tells me how amazing I am, and I know she is not just 

my hero, but other foster children who have been through her 

home also. 

And even though I wonder ‘‘what if,’’ I wonder ‘‘what if’’ all these 

things, I know that all these things shape who I am today, that I 

am able to stand before you and to testify. And the thing is, I am 

grateful for all of it. I am grateful for every situation I have been 

through because it has made me stronger, like I have said in the 

beginning. 

I go back to that because, after I interned with Foster Club, they 

explained to me what permanency really was, that it was making 

a lifelong connection, that it was being able to have somebody at 

my wedding, it was going home to wash clothes, all those things. 

I made that connection with my foster mom. Last year, I am proud 

11 

to say that we did an adult adoption. That is why my name is now 

Joscelynn Crowley Murdock. It made such a difference in my 

world. 

I have been married for about a year and a half now to an amazing man, Kevin Murdock. Our wedding is the perfect picture of 

what families should be. We did not have a ‘‘his’’ side or a ‘‘her’’ 

side. We had just one side. We got married in a circle. That was 

because that was my circle of trust. It included my biological family, my foster family, and my friends, and my new family. So I 

think every child deserves that. Now I attend UCSB, like we heard. 

I am in my last year, getting a Sociology degree. I work strongly 

on advocating for foster youth to make connections in my community. 

I urge the committee to consider how reforming the child welfare 

finance structure to provide flexibility so that the States and communities can provide prevention services, supports for relative care, 

or any other specific supports a little girl who enters foster care tomorrow might need. 

So, thank you, guys, for listening to me. Thank you for your time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Murdock, for your 

courage, both in what you experienced, and sharing it with us. 

Thank you so very, very much. 

Ms. MURDOCK. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Murdock appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Allen? 

STATEMENT OF CRYSTAL WARD ALLEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PUBLIC CHILDREN SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF OHIO, 

COLUMBUS, OH 

Ms. ALLEN. Good morning, Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member 

Hatch, and other members of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee. 

It is really an honor to be here to talk with you today about innovations in child welfare using Ohio’s flexible title IV–E waiver. 

My name is Crystal Allen. I am the executive director of Public 

Children Services Association of Ohio. We are the nonprofit membership organization for each of Ohio’s 88 county public child welfare agencies. We work on program excellence, and we support 

sound public policy for safe children, stable families, and support 

of communities. 

PCSAO is also the project manager for Ohio’s Fostering Connections Kinship Navigator Grant, which was one of the things you 

authorized in the Fostering Connections to Success Act of 2008. 

Thank you very much for that. 

Ohio’s is only one of 13 State-supervised, county-administered 

child welfare systems in the Nation. Our funding system is heavily 

dependent on local and Federal investment. In fact, the State investment is usually between 8 and 11 percent. We are very proud 

to be fiscally accountable. We have to depend on the generosity of 

local taxpayers to reauthorize our levies every few years, and we 

have recently earned a 96-plus percent compliance rate on our Federal title IV–E eligibility review. 

We have enjoyed a title IV–E budget neutral flexible funding 

waiver since 1997. We just received formal renewal of our current 

12 

waiver last night, so a new 5-year renewal, and we are very excited 

about that. 

Eighteen counties participated in the waiver. It is a mixture of 

metro, suburban, and rural communities, and it constitutes a third 

of the Ohio population. These counties often lead the way with innovations, allowing other counties in Ohio to replicate their successes. Data from the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Court Improvement 

Program shows Ohio has made a steady, intentional, 42-percent reduction in child placements between January 2002 and January 

2010. We are very proud of this safe reduction. 

The flexible funds have been essential in our safe reduction of 

children in foster and group care by strengthening families. Rather 

than being restricted in investing our title IV–E funds only in 

placement cost—which is a critical resource for child safety, but it 

is only half the job—our waiver also allows investment in the 

whole continuum of child welfare services: community-based prevention, placement diversion services, family strengthening and 

safety planning services, support of relatives and other kin, and enhancing the quality of services for children and youth who are in 

care and who are transitioning out of care. 

I would like to take a moment to give you just a little bit of data 

regarding our improved outcomes. The Adoption and Foster Care 

Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) Federal data shows that 

the highest-performing States that have safely reduced the number 

of kids in care have made amazing progress with reduction rates 

between 30 and 42 percent between 2002 and 2009. Four of the five 

highest-performing States had title IV–E waivers. They were California, Florida, Ohio, and Illinois. I think that speaks a lot to the 

value of waivers. 

Ohio data comparing statistics between 2001 and the end of 2009 

show that we had a 15-percent increase in reports of child maltreatment. We attribute this to the stressed economy. Our unemployment rate still remains around 10 percent in Ohio. Ohio continues to better serve our children, though, by safely investing in 

families versus removing the children for placement; a 34-percent 

decrease in custody at least one day during a year, and a 46- 

percent decrease in the number of children waiting for adoption. So 

we are not only placing fewer children, but they are staying in care 

for shorter lengths of stay. We are unifying more often. We have 

more permanency with relatives and adoptive families, even while 

we have increased reports of maltreatment. 

I have a number of examples from communities in Ohio. In 

Franklin County, which is Columbus, they have used their waiver 

funding for things like investing in neighborhood settlement houses 

so that they bring resources to community-poor neighborhoods 

where families live. This means we move fewer children because 

they have a resource in their community. 

The agency is also invested in an educational partnership for 

academic success for its kids in foster care. It brings tutoring and 

transportation and educational enrichment to those kids. Since it 

has been in place, their graduation, their attendance, and their 

academic performance have all improved. 

In Lorraine County, they did a whole philosophical change from 

rescuing children versus placing them. They dramatically changed 

13 

how many kids they were placing. Back in 1995, they had 350 kids 

in placement. Today, they have 90 kids in placement. Their average length of stay back then was 53 months; today their average 

length of stay is 10 months. You look at kids in APPLA, long-term 

foster care, they had 87 kids back then; today they have one. 

While they have reduced the number of kids in care and in congregate care, et cetera, they have greatly improved the quality of 

foster care. They keep their foster families like the National Reserve: ready and waiting. When a child is placed in foster care, 

they only place one child or one sibling group in one family. They 

do not overload them. That really makes a big difference for these 

kids. 

In Richland County, which is Mansfield, they invested funds in 

multi-systemic therapy, which is an evidence-based program for 

troubled youth and their families. That greatly retained a lot of unruly youth in their families. They also invested a lot for timely 

adoptions. In fact, they have received the HHS ‘‘Excellence in 

Adoption’’ award for timeliness a few years ago. 

A hallmark of this program is support of relatives and kinship, 

and they really support their extended families. They are very externally oriented, too. Their YMCA gives free YMCA memberships 

to all of their kinship families. 

I do want to just talk a moment about the IV–E waiver design. 

It is an experiment, and therefore there are evaluation issues. We 

have a comparison and control design which basically prohibits any 

counties of size from adding into the waiver. That is why only onethird of the State is in the waiver, because they need like counties 

for control. Some States have time series designs, which is a nice 

thought to think a whole State could participate. 

The last thing I just want to say is that I would request Congress aggressively move to make broad reform in Federal child welfare funding. IV–E was designed to pay for foster and adoption 

care. It does it well, but it is not the only thing we need. We need 

prevention, diversion, ongoing support services for these families, 

and we need to get rid of the antiquated 1996 income standards. 

In Ohio, a family must have about $4,000 a year for a family of 

four in order to be IV–E-eligible, and that is unacceptable. 

Thanks for hearing about our waiver experience. I would be 

happy to answer questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Allen. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Allen appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Bell, you are batting clean-up here. 

STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM BELL, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CASEY FAMILY PROGRAMS, SEATTLE, 

WA 

Dr. BELL. All right. Good morning, Chairman Baucus, Ranking 

Member Senator Hatch in his absence, and all the members of the 

Senate Finance Committee. Thank you for the invitation to join 

you today. I am William C. Bell, president and CEO of Casey Family Programs, a national foundation committed to improving the 

lives of vulnerable children and families in America. 

Casey Family Programs has been serving children in foster care 

for nearly 45 years, and we have come to believe that the goals of 

14 

child welfare should be both to keep children who have been 

abused and neglected safe from further harm, and to prevent the 

need for foster care in the first place by strengthening vulnerable 

families and their communities. 

Casey understands that it takes both human and financial resources to be successful, and so we have committed to spend approximately $1 billion of our own endowment over the next 9 years 

to help protect and support our Nation’s most vulnerable children. 

However, we know that, in order for us to meet the goals of safely reducing the need of foster care in this country, we must partner 

with public and private agencies, communities, advocates, other 

private philanthropies, and all branches of the State and Federal 

Governments. This is why we are so grateful that you have dedicated this time to discuss how the expansion of waivers can help 

improve outcomes for children in foster care and those at risk of 

entering fostering care. 

Since Casey began its 2020 strategy for America’s children, there 

has been a 17-percent reduction in the Nation’s foster care population, from just over 510,000 children in out-of-home care in fiscal 

year 2005 to just over 420,000 in 2009. 

I believe this is in part due to an increasing number of child welfare agencies working successfully with families upstream, identifying other safe alternatives for children besides foster care, and 

emphasizing prevention and post-permanency support as integral 

parts of child welfare practice. However, many States across the 

country are facing dramatic budget cuts, and many of the innovative and prevention-focused services that help reduce reliance on 

foster care are most at risk of being cut. 

According to the National Association of State Mental Health 

Program directors, States are making unprecedented cuts in mental health spending: nearly 4 percent as a national average between 2008 and 2009; an additional 5 percent from 2009 to 2010; 

and 8 percent or more projected for 2011. 

These cuts reduce community-based treatment for children and 

parents at risk of becoming involved in the child welfare system 

and/or foster care placement. Research shows that lack of community mental health and substance abuse services increases demands on families. It increases demands on the child welfare system and other Health and Human Services programs. 

There are specific State examples as well, such as in Illinois: the 

Governor’s budget proposal cuts approximately 10 percent of the 

Department of Health and Human Services’ budget, including a 

proposed mental health budget cut of $35 million. Advocates say 

that more than 70,000 people, including 4,200 children, are in danger of losing basic community-based services. 

We believe that enhanced flexibility through waivers could help 

States continue these evidence-based programs within their current 

Federal funding. If we are to continue the positive momentum and 

capitalize on progress already realized on behalf of our children, we 

must consider changing our policies around child welfare financing. 

We need finance reform that funds and institutionalizes the kinds 

of innovative practices that produce the positive results and outcomes we desire. Title IV–E waivers are an important step in that 

direction. Each of the seven States that have current waivers has 

15 

the flexibility waivers, and countless other States who received 

waivers under the previous authority have demonstrated that innovation and improved outcomes can be achieved. 

One waiver State that has been particularly effective is Florida. 

Florida has reduced the number of children in foster care by nearly 

35 percent between fiscal years 2005 and 2010. They have done so 

because they are now able to take title IV–E dollars that normally 

would have been limited to foster care and use them to support 

front-end services, allowing children to remain safely at home and 

preventing the need for more expensive forms of out-of-home care. 

Florida was also able to protect its child welfare department from 

drastic budget cuts because, under its title IV–E waiver, they were 

required to invest a certain level of State funding in order to receive the Federal funding. Florida then reinvested these dollars in 

programs and services that better met the needs of children and 

youth in foster care, particularly those who were most vulnerable, 

youth about to age out of foster care. 

For example, Florida has used some of its reinvestment to fund 

the option in Fostering Connections to extend foster care to age 21, 

and to provide enhanced support to youth to encourage them to 

stay in school or find employment. We are learning more each day 

about how best to serve our most vulnerable children and families. 

Federal financing policies need to keep pace with what we are 

learning; however, until Congress passes comprehensive child welfare finance reform, we urge you to reauthorize the waiver program 

so that more of our resources are available to support innovation 

and more effective interventions that better meet the needs of all 

of America’s most vulnerable children. 

Chairman Baucus, you said that, at the passing of Fostering 

Connections, that our work was not yet finished. I thank you personally today for seeking to continue that work and moving towards comprehensive finance reform with these hearings today. I 

thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward 

to responding to your questions. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you very much, Dr. Bell. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Bell appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like you to tell us, Charlie and Jojo, now 

that you have heard Ms. Allen and Dr. Bell, what are some of your 

experiences that you think they are addressing that are being addressed, and which ones not? What are your basic suggestions in 

addition to what they have said? They talk about the waivers, the 

experiment waivers, and just the progress that a lot of these waivers have made. So just a couple of thoughts. If you want to make 

the system better, what would you suggest? I know, Charlie, you 

talk about connections. So how can we make better connections? 

Ms. MCNEELY. For me, I think prevention is key. And I think 

that is the whole concept behind keeping a family together, is preventing foster kids from even having to enter care. Sometimes entering care is inevitable, especially if the parents are a threat or 

a danger. So while they are in care, I think it is important to keep, 

like I said earlier, those sibling connections. They are very important, and for people to advocate for the youth to be connected to 

their extended family, their biological family, and build those 

healthy relationships while in care. I think having that safety net 

16 

of the foster care system while the child is in care will help them, 

when they transition out of care, to know how to reconnect with 

their siblings in a healthy manner, in a way that will set boundaries. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now, why did that not happen with you? Why 

was there not enough of that with you? 

Ms. MCNEELY. I think for the most part I was removed from my 

family, and then that was that. I was removed from my family and 

was not encouraged to really be able to accept them as my family 

and try to find a new family in the foster care system. And since 

I did not have an idea of permanency, then I did not have that 

when I exited the foster care system, so I had to try to find it later. 

The CHAIRMAN. I know. But was the inability to connect, is that 

bureaucracy? Did you say, hey, I want to better connect with my 

extended family? 

Ms. MCNEELY. I think a lot of it had to do with me moving 

around a lot—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Ms. MCNEELY [continuing]. And being in group homes and congregate care facilities. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Jojo, what about you? I mean, you were 

in foster care for 10 years. 

Ms. MURDOCK. Yes, I sure was. One of the things that really hit 

home for me when you guys were speaking was the idea that there 

has been a reduction due to the flexibility of the money. For kids 

who are aging out, that is really where my heart is. That there is 

an extended—in Florida you said they extended it to the age of 21. 

For me, if that would have happened, I think it would have made 

such a big difference. It would have given me more time to be honest about how I was feeling about the fears of aging out, the fears 

of being on my own and not feeling like I was fully prepared. But 

people expecting that, when you have sort of this lure over you and 

you do not want to be that statistic, you do not want to be that 

person falling into that category, but yet you need to go and be 

ready. 

I just ask who you guys, how many kids do you guys know who 

still go back home to their parents and they are 24, they go back 

home on college visits? They go home. But where is home for us? 

Where is that after you have aged out if you have not made those 

connections? And, if there was not flexibility in supports, then how 

do they expect us to make those connections if that is not a clear 

path for us? 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask Ms. Allen and Dr. Bell: have these 

changes been made, to age out better, maintain connections, make 

it easier? I mean, is that the point of some of these experimental 

waivers or not? 

Ms. ALLEN. Well, it absolutely is. As a State, Ohio has not picked 

up the option for the older youth, but we have done a lot for our 

kids who are aging out. In fact, we are hosting a summit with our 

Board of Regents and the child welfare community in May that offers a lot of issues for transitioning. 

Like, recently there was a great article in the Dayton Daily News 

where Wright State University, one of our colleges that works a lot 

with transitioning youth, are now opening a separate dorm so that 

17 

kids can stay year-round. So we do a lot of things for the transitioning youth with the flexible funding, without keeping them in 

custody. 

The CHAIRMAN. What do these waivers show? What misconceptions do they expose and what new ways—maybe old ways—confirm? What do they really show? What is best? 

Ms. ALLEN. Chairman Baucus, one of the things that we have 

seen is that investing in the kin, the relatives and other kin who 

serve as placement resources, makes a huge difference. In fact, we 

are going to have very rigorous evaluation about that in this current iteration of our waiver. So that is a very big thing. Under our 

Kinship Navigator grant, the counties are serving the families that 

are not formally involved with the child welfare system, but a lot 

of relative families are formally involved. We know that some of 

the research says those families get fewer services. We are investing in a lot more support and services to them because we know 

the extended family is very important; the stability and the performance in school and the community is so much better for those 

kids. 

The CHAIRMAN. My time has expired. But, Dr. Bell, if you have 

something, you can have 30 seconds. 

Dr. BELL. Yes. What I would say is that waivers have shown that 

they are not a silver bullet. They are an opportunity to improve 

upon what we currently have. I think we have to be concerned 

about States who are waiver-ready and who have demonstrated 

that they have a clear plan of action and they have been moving 

towards improving outcomes. 

Flexible funding waivers, as distinguished from single-project 

waivers, allow for States to expand the use of their dollars and 

Federal dollars to pay for services that are absolutely needed to 

keep children safe in their communities but are not available under 

the current way financing is structured. 

I think what the waivers have also demonstrated is that the real 

solution is comprehensive finance reform, because waivers are a 

temporary step. We have to make sure that we change the way 

Federal dollars are allowed to be spent. I think that is what we 

have learned from States like Florida, and counties in California. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

I would like, now, to call on Senator Cantwell, who has a good 

Seattle, WA connection here. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 

for having this important hearing. I think looking at the waivers, 

since it has been since 2006, is very important, I mean, just from 

the perspective of inequity and balance of States. 

I know we are in Washington here and we like to regulate, but 

our Washington, we like to innovate. We are not allowed to innovate in this example versus other States who have already been 

given waivers. But I very much appreciate you having this hearing 

and look forward to what legislation we might be able to do to reinstitute the Secretary’s power to give waivers. 

And thank you to the witnesses. Thank you so much for being 

here. It is just such a testament to your fortitude that you are here 

testifying before the U.S. Senate. Neither of you appeared nervous, 

18 

but I just hope you are taking it all in in this important moment. 

And thank you, Ms. Allen and Dr. Bell. 

Dr. Bell, so we are here today because we have that perverse incentive that is currently in the system. For Washington State, our 

system, we want to reward good outcomes and permanency and 

keep families together and intact. The fact that we are actually penalized for those innovative strategies is a problem, but we have 

actually been able to, in Washington State, reduce foster care caseloads by 13.8 percent from 2008 to 2010, and yet we have actually 

lost Federal dollars over that time period. 

So, in this current budget crisis, it seems to me that we ought 

to be moving faster towards these innovations. I think one of my 

State colleagues, Ruth Kagi, said it best in the State when she said 

the waivers can help States move from purchasing specific services 

to purchasing specific outcomes. 

Dr. BELL. Right. 

Senator CANTWELL. And I think that that is really what we are 

trying to do overall in health care, is move towards outcome-based 

solutions. 

So, could you tell me a little bit about the cost savings and the 

reinvestment of those savings, and how we get better outcomes? 

Dr. BELL. Yes. As I said in my oral testimony, the real challenge 

is making sure that we understand what we are seeking as desired 

outcomes in the first place. I think that is one of the steps in an 

application process for a waiver that we should be looking at: has 

a State demonstrated that it has a clear perspective on what outcomes it is looking to purchase? The way current Federal dollars 

are structured, they purchase foster care. They do not purchase 

prevention, they do not purchase up-front services, they do not purchase services to adoptive families and to reunified families to keep 

those children at home once they leave. 

This year, 30 percent of the children who are placed in foster 

care across this country will be coming back to foster care for either their second, third, or fourth time in foster care. I think that 

the waivers will create an opportunity, and we have seen that in 

the States that have them. Flexible funding waivers create an opportunity for us to say, what are the outcomes? And so, I would 

suggest that increasing permanency is a desired outcome. 

Improving safety is a desired outcome. Reducing reentry into foster care is a desired outcome. Improving the quality of existing foster care services has to be a desired outcome. And improving the 

adult outcomes for youth aging out of care is one of those outcomes. 

So, in structuring a waiver program, I think that we have to structure it so that it is not just ‘‘pick where you want to go,’’ but let 

us talk about where we want to go as a Nation in terms of the outcomes that we want for our children, and then structure our resources so that they cover those costs. I think one of the pieces that 

I also mention in my oral testimony is, there needs to be a requirement that States also maintain their investment in this funding, 

as well as the Federal dollars, so that we can make sure we have 

the most resources possible available. 

Senator CANTWELL. How do you think Washington State has reduced its caseload so significantly? I am sure the Casey Foundation 

and others have been key parts of that success. 

19 

Dr. BELL. Well, I think that, again, that is one of those points 

of, are you ready for a waiver? I think that one of the reasons 

Washington State has reduced its caseload is the same reason that 

I think other States can be successful and be ready to receive a 

waiver. I think you have to have the political will necessary to own 

the responsibility for the services. I think you have to have a clear 

plan of action for what you are trying to achieve and what the results are that you are looking for. 

I think you have to have data-driven accountability so that you 

can measure whether or not you are moving down that pathway. 

And I think you have to have a sustained commitment to continuing that work. In many jurisdictions, when a tragedy occurs, 

there is an outcry and a call for change at the top or change in a 

system. I think we have to develop the capacity to recognize that 

results are going to be achieved over a multi-year period of time 

and we have to stick to it, and I think Washington State has demonstrated that it is willing to spend its own resources to do that 

and willing to go down that path. 

Senator CANTWELL. And I guess I would say, because I see my 

time is almost up, that reducing the caseload on the front end is 

probably one of the best tools that we could have to preventing 

Federal expenditures. I mean, it is the wisest way to deal with this 

situation. 

Dr. BELL. Right. 

Senator CANTWELL. And yet, there is this perverse incentive to 

dealing with that. 

Dr. BELL. Right. 

Senator CANTWELL. And I think we heard from our two witnesses 

today that there were family members, there were scenarios that 

could have been explored. But I am sure no one was getting paid 

to explore those, or basically had a regulation in front of them that 

said, this is exactly what you are allowed to do and nothing more. 

So I think this is so important in the delivery of efficient care. I 

do not want to just emphasize that end, because the heartfelt emotions and pain and suffering that these young women have gone 

through could have been a little different. 

Dr. BELL. Right. 

Senator CANTWELL. It is such a very real part of this story. 

Dr. BELL. It is. 

Senator CANTWELL. It is about making those connections for people up front that could have given them that sense of permanency 

in a different light, and also it can save us huge Federal dollars 

in keeping people out of the system to begin with. 

So I hope we will look at this, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much 

for this important hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

I have one more question, actually, and that is about the experimental design. I might ask Ms. Allen this question. Is that working? 

Ms. ALLEN. Chairman Baucus, it is working. I work with all the 

counties State-wide, so my goal is not just to assist the counties 

that participate in the waiver, but to lift up our child welfare system across the State. As the counties in the waiver have flexible 

funding to innovate, the other counties start to replicate. So we are 

20 

comparing ourselves to like counties, but they are replicating themselves. So I really like the time series evaluations that Florida and 

California do. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now, is each allocated the same number of dollars? Because it is my understanding that some of the control counties, I think, are a little concerned that they are not getting the 

same dollars that the waiver counties are getting, or vice versa. I 

am just curious, what is all that about? 

Ms. ALLEN. Certainly, Chairman Baucus. The control counties 

get traditional child welfare funding, so they get reimbursed for a 

portion of their placement cost. The waiver counties get—I mean, 

each waiver is structured differently. Ohio’s, they get kind of a set 

amount of funds based on their historical placement cost. Then we 

actually have an inflator or deflator based on a per diem rate. So 

it is a little complicated, but that—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think it works out pretty well, or is it a 

little biased? 

Ms. ALLEN. It is working out very well for the waiver counties. 

The CHAIRMAN. What about for the control counties? 

Dr. BELL. If I might add, Chairman Baucus, I think that the 

issue is, when you look at it from a funding perspective, you are 

comparing flexible funding waivers and comprehensive finance reform to traditional financing. Traditional financing limits the 

spending capacity of States; when the kids go home, you lose Federal dollars. 

I think that the challenge on the experimental design—I think 

what we have learned from California and Florida is that you can 

create a design that actually compares a system against itself. Look 

at what you would have done if you had to continue spending what 

the traditional spending practice is, and look at what you are capable of doing in a flexible funding waiver. I think that that takes 

care of some of the issues that many States had in the old waiver 

environment, which was, we do not want to have to deprive a child 

of services that we could provide if we had this waiver. 

So therefore, when you have that traditional research experimental design with a control group, you are saying to some kids, 

I will give these services to these kids because they are in the test 

group, but I will not give them to you because you are in the experimental group. States just find that very challenging, I think, absolutely correctly. We should not do that to children. So I think that 

what we have learned from the designs in California and Florida 

should be used to help us in restructuring how we design waivers 

going forward. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you very much. 

Senator Cantwell, any other questions? 

Senator CANTWELL. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very, very much. 

Before we leave here, let me ask again, Charlie and Jojo. Anything kind of in the back of your mind you want to say? You know, 

something that has not come up yet, something that should. Some 

nagging little something that is kind of telling you, gee, that should 

have been raised or addressed. Anything? I will just give you a 

chance and opportunity if something is coming up. 

21 

Ms. MURDOCK. I just know how important it is for us to connect 

these kids. If they are to be in the system, regardless of—say they 

have no other place, and we have left them in the system. It is so 

important for us to connect them to some type of community. So, 

regardless of how that money is used in order to do that, that 

should be our primary goal, because in the long run we are going 

to end up paying for it, after they exit care, through other 

sources—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Ms. MURDOCK [continuing]. If we are not rising to the call and 

taking care of it before it becomes an issue, if they have to be in 

foster care. So, having those mentors, having programs that support those kinds of things and giving them the resources they need, 

I think is so significant. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. I saw the importance of connection firsthand, and that was several years ago. I was going around my State 

of Montana to junior high schools on anti-methamphetamine campaigns. We had law enforcement, counselors, and all kinds of people. It was very interesting. As part of doing this I would say, all 

right, raise your hand if you know somebody who is on meth. I 

would say more than half the hands went up. Over a couple, 3 

years, there are still a few hands that go up, but fewer. 

Anyway, at one of these sessions at a pretty big junior high 

school, everybody left. This little kid came up, and I could tell he 

had problems. There was something bothering this kid. He came up 

to me and he said, ‘‘My mom is on meth.’’ He said, my mom has 

been taken away from me, or I have been taken away from my 

mom. I have forgotten what it was. I said, ‘‘How are you doing?’’ 

‘‘Not well.’’ He started to cry. I just decided right then and there, 

I am going to mentor this kid and follow up, and I have. His mom 

died a couple of years later. He was placed in a foster home in Billings, MT. We visit a lot. I ate more ice cream than you could imagine. [Laughter.] 

We have ice cream together with Danny. His name was Danny. 

Then he was placed in another foster home in a small town in 

Montana, and that made a big difference to him. First of all, I was 

reminded of him when you talked about your foster mom. He loved 

her, and called her mom. 

Ms. MURDOCK. I did call my foster mom mother, too. 

The CHAIRMAN. When I go to see him, it is his mom, his mother. 

She was terrific. It was a small community. Also, he graduated a 

couple, 3 years ago, and I spoke at his graduation. But it was the 

connection of a small community. That foster home was in a small 

community. Now he is off with his brother, frankly. But you are 

right about those connections with family. And not just family—it 

is community and sleepovers, and all that. It just made a huge difference to him. 

Ms. MURDOCK. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. So, anything else you want to say? 

Ms. MCNEELY. And not to repeat anything she said, but just to 

stress the fact that connection is important. Because, when I exited 

the foster care system, I did have some pretty awesome foster parents who helped to mentor me. I think it is important for foster 

kids to establish that sense of permanency early on before they 

22 

even exit the foster care system. So I think that is one thing that 

kind of came up, but just to know that it starts way before the 

child even starts that transition out of the foster care system. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Ms. MURDOCK. Yes. And including children in those permanency 

issues, making sure they understand what that means, their transition plan. Because I had no clue what permanency was. I wish 

somebody would have told me what that really meant, and on a 

personal level, too. 

Ms. MCNEELY. Yes. 

Ms. MURDOCK. That they are proactive in the process. 

Ms. MCNEELY. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I have another idea for connection in a little different way. 

Ms. MURDOCK. Oh, yes? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Every summer, we in the committee hire a 

student who is a graduate of the foster care system. In fact, sitting 

behind you is Nicole Marchman. Nicole is an intern for us. So, 

Charlie and Jojo, if either one of you want to work for us to be an 

intern, I am serious about that. Just let us know, all right? 

Ms. MCNEELY. That would be awesome. 

Ms. MURDOCK. We will have to take you up on that. 

The CHAIRMAN. In the meantime, when this is over, we have a 

photographer back here so we can get this Facebook thing going. 

Ms. MURDOCK. There we go. That is going to be my main photo: 

I went to the Senate. 

The CHAIRMAN. But you guys have been terrific. Thank you, both 

of you. Ms. Allen, Dr. Bell, you clearly care. You are clearly deeply 

involved in making a difference. So, thank you very, very much. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:16 a.m., the hearing was concluded.] 

(23) 

A P P E N D I X 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD


74734001.eps
24 


74734.002
25 


74734.003
26 


74734.004
27 


74734.005
28 


74734.006
29 


74734.007
30 


74734.008
31 


74734.009
32 


74734.010
33 


74734.011
34 


74734.012
35 


74734.013
36 


74734.014
37 


74734.015
38 


74734.016
39 


74734.017
40 


74734.018
41 


74734.019
42 


74734.020
43 


74734.021
44 


74734.022
45 


74734.023
46 


74734.024
47 


74734.025
48 


74734.026
49 


74734.027
50 


74734.028
51 


74734.029
52 


74734.030
53 


74734.031
54 


74734.032
55 


74734.033
56 


74734.034
(57) 

COMMUNICATIONS


74734035.eps
58 


74734.036
59 


74734.037
60 


74734.038
61 


74734.039
62 


74734.040
63 


74734.041
64 


74734.042
65 


74734.043
66 


74734.044
67 


74734.045
68 


74734.046
69 


74734.047
70 


74734.048
71 


74734.049
72 


74734.050
73 


74734.051
74 


74734.052
75 


74734.053
76 


74734.054
77 


74734.055
78 


74734.056
79 


74734.057
80 


74734.058
81 

Æ 


74734059.eps