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

90–545 2003

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ADOPTION AND SAFE

FAMILIES ACT OF 1997

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 8, 2003

Serial No. 108–18

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 April 1, 2003, 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 ................................................. 7

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

Workforce, and Income Security Issues ............................................................. 19

American Bar Association, Mark Hardin .............................................................. 55

American Public Human Services Association, and Utah Department of 

Human Services, Robin Arnold-Williams ........................................................... 39

Baltimore County Department of Social Services, Judith M. Schagrin .............. 48

Cornerstone Consulting Group, Jennifer Miller ................................................... 70

National Conference of State Legislatures, Hon. Dave Heaton ........................... 33

WinShape Center, Inc., and Horatio Alger Association, S. Truett Cathy ........... 51

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Child Welfare League of America, statement ........................................................ 81

National Indian Child Welfare Association, Portland, OR, statement ................ 89

Voice for Adoption, statement ................................................................................. 91

(1)

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ADOPTION AND 

SAFE FAMILIES ACT OF 1997

TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2003

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:04 p.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) 225–1025

April 1, 2003

No. HR–2

Herger Announces Hearing on

Implementation of the Adoption and

Safe Families Act of 1997

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 examine implementation of the Adoption and Safe 

Families Act of 1997 (ASFA) (P.L. 105–89). The hearing will take place on Tuesday, April 8, 2003, in room B–318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, beginning at 3:00 p.m.

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

hearing will be from invited witnesses only. Witnesses will include representatives 

from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and other experts 

in child welfare issues. However, any individual or organization not scheduled for 

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

BACKGROUND: 

In response to growing concerns regarding the well-being of children in foster 

care, Congress in 1997 enacted ASFA. This landmark legislation ensures that the 

safety and health of children play a paramount role in child welfare decisions, so 

that children are not returned to unsafe homes. Addressing criticism that children 

were lingering in foster care for long periods of time, ASFA included provisions to 

expedite legal proceedings so that children who cannot return home may be placed 

for adoption or another permanent arrangement quickly. Since 1997, all States have 

enacted laws to implement ASFA provisions to ensure the safety and health of children in foster care. 

The Act also created the Adoption Incentives program under Title IV–E of the Social Security Act to reward States for their efforts to promote permanency of children in foster care. This program provides incentive payments to States equal to 

$4,000 for each foster child whose adoption is finalized (over a base level) and 

$6,000 for the adoption of a foster child with special needs above the base level. 

Funds have been appropriated for these incentive payments for each of fiscal years 

1999 through 2003. This program is currently authorized through fiscal year 2003. 

The President’s budget for fiscal year 2004 would continue the Adoption Incentives 

program, while focusing incentives on the adoption of older children. 

In announcing the hearing, Chairman Herger stated, ‘‘Since the passage of ASFA, 

States have implemented a number of policies to ensure that child safety is the key 

consideration in any child welfare decision. The number of children adopted also has 

increased dramatically, which has resulted in States’ collecting millions of dollars 

in incentive payments that can spur added efforts. This hearing will let us review 

the effects of the major changes made in 1997 and consider what else needs to be 

done to better protect children and strengthen families.’’

3

FOCUS OF THE HEARING: 

The hearing will review implementation of the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families 

Act. The hearing also will review the Adoption Incentives program created under 

that Act and consider proposals for reauthorization of this program. 

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: 

Please Note: Due to the change in House mail policy, any person or organization 

wishing to submit a written statement for the printed record of the hearing should 

send it electronically to hearingclerks.waysandmeans@mail.house.gov, along with a 

fax copy to (202) 225–2610, by the close of business, Tuesday, April 22, 2003. Those 

filing written statements who wish to have their statements distributed to the press 

and interested public at the hearing should deliver their 200 copies to the Subcommittee on Human Resources in room B–317 Rayburn House Office Building, in 

an open and searchable package 48 hours before the hearing. The U.S. Capitol Police will refuse sealed-packaged deliveries to all House Office Buildings. 

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. Due to the change in House mail policy, 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 Word Perfect 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. Any 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.

Chairman HERGER. Good afternoon and welcome. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is twofold: first, to review the imf plementation of the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) 

(P.L. 105–89), and second, to consider proposals for changes, especially regarding the adoption incentives program that requires reauthorization this year. 

The landmark 1997 law has played an important role in improving how we protect our Nation’s most vulnerable children. 

As implemented by the States, the 1997 law has resulted in numerous changes to ensure that child safety is the key consideration 

in any child welfare decision. No system is perfect, and we certainly are aware of well-publicized tragedies involving children. 

4

Today we will continue our review of whether the 1997 changes are 

working as intended, and what other changes might be needed to 

improve child safety. 

The 1997 law addressed criticisms that children were lingering 

too long in foster care. That legislation included provisions to speed 

up legal proceedings so children who cannot return home may be 

placed quickly for adoption or in another permanent arrangement. 

Another set of changes now reward States for their efforts to promote the adoption of children from foster care. It is good news that 

the number of children adopted has increased dramatically since 

1997. Because of the adoption incentive program we created, States 

now receive millions of dollars they can reinvest in activities to promote child welfare. I am pleased to note that President Bush’s 

budget proposes to continue this worthwhile program. 

Let me just say that I look forward to working with all our colleagues on both sides of the aisle on this issue. Mr. Cardin, I understand you and several of our colleagues have introduced child 

welfare legislation, and Mr. Camp and Mrs. Johnson, among others, have worked diligently on this issue in recent years. So, we 

have a wealth of experience on this Subcommittee. 

I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses today. 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 afternoon. The purpose of today’s hearing is twofold: First, to review the implementation of the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act; and second, to consider 

proposals for changes, especially regarding the adoption incentives program that requires reauthorization this year. 

The landmark 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act has played an important role 

in improving how we protect our Nation’s most vulnerable children. 

As implemented by the States, the 1997 Act has resulted in numerous changes 

to ensure that child safety is the key consideration in any child welfare decision. 

No system is perfect, and we certainly are aware of well-publicized tragedies involving children. Today we will continue our review of whether the 1997 changes are 

working as intended, and what other changes might be needed to improve child 

safety. 

The 1997 law addressed criticisms that children were lingering too long in foster 

care. So that legislation included provisions to speed up legal proceedings so children who cannot return home may be placed quickly for adoption or in another permanent arrangement. 

Another set of changes now reward States for their efforts to promote the adoption of children from foster care. I’m pleased that the number of children adopted 

has increased dramatically since 1997. Because of the adoption incentives program 

we created, States now collect millions of dollars they can reinvest in activities to 

promote child welfare. I am pleased to note the President’s budget proposes to continue this worthwhile program. 

Let me just say that I look forward to working with all our colleagues on both 

sides of the aisle on this issue. Mr. Cardin, I understand you have introduced legislation on this issue. And Mr. Camp and Mrs. Johnson, among others, have worked 

diligently on this issue in recent years. So we have a wealth of experience on this 

Subcommittee. 

I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses today.

f

5

Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for 

holding this hearing. 

I think it is very important that we continue to monitor the effectiveness of ASFA. We are talking about America’s most vulnerable 

children, and I think it’s important that this Committee take every 

opportunity we can to evaluate where we are, see what is going 

well, and where we can make improvements as far as congressional 

attention. 

As you pointed out, the 1997 legislation was enacted on a bipartisan basis. It was a commitment by the Congress to work on providing the resources and attention for children who are abused, 

children who are in foster care, and children who are in need. It 

was designed to ensure the safety of the children who come in contact with the child welfare system and to expedite the permanent 

placement of children living in foster care. 

The legislation amended the existing child welfare laws to require that a child’s health and safety be the paramount concern, 

and the children who cannot be returned to their home, we would 

put a priority on adoption. We offered adoption incentives in the 

1997 law. 

As you pointed out, the initial statistics are very encouraging. 

We have seen that adoptions out of the public child welfare systems has nearly doubled since 1995. That is certainly a very encouraging number. We also see that States have exceeded their 

adoption expectations and have earned more in adoption incentive 

payments than we had anticipated. That’s good news. We should 

all be pleased that the States are actually outperforming where we 

thought they would be. 

We didn’t stop in 1997. We also, as you know, 2 years later followed with the Foster Care Independence Act (P.L. 106–169), 

which was a bill that came out of this Committee on a very strong, 

bipartisan basis, and dealt with children aging out of foster care, 

because we also recognized this was another group of vulnerable 

children. 

So, Mr. Chairman, we have a history on this Committee of working in a bipartisan manner for children who are at risk, children 

who are abused or neglected, and I think we need to continue that. 

We need to reauthorize the Adoption Incentive Grant program; we 

need to get the expertise of the witnesses that are before us today, 

figuring out what we can continue to do in order to build on our 

prior record of attention to children who are at risk. 

So, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses, starting with 

Dr. Horn, and I look forward to working with you. 

[The opening statement of Mr. Cardin follows:]

Opening Statement of The Honorable Benjamin Cardin, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Maryland 

Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking you for calling this hearing to review 

the implementation on the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA) and to 

review proposals to reauthorize the Adoption Incentives program that was created 

under the Act. 

The 1997 Act was developed in this Committee on a bipartisan basis. It was designed to ensure the safety of children who come into contact with the child welfare 

system and to expedite permanency for children living in foster care. The legislation 

amended the existing Federal child welfare law to require that a child’s health and 

safety be of ‘‘paramount’’ concern in any efforts made by the State to preserve or 

6

reunify the child’s family. The legislation also included a provision to ensure that 

necessary legal procedures occur expeditiously, so that children who cannot return 

home may be placed for adoption or another arrangement quickly. Finally, the 1997 

legislation also created the Adoption Incentives program that rewards to States that 

increase their numbers of adoptions from foster care. 

Since the enactment of this legislation, there have been some positive strides for 

children. For example, the number of adoptions out of the public child welfare system has nearly doubled since 1995. Moreover, States have exceeded adoption expectations and have earned more in adoption incentive payments than anticipated. As 

a result, more children are being placed in safe, stable and permanent environments 

at a faster rate. 

The 1997 Act was followed up two years later with the Foster Care Independence 

Act, another bipartisan product from this Committee. The legislation increased 

funding for services for youths who were ‘‘aging out’’ of foster care and expanded 

State flexibility to design programs to improve the transition of older foster children 

from State custody to independent living. 

Both the 1997 legislation and the Foster Care Independence Act represent a commitment on the part of Congress to target specific problems in the child welfare system and to provide States with resources to meet the needs of our most vulnerable 

children. 

We should continue to work in the same bipartisan spirit to improve the child 

welfare system’s capacity to respond to children who are abused or neglected, and 

to place those who are unable to return home into safe, loving, and permanent 

homes. 

As a start, I look forward to working with the Committee and the Administration 

in developing proposals to reauthorize the Adoption Incentive Grants under this program, and other legislation to promote the safety and well-being of children who 

come into contact with the child welfare system. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.

I would like to welcome Judith Schagrin who is the Assistant Director of the Baltimore County Department of Social Services. Ms. Schagrin has been with the Baltimore County Department of Social Services for 20 years, and has served as the 

Agency’s Administrator for the Foster Care and Adoptions Program for the last 5 

years. In addition to her work for the County, she also serves as a foster parent 

to a severely emotionally disturbed adolescent and provides respite care to three 

emotionally disturbed young boys. We are very pleased to have her with us today 

to share her experiences with the implementation of the 1997 legislation in Baltimore County.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HERGER. Yes. 

f Mr. CAMP. If I might, just for a second, this legislation, which 

former Member Barbara Kennelly and I worked very hard on—I 

agree with much of what the Chairman and Mr. Cardin have said, 

that it was really brought about when we saw that the way the Social Security Act was being implemented did not really protect children and families. So, we came up with this legislation to do that. 

I am looking forward to your testimony, Dr. Horn, about the recommendations that you might have to enhance the Act, which includes the adoption incentives and all part of it. So, I look forward 

to the testimony and hearing about how, over the last few years, 

this legislation has worked. Thank you. 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Cardin, and I thank the 

gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Camp. I thank both of you for the 

great work that you have put into this program. It needed a lot of 

work, and I think we have come a long way. Certainly we have a 

long way to go. So, I thank everyone. 

Before we move on to our testimony, I want to remind our witnesses to limit their oral statements to 5 minutes. However, withVerDate jul 14 2003 05:14 Dec 06, 2003 Jkt 090545 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A545A.XXX A545A
7

out objection, all of the written testimony will be made a part of 

the permanent record. 

For our first witness today, we are honored to have with us again 

the Honorable Wade F. Horn, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS). Mr. Secretary. 

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, for the opportunity to appear before you and this Committee to discuss the implementation 

of ASFA. 

As many of you know, I’m a clinical child psychologist, and I 

have devoted my professional career to improving the well-being of 

children. I have a longstanding interest in child welfare policy and 

practice, and like all of you, I am committed to improving the delivery of child welfare services throughout the country. 

The passage of ASFA represented a landmark in child welfare reform, and while there is evidence of positive change resulting from 

ASFA, there also are clear indications that the goals of ASFA remain elusive for far too many children and families. Therefore, it 

is important that we continue to work together to seek improvements in Federal child welfare programs. 

The ASFA was significant for several reasons. The Act clearly 

stated that the goals of the child welfare system were safety, permanency, and well-being, and it removed any ambiguity that safety 

of children is the paramount concern that must guide all child welfare services. Advancing these goals, ASFA provided numerous 

tools to States and the Federal Government to bring about systemic 

reforms regarding safety, permanency, adoption promotion, improved services, and accountability. 

Since the passage of ASFA, the Administration for Children and 

Families has worked diligently to fully implement these reforms. 

We have worked with the States to bring their laws and policies 

into compliance with ASFA; we have implemented the new Federal 

programmatic authorities authorized by ASFA; and we have woven 

the goals and requirements of ASFA into other ongoing work. 

One of the strengths of this legislation is its emphasis on tracking results for children and families. As required by ASFA, HHS 

consulted with State officials, advocates, researchers, and other experts, and developed a set of national child welfare outcome measures to track State performance. We have issued two reports on 

State performance thus far, and expect to submit a third report 

very soon. 

We also have continued to work with States to improve information systems and increase the quantity and quality of data that 

States collect and report. We have, for example, made significant 

investments in the Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information Systems (SACWIS) resulting in 29 States with comprehensive 

operational systems, 8 with partially operational systems, and 9 

more which have taken steps toward planning or implementing a 

SACWIS system. 

8

The data shows some positive trends and results, most notably 

in the area of adoption. The number of children adopted from foster 

care grew from 31,000 in 1997 to 50,000 in 2001. 

Finally, our new system for monitoring child welfare services, the 

Child and Family Services Review (CFSR), is the cornerstone of our 

efforts to review State performance and ensure compliance with 

key provisions of the law, including requirements of ASFA. It also 

is our means to partner with the States in identifying areas that 

need improvement. The CFSR began in 2001 and, to date, we have 

reviewed 32 States, with plans to complete all reviews by March 

2004. 

This Administration’s commitment to support the goals and build 

on the legacy of ASFA is reflected in our 2003 budget request, as 

well as the President’s 2004 budget request and legislative proposals. We were pleased to be able to work with this Committee 

and other Members of Congress to pass legislation reauthorizing 

and increasing the funding level for the Promoting Safe and Stable 

Families program, along with the authorization and first time 

funding of the President’s proposal to provide education and training vouchers for youth who age out of foster care. Our fiscal year 

2003 appropriations provided almost $405 million for Promoting 

Safe and Stable Families, and included funding for nearly $42 million to support educational vouchers for youth aging out of foster 

care. The President’s 2004 budget request would go a step further 

and fully fund the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program at 

$505 million, and the educational vouchers program at $60 million. 

Now I would like to briefly turn to two critical policy changes 

that we have also proposed. As part of our 2004 budget, we have 

put forward legislative changes guided in part by what we’ve 

learned from ASFA. Specifically, we are proposing to reauthorize 

and better target the Adoption Incentives program originally created by ASFA. By providing a fiscal incentive, and by shining a 

bright light on State performance in adoption, this program has 

made a substantial contribution to increasing the number of children adopted over the past 5 years. 

However, when we analyzed the adoption data, we have learned 

that while the overall number of children being adopted has grown 

dramatically, older children in foster care still face excessively long 

waits for adoption and, in many cases, are never adopted. Therefore, we are proposing to amend this program so that it continues 

to recognize and reward overall increases in the number of adoptions, but provide a special focus on the adoption needs of children 

age 9 and older. 

Finally, I would like to briefly mention another proposal we have 

put forward to strengthen the child welfare system, a new State 

child welfare program option that would give States the opportunity to receive their Title IV–E foster care funds as a flexible, 

fixed allotment that can be used to support a range of child welfare 

services. We believe that this option will provide a powerful new 

means for States to structure their child welfare programs in a way 

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

well-being for children and families, while relieving States of unnecessary administrative burdens. 

9

The ASFA and other recent changes in the law have made a 

meaningful and positive impact on the delivery of child welfare 

services. The work of assuring safety, permanency, and well-being 

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

or court in this country remains a challenging task. I look forward 

to working with this Committee in ways to continuously strive to 

better the outcomes for all of these children. 

I would be pleased to answer any questions that you might 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 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the implementation 

of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 and the impact of this critical legislation on child welfare. Within this context, I also am pleased to be able to present 

information on the Administration’s proposal to reauthorize the Adoption Incentive 

Program, one of the innovative and extremely successful changes made by the Adoption and Safe Families Act. 

As many of you know, I am a clinical child psychologist by training, and I have 

devoted my professional career to improving the well-being of children. I have a 

longstanding interest in child welfare policy and practice and, like you, I am committed to improving the delivery of child welfare services throughout the country. 

It is particularly appropriate that this Subcommittee is taking a look at the implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), because passage of ASFA 

represented a landmark in child welfare reform. It set clear goals that helped to 

sweep away ambiguity and false dichotomies about the mission of child welfare 

services; it required as a condition of receiving program funds changes in State laws 

and policies, which in turn drove changes in front-line practice; it increased our national emphasis on results and reaffirmed the importance of accurate data collection 

and reporting to track results; it expanded resources for services; and it focused specific attention on promoting adoption. 

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss our work in implementing ASFA and some 

of the results we have seen since its implementation. While there is evidence of 

positive change resulting from ASFA, there also are clear indications that the goals 

of ASFA remain illusive for too many children and families. Therefore, it is important that we continue to work together to seek improvements in Federal child welfare programs.

The Federal Legal Framework for Child Welfare

To understand the importance of ASFA, it is useful to place it in the context of 

the history of Federal policy development in child welfare. Much of the legal framework for today’s child welfare services system was established by the Adoption and 

Child Welfare Act of 1980. This law laid out important principles and requirements 

to protect the rights of both children and families. Among the key provisions were 

requirements that States make reasonable efforts (1) to prevent the unnecessary removal of children from their homes and, (2) for children who are placed in foster 

care, to reunify children with their families when possible. The law also required 

individualized case planning for children in foster care and required periodic administrative reviews as well as a dispositional hearing before a court within 18 months 

of placement and every 12 months thereafter. 

While the 1980 law made vital contributions to the reform of child welfare policy 

and practice, as time passed, concerns remained that:

• too often children’s safety was not the primary concern; 

• inadequate attention was being paid to services that could prevent abuse and 

neglect or resolve problems before they became a crisis; 

• efforts to reunify children went on for too long or were undertaken in instances 

that were clearly not ‘‘reasonable’’; 

• children were remaining in foster care for too long without a decision being 

made about a permanent placement; and, 

• too little attention was being paid to the need to find adoptive families for thousands of children who were waiting for a permanent, loving home.

In response to these and other concerns, the 1990’s brought a number of important reforms to Federal law, but the most significant and wide-reaching reforms 

were embodied in the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.

10

The Importance of the Adoption and Safe Families Act

The Adoption and Safe Families Act, or ‘‘ASFA,’’ was significant for several reasons. First, it clearly stated that the goals of the child welfare system are safety, 

permanency and well-being. The law removed any ambiguity that safety of children 

is the paramount concern that must guide all child welfare services. It also made 

clear that to address the developmental and emotional needs of children in foster 

care, decisions about permanency need to be made in a timely manner. Foster care 

needs to be regarded as a temporary setting, not a place for children to grow up. 

In advancing these goals, ASFA provided numerous tools to States and the Federal 

Government to bring about systemic reforms regarding safety, permanency, promotion of adoption, improved services and accountability.

• Reforms in Safety—The law reaffirmed the importance of making reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify families, but emphasized the need to ensure children’s safety in all such decisions. It also clarified that there are instances in 

which States are not required to make efforts to keep children with their parents, such as cases in which a parent has been convicted of murdering another 

child, a parent has had his or her rights to another child terminated involuntarily, or a court has found that the child has been subjected to aggravated circumstances as defined in State law (such as abandonment, torture or chronic 

abuse). • The law also required States to conduct criminal background checks of prospective foster and adoptive parents (unless the State Governor or legislature explicitly opts out of the requirement). • Reforms in Permanency—The law also required significant systemic reforms to 

ensure decisions are made about children’s permanency in a timely manner. 

Permanency hearings are now required to be held no later than 12 months after 

a child enters care, six months earlier than had previously been required. In 

addition, for children who cannot be returned home safely, a requirement was 

added that States make reasonable efforts to find an adoptive home or other 

permanent living arrangement. The law further clarified that States could use 

concurrent planning, whereby they simultaneously work toward reunification 

and seek out potential adoptive parents or families in the event the child cannot 

be safely reunified. • For children who have been in foster care for 15 of the previous 22 months, the 

law required States to initiate proceedings to terminate parental rights, except 

in specified circumstances such as when the child is being cared for by a relative, the State agency has documented a compelling reason not to file the requisite petition, or the State agency has not provided the services deemed necessary to return the child safely to the home. • Promotion of Adoption—In addition, ASFA created the first performance-based 

incentive in child welfare, the Adoption Incentive Program. This legislation authorized the payment of adoption incentive funds to States that are successful 

in increasing the number of children who are adopted from the public foster 

care system. The amount of the payments to States is based on increases in the 

number of children adopted from the foster care system in a year, relative to 

a baseline number. I’ll speak more about this provision later in my statement. 

• Other adoption improvements included removing interjurisdictional barriers 

and improving access to health care for adopted children. 

• Services to Children and Families—The law recognized the importance of timely 

and quality services to families, including adoptive families. It expanded and extended the program previously known as Family Preservation and Family Support Services, and required funds to be spent in four categories of services: family support services that strengthen families and alleviate crises before they become serious; family preservation services that prevent the need to remove children from home; time-limited family reunification services to facilitate the safe 

return of children in foster care, when appropriate; and adoption promotion and 

support services. 

• Emphasis on Accountability and Innovation—In addition to requiring States 

and the Federal Government to track the number of adoptions each year under 

the Adoption Incentive Program, the law required the Department of Health 

and Human Services, in consultation with State officials and other child welfare 

experts, to develop child welfare outcome measures and to prepare an annual 

report showing each State’s progress. 

• Finally, recognizing that greater innovation is needed to achieve positive outcomes for children and families in the child welfare system, ASFA expanded the 

number of demonstration projects that the Secretary may award, and gave the 

Secretary the discretion to extend projects beyond their originally approved peVerDate jul 14 2003 01:16 Dec 06, 2003 Jkt 090545 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A545A.XXX A545A
11

riod. This authority enables States to test new approaches to child welfare services delivery and financing, while requiring a rigorous evaluation and cost-neutrality.

Implementation of ASFA

Since the passage of ASFA, the Administration for Children and Families has 

worked diligently to fully implement its reforms. We have worked with the States 

to bring their laws and policies into compliance with ASFA; we have implemented 

the new Federal programmatic authorities authorized by ASFA, such as the Adoption Incentive Program, the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program, and the 

expanded child welfare waiver demonstration authority; and we have woven the 

goals and requirements of ASFA into other ongoing work. 

As a result of these efforts and the commitment of States to better the lives of 

these vulnerable children, we have seen several indications that ASFA is having an 

impact on children and their families. I would like to discuss some hopeful signs 

of change, based on an analysis of national data from the Adoption and Foster Care 

Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS).

Changes in Outcomes

One of the strengths of ASFA is its emphasis on tracking results for children and 

families. As required by ASFA, the Department consulted with State officials, advocates, researchers and other experts and developed a set of national child welfare 

outcome measures to track State performance. We have issued two annual reports 

on State performance on these outcome measures and expect to be able to submit 

a third report very soon. While these reports show some areas of progress, they also 

point to areas that deserve more attention. 

We also have continued to work with States to improve information systems and 

increase the quantity and quality of data that States collect and report. We have, 

for example, made significant investments in Statewide Automated Child Welfare 

Information Systems (SACWIS). Spurred by Congress’ approval of enhanced funding 

from FY 1994–FY 1997 and through ongoing financial support and technical assistance, 29 States now have operational systems that are comprehensive and capable 

of supporting both improved case management and required data reporting. An additional 8 States have systems that are partially operational and 9 more have taken 

steps toward planning or implementing SACWIS. 

In addition to making strides toward developing the infrastructure needed to 

track performance—the development of measures, modernized information systems 

and improved data reporting—we are also seeing some positive trends in results, 

most notably in the area of adoption. The number of children adopted from the foster care system grew from 31,000 in FY 1997 to 50,000 in FY 2001. We expect that 

the final number of adoptions for FY 2002 will exceed last year’s impressive results. 

We are committed to continuing to track results and will use this information to 

shape our ongoing efforts to improve child outcomes focused on safety, permanency 

and well-being.

Child and Family Services Reviews

Our new system for monitoring child welfare services, the Child and Family Services (CFS) Reviews, is the cornerstone of our efforts to review State performance 

and ensure compliance with key provisions of law, including many requirements of 

ASFA. 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 reviews began in FY 2001 and to date we have reviewed 32 States. We 

will complete the first round of reviews for all 50 States, the District of Columbia, 

and Puerto Rico by the end of March 2004. 

This is the most comprehensive and far-reaching Federal review of State child 

welfare services ever conducted. The 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 data bases 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 

12

had the effect of not only engaging States in identifying their own strengths and 

weaknesses, but 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 

to address any of the areas where we find deficiencies. Through a network of National Resource Centers, we provide technical assistance to help States develop and 

implement their Program Improvement Plans. 

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 withholding applicable penalties. 

Among the most significant findings of the CFSR across the 32 States are the following:

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

permanency and well-being. In fact, the timely achievement of permanency outcomes, especially adoption, for children in foster care is one of the weakest 

areas of State performance. 

• All State Program Improvement Plans will need to include provisions to 

strengthen the quality of front-line practice in such areas as conducting needs 

assessments of children and families and developing effective case plans. 

• Most of the States will 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. 

• The reviews point to a strong correlation between frequent caseworker visits 

with children and positive findings in other areas, such as timely permanency 

achievement and indicators of child well-being.

Commitment to Continued Improvement of the Child Welfare System

This Administration’s commitment to support these goals and to build on the legacy of ASFA is reflected in the legislative accomplishments we have been able to 

achieve thus far and in the budget and new proposals we have put forward for FY 

2004. We are proud of the progress made to date in providing more resources to 

States to support children, youth and families. We were pleased to be able to work 

with this Committee and other Members of Congress to pass legislation in the last 

Congress reauthorizing and increasing the funding level for the Promoting Safe and 

Stable Families Program, which funds family support, family preservation, time-limited reunification and adoption promotion and support services and also provides 

funding for the Court Improvement Program. And we are appreciative of the authorization and first-time funding of the President’s proposal to provide education and 

training vouchers for youth who ‘‘age out’’ of foster care. This program will offer 

youth a chance to complete their education, thereby improving their prospects to become truly independent and self-sufficient adults. 

Our FY 2003 appropriations provided almost $405 million for the Promoting Safe 

and Stable Families Program, $29 million over the FY 2002 level, and included additional funding of nearly $42 million to support educational vouchers for youth 

aging out of foster care. The President’s FY 2004 request would go a step further 

and fully fund the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program at $505 million and 

the educational vouchers program at $60 million. I hope that you will join us in supporting these targeted, but important investments, as well as critical policy changes 

to adoption incentives and foster care that I would like to turn to briefly.

Child Welfare Legislative Enhancement

As part of the FY 2004 budget we also have put forward legislative changes guided in part by what we have learned from ASFA. Specifically, we are proposing to 

reauthorize and better target the Adoption Incentive Program that was originally 

created by ASFA. By providing a fiscal incentive and by shining a bright light on 

State performance in adoption, this program has made a substantial contribution 

to increasing the number of children adopted over the past five years. 

However, as we have analyzed adoption data, we have learned that while the 

overall number of children being adopted has grown dramatically, older children in 

foster care still face excessively long waits for adoption and, in many cases, are 

never adopted. This is clearly a problem that warrants our attention. 

In fact, data from AFCARS show that by age 9, the probability that a child will 

continue to wait in foster care exceeds the probability that the child will be adopted. 

13

Furthermore, the number of children in this older age group is growing, now representing almost half of the children waiting to be adopted nationally. 

To ensure that the adoption incentive focuses on these hard-to-place children, the 

President proposes that the Adoption Incentive Program be amended so that it continues to recognize and reward overall increases in the number of adoptions, but 

also provides a special focus on the adoption needs of children age 9 and older. 

Under this new proposal, adoption incentives would be awarded using two independent baselines: one for the total number of children adopted from the public foster care system; and the other for children age nine and older adopted from the public foster care system. Similar to current law, once a State reaches the baseline for 

the total number of adoptions for the year, it would become eligible to receive a 

$4,000 incentive payment for each additional child adopted from the public child 

welfare system. Additionally, we would establish a separate baseline for the number 

of children age 9 and older who are adopted. Once the State reaches this new baseline for a year, it would receive a $6,000 payment for each additional child, age 9 

and above, adopted from the public child welfare system. 

Awarding the incentive funds in this way will provide a special focus on the adoption needs of older children, while maintaining the goal of increasing adoptions for 

all waiting children. We look forward to working with you to reauthorize this critical 

program. 

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to briefly mention another proposal 

to strengthen child welfare systems in the President’s FY 2004 budget. We are proposing a new Child Welfare Program Option that would give States the opportunity 

to receive their Title IV–E foster care funds as a flexible, fixed allotment that can 

be used to support a range of child welfare services. We believe that this option will 

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. 

This alternative financing option responds to suggestions made by many States to 

provide them with more flexibility to address the needs of these vulnerable children 

and families. I look forward to having the opportunity to discuss this proposal with 

you more fully in a future hearing.

Conclusion

The Adoption and Safe Families Act and other recent changes in Federal law have 

had a meaningful and positive impact on the delivery of child welfare services. In 

particular, changes in law and philosophy have helped thousands more children find 

the love and security of an adoptive family. But the work of assuring the safety, 

permanence 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 and 

faith-based organizations, and concerned citizens to continuously strive for better 

outcomes for all of these children. 

questions. I would like to remind the Members that they each have 

I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Dr. Horn. Now we will turn to 

f 5 minutes for witness questions. The gentleman from Michigan, 

Mr. Camp, to inquire. 

Mr. CAMP. Thank you. Dr. Horn, I notice in your testimony you 

talk about the dramatic increase in adoptions from 1997 to 2001. 

Is there any one factor that you can attribute to this increase, any 

policy in the Adoption or Safe Families Act, or set of policies that 

are being implemented by the States that you might attribute this 

to? 

Dr. HORN. I think there are at least two very significant policy 

changes in the 1997 law. The first was a clear focus on moving children quickly to adoption, as opposed to allowing children to live out 

their childhood in the foster care system. I think that that clear 

14

message in the ASFA legislation has been taken to heart by the 

States and they, in fact, are placing more focus on adoption. 

In addition to that, I do think the Adoption Incentives Program 

has been very helpful in providing a fiscal incentive for States to 

move children quickly towards adoption. I don’t think there is any 

question in any objective observer’s mind that the creation of the 

Adoption Incentives Program has had a significant impact on moving children who have had their parental rights terminated toward 

finalized adoption. 

Mr. CAMP. Thank you. I also want to talk about this incentive 

award. Arguments might be made that this would distract, if you 

focus on older children, that that might distract from special needs 

children, for example. Could you just discuss that a little bit? 

Dr. HORN. Sure. First of all, it is important that we recognize 

that the term ‘‘special needs’’ in the context of the Title IV–E Adoption Assistance Program is a term of art. It is not restricted to the 

sort of common definition of special needs to mean children with 

disabilities. It has a much broader definition. 

One of the things that we noticed when we looked at the adoption data over the last 5 years is that, while it is true that the total 

number of adoptions increased over the last 5 years, the percentage 

or proportion of those adoptions that were children with special 

needs has stayed relatively constant over time at about 75 percent. 

So, there does not seem to be any specific incentive for moving children with special needs towards adoption independent of the incentive to move children in general towards adoption. 

However, there is one group of children that it does not appear 

have moved in the same way toward adoption in the same proportion as other children, and that is older children. Our data shows 

that once a child reaches age 8 or 9, the odds of them staying in 

foster care, as opposed to being adopted out of foster care, becomes 

greater. In fact, what we see is that the proportion of children who 

are 9 years old or older that are free for adoption has grown over 

the last 5 years, from about 38 percent to about 46 percent. 

So, what we would like to do is continue to have an incentive to 

move the broad base of children into adoption from the public welfare system through a continuing financial incentive to increase the 

number of adoptions, while at the same time creating a separate 

incentive for moving children who are older toward adoption as 

well. 

Mr. CAMP. Thank you. One last question. You mentioned in 

your testimony about the 1997 law removing the ambiguity about 

the safety of children being the most important thing. States have 

implemented a number of policies to ensure that child safety is a 

key consideration. Can you comment on the effect of these new 

laws or policies and their effect on child safety? 

Dr. HORN. Clearly, ASFA had an impact on State laws, and we 

have worked with the States over the last 5 years to ensure that 

the requirements of ASFA now are reflected in State law. 

When we look at outcomes for children, however, it is clear that 

we are seeing better outcomes in terms of adoptions, but it is less 

clear that we are seeing better outcomes in terms of safety and/or 

permanency. Now, the good news is things are not getting worse 

in terms of safety or permanency, but the data does not give us 

15

reason to believe that we have seen substantial increases in those 

areas. We think that we, the Federal Government and the States, 

need to do a better job in this area in translating changes in law 

into improved practice that results in better outcomes for children 

in this area. 

What we intend to do is continue to work with the States as our 

partners in this arena in order to make sure that those changes in 

State law actually translate into better safety outcomes for kids. 

Mr. CAMP. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you. The gentleman from Maryland, 

the Ranking Member, Mr. Cardin, to inquire. 

Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Horn, let me just 

ask you one question of clarification. In regard to the bonuses on 

adoption, whether it’s the under nine or over nine, what is the Administration’s position as to base year or baseline on judging the 

performance of a State? I’m not sure where you’ve come down on 

that. 

Dr. HORN. In terms of the incentive for increasing the total 

number of adoptions, we would keep the base year the way it is 

under current law, which as I’m sure you will recall is an average 

of fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997. That baseline goes up, in fact, 

if adoptions go up in a given year, so we want to continue to provide incentives for more adoptions in subsequent years. Under our 

proposal, we would suggest that 2003 be the base year for the 

adoption of older children. 

Mr. CARDIN. Thank you for that clarification. The U.S. General 

Accounting Office (GAO) released a report entitled ‘‘Child Welfare: 

HHS Could Play a Greater Role in Helping Child Welfare Agencies 

Recruit and Retain Staff.’’ The report points out what I think many 

of us know, that as a result of low salaries, high caseloads and insufficient training, we’ve had a very large turnover of caseworkers 

dealing with children in our child welfare system. The GAO concluded that the turnover negatively affects the relationship in dealing with the children because there is not the relationship that develops that can be very helpful in dealing with the problem. 

I’m interested as to whether you concur in that, as to whether 

you think we should be playing a more aggressive role in regards 

to the qualifications and the problems facing caseworkers. 

Dr. HORN. As a clinical psychologist who has worked both in the 

child welfare system and interacted with it for much of my professional career, I can tell you that to have the best outcome for kids, 

you need a well-qualified, experienced, and well-trained professional workforce. So, I concur with the ideas reflected within the 

GAO report, that we need to work aggressively to try to ensure 

that we have a high degree of professionalism, experience, and 

well-trained workers within the child welfare system. 

It is an area that HHS has devoted, and will continue to devote, 

discretionary funds in order to accomplish that goal. Also within 

the context of the increased funding that we have requested for the 

Promoting Safe and Stable Families program, those moneys could 

also be used to enhance the professional development of caseworkers in the child welfare system. So, yes, I agree with the fundamental thrust of the GAO report. 

16

Mr. CARDIN. I appreciate the fact that the Administration has 

put the extra money in their budget. Congress hasn’t been as generous in prior years. We haven’t funded up to the authorized levels. 

The fact that the Administration is supporting an extra $200 million is no guarantee that Congress, in fact, will make those dollars 

available. If his is any indication, it probably will not. 

May I suggest that you may want to support making that mandatory funding rather than discretionary funding, to make sure the 

promises that we’re making are actually kept by the Congress. 

Dr. HORN. As you know, the President’s fiscal year 2004 budget 

has asked for that entire $200 million in additional money to be 

appropriated. We’re quite serious about that, and we will look forward to working with the Congress to ensure that all of that money 

is, in fact, appropriated this year. So, we are not backing away 

from that $200 million increase. We would like that whole increase, 

and we hope that the Congress will appropriate those moneys. 

Mr. CARDIN. I look forward to working with you in that regard. 

I would just tell you, you wouldn’t have to spend as much time if 

it was mandatory rather than discretionary. You could then use 

your lobbying of Congress to do different things and wouldn’t have 

to spend the time worrying about the money. Wouldn’t that be a 

little bit easier for you? 

[Laughter.] 

I’m trying to help you. 

Dr. HORN. It’s nice to know you are sympathetic to my overscheduled day. 

Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you. Now the gentlelady from Connecticut, Mrs. Johnson, to inquire. 

Mrs. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Dr. 

Horn. It’s a pleasure to have you. 

In preceding bills, we enabled the States, or actually encouraged 

the States, to seek waivers, to be able to use their foster care placement funds more flexibly. Indeed, in my State we had tremendous 

success with a consortium of child caring facilities using that waiver, to be able to move the child from home to an institutional setting, to residential treatment facilities, and back out to maybe a 

trial permanent placement. There’s a lot of gradations along, but 

we were able to use that waiver to manage our money far more 

flexibly in regard to that child’s well-being to both minimize the 

time the child was separated from the family, maximize the positive re-entry experience of the child into their family and community, or accelerate and improve the chances of a permanent placement being successful. 

What have you learned from those waiver programs, and how 

many of the States that did them would like to make that flexibility permanent across the board, and would your proposed legislation allow a State to move to that kind of flexibility as a total 

statewide policy as opposed to a waivered project? 

Dr. HORN. As you know, I work for a Secretary who is very supportive of flexibility, and certainly in the area of child welfare, we 

think there needs to be greater flexibility. We were supportive of 

the provision within the bill, H.R. 4, that extended and, in fact, exVerDate jul 14 2003 01:16 Dec 06, 2003 Jkt 090545 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A545A.XXX A545A
17

panded the waiver demonstration authority in the child welfare 

area. 

One of the things we have learned in the past is that States do 

have an interest in being able to spend Title IV–E foster care funds 

more flexibly than under current law. One of the reasons that we 

put forward our proposal to provide States the option to use Title 

IV–E foster care funds more flexibly is so that State spending isn’t 

limited to foster care maintenance payments and administrative 

costs associated with children in foster care who have already been 

abused and neglected. We feel that our option allows States flexibility to construct a more rational system. 

Mrs. JOHNSON. It just seems to me that you could be much 

more aggressive at this point. We have a lot of experience with 

this. Maybe we’re going to hear about this in the next panel, but 

I would like to hear about some of the States who had enormous 

success with this. What was the difference between those States 

who had success and those States who tried it and didn’t have success? Are there some criteria we can draw from that? 

Frankly, we have got to get away from setting driving funding, 

because that’s not in the child’s interest. The money ought to be 

following the abused child until the child is settled in a permanent 

and healthy placement. So, if you can, I would like you to come 

back in the future with a few of the most successful State waiver 

programs, and what can be learned. It’s nice to give States flexibility, but some who don’t want to be bothered with that level of 

integration and communication around the child, as opposed to 

around the agency and their program, I think need a push. So, I 

don’t think waivers are enough any more. 

Now, I’m not an expert, so I understand that I’m saying this 

from limited information. That’s why I would like to see the results 

of those waivers more concretely, to see whether we shouldn’t be 

learning from those waivers to go beyond flexibility to push people 

into more integrated systems of care. 

I see the light is turning yellow, so let me state my second question. We know that 80 percent of families in which there is abuse 

and neglect also have an adult with a substance abuse problem. 

Are we aggressively targeting that? Are we saying we know this, 

we’ve known this for over a decade, and you must identify that 

abuse problem, and the adult abuser must be in a substance abuse 

treatment plan? 

I am very pleased that the President has brought more money 

into the system, but what imperative are we putting on States to 

go after this problem? 

Dr. HORN. One of the things we did recently was team up with 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, particularly the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, and created 

a new national resource center that is dedicated to working with 

this issue of substance abuse within the context of the child welfare 

system. So, we hope that that new national resource center will 

help to drive innovative practice all across the country. You’re exactly right, substance abuse is the driver for so many of the cases 

that come in contact with the child welfare system. Frankly, we 

need to do a better job. 

18

As you noted, the President has asked for additional resources, $600 million over 3 years, for substance abuse treatment in the 

form of vouchers that could be integrated into the child welfare system to provide greater access for those families where substance 

abuse is an issue. 

Mrs. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you. Dr. Horn, in our next panel, 

one of our witnesses made a statement that I would like you to 

comment on, if you would. Ms. Schagrin, in her testimony on page 

2, says, with respect to the inflexibility of the Title IV–E program, 

one proposal is to block grant Federal funds in exchange for offering States greater flexibility in their expenditures. ‘‘Dismantling 

Federal oversight and accountability is simply a tragic abdication 

of responsibility for our Nation’s most helpless children . . .’’ 

Would you care to comment on that statement? 

Dr. HORN. What it suggests to me is that we have to do a better 

job of communicating what is actually in our proposal, because that 

does not reflect our proposal at all. 

First of all, it is not a block grant. It allows States the option to 

provide themselves with the ability to spend their Title IV–E foster 

care dollars more flexibly. More fundamentally, the statement that 

somehow we are dismantling protections is incorrect. Our proposal 

specifically says that we will maintain all of the child protections 

contained within current law for States that choose this option. 

In fact, we believe that in the States that elect this option, you 

will actually see an enhanced oversight of those protections—and 

here’s why. Right now, a lot of the protections are contained within 

the Title IV–E foster care legislation. The way that we review Title 

IV–E foster care cases is we draw a sample of kids in foster care 

who are Title IV–E eligible. That is only about 42 or 43 percent of 

the cases. So, when we draw our sample and look at the protections 

for those cases, we are not drawing the sample from the universe 

of everybody in foster care, but only from those who are in Title 

IV–E foster care, about 42 or 43 percent of the cases. 

What we propose is that, if the States elect this option, they no 

longer have a Title IV–E foster care program in the way that we 

currently think about it, but all the protections would still apply. 

The oversight would then be done within the CFSR. 

When we draw the samples to review at the case level in the 

CFSR, we don’t draw just from the Title IV–E cases, the 43 percent 

of the cases that are eligible. We draw from the entire universe of 

cases, which would provide us with the opportunity to ensure the 

protections are in place, not just for the kids who are in Title IV–

E, but for all the kids in care, whether they are Title IV–E eligible 

or not. So, we actually believe that our proposal for States who 

choose this option would enhance the ability for us to provide oversight for all children in care, not just those children who are Title 

IV–E eligible. 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much for your testimony, 

Dr. Horn. At this point I would like to invite our next panel to 

please have a seat at the table. On today’s panel we will hear from 

Cornelia Ashby, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues at GAO; the Honorable Dave Heaton, a Representative 

in the Iowa House of Representatives, on behalf of the National 

19

Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL); Robin Arnold-Williams, 

Executive Director, Utah Department of Human Services, on behalf 

of the American Public Human Services Association (APHSA). To 

introduce the next witness, I turn to the gentleman from Maryland, 

Mr. Cardin. 

Mr. CARDIN. Thank you. It is my pleasure to welcome Judith 

Schagrin to our Committee, who is the Assistant Director of the 

Baltimore County Department of Social Services, which you have 

already mentioned so prominently in asking a question. 

Ms. Schagrin has been at the Baltimore County Department of 

Social Services for 20 years and has served as the Agency’s Administrator for Foster Care and Adoption Programs for the last 5 

years. In addition to her work with the county, she also serves as 

a foster parent to a severely emotionally disturbed adolescent and 

provides respite care for three emotionally disturbed young boys. 

We are very pleased to have her with us today, and I thank her 

for being here. 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you. We also have with us S. Truett 

Cathy, Founder of WinShape Center, Inc. That’s a very attractive 

tie you have on, Mr. Cathy. We have Mark Hardin, Director of the 

National Child Welfare Resource Center on Legal and Judicial 

Issues, and Director of Child Welfare, Center on Children and the 

Law, American Bar Association (ABA), and Jennifer Miller, Senior 

Consultant at Cornerstone Consulting Group. We will now hear 

from our witnesses. Ms. Ashby, please. 

STATEMENT OF CORNELIA M. ASHBY, DIRECTOR FOR EDUCATION, WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, U.S. 

GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE 

Ms. ASHBY. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the implementation 

of ASFA. 

My testimony will address four issues: changes in outcomes and 

characteristics of children in foster care from ASFA’s enactment 

through fiscal year 2000; States’ implementation of ASFA’s fast 

track and 15 of 22 provisions; States’ use of ASFA’s adoption-related funds; and practices States use to address barriers to achieving permanency for children in foster care. 

The fast track provision allows States to bypass efforts to reunify 

families in certain egregious situations. The 15 of 22 provision requires States, with a few exceptions, to file a petition to terminate 

parental rights (TPR) when a child has been in foster care for 15 

of the most recent 22 months. 

My comments are based on our analysis of national data from 

HHS, a survey we conducted of child welfare directors in the 50 

States and the District of Columbia, and information obtained during visits to 6 States and interviews with Federal officials and child 

welfare experts. We reported our findings from this work to you 

and the other requesters in a June 2002 report. 

The number of annual foster care adoptions increased by 57 percent from ASFA’s enactment through 2000. However, data limitations restricted our ability to determine how other foster care outcomes and children’s characteristics changed. The limitations also 

20

restricted our ability to determine how ASFA affected the number 

of adoptions of other foster care outcome. 

However, recent HHS data provides some information about the 

characteristics and experiences of foster care children after enactment of ASFA. For example, children leaving foster care between 

1998 and 2000 spent a median of nearly 1 year in foster care, and 

those who were adopted spent a median of about 31⁄2 years in foster care. Upon leaving foster care, most children returned home to 

the families they had been living with prior to entering foster care. 

However, about a third of the children who went home to their 

birth families in 1998 subsequently returned to foster care by 2000. 

Few States provided data on the numbers of children affected by 

ASFA’s fast track, and 15 of 22 provisions, and HHS collects very 

little data on the use of these provisions. Four States that provided 

fast track data in response to our survey indicated that they do not 

use this provision frequently. They described several court-related 

issues that make it difficult to fast track more children, including 

court delays, a reluctance on the part of some judges to relieve the 

State from reunification efforts, and difficulty in proving the existence of the aggravated circumstances that would justify fast tracking. 

Survey responses from the few States that provided data on the 

15 of 22 provision indicate that these States do not file TPRs for 

many children who are in care for 15 months. Officials in the six 

States we visited reported that they determined the filing of TPR 

under this provision for many children is not in the children’s best 

interest. 

States reported in our survey that they most commonly use their 

adoption related funds to recruit adoptive families and provide 

post-adoption services. Child specific recruitment efforts included 

featuring children available for adoption on television, hosting 

matching parties for prospective adoptive parents to meet children 

available for adoption, and taking pictures and making videos of 

foster children to show to prospective families. 

General recruitment efforts included promoting adoption through 

national adoption month events, hiring additional recruiters, and 

partnering religious groups. About 60 percent of the States responding to our survey funded post-adoption services such as counseling, respite care, support groups, and recreational activities. 

States have developed a range of practices to address longstanding barriers to achieving permanency for children in a timely 

manner. However, because few of these practices have been vigorously evaluated, limited information is available on their effectiveness. 

Such practices include mediation involving family members and 

potential adoptive parents, assigning a judge trained in handling 

child welfare issues to a cluster of rural counties, targeting efforts 

to recruit adoptive parents to individuals who may be more likely 

to adopt children with special needs, and subsidizing long-term 

guardianships. 

In conclusion, the availability of reliable data, both on foster care 

outcomes and the effectiveness of child welfare practices, is essential to efforts to improve the child welfare system. In this regard, 

to obtain a clear understanding of how ASFA’s two key permaVerDate jul 14 2003 01:16 Dec 06, 2003 Jkt 090545 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A545A.XXX A545A
21

1Throughout this testimony, fiscal year refers to federal fiscal year, unless noted otherwise. 

In addition, we selectively updated information contained in this testimony. 2Throughout this testimony, references to state survey responses include the District of Columbia. 3 In addition, we requested survey data by federal fiscal year for 1999 and 2000. However, 

of the 46 states responding to our survey, 22 provided data for time periods other than federal 

fiscal years 1999 and 2000, such as calendar year or state fiscal year. 

nency provisions are working, we recommended in our June 2002 

report that the Secretary of HHS determine the feasibility of collecting data on States’ use of the fast track and 15 of 22 provisions. 

In addition, we are currently conducting an engagement for the 

Senate Finance Committee and the House Majority Leader on 

States’ automated child welfare information systems. I expect this 

report to be issued in July. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. I would be happy to 

answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ashby follows:]

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

Income Security Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here 

today to discuss the implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 

(ASFA). As you are aware, this legislation was enacted in response to concerns that 

some children were languishing in temporary foster care while prolonged attempts 

were made to reunify them with their birth families. ASFA contained two key provisions that were intended to help states move children in foster care more quickly 

to safe and permanent homes. One of these provisions, referred to as ‘‘fast track,’’ 

allows states to bypass efforts to reunify families in certain egregious situations. 

The other provision, informally called ‘‘15 of 22,’’ requires states, with a few exceptions, to file a petition to terminate parental rights (TPR) when a child has been 

in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months. In addition, ASFA emphasized 

the importance of adoption when foster children cannot safely and quickly return 

to the care of their birth parents. Toward that end, ASFA established incentive payments for states that increase their adoptions. In addition, the law provided a new 

source of funds for states to use to promote and support adoptions through the Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) program. 

My testimony today will focus on four key issues: (1) changes in the outcomes and 

characteristics of children in foster care from the time ASFA was enacted through 

fiscal year 2000, (2) states’ implementation of ASFA’s fast track and 15 of 22 provisions, (3) states’ use of adoption-related funds provided by ASFA, and (4) practices 

states are using to address barriers to achieving permanency for children in foster 

care. My comments are based on the findings from our June 2002 report, Foster 

Care: Recent Legislation Helps States Focus on Finding Permanent Homes for Children, but Long-Standing Barriers Remain (GAO–02–585, June 28, 2002). Those 

findings were based on our analyses of national foster care and adoption data from 

the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for fiscal years 1998 

through 2000; 1 site visits to Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oregon, and Texas; and interviews with federal officials and child welfare experts. In 

addition, we conducted a survey of child welfare directors in the 50 states and the 

District of Columbia.2 We received responses from 46 states, although they did not 

all respond to every question.3

In summary, while the annual number of adoptions has increased by 57 percent 

from the time ASFA was enacted through fiscal year 2000, the lack of comparable 

pre- and post-ASFA data makes it difficult to determine ASFA’s role in this increase 

or changes in other foster care outcomes. However, HHS data on children who left 

foster care between 1998 and 2000 provide some insight into the experiences of children in foster care. For example, children who left foster care during this time spent 

a median of nearly 1 year in care. Of these children, those who were adopted spent 

a median of approximately 31⁄2 years in foster care. Recent improvements in the 

quality of HHS data, however, make it difficult to determine if changes observed 

after 1998 are the result of changes in data quality or actual changes in the outcomes and characteristics of foster children. Similarly, data on states’ use of ASFA’s 

two key permanency provisions—fast track and 15 of 22—are limited, although 

some states described circumstances that hindered the broader use of these proviVerDate jul 14 2003 01:16 Dec 06, 2003 Jkt 090545 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A545A.XXX A545A
22

4 In addition, Title XX provides funds under the social services block grant that may be used 

for many purposes, including child welfare. 5 Certain judicial findings must be present for the child in order for the child to be eligible 

for Title IV–E foster care maintenance payments. 6Special needs are defined as a specific factor or condition that make it difficult to place a 

child with adoptive parents without providing adoption assistance. States have the discretion 

to define the specifics of the special needs category. The existence of special needs is used to 

determine a child’s eligibility for adoption assistance under Title IV–E. To qualify for an adoption subsidy under Title IV–E, the state must determine that the child cannot or should not 

return home; the 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. 7 In 1998, the American Public Welfare Association became the American Public Human Services Association. 

sions. For example, state officials described several court-related issues, such as reluctance on the part of some judges to allow a state to bypass reunification efforts, 

which made it difficult for these states to use the fast track provision for more cases. 

In general, states are most frequently using the new adoption-related funds provided by ASFA to recruit adoptive parents and provide post adoption services. For 

example, Connecticut used its adoption incentive funds to buy advertisements on 

Spanish language television to recruit adoptive families for older Hispanic children 

and sibling groups to address a shortage of families for these children. Oregon used 

its PSSF funds to create a new, statewide resource center to provide information 

and referral services, support groups, and educational workshops to adoptive families. The states we visited have implemented a variety of practices to address longstanding barriers—such as court delays and difficulties in recruiting adoptive families for children with special needs—to achieving permanency for foster children. To 

help address court delays, for example, Massachusetts has developed a mediation 

program to help birth families and potential adoptive parents agree on the permanent plan for a child, thereby avoiding the time associated with a court trial and 

an appeal of the court’s decision. States are testing different approaches to address 

these barriers; however, limited data are available on the effectiveness of these 

practices. 

Background

The foster care system has grown dramatically in the past two decades, with the 

number of children in foster care nearly doubling since the mid-1980s. Concerns 

about children’s long stays in foster care culminated in the passage of ASFA in 

1997, which emphasized the child welfare system’s goals of safety, permanency, and 

child and family well-being. HHS’s Administration for Children and Families (ACF) 

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

child welfare services under Titles IV–B and IV–E of the Social Security Act. 

These two titles of the Social Security Act provide federal funding targeted specifically to foster care and related child welfare services.4 Title IV–E 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.5 Title IV–E also provides payments to 

adoptive parents of eligible foster children with special needs.6 Special needs are 

characteristics that can make it more difficult for a child to be adopted and may 

include emotional, physical, or mental disabilities; age; or being a member of a sibling group or a member of a minority race. Title IV–B provides limited funding for 

child welfare services to foster children, as well as children remaining in their 

homes. In fiscal year 2002, total Title IV–E spending was approximately $6.1 billion 

and total Title IV–B spending was approximately $674 million. 

HHS compiles data on children in foster care and children who have been adopted 

from state child welfare agencies in the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS). HHS is responsible for collecting and reporting data and 

verifying their quality. States began submitting AFCARS data to HHS in 1995. 

Twice a year, states are required to submit data on the characteristics of children 

in foster care, foster parents, adopted children, and adoptive parents. Prior to 

AFCARS, child welfare data were collected in the Voluntary Cooperative Information System (VCIS), operated by what was then called the American Public Welfare 

Association.7 Since reporting to VCIS was not mandatory, the data in the system 

were incomplete. In addition, the data submitted were inconsistent because states 

used different reporting periods and different definitions for various data elements. 

ASFA included two key provisions intended to help states move into safe, permanent placements those foster children who are unable to safely return home in a 

reasonable amount of time. Under the fast track provision, states are not required 

23

8 In addition, the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act of 1988, as amended in 1996, requires 

states to expedite the termination of parental rights for abandoned infants in order to receive 

priority to obtain certain federal funds. 9 HHS officials believe that the adoption data available as early as 1995 are more reliable 

than early data on other outcomes because of the incentive payments that states can earn for 

increasing adoptions. They noted that states made great efforts to improve the accuracy of their 

adoption data when the incentive payment baselines were established. For example, HHS initially estimated about 20,000 adoptions for fiscal year 1997, but after states reviewed and submitted their adoption data, as required for participation in the Adoption Incentives program, 

they reported about 31,000 adoptions. 10 All HHS data are presented in terms of federal fiscal year. 

to pursue efforts to prevent removal from home or to return a child home if a parent 

has (1) lost parental rights to that child’s sibling; (2) committed specific types of 

felonies, including murder or voluntary manslaughter of the child’s sibling; or (3) 

subjected the child to aggravated circumstances, such as abandonment, torture, 

chronic abuse, or sexual abuse. In these egregious situations, the courts may determine that services to preserve or reunite the family are not required. Once the court 

makes such a determination, the state must begin within 30 days to find the child 

an alternative permanent family or other permanent arrangement.8

The second provision requires states to file a TPR with the courts if (1) an infant 

has been abandoned; (2) the parent committed any of the felonies listed in the fast 

track provision; or (3) the child has been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 

22 months. ASFA allows for some exemptions from the 15 of 22 provision. Under 

ASFA, states are not required to file a TPR if the child is placed with a relative; 

the state has not provided services needed to make the home safe for the child’s 

return; or the state documents a compelling reason that filing a TPR is not in the 

child’s best interest. 

ASFA also created two new adoption-related funding sources. First, ASFA reauthorized the family preservation and family support program under subpart 2 of 

Title IV–B of the Social Security Act, renaming it Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) and adding two new funding categories: adoption promotion and support 

services and time-limited family reunification services. The original family preservation program included only family preservation and community-based family support services. In January 2002, the PSSF program was reauthorized, authorizing 

$305 million for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006, along with an additional 

$200 million in discretionary grant funds for each of those years. 

Second, ASFA created the adoption incentive payment program, which awards 

states $4,000 for each foster child who is adopted over a previously established baseline and an extra $2,000 for each adopted child characterized by the state as having 

a special need. States have earned a total of approximately $145 million in incentive 

payments for adoptions finalized in fiscal years 1998 through 2001. 

ASFA also expanded the use of federal child welfare demonstration waivers that 

allow states to test innovative foster care and adoption practices. In 1994, the Congress gave HHS the authority to establish up to 10 child welfare demonstrations 

that waive certain restrictions in Titles IV–B and IV–E of the Social Security Act 

and allow broader use of federal foster care funds. ASFA authorized 10 additional 

waivers in each year between fiscal years 1998 and 2002 to ensure more states had 

the opportunity to test innovations. States with an approved waiver must conduct 

a formal evaluation of the project’s effectiveness and must demonstrate the waiver’s 

cost neutrality—that is, a state cannot spend more in Titles IV–B and IV–E funds 

than it would have without the waiver. Projects generally are to last no more than 

5 years. 

Limited Data are Available to Measure Changes in the Outcomes and Characteristics of Children Since ASFA

The number of annual adoptions has increased since the implementation of ASFA; 

however, data limitations restrict comparative analysis of other outcomes and characteristics of children in foster care.9 Foster care adoptions grew from 31,004 in fiscal year 1997 to 48,680 in fiscal year 2000, representing a 57 percent increase.10

However, current data constraints make it difficult to determine what role ASFA 

played in this increase. The lack of reliable and comparable pre- and post-ASFA 

data limits our ability to analyze how other foster care outcomes or children’s characteristics have changed. Current data do, however, provide some information about 

the characteristics and experiences of foster children after ASFA. For example, children leaving foster care between 1998 and 2000 spent a median of approximately 

1 year in care. Of these children, those who were adopted spent more time in care—

a median of approximately 31⁄2 years. 

24

Adoptions Have Increased Since ASFA, but Changes in Other Outcomes Unclear

Adoptions from state foster care programs have increased nationwide by 57 percent from the time ASFA was enacted through fiscal year 2000, but changes in other 

outcomes are less clearly discernable. According to data available from HHS, the increase in adoptions began prior to the enactment of federal child welfare reforms 

(see fig. 1). For example, adoptions generally increased between 8 percent and 12 

percent each year between 1995 and 2000, except in 1999 when they increased by 

29 percent over 1998 adoptions. The increase in overall adoptions of children in foster care is accompanied by a parallel increase in the adoptions of children with special needs. 

Figure 1: Number of Children Adopted from Foster Care Between Fiscal 

Years 1995 and 2000

Note: The percentages in parentheses represent the increase in finalized adoptions over the 

previous year.

The role ASFA played in the increase in adoptions after 1997, however, is unclear. 

Similarly, whether the number of foster children being adopted will continue to rise 

in the future is unknown. For example, since our report was issued last June, HHS 

reported that 48,741 adoptions were finalized in 2001, which represents only a 

slight increase over adoptions finalized in 2000. While ASFA may have contributed 

to the adoptions of these children, other factors may have also played a role. For 

example, HHS officials told us that state child welfare reform efforts that occurred 

before ASFA might be linked to the observed increase in adoptions. Since it can take 

several years for foster children to be adopted, and ASFA has only been in existence 

for a few years, evidence of ASFA’s effect may not be available for some time. 

ASFA’s effect on other foster care outcomes, such as birth family reunifications, 

is also difficult to determine. Lack of comparable and reliable data on foster care 

children, before and after ASFA, make it difficult to know how ASFA has affected 

the child welfare system. While HHS officials report that some data are reliable to 

provide a picture of children in foster care after ASFA, they state that the child welfare data covering pre-ASFA periods are not reliable due to problems such as low 

response rates and data inconsistencies. Since 1998, however, HHS data specialists 

have observed improvements in the data submitted to HHS by states and attribute 

the changes to several factors, including the provisions of federal technical assistance to the states on data processing issues, the use of federal financial penalties 

and rewards, and the use of outcome measures to evaluate states’ performance. AcVerDate jul 14 2003 01:16 Dec 06, 2003 Jkt 090545 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A545A.XXX A545A

Insert 90545A.001
25

11 According to HHS’s AFCARS data, 223,255 children exited foster care in fiscal year 1998 

from 44 states (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico); 250,950 exited foster care 

in fiscal year 1999 from 51 states (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico); and 

267,344 exited foster care in fiscal year 2000 from 51 states (including the District of Columbia). 12Of the 46 states that responded to our survey, 16 provided data on the percentage of foster 

children who had a substantiated report of abuse or neglect in fiscal year 1999, 2 provided data 

for calendar year 1999, 1 provided data for state fiscal year 1999, 18 provided data for fiscal 

year 2000, 1 provided data for calendar year 2000, and 2 provided data for state fiscal year 

2000. 13 According to HHS’s Child Welfare Outcomes 1999: Annual Report, the median percentage 

of foster children abused and neglected while in care was 0.5 percent for the 20 states reporting. 

Maltreatment rates in foster care range from a high of 2.3 percent in Rhode Island to a low 

of 0.1 percent in Arizona, Delaware, and Wyoming. 14 In AFCARS, reunification is defined as the child returning to the family with whom the 

child had been living prior to entering foster care. 15 A child is emancipated from foster care when the child reaches majority age according to 

state law. 16Guardianship arrangements occur when permanent legal custody is awarded to an individual, such as a relative. 17While current AFCARS data indicate that 85 percent of children adopted in fiscal years 

1998 through 2000 have at least one special need, the adoption incentive data presented earlier 

in figure 1 indicate a lower proportion of children with special needs adopted from foster care. 

An HHS official explained that this discrepancy is due to the timing of the measurement of the 

data. The data in figure 1 were measured at an earlier point in time and the numbers are not 

updated since adoption incentive payments are awarded to states based on the number of finalized adoptions reported at the end of each fiscal year. The data presented here reflect changes 

to AFCARS based on states resubmitting previous data after the initial reporting periods and 

are as recent as April 2002. 

cording to HHS, these data improvements make it impossible to determine whether 

observed changes in outcomes from one year to the next are the result of changes 

in data quality or changes in state performance. HHS expects that the data will stabilize over time and can eventually be used as a reliable measure of state performance. 

Current Data Describe Characteristics and Experiences of Children Who 

Exited Care Between 1998 and 2000

Although pre-ASFA data are limited, current data do shed some light on the characteristics and experiences of the more than 741,000 children who exited foster care 

between 1998 and 2000.11 According to HHS data for this time period and results 

from our survey, the following outcomes and characteristics describe the experiences 

children had while in foster care: 

• Children left foster care after a median length of stay of approximately 1 year, 

although the amount of time spent in care differed depending on where the children were permanently placed. For example, in 2000, the median length of stay 

for children exiting care was 12 months. In contrast, the median length of stay 

for adopted children was 39 months in 2000. 

• Many children have only one placement during their foster care stay, but a few 

experience five or more placements. Adopted children tend to have more foster 

care placements than other children, in part, because of their longer foster care 

stays. 

• Upon leaving foster care, most children returned home to the families they had 

been living with prior to entering foster care. However, approximately 33 percent of the children who went home to their birth families in 1998 subsequently 

returned to foster care by 2000, for reasons such as additional abuse and neglect at home. 

• Our survey results indicated that the median percentage of children abused or 

neglected while in foster care during 1999 and 2000 was 0.60 percent and 0.49 

percent, respectively.12 Maltreatment rates in foster care ranged from a high of 

2.74 percent in the District of Columbia to a low of 0.02 percent in Nebraska.13

• Children exit foster care in a number of ways, including reunifying with their 

families,14 being adopted, emancipation,15 or entering a guardianship arrangement.16 Although most children reunify with their families, the second most 

common way of exiting foster care is through adoption. The children adopted 

from foster care have a wide variety of characteristics, yet the data indicate 

some general themes. 

• On average, 85 percent of the children adopted in 1998, 1999, and 2000 were 

classified as having at least one special need that would qualify them for adoption subsidies under Title IV–E.17 According to results from our survey, 18 

26

18One of the 18 states reporting on the number of children adopted with three or more special 

needs provided data based on calendar year 2000. 19Of the 46 states responding to our survey, 22 provided fiscal year data on the length of 

time children lived with the family that eventually adopted them and 1 provided data for calendar year 2000. 20Studies on adoption problems prior to ASFA’s enactment have several limitations, such as 

small samples sizes, coverage of a few locations, and a focus on narrowly defined groups of children. 21Of the 46 states that responded to our survey, 17 provided data on adoption disruptions 

for fiscal year 1999, 2 provided data for calendar year 1999, 18 provided data on adoption disruptions for fiscal year 2000, and 2 provided data for calendar year 2000. 22For example, Illinois reported a 12.4 percent disruption rate for fiscal year 1999 on our survey. In comparison, one study (Robert Goerge and others, Adoption, Disruption, and Displacement in the Child Welfare System, 1976–1995 (Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children at the 

University of Chicago, 1995)) reviewed all planned and finalized adoptions in Illinois between 

1981 and 1987. During that time, an average of 9.9 percent of adoption plans for Illinois foster 

children disrupted. 23Of the 46 states that responded to our survey, 18 provided data on dissolutions for fiscal 

year 1999, 19 provided data on dissolutions for fiscal year 2000 and 1 provided data for calendar 

year 2000. In addition, 21 states provided survey data on foster care re-entries by children 

adopted in fiscal year 1999, 22 provided data for children adopted in fiscal year 2000, and 1 

provided data for children adopted in calendar year 2000. Our survey results indicate that of 

all the children with finalized adoptions in fiscal year 1999, 0.55 percent returned to foster care 

in fiscal year 1999 or 2000. Of all the children with finalized adoptions in fiscal year 2000, 1.43 

percent returned to foster care in fiscal year 2000. 

states reported that, on average, 32 percent of the children adopted from foster 

care in 2000 had three or more special needs.18

• Children adopted from foster care are equally likely to be male or female, slightly more likely to be black, and much more likely to be under age 12. The gender 

and race/ethnicity distributions of children adopted from foster care are similar 

to those of the general population of children in foster care. However, children 

adopted from foster care tend to be younger than the general population of children in foster care. • Our survey results indicate that in fiscal year 2000 adopted children spent an 

average of 18 months living with the family that eventually adopted them prior 

to their adoption being finalized.19

As noted for other outcomes, the lack of reliable and national pre-ASFA data 

make it difficult to determine whether the rate at which adoptions encountered 

problems has changed since ASFA was enacted.20 However, limited data suggest 

that problems occur in a small percentage of foster care adoptions. According to our 

survey,21 about 5 percent of adoptions planned in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 disrupted prior to being finalized.22 States also reported that approximately 1 percent 

of adoptions finalized in these years legally dissolved at a later date and that about 

1 percent of the children who were adopted in these years subsequently re-entered 

foster care.23 However, little time has elapsed since these adoptions were finalized, 

and some of these adoptions may fail at a later date. 

While Little Data are Available on Key ASFA Permanency Provisions, Some 

States Describe Circumstances That Limit Their Broader Use

While few states were able to provide data on the numbers of children affected 

by ASFA’s fast track and 15 of 22 provisions, some reported on circumstances that 

make it difficult to use these provisions for more children. In addition, HHS collects 

very little data on the use of these provisions. Data from four states that provided 

fast track data in response to our survey indicate that they do not use this provision 

frequently. However, they described several court-related issues that make it difficult to fast track more children, including court delays and a reluctance on the 

part of some judges to relieve the state from reunification efforts. Survey responses 

from the few states that provided data on the 15 of 22 provision indicate that these 

states do not file TPRs for many children who are in care for 15 months. Officials 

in the six states we visited reported that they determine that filing a TPR under 

this provision for many children is not in the children’s best interests. The determination is based on a variety of factors, such as difficulties in finding adoptive parents. 

While Data on Fast Track Are Limited, Some States Report Court-Related 

Issues That Hinder the Use of the Fast Track Provision for More Children

Few states were able to provide data on their use of the fast track provision in 

response to our survey and HHS does not collect these data from the states. As a 

result, we do not have sufficient information to discuss the extent to which states 

are using this provision. Survey data reported by four states suggest the infrequent 

27

use of fast track. In fiscal year 2000, for example, about 4,000 children entered the 

child welfare system in Maryland, but only 36 were fast-tracked. Child welfare officials in the six states we visited told us that they used ASFA’s fast track provision 

for a relatively small number of cases. Three states indicated that they fast-tracked 

abandoned infants, while four states reported using fast track for cases involving 

serious abuse, such as when a parent has murdered a sibling; however, some state 

officials also noted that few child welfare cases involve these circumstances. In addition, five states reported that they would fast track certain children whose parents 

had involuntarily lost parental rights to previous children if no indication exists 

that the parents have addressed the problem that led to the removal of the children. 

Officials in five of the states we visited described several court-related issues that 

they believe hindered the greater use of the fast track provision. However, because 

of the lack of data on states’ use of fast track, we were unable to determine the extent of these problems. Officials in these states told us that some judges or other 

legal officials are at times reluctant to approve a state’s fast track request. For example, child welfare staff for a county in North Carolina described a case in which 

a judge approved a fast track request involving a child who had suffered from shaken baby syndrome, but refused a similar request on a sibling who was born a few 

months after the shaking episode. County staff said that the judge’s decision was 

based on the fact that the parents had not hurt the newborn and should be given 

an opportunity to demonstrate their ability to care for this child. State officials in 

North Carolina also told us that delays in scheduling TPR trials in the state undermine the intent of fast tracking. They noted that the agency may save time by not 

providing services to a family, but the child may not be adopted more quickly if it 

takes 12 months to schedule the TPR trial. Officials in Massachusetts expressed 

similar concerns about court delays experienced in the state when parents appeal 

a court decision to terminate their parental rights. 

Other difficulties in using fast track to move children out of foster care more 

quickly are related to the specific categories of cases that are eligible to be fasttracked. Officials in five states told us that they look at several factors when considering the use of fast track for a parent who has lost parental rights for other children. If a different birth father is involved, child welfare officials told us that they 

are obligated to work with him to determine if he is willing and able to care for 

the child. According to Maryland officials, if the agency is providing services to the 

father to facilitate reunification, pursuing a fast track case for the mother will not 

help the child leave foster care more quickly. In addition, child welfare officials in 

Massachusetts and Illinois emphasized that a parent who has addressed the problems that led to a previous TPR should have an opportunity to demonstrate the ability to care for a subsequent child. 

Regarding the fast track category involving parents who have been convicted of 

certain felonies, child welfare officials in Massachusetts and Texas described this 

provision as impractical due to the time it takes to obtain a conviction. Massachusetts officials told us that, in most cases, the children are removed at the time the 

crime is committed, and judges will not approve the fast track in these cases until 

the parent is actually convicted, which is usually at least a year after the actual 

crime. Finally, in Massachusetts, Texas, and Maryland, officials reported that it can 

be difficult to prove that a parent subjected a child to aggravated circumstances, 

such as torture or sexual abuse. According to these officials, the time and effort to 

go through additional court hearings to demonstrate the aggravated circumstances 

is not worthwhile; instead, the child welfare agency chooses to provide services to 

the family. 

Although Little Data Exist on 15 of 22, Some States Report That They Do 

Not File TPRs on Many Children

Most states do not collect data on their use of ASFA’s 15 of 22 provision. In response to our survey, only nine states were able to provide information on the number of children for whom the state filed a TPR due to the 15 of 22 provision or the 

number of children who were in care for 15 of the most recent 22 months and for 

whom a TPR was not filed. In addition, HHS does not systematically track these 

data, although it does collect some limited information on the 15 of 22 provision as 

part of its review of state child welfare agencies. The survey responses from 9 states 

indicated that they did not file a TPR on a number of children—between 31 and 

2,919 in 2000—who met the requirements of the 15 of 22 provision. For most of 

these nine states, the number of children for whom a TPR was not filed greatly exceeded the number of children for whom a TPR was filed. For example, while Oklahoma filed over 1,000 TPRs primarily because the child had been in foster care for 

15 of the most recent 22 months, it did not file a TPR for an additional 2,900 children. 

28

24 In North Carolina, child welfare agency staff may recommend to the court that a TPR not 

be filed on a child who has been in care for 15 of the most recent 22 months; however, according 

to state officials, North Carolina requires that a judge determine that one of the ASFA exceptions exists. 25 All the states we visited require that children over a certain age consent to their adoption. 

For example, Maryland requires that children 10 years or older consent to their adoption. 26 ASFA specifically allows states to exempt children placed with relatives from the 15 of 22 

provision. 

Officials in all six states we visited told us that establishing specific timeframes 

for making permanency decisions about children in foster care has helped their child 

welfare agencies focus their priorities on finding permanent homes for children more 

quickly. Two of the states we visited—Texas and Massachusetts—created procedures prior to ASFA to review children who had been in care for a certain length 

of time and decide whether continued efforts to reunify a family were warranted. 

Other states had not established such timeframes for making permanency decisions 

before the 15 of 22 provision was enacted. The director of one state child welfare 

agency told us that, prior to ASFA, the agency would work with families for years 

before it would pursue adoption for a child in foster care. Officials in Maryland, 

North Carolina, and Oregon said that the pressure of these new timeframes has 

helped child welfare staff work more effectively with parents, informing them up 

front about what actions they have to take in the next 12 to 15 months in order 

to reunify with their children. Private agency staff in three states, however, expressed concern that pressure from these timeframes could push the child welfare 

agency and the courts to make decisions too quickly for some children. 

Child welfare officials in the six states we visited described several circumstances 

under which they would not file a TPR on a child who was in care for 15 of the 

most recent 22 months. In five of the six states, these officials told us that the provision is difficult to apply to children with special needs for whom adoption may not 

be a realistic option, such as adolescents and children with serious emotional or behavioral problems. Officials from Maryland and North Carolina reported that, in 

many cases, the child welfare agency does not file a TPR for children who have been 

in care for 15 of the most recent 22 months because neither the agency nor the 

courts consider it to be in the children’s best interest to be legal orphans—that is, 

to have their relationship to their parents legally terminated, but have no identified 

family ready to adopt them.24 State officials in Oregon told us that state law requires that parental rights be terminated solely for the purposes of adoption, so as 

to avoid creating legal orphans. 

Officials in four states noted that many adolescents remain in long-term foster 

care. In some cases, they have strong ties to their families, even if they cannot live 

with them, and will not consent to an adoption.25 In other cases, the teenager is 

functioning well in a stable situation with a relative or foster family that is committed to the child but unwilling to adopt.26 For example, officials in a child welfare 

agency for a county in North Carolina told us about a potentially violent 16-yearold foster child who had been in a therapeutic foster home for 10 years. The family 

was committed to fostering the child, but did not want to adopt him because they 

did not have the financial resources to provide for his medical needs and because 

they did not want to be responsible for the results of his actions. 

Child welfare staff from two states told us that some parents need a little more 

than 15 months to address the problems that led to the removal of their children. 

If the child welfare agency is reasonably confident that the parents will be able to 

reunify with their children in a few months, the agency will not file a TPR for a 

child who has been in foster care for 15 months. In addition, child welfare officials 

in four states observed that parents must have access to needed services, particularly substance abuse treatment, soon after a child enters care in order for the child 

welfare system to determine if reunification is a realistic goal by the time a child 

has been in care for 15 months. Officials in Maryland, Oregon, and Texas reported 

that the lack of appropriate substance abuse treatment programs that address the 

needs of parents makes it difficult to get parents in treatment and stable by the 

15th month. 

New ASFA Adoption-Related Funds Most Commonly Used to Recruit Adoptive Families and Provide Post Adoption Services

States reported in our survey that they most commonly used their adoption incentive payments and PSSF adoption promotion and support services funds to recruit 

adoptive families and to provide post adoption services (see table 1). Child welfare 

officials in all of the states we visited reported that they are struggling to recruit 

adoptive families for older children and those with severe behavioral or medical 

problems. To meet this challenge, states are investing in activities designed to 

29

match specific foster care children with adoptive families, as well as general campaigns to recruit adoptive families. Child-specific recruitment efforts include: featuring children available for adoption on television, hosting matching parties for 

prospective adoptive parents to meet children available for adoption, and taking pictures and videos of foster children to show to prospective families. For example, 

Massachusetts used its incentive payments to fund recruitment videos to feature the 

20 children who had been waiting the longest for adoptive families. General recruitment efforts being funded by states include promoting adoption through National 

Adoption Month events, hiring additional recruiters, and partnering with religious 

groups.

Table 1: Main Uses of Adoption Incentive Payments and PSSF Adoption 

Promotion and Support Funds 

Activity 

Number of states

using adoption

incentive payments

(FY 1999 and FY 2000) 

Number of states

using PSSF adoption

promotion and support

funds (FY 2000) 

Recruitment of adoptive families 19a 16b

Post adoption servicesc 17a 21b

Preadoptive counseling d 15

Hiring/Contracting additional social 

work staff 13e d

Training 11 4

Source: GAO survey. 

Note: Of the 46 states that responded to our survey, 34 provided data on the use of FY 1999 and FY 2000 

incentive payments and 26 provided information on the use of FY 2000 PSSF funds. aOne state provided data for calendar year 1999. 

bOne state provided data for calendar year 2000. 

cPost adoption services include: counseling, respite care (short-term specialized child care to provide families 

with temporary relief from the challenges of caring for adoptive children), support groups, adoption subsidies, 

and adoption preservation services. dThis activity was not included as a response for this funding source. 

eOne state provided data for state fiscal years 1999 and 2000. 

States are also investing adoption incentive payments and PSSF funds in services 

to help adoptive parents meet the challenges of caring for children who have experienced abuse and neglect. During our site visits, officials in Massachusetts and Illinois pointed out that the population of adopted children had increased significantly 

in recent years and that the availability of post adoption services was essential to 

ensure that these placements remain stable. Approximately 60 percent of the states 

responding to our survey used their adoption incentive payments or their PSSF 

funds or both for post adoption services, such as post adoption counseling, respite 

services, support groups, and recreational activities. For example, California has 

used some of its adoption incentive funds to pay for therapeutic camps and tutoring 

sessions for adopted children. In addition, Minnesota has used PSSF funds to teach 

adoptive parents how to care for children with fetal alcohol syndrome and children 

who find it difficult to become emotionally attached to caregivers. 

Although the 46 states responding to our survey reported that they are most frequently using the money for the activities described above, about two-thirds of them 

also reported that they are investing some of these funds in a variety of other services. Many states are using PSSF funds to provide pre-adoptive counseling to help 

children and parents prepare for the emotional challenges of forming a new family. 

Similarly, some states are using incentive payments and PSSF funds to train foster 

families, adoptive families, and service providers. For example, Arkansas used its 

incentive payments to help families attend an adoptive parent conference, while 

Kentucky used its incentive funds to train judges and attorneys on adoption matters. Finally, some states are using their adoption incentive payments to hire or contract additional child welfare and legal staff. 

States Develop Practices in Response to Long-Standing Barriers That Continue to Hamper Efforts to Promote Permanency for Foster Children

States have been developing a range of practices to address longstanding barriers 

to achieving permanency for children in a timely manner—many of which have been 

the subject of our previous reports. Both independently and through demonstration 

waivers approved by HHS, states are using a variety of practices to address barriers 

relating to the courts, recruiting adoptive families for children with special needs, 

30

27Of the 29 states that reported an insufficient number of judges or court staff, 18 reported 

that the problem represented either a moderate, great, or very great hindrance to finding permanent homes for children. Of the 28 states that reported insufficient training for court staff, 

20 reported that the problem represented a moderate or great hindrance. Of the 23 states that 

reported that judges were not supportive of ASFA’s goals, 10 reported that the problem represented either a moderate, great, or very great hindrance. Of the 46 states that responded to 

our survey, 40 reported on the insufficient number of judges and court staff, 41 reported on the 

lack of training for judges and court staff, and 39 reported on judges not being supportive of 

ASFA’s goals. 28 U.S. General Accounting Office, Juvenile Courts: Reforms Aim to Better Serve Maltreated 

Children, GAO/HEHS–99–13 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 11, 1999). 29Of the 46 states responding to our survey, 43 states reported on the sufficiency of adoptive 

homes for children with special needs. All 43 states reported that they did not have enough 

adoptive homes for children with special needs, with 39 reporting that the problem represented 

a moderate, great, or very great hindrance to finding permanent homes for children. 30Of the 46 states responding to our survey, 44 answered the question about recruitment activities used in their states. 

placing children in permanent homes in other jurisdictions, and the availability of 

needed services. Because few of these practices have been rigorously evaluated, however, limited information is available on their effectiveness. 

Systemic Court Problems Continue to Delay Child Welfare Cases

Our previous work, officials in all the states we visited, and over half of our survey respondents identified problems with the court system as a barrier to moving 

children from foster care into safe and permanent homes.27 In 1999, we reported 

on systemic problems that hinder the ability of courts to produce decisions on child 

welfare cases in a timely manner that meet the needs of children.28 The barriers 

included inadequate numbers of judges and attorneys to handle large caseloads, the 

lack of cooperation between the courts and child welfare agencies, and insufficient 

training of judges and attorneys involved in child welfare cases. 

During our visit to Massachusetts, state officials told us that the courts experienced significant delays in court hearings and appeals due to a lack of court resources. As an alternative to court proceedings, Massachusetts implemented a permanency mediation program—a formal dispute resolution process in which an independent third party facilitates permanency planning between family members and 

potential adoptive parents in a nonadversarial setting. By avoiding trials to terminate parental rights, Massachusetts officials reported that permanency mediation 

helps reduce court workloads, eliminate appeals, and more effectively uses limited 

court resources. A preliminary evaluation of the Massachusetts program suggested 

that cases involved in the mediation program needed less time and fewer court resources to reach an agreement than cases that go to trial. However, the evaluation 

did not directly compare outcomes, such as the length of time a child spent in foster 

care, for mediation and nonmediation cases. 

Texas officials identified court barriers in rural areas that negatively affect both 

the timeliness and quality of child welfare proceedings—specifically, the lack of 

court time for child welfare cases and the lack of judges with training and experience in child welfare issues. In response to these barriers, Texas developed the visiting judge cluster court system, an approach in which a judge trained in child welfare issues is assigned to a cluster of rural counties. The judge travels from county 

to county presiding over all child welfare cases. This approach may create more 

court time in rural areas and allows knowledgeable and experienced judges to make 

the best possible decisions for children in foster care. While Texas officials believe 

this approach has been helpful in moving children to permanency, no formal evaluation of the approach has been conducted. 

Permanency for Children With Special Needs Hindered by Lack of Adoptive Families

Officials in five states we visited, along with the majority of the respondents to 

our state survey, reported that difficulties in recruiting families to adopt children 

with special needs is a major barrier to achieving permanent placements for these 

children.29 Our survey revealed that states relied on three main activities to recruit 

adoptive families for children who are waiting to be adopted: listing a child’s profile 

on state and local Web sites, exploring adoption by adults significantly involved in 

the child’s life, and featuring the child on local television news shows.30

Several states we visited are using recruitment campaigns targeted to particular 

individuals who may be more likely to adopt children with special needs. For example, the child welfare agencies in Illinois, Maryland, North Carolina, and Texas are 

collaborating with local churches to recruit adoptive families specifically for minority 

children. However, an Illinois recruitment report noted that little information exists 

31

31 HHS is authorized to approve child welfare demonstration projects in up to 10 states for 

each of the 5 fiscal years 1998 through 2002. Under these projects, HHS waives certain restrictions in Title IV–E and allows broader use of federal foster care funds. 32 U.S. General Accounting Office, Foster Care: HHS Could Better Facilitate the Interjurisdictional Adoption Process, GAO/HEHS–00–12 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 19, 1999). 33Of the 46 states that responded to our survey, 22 reported that they publicized profiles of 

foster children in media in other states, 41 reported that they publicized profiles of foster children on Web sites, and 15 reported that they contracted with private agencies to recruit adoptive parents in other states. 34Of the 46 states responding to our survey, 35 reported that they worked with neighboring 

states to facilitate interstate placements and 19 reported that they contracted with private agencies in other states to conduct home studies. 35 U.S. General Accounting Office, Foster Care: Agencies Face Challenges Securing Stable 

Homes for Children of Substance Abusers, GAO/HEHS–98–182 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 

1998). 

on what kinds of families are likely to adopt children with specific characteristics. 

While the states we visited used a variety of recruitment efforts to find families for 

special needs children, they generally did not collect data on the effectiveness of 

their recruiting efforts. 

In addition to the activities described above, some demonstration waivers are testing a different approach to finding permanent homes for children in foster care.31

Seven states are using demonstration waivers to pay subsidies to relatives and foster parents who become legal guardians to foster children in their care. These states 

hope to reduce the number of children in long-term foster care by formalizing existing relationships in which relatives or foster parents are committed to caring for a 

child but adoption is not a viable option. Evaluation results from Illinois’s waiver 

suggest that offering subsidized guardianship can increase the percentage of children placed in a permanent and safe home. Results from most of the other guardianship waiver projects are not yet available. 

Placing Children Across Jurisdictions Remains Problematic for States

Many states encounter longstanding barriers in placing children with adoptive 

families in other states. As we reported previously, these interjurisdictional adoptions take longer and are more complex than adoptions within the same child welfare jurisdiction.32 Interjurisdictional adoptions involve recruiting adoptive families 

from other states or other counties within a state, conducting comprehensive home 

studies of adoptive families in one jurisdiction, sending the resulting home study reports to another jurisdiction, and ensuring that all required legal, financial, and administrative processes for interjurisdictional adoptions are completed. Five states we 

visited reported frequent delays in obtaining from other states the home study reports necessary to place a child with a potential adoptive family in another state. 

According to recent HHS data, children adopted by out-of-state families typically 

spend about 1 year longer in foster care than children adopted by in-state families. 

Child welfare agencies have implemented a range of practices to facilitate adoptions across state and county lines. In our survey, the most common practices for 

recruiting adoptive families in other jurisdictions included publicizing profiles of foster care children on Web sites, presenting profiles of children in out-of-state media, 

and contracting with private agencies to recruit adoptive parents in other states.33

States have also developed practices to expedite the completion of home studies and 

shorten the approval processes for interstate adoptions. The two primary practices 

cited by states on our survey were working with neighboring states to facilitate 

interstate placements and contracting with private agencies to conduct home studies 

in other states.34

States we visited have implemented several of these practices to overcome barriers to interjurisdictional adoptions. In Oregon, the state child welfare agency 

works with neighboring states in the Northwest Adoption Exchange to recruit adoptive parents for children with special needs. In Texas, the state contracts with private agencies to place foster care children with out-of-state adoptive families. In Illinois, the state works with a private agency in Mississippi to conduct home studies 

because families in Mississippi adopt many Illinois children. 

Poor Access to Services Can Impede Permanency Decisions

Officials in four states told us that making decisions about a child’s permanent 

home within a year is difficult if the parent has not had access to the services necessary to address their problems, particularly substance abuse treatment. We have 

previously reported on barriers to working with parents who have a substance abuse 

problem, including inadequate treatment resources and a lack of collaboration 

among substance abuse treatment providers and child welfare agencies.35 Similarly, 

32

36Of the 46 states that responded to our survey, 39 reported on the lack of substance abuse 

treatment programs. Of the 33 states that reported that not enough drug treatment programs 

were available, 26 reported that the problem represented either a moderate, great, or very great 

hindrance to finding permanent homes for children. 

33 states reported in our survey that the lack of substance abuse treatment programs is a barrier to achieving permanency for children.36

To address this issue, four states have developed waiver projects to address the 

needs of parents with substance abuse problems. By testing ways to engage parents 

in treatment and to provide more supportive services, these states hope to increase 

the number of substance abusing parents who engage in treatment, increase the 

percentage of children who reunify with parents who are recovering from a substance abuse problem, and reduce the time these children spend in foster care. For 

example, Delaware’s waiver funds substance abuse counselors to help social workers 

assess potential substance abuse problems and engage parents in treatment. Final 

evaluation results were published in March 2002 and concluded that the project successfully engaged many parents in substance abuse treatment and resulted in foster 

care cost savings, although it did not achieve many of its intended outcomes. For 

example, children participating in the waiver project spent 31 percent less time in 

foster care than similar children who were not part of the waiver project, although 

the project’s goal was a 50 percent reduction. Evaluation results for the other states 

are not yet available. 

Concluding Observations 

Most of the states we visited reported that ASFA has played an important role 

in helping them focus on achieving permanency for children within the first year 

that they enter foster care. However, numerous problems with existing data make 

it difficult to assess at this time how outcomes for children in foster care have 

changed since ASFA was enacted. While an increasing number of children have 

been placed in permanent homes through adoption during the last several years, we 

know little about the role ASFA played in the adoption increases or other important 

outcomes, such as whether children who reunify with their families are more or less 

likely to return to foster care or whether these adoptions are more or less stable 

than adoptions from previous years. 

The availability of reliable data, both on foster care outcomes and the effectiveness of child welfare practices, is essential to efforts to improve the child welfare 

system. In the past few years, HHS and the states have taken important steps to 

improve the data available to assess child welfare operations. In addition, evaluation data from the demonstration waivers should be available in the next few years, 

providing key information on child welfare practices that are effective and 

replicable. However, important information about ASFA’s impact on children in foster care is still unavailable. For example, the lack of comprehensive and consistent 

data regarding the fast track and 15 of 22 provisions make it difficult to understand 

the role of these new provisions in reforming the child welfare system and moving 

children into permanent placements. To obtain a clearer understanding of how 

ASFA’s two key permanency provisions are working, we recommended in our June 

2002 report that the Secretary of HHS review the feasibility of collecting data on 

states’ use of ASFA’s fast track and 15 of 22 provisions. In commenting on that report, ACF generally agreed with our findings and recommendation. ACF officials report that they are currently in the process of reviewing child welfare data issues, 

which includes an internal review of AFCARS and obtaining input from the states 

through focus groups. In addition, GAO is currently conducting an engagement for 

the Senate Finance Committee and the House Majority Leader on states’ implementation of automated information systems and reporting of child welfare data to 

HHS. I expect this report to be released in July. 

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. 

GAO Contact and Acknowledgments 

For further contacts regarding this testimony, please call Cornelia M. Ashby at 

(202) 512–8403. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony include 

Diana Pietrowiak, Sara L. Schibanoff, and Michelle St. Pierre. 

Related GAO Products 

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. 

Foster Care: Recent Legislation Helps States Focus on Finding Permanent Homes 

for Children, but Long-Standing Barriers Remain. GAO–02–585. Washington, D.C.: 

June 28, 2002. 

33

Child Welfare: New Financing and Service Strategies Hold Promise, but Effects 

Unknown. GAO/T–HEHS–00–158. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2000. 

Foster Care: HHS Should Ensure That Juvenile Justice Placements Are Reviewed. 

GAO/HEHS–00–42. Washington, D.C.: June 9, 2000. 

Foster Care: States’ Early Experiences Implementing the Adoption and Safe Families Act. GAO/HEHS–00–1. Washington, D.C.: December 22, 1999. 

Foster Care: HHS Could Better Facilitate the Interjurisdictional Adoption Process. 

GAO/HEHS–00–12. Washington, D.C.: November 19, 1999. 

Foster Care: Effectiveness of Independent Living Services Unknown. GAO/HEHS–

00–13. Washington, D.C.: November 5, 1999. 

Foster Care: Kinship Care Quality and Permanency Issues. GAO/HEHS–99–32. 

Washington, D.C.: May 6, 1999. 

Foster Care: Increases in Adoption Rates. GAO/HEHS–99–114R. Washington, 

D.C.: April 20, 1999. 

Juvenile Courts: Reforms Aim to Better Serve Maltreated Children. GAO/HEHS–

99–13. Washington, D.C.: January 11, 2000. 

Foster Care: Agencies Face Challenges Securing Stable Homes for Children of Substance Abusers. GAO/HEHS–98–182. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 1998. 

Foster Care: State Efforts to Improve the Permanency Planning Process Show 

Some Promise. GAO/HEHS–97–73. Washington, D.C.: May 7, 1997. 

Child Welfare: States’ Progress in Implementing Family Preservation and Support 

Activities. GAO/HEHS–97–34. Washington, D.C.: February 18, 1997. 

Permanency Hearings for Foster Children. GAO/HEHS–97–55R. Washington, 

D.C.: January 30, 1997. 

Child Welfare: Complex Needs Strain Capacity to Provide Services. GAO/HEHS–

95–208. Washington, D.C.: September 26, 1995. 

Child Welfare: HHS Begins to Assume Leadership to Implement National and 

State Systems

the Honorable Dave Heaton, Representative from the Iowa House 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Ms. Ashby. Next is 

. GAO/AIMD–94–37. Washington, D.C.: June 8, 1994.

f of Representatives. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAVE HEATON, CHAIRMAN, 

APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES, REPRESENTATIVE, IOWA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND VICE CHAIR, COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 

Mr. HEATON. Thank you, Chairman Herger, Ranking Member 

Cardin, and the Members of the Subcommittee on Human Resources. I am Representative Dave Heaton of Iowa. I Chair the 

Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee in the 

Iowa House of Representatives. I appear here today on behalf of 

NCSL, where I serve as Vice Chair of the NCSL Human Services 

Committee. I am honored to be here. 

Mr. Chairman, ASFA, which NCSL supported, strengthened the 

State and Federal partnership to protect our Nation’s children. I 

am proud to testify today about how Iowa has made significant 

progress to ensure that children have safe and loving homes and 

don’t languish in the foster care system. 

The ASFA was based in part on early State efforts to speed the 

permanency process and shorten children’s stays in foster care. 

After passage of the Federal legislation, all States enacted implementing legislation. In Iowa, we did more than change our statute. 

Judges tell parents up front that this is the time frame in which 

you must get your act together or a TPR petition will be filed. 

Judges ask them what services they will need to be reunified with 

their child. 

34

We are moving in the right direction, but our challenge now is 

how to shore up our gains and move forward in very difficult State 

fiscal times. We have increased adoptions dramatically across the 

Nation. In Iowa, finalized adoptions have climbed from 280 in 1995 

to 792 in 2002, including a record number of special needs children. 

We must also look at the needs of the children caught in the revolving door of foster care. I have personally met children with 

double digit foster care placements. States need flexibility to focus 

on addressing the root causes of a child’s problems, not on following 

arbitrary rules and process requirements. 

The ASFA was a great start, but there is more to do. In a time 

of severe budget shortfalls, State lawmakers will likely be asked for 

the funding and resources to make the necessary program improvements. We have a $400 million shortfall in Iowa’s 2004 budget. The 

minimum cumulative budget gap around the country is $68 billion. 

In Iowa, we passed a supplemental appropriation for child and 

family services of $5.7 million. Most of it went to pay for adoption 

subsidies. There wasn’t enough for the Department of Human Services to use to cover the waiting list of children needing group foster 

care. Over 100 kids are on the list. 

Mr. Chairman, adoption incentive funds give us a way to build 

on success. Incentive funds have gone to the Foster and Adoptive 

Parent Association for peer support to avoid incomplete and disrupted adoptions. We have also sent the funds down to Iowa counties to extend the important incentive to the local level. We used 

incentive funds to purchase a 30-hour training curriculum for new 

foster and adoptive parents to help them understand their role in 

helping ensure children are safe and have permanency. 

The NCSL strongly supports reauthorization of the Adoption Incentives Fund. Any change in how incentives are apportioned 

should be closely examined for unintended consequences. A key 

change sought by State legislators in 1997 was a movement to an 

assessment system based on outcomes. How did Iowa do in meeting 

the new CFSR standards? The answer is, some are met and some 

are not, and some are pending further review. 

We did learn from the review several items that Iowans can be 

proud of: our statewide system of keeping track of at-risk children, 

our case review system, and our statewide plan to recruit and support adoptive and foster parents. 

By definition, all States must be in substantial compliance with 

all standards in order to meet the new threshold. No State has 

done so, nor will Iowa. For example, one area identified for improvement was that we needed to do more to help families handle 

the pressures of reunification so that children don’t return to foster 

care. We know that these improvements will cost money. Unfortunately, Federal funds were not provided to implement the changes 

recommended by the reviews. To meet the challenges facing the 

children and families in our communities, it will take more creativity and flexibility at the State and local level, not greater restriction at the Federal level. 

One area of need actually results from our huge success in increasing the number of adoptions from foster care, the need to provide support for these families that open their hearts to these children. Many of these troubled youngsters have social and emotional 

35

wounds caused by abuse, neglect, and frequent moves among foster 

homes. To meet the new priorities of ASFA, States need flexibility 

to use Title IV–E money for prevention, including child welfare and 

family services. We applaud the fact that the Administration and 

Congress recognized the importance of financing the issues of child 

welfare. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Heaton follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Dave Heaton, Chairman, Appropriations Subcommittee on Health and Human Services, Representative, Iowa House of 

Representatives, and Vice Chair, Committee on Human Services, National 

Conference of State Legislatures 

Chairman Herger, Ranking Member Cardin, and the Members of the Human Resources Subcommittee of the U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means, I am Representative Dave Heaton of Iowa. I chair the Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee in the Iowa House of Representatives. I appear today on behalf of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) where I serve as vice 

chair of the NCSL Human Services and Welfare Committee. NCSL is the bipartisan 

organization that serves the legislators and staff of the states, commonwealths and 

territories. I am honored to be here. 

Mr. Chairman, the Adoption and Safe Families Act strengthened the state/federal 

partnership to protect our nation’s children. I am proud to testify today about how 

Iowa has made significant progress to ensure that children have safe and loving 

homes and don’t languish in the foster care system. And we are not alone in doing 

so. 

Even before ASFA was enacted in 1997, state legislatures had passed laws to 

speed the permanency process and shorten children’s stays in foster care. In fact, 

ASFA was based in part on these early state efforts. After passage of the federal 

legislation, all states enacted implementing legislation and have refined these laws 

in subsequent legislative sessions. 

NCSL supported ASFA, which reinforced the importance of keeping children’s 

safety paramount. It set very high goals for states and a process of child and family 

service reviews to help assess state outcomes to assure the safety of children and 

their timely and appropriate placement in permanent homes and to show us where 

improvements are needed. It created the adoption incentive fund, which we have 

used in Iowa to improve our efforts to increase permanency for children. Implementing ASFA has not been easy and the child and family services reviews have 

given us a road map to improvement. We are moving in the right direction, but still 

have more to do for these vulnerable children, especially older children. 

Mr. Chairman, our challenge now is how to shore up our gains and move forward 

in very difficult state fiscal times. Adoptions have been our greatest success. We 

have increased adoptions dramatically across the nation—in Iowa, finalized adoptions have climbed from 280 in 1995 to 792 in 2002. A record number of special 

needs children (781) were adopted in FY 02 in Iowa. 

Implementing ASFA involved more than just changing our statute. ASFA’s change 

to shorter timeframes for terminating parental rights caused us to rethink our strategy with parents. We have made sure that everyone involved is fully aware of the 

timeframe set out in the law. Judges tell parents up front this is the timeframe in 

which you must get your act together or a petition terminating parental rights will 

be filed. The judge asks the family if there are services they need so that they can 

be reunified with their child, even if they are not in the case plan. In other words, 

Iowa is proactive in communicating the law, and in dealing with a family’s issues. 

Iowa looks for relatives, including noncustodial parents, to see if that relative presents a permanency option. 

As I said, Iowa has been very successful in increasing adoptions. The new federal 

measures in ASFA give us a way to measure our performance. The federal Child 

and Family Services Review standard is that at least 32 percent of children who 

cannot be reunited with their parents must be adopted within two years. Iowa exceeds this standard at 48.8 percent. 

But adoption is one part of a larger system, and we need to also focus on the 

needs of the children in foster care. Our child and family services review also pointed out this issue—sadly, we still have too many children caught in a revolving door 

of multiple foster care placements. I have personally met foster children from all 

over Iowa whose placements number in the double digits. States are bound by tight 

federal controls. States need flexibility so that their systems can focus on addressing 

36

the root causes of a child’s problems, not on following arbitrary rules and process 

requirements. 

ASFA was a great start, but there is more to do and in a time of severe budget 

shortfalls, state lawmakers will likely be asked for the funding and resources to 

make the necessary program improvements. We have a $400 million shortfall in 

Iowa’s 2004 budget. In February, NCSL estimated that the minimum cumulative 

budget deficit for all states for FY04 was $68 billion, with 39 states reporting. This 

year in Iowa, we had to pass a supplemental appropriation for child and family 

services of $5.7 million. The vast majority of it went to pay for adoption subsidies. 

However, this amount was insufficient for the Department of Human Services to use 

to cover the waiting list of children needing group foster care—over 100 kids on the 

list. In Iowa, our reviews suggested more social worker training, and maintaining 

our rich array of services. All of these are especially challenged by our fiscal condition. Flexible federal funding is essential to address the changing needs of families 

and leverage state program funding. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on some of the key provisions of ASFA 

and give the perspective of state legislators. These provisions include Adoption Incentives Funds, Child and Family Services Review, policy and funding flexibility, 

the Social Services Block Grant and relative care.

Adoption Incentives Funds

Mr. Chairman, adoption incentive funds have given us a way to build on and increase our success. Funds are used for a range of activities including the recruitment and support of adoptive parents. Supporting adoptive parents is critical to 

avoid incomplete and disrupted adoptions. One year, we sent the funds down to the 

Iowa counties that had increased adoption to expand the effect of this important incentive to the local level. Incentive funds have also gone to the Foster and Adoptive 

Parent Association for peer support. In Iowa, we have wonderful peer support 

groups for adoptive parents. 

Incentive funds also purchased a 30-hour training curriculum for foster and adoptive parents. What’s special about this curriculum, called PS–MAPP or Partnering 

for Safety and Permanence-Model Approach to Partnerships in Parenting, is that 

this curriculum has been updated to incorporate the philosophy and requirements 

of ASFA. The curriculum helps new foster and adoptive parents understand ASFA 

and their role in helping to ensure children are safe and have permanency. 

NCSL strongly supports reauthorization of the Adoption Incentive Fund. However, we must acknowledge that in many states, their success at moving children 

into permanency will impact their ability to compete for incentive funds as the number of children needing an adoptive placement decline. We urge you to work closely 

with NCSL in developing your proposal for reauthorization. We have supported increased incentives for special needs children. Any changes in how incentives are apportioned should be closely examined for unintended consequences.

Federal Child and Family Service Reviews

Mr. Chairman, a key change sought by state legislators in 1997 was movement 

from a process assessment of our progress in child welfare to one based on outcomes. States’ performance in achieving the outcomes of child safety, permanency 

and well-being is now being measured by the federal Child and Family Service Reviews. State legislators want their states to meet the tough new federal standards 

established by these reviews, and we now have a preliminary report for Iowa. 

How did we do in Iowa? Are we meeting the standards? The answer is, some are 

met, some are not, and some are pending further review. These new federal measures give us a way to measure our performance. And, we now have a better understanding of where our states fit in. 

We did learn from the reviews several items that Iowans can be proud of. Our 

statewide system of keeping track of at-risk children and their histories meets or 

exceeds federal requirements and our case review system is strong and getting 

stronger, with a written case plan for every child in foster care. We meet the Federal requirement for periodic review of every child in foster care. There is a strong 

partnership between the judiciary, the DHS and the Foster Care Review Board. 

Iowa has a statewide and focused plan to recruit and support adoptive and foster 

parents. 

By definition, all states must be ‘‘in substantial compliance’’ with all standards 

in order to meet the new threshold. No state has done so, nor will Iowa. The reviews 

told us we need to do more. For example, one area identified for improvement was 

that we needed to do more to help families handle the pressures of reunification so 

that children don’t return to foster care. Thus, our Department of Human Services 

37

will work with partners in Iowa and with federal officials to prepare and implement 

a program improvement plan in the summer of 2003. 

However, we already know that these improvements will cost money. Unfortunately, federal funds were not provided to implement the changes recommended by 

the assessment in the reviews. This is compounded by the lack of flexibility in the 

use of Title IV–E dollars and the look-back provision, which ties foster care funds 

to eligibility for the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children program.

The Need for More Flexible Funding for System Improvements

We are still trying to shorten the timeframe for permanency solutions. We have 

been learning from the Illinois experience and are moving to a results-based system 

and trying to free social workers to be able to do more investigations and prevention. 

When states have attempted to reform service systems serving children and families, they are often unable to meet local service needs because of the inflexibility 

of the major federal funding streams and the wasteful administrative structure they 

require. To meet the challenges facing the children and families in our communities 

it will take more creativity and flexibility at the state and local levels, not greater 

restriction at the federal level. The use of funds is sometimes so restricted that 

states cannot use these funds to meet locally determined needs. States attempting 

major service reforms often face regulatory barriers that impede their efforts, require creative financing and contradict service priorities. 

Children are being adopted from foster care at unprecedented rates; unfortunately, there has been less of a focus on support for families after adoption. Within 

the next two years, experts say, the cumulative number of children under 18 adopted from out-of-home placement will exceed the number of children in foster care. 

We need support for the families that open their hearts to these children, many of 

whom may have health and mental health problems as they mature. This is especially true of families who have been willing to adopt older children. Many of these 

troubled youngsters have social and emotional wounds caused by abuse, neglect and 

frequent moves among foster homes. Types of services needed for post adoption support include: mental health services, including short-term residential treatment; respite care; peer support; and information and referral. Respite services, for example, 

are tremendously beneficial for adoptive parents dealing with children with special 

needs. 

In order to better meet the new priorities of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, 

states need flexibility to use Title IV–E for prevention, including child welfare and 

family services. NCSL is very pleased that the Administration and Congress are discussing child welfare financing, and we look forward to working with you on this 

critical issue. We applaud the fact that you recognize the importance of the financing issues in child welfare and the importance of state flexibility. State lawmakers 

have the responsibility of child welfare funding decisions and thus must participate 

in framing a financing proposal. NCSL is on record as opposing a mandatory block 

grant of child welfare funds.

Program Coordination

Approximately 8.3 million children live with one parent who is dependent on alcohol and/or in need of treatment for illicit drugs. An estimated 40–80% of children 

in the child welfare system have families with alcohol and drug problems. In particular, widespread addiction by women has been a hidden problem. The Adoption 

and Safe Families Act has strict timelines for state decisionmaking. Significant federal support is needed to meet the treatment needs of families who come to the attention of the system. This is critical to keeping children safe and in permanent 

families. 

NCSL supports reforms to help states address the growing problems that substance abuse has placed on the child welfare system, including extensive outreach, 

education and early intervention to pregnant women and specialized early childhood 

problems. State legislators have long been the innovators of these programs, using 

predominantly state, local and private funds. NCSL supports the creation of federal 

incentives for partnerships between substance abuse and child welfare agencies that 

could enhance these efforts. Such efforts include cross system training of staff, improved screening and assessment procedures, comprehensive treatment and prevention programs and improved data collection. 

NCSL supports federal incentives for coordination between child welfare systems, 

domestic violence agencies, and juvenile courts. Families and children in the child 

welfare system often face complex problems such as homelessness, substance abuse, 

and HIV infection that require interdisciplinary and interagency solutions. To comVerDate jul 14 2003 01:16 Dec 06, 2003 Jkt 090545 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A545A.XXX A545A
38

bat service fragmentation, the federal government should provide support for the coordination of service delivery among the public and private child welfare, child mental health, and juvenile justice systems as well as TANF, education and health 

agencies. Interagency collaboration including public/private partnerships should be 

encouraged to further integrate and coordinate services. State flexibility must be 

maintained in these programs to provide interagency training, budgeting, planning 

and conflict resolution as well as integrated data systems. 

Coordination with Medicaid is critical for these children. I want to note that 

NCSL is concerned about the recent denial of plans where states have used Medicaid for targeted case management. 

NCSL also supports expanded federal waiver authority so that states can test the 

results of increased state funding flexibility on the development of service alternatives in particular as well as the overall delivery of child welfare and family services. NCSL especially supports lifting the cap on the number of states that can receive child welfare waivers as a way to increase innovation in child welfare programs. We appreciate this provision in H.R. 4.

Social Services Block Grant (SSBG)

The Social Services Block Grant is an increasingly important source of child welfare services, including protective services. The flexibility of SSBG funds, distributed 

at state discretion, is critical to the success of these programs. In Iowa, we use 

SSBG to assist our foster care system and to improve case management. SSBG is 

a vital part of the delivery of community and home-based services to the most vulnerable segments of society including the disabled, elderly, and children in need of 

protective services. Unfortunately, Title XX has fared poorly in the federal budget 

environment, and Congress has abandoned its commitment to the current authorized level of $2.8 billion as agreed to in the 1996 welfare law. NCSL urges Congress 

to increase funding for this critical program. 

It is also critical that the amount states can transfer from their TANF grants to 

the SSBG remains at least 10% and is not reduced. Further reductions in funding 

for this grant would mean programmatic losses and service reductions.

Relative Care and Permanency

NCSL supports the concept that grandparents, or other immediate family members, who are caring for children who cannot safely remain with their parents, 

should be given priority for such custody and placement over placement in a foster 

home, unless the court determines that placement with any of these relatives is not 

in the best interest of the child or children. 

In Iowa, as I stated earlier, we seek out these relatives. Additionally, kinship foster care placement and/or subsidies should not be contingent on physical removal 

of a child from his or her relatives. Subsidized guardianship with relatives may be 

an appropriate permanency option for children who cannot safely return home. Federal funds should be available for this option and for support services for caretaker 

relatives. This may be especially important for older children for whom adoption 

may not be well received and when termination has implications not only for relationships with parents but with siblings.

The ‘‘Look Back’’ Provision

An issue that remains to be addressed is reconciling the ‘‘look back’’ date to a 

state’s old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) plan when determining 

IV–E eligibility. As members of the subcommittee are well aware, the AFDC program ceased to exist with the creation of the TANF program. NCSL urges federal 

policymakers to reconsider this provision. We urge Congress to consider delinking 

foster care eligibility from AFDC eligibility as of July 16, 1996 and move toward 

reimbursement for all children in care, as the states determine. States already serve 

all children at risk for abuse and neglect despite their parent’s income. States currently fund foster care for all non-AFDC eligible children because all children must 

be protected under law. It should be a state-federal partnership to serve all vulnerable children.

Prevention

In Iowa, we created a community empowerment program to focus on primary prevention—ages birth to preschool—using combined efforts of education, public health, 

and human services. Most of the money is going to home visiting programs and 

quality child care. There is a general long-term plan to begin incorporating other 

age groups as the program matures. As I said earlier, more flexibility is needed to 

enhance prevention in this system.

39

Technical Assistance

NCSL urges Congress to provide states with additional federal financial support 

and technical assistance in their efforts to implement a comprehensive service system that helps institute more effective child welfare and adoption policies and practices. NCSL assisted the Children’s Bureau with AFSA implantation by providing 

state lawmakers with help as they enacted state statutory and funding changes. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be very happy to respond 

Heaton. Now to testify next is Ms. Arnold-Williams, on behalf of 

to any questions that you and the members of the subcommittee have at this time.

Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Representative 

f the APHSA. Ms. Arnold-Williams. 

STATEMENT OF ROBIN ARNOLD-WILLIAMS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UTAH DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, AND 

CHAIR, POLICY COUNCIL, AMERICAN PUBLIC HUMAN SERVICES ASSOCIATION 

Ms. ARNOLD-WILLIAMS. Chairman Herger, Congressman 

Cardin, and Members of the Subcommittee, in addition to serving 

as Executive Director of the Utah Department of Human Services, 

I serve as Chair of the APHSA’s Policy Council. I thank you for the 

opportunity to testify today about implementation of ASFA. 

Over the past 5 years, States have fundamentally changed their 

child welfare programs, focusing their ASFA reforms, including 

permanency timelines, termination of parental rights, and adoption 

efforts on the goal of achieving safety and permanency for children. 

Some States adopted stricter provisions than ASFA. For example, in Utah we limit reunification efforts to 12 months, as compared to the Federal goal of 15 months. A record increase in the 

number of adoptions has been a key outcome. In 1999, States increased adoptions by 28 percent, and in subsequent years, they 

continue to increase, with States earning more than $100 million 

in adoption incentive bonuses. 

States have been so successful that the pool of children who are 

being placed has diminished, and harder to place children, including older children, those in large sibling groups, or with mental 

health or behavioral problems remain in care. 

In a system where States are too often penalized, this incentive 

program provides States with flexible resources to provide safety 

and permanency for children. That is why APHSA supports reauthorization of this program. However, the formula and base year 

must be changed so that States, particularly high-performing ones, 

continue to have an incentive to promote adoption. Flexibility in 

the scope of services for which bonus money can be used must also 

continue. 

While APHSA has not yet finalized its position on the President’s 

proposal, we do register some concern regarding targeting children 

by age. For some of these older children, permanency may be 

achieved through legal guardianship, an outcome not supported by 

the current incentive system. 

The ASFA has also increased State accountability by measuring 

outcomes related to safety, permanence, and well-being. The CFSR 

is involved in intense, on-site case reviews and interviews with 

children, families, and stakeholders. States must create program 

40

improvement plans establishing specific goals and strategies. Thirty-two States have now been reviewed, and while some have 

wrongly characterized these reviews as measures of whether States 

have passed or failed, States view the results as establishing a 

baseline by which they can assess their continuous improvement. 

The CFSRs are important to measuring outcomes and ensuring 

State accountability. However, the process raises some concerns. 

Given State budget shortfalls, there are limited resources to implement State performance improvement plans. The Title IV–E funding stream is so inflexible that it may not be utilized to meet many 

of the outcomes States seek to achieve. We believe the Federal Government has an obligation to show its leadership and commitment 

by providing States with the flexibility and resources needed to 

meet the outcomes of ASFA. 

The ASFA has strengthened linkages between programs, such as 

health, substance abuse, domestic violence and the courts. The 

health and mental health of foster children is a key outcome in the 

CFSR. The APHSA is very concerned about recent restrictions on 

the use of Medicaid funds for targeted case management services 

for foster children. We have funded these services with Medicaid 

for decades, and we want to work with Congress and the Administration to ensure that we can continue to fund these critical health 

services for children. 

In my State of Utah, we have made tremendous progress. I am 

pleased to report that during the last year, all regions exceeded our 

high child and family status performance standards, including safety, stability, health, emotional well-being, learning progress, appropriateness of placement, and caregiver functioning. Over the last 

10 years, my child welfare budget has increased 184 percent, with 

State funds increasing 345 percent. Even in these difficult times, 

my legislature recently adopted the Governor’s budget, adding 51 

additional caseworkers and trainers, so we can maintain our low 

caseloads and deliver quality services. 

We now serve many more children and families through up front, 

in-home service and kinship care than we do in foster care, and our 

foster care caseload has steadily declined over the last 5 years. 

Mr. Chairman, the child welfare system is faced with many challenges that require a sustained Federal and State partnership. 

With this in mind, we offer the following recommendations for your 

consideration: 

The Federal financing structure for child welfare no longer supports the outcomes we seek to achieve. Title IV–E funding is biased 

toward out-of-home care. In addition, to foster care maintenance 

payments, we believe Federal funding should support front-end 

services, reunification, and post permanency services. 

The Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) ‘‘look 

back’’ standard should be repealed. The Federal Government 

should support all abused and neglected children, not just those 

who come from poor families. The CFSRs measure outcomes for all 

children, while Federal funding streams support a declining percentage of those children. 

We urge the House to support an increase in the Social Services 

Block Grant (SSBG), which is a key support for child welfare services. The ASFA has made important improvements to the child 

41

welfare system. However, we must not forget those children who 

remain in foster care, and their families. 

We believe that a continued and renewed Federal/State partnership will help us achieve the goals of ASFA, and I would be happy 

to answer any questions you have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Arnold-Williams follows:]

Statement of Robin Arnold-Williams, Executive Director, Utah Department 

of Human Services, and Chair, Policy Council, American Public Human 

Services Association 

INTRODUCTION

Chairman Herger, Congressman Cardin, Members of the Subcommittee, I am 

Robin Arnold-Williams, executive director of the Utah Department of Human Services. In this position, I am responsible for a variety of programs, including aging 

and adult services, disabilities, child support collections, substance abuse, mental 

health, youth corrections and child welfare (including child abuse, neglect, foster 

care and adoption). I have served in this position since 1997. I am also here today 

in my role as chair of the National Council of State Human Service Administrators, 

the policymaking body of the American Public Human Services Association 

(APHSA). APHSA is a nonprofit, bipartisan organization that has represented state 

and local human service professionals for more than 70 years. As the national organization representing state and local agencies responsible for the operating and administering public human service programs, including child protection, foster care 

and adoption, APHSA, and its affiliate, NAPCWA, the National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators, have a longstanding interest in developing and 

promoting policies and practices that enable states to help our nation’s most vulnerable children and families. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today about implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA). 

On behalf of APHSA and the state of Utah, I want to take a moment to commend 

this Subcommittee for recognizing the importance of ASFA and for holding this 

hearing. I would also like to mention how pleased we are that President Bush has 

included full funding for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program in his 

budget, and that reauthorization of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act 

(CAPTA) has passed the House and the Senate. We thank you for your efforts to 

reauthorize and reform the Title IV–E child welfare waiver authority in the welfare 

reform bill. Finally, I want to thank Representative Camp for introducing legislation 

that would amend Title IV–E to give tribal governments direct access to the foster 

care and adoption assistance program, providing Indian children with the same 

services that are currently available to other IV–E-eligible children, and encourage 

Members to support this legislation. We look forward to working with you on these 

issues and on child welfare funding during the 108th Congress and in the future. 

BACKGROUND

The child welfare system serves some of America’s most fragile and troubled citizens—families in crisis and children who have been abused and neglected. In 2001, 

state child protective service agencies received an estimated 2.6 million referrals alleging child maltreatment, with an estimated 903,000 found to be victims. As of 

September 2000, 556,000 children were in foster care, with 291,000 entering in that 

year, and 131,000 children were awaiting adoption. Public child welfare agencies 

provide a broad array of services to these children and families, including prevention and family support services; early intervention and family preservation services; child protective services; foster care; and permanency and post-permanency 

services. Public child welfare agencies also work closely with other public agencies 

that often deal with the same population, including TANF and Medicaid agencies; 

domestic violence programs; substance abuse treatment agencies; and mental health 

programs. 

THE ADOPTION AND SAFE FAMILIES ACT (ASFA)

The Adoption and Safe Families Act (P.L. 105–89) became law on November 17, 

1997. The law made the most sweeping changes to the child welfare system since 

passage of P.L. 96–272, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980. It 

made safety, permanency, and well-being the outcome goals of the child welfare system. The law makes it clear that the safety and well-being of children must be the 

paramount concerns of state child welfare systems. The act created bonuses to 

states for increasing adoptions; required states to make timely determinations about 

permanency for children in state care (under ASFA, states must file a petition to 

42

terminate parental rights and find a qualified adoptive family on behalf of any child 

who has been in foster care for 15 out of the most recent 22 months); focused attention on outcomes and accountability; established a federal review system for the 

child welfare system (the Children and Family Services Reviews); and expanded the 

child welfare waiver demonstration program. ASFA holds states accountable for 

achieving outcomes for children with respect to safety, permanence, and well-being, 

and requires an annual report to Congress on state-by-state performance. 

Since ASFA’s passage, states have passed laws and implemented program 

changes in many areas in order to comply with ASFA’s many new requirements. 

These areas include laws dealing with timelines for permanency hearings, adoption 

across state lines, assurances of child safety, classification of reasonable efforts, termination of parental rights, criminal records checks, and health insurance for special-needs children. It is important to note that many states had statutes, policies, 

and procedures in these areas in place even prior to ASFA. In fact, some states had, 

and continue to have, even stricter provisions than ASFA requires. In Utah, for example, there is a limit on reunification of families after only 12 months in foster 

care, rather than those in care for the last 15 out of 22 months. ASFA did, however, 

help standardize some of these procedures across regions and states. 

IMPACT OF ASFA 

Adoption 

There are several areas of child welfare policy and practice in which AFSA has 

had a strong impact. Perhaps it is easiest to see the impact AFSA has had on the 

adoption program. As part of its focus on permanency, ASFA included a provision 

establishing the Title IV–E Adoption Incentives Payment Program. The goal of this 

program was to promote adoption through incentive payments to states for increasing the number of children adopted from the public foster care system. States had 

been implementing innovative adoption programs for some time, and have been very 

successful in increasing the number of adoptions from foster care. In FY 1999, states 

increased the number of adoptions from foster care 28 percent from the year before 

and earned a combined total of $51.48 million dollars in Adoption Incentive funds. 

States have been so successful in finding adoptive families for children in foster care 

that the pool of children who are being placed has diminished, thereby reducing the 

opportunity for states to earn significant incentive funds. In FY 2000, adoptions continued to increase, but given that states had completed such a large number of 

adoptions the previous year, they earned a total of only $33.2 million in incentive 

funds. Adoptive homes have been found for less hard to place children, but many 

harder to place children, including older children, those in large sibling groups, or 

with mental health or behavioral problems, remain in care. As a result, in FY 2001, 

funds received through the program fell even further to $17.6 million. 

The Adoption Incentives Program expires on September 30, 2003, and the President’s FY 2004 budget request includes reauthorization of the program. The President’s request proposes changes to the incentive system to target older children who 

constitute an increasing proportion of the children waiting for adoptive families by 

amending the program to target incentives specifically to older children, with ACF 

awarding incentives to states using two independent baselines: one for the total 

number of children adopted from the public foster care system; and the other for 

children age 9 and older adopted from the public foster care system. 

States have used funds received through the Adoption Incentives Program to 

make investments in many areas, including post-adoption services, recruitment of 

adoptive families and adoption awareness, staff training, and increased adoption 

subsidies and should be allowed to continue to benefit from this incentive program 

even though some are no longer able to increase the number of adoptions at previous levels. In a system where states are too often penalized and sanctioned, this 

incentive program is a positive step toward providing states with the flexible resources they need to provide safety and permanency to children in the child welfare 

system. That is why APHSA supports the reauthorization of this program. However, 

the formula and base year for determining the bonuses must be changed so that 

states, particularly high-performing ones, continue to have an incentive to promote 

adoption. States also should continue to have flexibility in the scope of services for 

which they can use bonus money. While APHSA has not yet finalized its position 

on the President’s proposal, we do want to register some concerns regarding targeting children by age. For some of these older children, permanency may be 

achieved through legalized guardianship, an outcome not supported by the current 

incentive system. 

Finally, it must be noted that rewarding states for increasing adoptions must be 

viewed in the larger context of child welfare financing reform. The Administration 

proposes setting a new goal, which would increase the total number of public agency 

43

adoptions to 300,000 adoptions between FY 2004 and FY 2008. The budget states 

that 300,000 adoptions over five years is a substantial, but achievable, state goal. 

However, under the current financing structure, states will not be able to maintain 

the same level of momentum without access to more permanent and flexible sources 

of funding. Additional resources will also help continue the national momentum toward building services to support families once a permanent plan has been 

achieved. 

Accountability Through Measuring Outcomes

ASFA has also made an impact by increasing state accountability through outcome measurement. ASFA holds states accountable for achieving outcomes for children with respect to safety, permanence, and well-being, and required HHS to develop outcome measures in order to rate state performance. HHS is required, 

through ASFA, to publish an annual report on these child welfare outcomes. In 

order to inform the HHS process of creating outcome measures, APHSA established 

a working group of state human service administrators and child welfare directors 

to develop recommendations on outcome measures. APHSA then helped create the 

seven measures used in the report, which were developed by a consultation group 

of representatives from HHS, states, local agencies, tribes, courts, child advocates, 

and other experts in the field, including representatives from APHSA and its members. The final seven outcome measures are (1) reduce recurrence of child abuse 

and/or neglect; (2) reduce the incidence of child abuse and/or neglect in foster care; 

(3) increase permanency for children in foster care; (4) reduce time in foster care 

to reunification without increasing reentry; (5) reduce time in foster care to adoption; (6) increase placement stability; and (7) reduce placements of young children 

in group homes or institutions. To date, HHS has published two of the required reports, Child Welfare Outcomes 1998: Annual Report and Child Welfare Outcomes 

1999: Annual Report. APHSA hopes that the data in the reports will act as baseline 

data to assess state improvements in performance in coming years, and not as a 

way to compare states to each other. As a result of our involvement in the process, 

states are committed to an increased focus on accountability and believe that an 

outcomes-focused system will ultimately improve the lives of vulnerable children 

and create safe and permanent families. We look forward to the next report. 

Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSR)

Annual report data are not the only manner in which the federal government is 

assessing outcomes for children. Federal regulations issued in January 2000 for 

ASFA established a new federal review process to measure states regarding the 

quality of services provided to, and outcome results for, at-risk children. These reviews are known as the Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs). A major initiative to come out of ASFA, with CFSRs states are currently involved in all aspects 

of the review process—from preparing for a review to implementing Program Improvement Plans (PIPs). The reviews include an assessment of state data and intensive on-site case reviews and interviews with children, families, and stakeholders 

(such as judges, foster parents, and service providers). Statewide data indicators 

and qualitative information obtained from on-site reviews in three state sites determine if a state substantially conforms under Titles IV–B and IV–E of the Social Security Act. As part of the review process, HHS has developed national standards to 

determine how well states are performing. The indicators help determine whether 

or not states are operating in substantial conformity. A state that is not operating 

in substantial conformity, as a result of their review, will have an opportunity for 

program improvement and technical assistance prior to any federal fund withholding. All states must create a Program Improvement Plan, establishing areas 

and goals for improvement in their system. As of January 2003, 32 states have participated in the review process. It is important to note that some have wrongly characterized these reviews as measures of whether states have passed or failed. However, APHSA and states view the results of the CFSR’s as establishing a baseline, 

by which they can assess their continuous improvement over time. 

In the past two years APHSA has held meetings on the Children and Family 

Services Reviews, most recently in January 2003. State child welfare administrators 

together with representatives from the Administration discussed the CFSR process. 

States agreed that they are committed to the review process and feel that there are 

many positive aspects to the reviews. Some of these positive aspects are (1) the 

focus of the reviews is on outcomes and not on process; (2) the move to a data-focused system has improved program administration; (3) the outcomes used are both 

relevant and positive; and, (4) the process is practice-focused and applies to the full 

spectrum of child welfare. 

44

However, there are areas of the review process that are problematic for states. 

Perhaps the issue of greatest concern for states is that, given severe budget shortfalls, they do not have the resources to implement program improvements outlined 

in their PIPs. Furthermore, the Title IV–E funding stream cannot be utilized to 

meet many of the outcomes states seek to achieve. 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. We believe the federal government has an obligation to show leadership and commitment in this area by providing states with the 

flexibility and resources they need to meet the outcomes of ASFA as outlined in Program Improvement Plans. 

States are also concerned about some of the data issues surrounding CFSRs. They 

would like to see current data systems updated to include a variety of data, such 

as longitudinal, point in time, exit, and entry cohort data. Another concern is that 

the national standards and methods of measurement do not consistently reflect best 

practices. 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 should drive measurement 

of improvement rather than national standards. The results of a very rural state 

being compared with a largely urban state can prove misleading and the very nature of the child welfare population is another source of variation that contributes 

to the lack of comparability across states. 

For states, the annual report and CFSRs 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 and 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. 

Links to Other Systems

Another area where ASFA has led to changes in how the child welfare system 

functions relates to the important links between child welfare and other service systems. Child welfare practice has become more and more complex, with tremendous 

demands on the system, with increasingly challenging populations; high caseloads 

and scarce resources; interstate issues; overrepresentation of children of color; and 

increased expectations and requirements. In recent years, children and families who 

come to the attention of child welfare increasingly exhibit multiple problems that 

require a coordinated response from multiple public agencies and service systems 

outside child welfare. It is not unusual for families to have serious substance abuse 

problems, mental illness, or domestic violence concerns; in fact, it is not unusual for 

a family entering the system to enter it with all of these problems. It is important 

to recognize that the system encompasses more than the state public child welfare 

agency. The courts, as well as private agencies, are partners in providing for the 

safety, permanence, and well-being of children. In addition, substance abuse, mental 

health, medical, and domestic violence services are all integral to serving children 

and families who come to the attention of the child welfare system, and public agencies must collaborate with these other service systems in order to provide for the 

safety and well-being of children and to meet the shortened timeframes for permanency enacted in ASFA. Congress and the federal government could best help families by allocating new resources for communities to build collaborative services and 

partnerships among CPS agencies, domestic violence advocacy and intervention 

services, child and family health and mental health providers and multiple court 

systems. 

Health 

The health and mental health of children in the foster care system is a key outcome measure in the CFSR. APHSA and our members are very concerned about recent actions to deny states ability to use Medicaid funds for targeted case management (TCM) services for children in the foster care system. 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 TCM. States have funded these services with Medicaid 

45

money for decades. We want to work with Congress and the Administration to ensure that states can fund these critical health services for children in the child welfare system through Medicaid. 

Substance Abuse 

Linkages are particularly important in the area of substance abuse and child 

abuse. Substance abuse is estimated to be a factor in over one-half of child abuse 

and neglect cases. To fulfill ASFA requirements, child welfare and alcohol and drug 

prevention and treatment agencies must work together at federal, state and local 

levels and with other service providers, the courts, communities and families. 

APHSA has collaborated with both the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and the HHS Administration for Children and Families on solutions to serving families who are affected by substance abuse problems 

in order to help meet ASFA’s goals, particularly in terms of meeting ASFA’s permanency timelines. 

Domestic Violence 

The link between domestic violence and child maltreatment has become clearer 

in recent years. For example, in Utah in FY 2002, 25 percent of substantiated cases 

were related to domestic violence. APHSA has taken a lead role in the area of the 

link between child maltreatment and domestic violence. An example of this leadership role is publication of Guidelines for Public Child Welfare Agencies Serving Children and Families Experiencing Domestic Violence, which provides broad guidance 

to public human service agency commissioners, public child welfare agency directors, and their staffs. The guidelines describe model policies, practices, programs, 

and protocols that address the multiple needs of families and children affected by 

domestic violence and child maltreatment, and provide a conceptual framework that 

enables child welfare agencies to integrate best practices and policies within their 

existing mandates, including ASFA. 

Courts 

ASFA requires shorter timeframes for permanency hearings and termination of 

parental rights proceedings. States have passed laws and changed their policies to 

meet these new requirements, but the juvenile and family courts currently do not 

have the capacity to address the backlog of children in care nor to move the new 

children entering the system more expeditiously to permanence. Although federal 

law places numerous mandates on the courts, federal funding is not provided. Clearly, the courts are integral to state child welfare systems meeting the goals of ASFA, 

yet their services are not reimbursable under the current Title IV–E funding 

scheme. ASFA’s success requires increased court activities to enhance permanence 

and meet new timeframes. Further, state agencies are penalized if the court does 

not follow the mandates. In order to facilitate better partnership between state child 

welfare system and the courts, APHSA is working closely with the National Council 

of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), through a subcommittee established specifically to look at interstate placements. APHSA is working with NCJFCJ 

through this subcommittee to identify issues in interstate placements and work on 

resolving those issues, the most pressing of which is the time it takes to complete 

placements. For state child welfare agencies to meet the goals of ASFA it is critical 

that they and other agencies and providers have the resources they need in order 

to collaborate and serve these families. To ensure safety and permanence for children in the child welfare system new cross-agency partnerships are needed. 

Child Welfare Workforce

Last week the General Accounting Office (GAO) released a report, Child Welfare: 

HHS Could Play a Greater Role in Helping Child Welfare Agencies Recruit and Retain Staff that identifies the challenges child welfare agencies face in recruiting and 

retaining child welfare workers and supervisors; how recruitment and retention 

challenges have affected the safety and permanency outcomes of children in foster 

care; and workforce practices that public and private child welfare agencies have implemented to successfully confront recruitment and retention challenges. The report 

states that child welfare agencies face a number of challenges in recruiting and retaining workers and supervisors and that low salaries, in particular, hinder agencies’ ability to attract potential child welfare workers and to retain those already 

in the profession. The report recommends that the HHS secretary take actions that 

may help child welfare agencies address the recruitment and retention challenges 

they face. Such efforts may include HHS using its annual discretionary grant program to promote targeted research on the effectiveness of perceived promising practices or provide technical assistance to states. 

46

Utah

In my state of Utah, we have made tremendous progress in addressing the safety, 

permanency, and well-being outcomes for our children through efforts to fundamentally change the culture of my child welfare agency and to reform the day to day 

practices of line staff, supervisors, and administrators. Our reform efforts began in 

1994 through a cooperative effort of our agency, the legislature, and our judiciary. 

Over the past 10 years, the total budget for my child welfare division has increased 

184 percent with the amount of state general funds increasing by 345 percent. Even 

in these difficult budgetary times of across the board budget reductions, the governor recommended and the legislature endorsed the addition of 51 child welfare 

caseworkers and trainers so that we can maintain our low caseloads and deliver 

quality services. Through our efforts and the capacity that our state resources have 

provided, we now serve many more children and families through up-front, in-home 

services than we do in foster care. In fact, our foster care caseload has steadily declined over the past five years from a high monthly average of 2,324 children in 

1998 to a monthly average of 1,988 children in 2002. 

We were a state that adopted standards for child safety, permanency, and wellbeing even prior to ASFA’s passage. To continually monitor our performance on 

these standards, we developed a comprehensive case process and qualitative review 

process that has now been operating for over four years. The system we use is very 

similar to that employed in the federal Child and Family Services Reviews. I am 

pleased to report that during last fiscal year, all regions of my state exceeded the 

high performance standards we have for child and family status, including safety, 

stability, health and physical well-being, emotional and behavioral well-being, learning progress, appropriateness of placement, and caregiver functioning. 

Another issue regarding the courts is that Utah, like many states, is subject to 

federal court oversight of our child welfare system operations. The majority of these 

court cases and corresponding settlement agreements and monitoring arrangements 

predated ASFA and development of national outcomes and performance standards 

signifying substantial conformity with federal requirements. In some cases, the 

standards to which we are being held for purposes of federal court oversight are 

higher and may conflict with the newly established federal standards. Utah’s child 

and family services review is scheduled for later this month and a concern that we 

foresee is that as we develop our Performance Improvement Plan, it will not align 

with our plan to meet and exit from federal court oversight. My child welfare agency 

may be faced with meeting two different plans. Federal courts and the federal agency should hold states to the same standards. 

California

Mr. Chairman, your home state of California has embraced the principles of 

ASFA, and passed laws enabling the state to comply with the law. The California 

Adoption Initiative is one example of how the state is successfully meeting ASFA’s 

goals. In 2001, California received an HHS Adoption Excellence Award for creating 

a cross-cutting Adoption Initiative Bureau involving public and private providers, 

advocate and adoptive families. The result has been a significant increase in the 

number of children who are adopted from foster care. 

Maryland

And Mr. Cardin, Maryland has made many changes to its child welfare system 

as a result of ASFA. One is the timely passage of a state law regarding children 

in out-of-home placements that incorporated both the requirements and the goals 

mandated by ASFA. Another was the development of the Child Welfare and Adult 

Performance System (CAPS). This case record review system is one of the methods 

that Maryland has implemented to ensure compliance with federal regulations. 

Maryland has also been successful in developing a safety instrument to measure 

safety for every child in out-of-home placement and for children receiving in-home 

services. Additionally, ASFA funding allowed Maryland to fully implement its court 

improvement project and provide judges with ASFA training. 

REMAINING CHALLENGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

APHSA and public child welfare administrators believe that children are safer 

and living in more permanent settings as a result of both state action and the landmark ASFA law. ASFA has become an inextricable part of child welfare policy and 

practice. In many areas, ASFA has changed the way child welfare is practiced in 

this country. However, while a great deal has been achieved, much more still needs 

to be accomplished to help families in the child welfare system. 

47

Adoption Incentives Program

As I have stated, the Adoption Incentives Program should be reauthorized in a 

way that allows states to continue to have an incentive to promote adoptions and 

earn incentive funds. States have been so successful in finding adoptive families for 

children in foster care that the pool of children who are being placed has diminished, thereby reducing the opportunity for states to earn significant bonuses. The 

formula and base year for determining incentive payments must be changed so that 

they remain fair and equitable to states. 

Flexibility and Funding

The federal financing structure for child welfare that was established in 1980 no 

longer works. The current structure of federal child welfare funding does not adequately support the outcomes for the children and families that public child welfare 

agencies, Congress, the federal government, child advocates, and the public seek to 

achieve. The biggest share of this federal funding is disproportionately directed toward funding out-of-home care—the very part of the system that agencies are seeking to minimize to achieve greater permanence for children. Title IV–E funds should 

fund services in addition to foster care maintenance payments, such as front-end 

services, reunification, and post-permanency services for children in the child welfare system. 

The needs of state child welfare systems far outstrip the resources that are now 

provided with federal funding. With states historically outspending the federal government, we believe it is time for a more equitable state-federal financial partnership. Exacerbating the resource problem is that, under the welfare reform law, 

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 in effect on July 16, 1996, 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. We support delinking IV–

E eligibility from AFDC so that the federal government can support all children in 

the child welfare system regardless of income. In the years since ASFA’s enactment, 

states have demonstrated significant progress, not only because of the new law but 

also because of state initiatives that were in place prior to the law. The federal government, however, has not provided sufficient resources to support state’s efforts to 

meet these new mandates. 

In terms of ASFA, we are very concerned that given severe state budget shortfalls, we do not have the resources to allow states to improve outcomes for children 

and families outlined in their Children and Family Services Reviews and Program 

Improvement Plans. Given the limited resources available in states at this time, we 

feel that the federal government has an obligation to show leadership and commitment in this area by providing states with the flexibility and resources they need 

to meet the outcomes of ASFA. 

SSBG

I cannot discuss child welfare funding without mentioning the Social Services 

Block Grant (SSBG). SSBG is a critical source of federal funding for child welfare 

services, and $1.3 billion in increased funding is currently pending in the Senate 

as part of the CARE Act. There are a host of SSBG services that support children 

and their families involved in the child welfare system; it is significant that states 

used almost $623 million for foster care, child protection, case management, and 

adoption alone. APHSA strongly encourages the subcommittee to make SSBG funding increases an integral part of any companion bill to CARE that moves through 

the House. 

Title IV–E Waivers

Another priority area for APHSA, and an additional way to make federal child 

welfare funding more flexible, is to expand the Title IV–E Child Welfare Demonstration Waivers authorized under ASFA and to increase their flexibility. The current 

waiver process limits innovation, prohibits approval for multiple states to test similar innovations, such as subsidized guardianship; restricts research, control groups, 

and random assignment requirements; cost-neutrality methodology; and limits 

statewide approaches. While the waiver program has enabled some states to reinvest federal foster care funding in services and other activities to improve their systems and promote permanence, in its current mode of HHS implementation, it is 

a promise unfulfilled and will not meet state’s needs for the flexibility necessary to 

achieve broad systems change. APHSA strongly supports making substantial modifications to the current Title IV–E waiver process to allow more flexibility and to 

foster system change, including eliminating the limited number of waivers HHS can 

48

approve; eliminating approval criteria that require random assignment and control 

groups that limit statewide approaches; eliminating the limited number of states 

that may conduct waivers on the same topic; eliminating the limited number of 

waivers that may be conducted by a single state; and enabling states to continue 

their waivers beyond five years. We appreciate the leadership of this Subcommittee 

to reauthorize IV–E waivers in H.R. 4, the welfare reform act. 

CONCLUSION

Everyone can agree that ASFA has been successful in making important improvements to the child welfare system. However, we must be careful not to forget the 

children who remain in foster care and their families. While ASFA has helped states 

continue making improvements to the child welfare system and helping our nation’s 

vulnerable children and families, the current structure of child welfare remains disproportionately directed toward funding out-of-home care, and does not promote 

services that encourage child safety or promote family reunification. 

APHSA’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 

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.

from Ms. Judith Schagrin, Assistant Director, Baltimore County 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much. Now we will hear 

f Department of Social Services. 

STATEMENT OF JUDITH M. SCHAGRIN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 

FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES, BALTIMORE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 

Ms. SCHAGRIN. Good afternoon. I welcome the opportunity to 

speak with you today about the implementation of ASFA from the 

perspective of one who lives it. After 20 years in the public sector, 

I continue to have a passion for my work. I love the challenges of 

providing child welfare services—and there are plenty of them. 

Through my 20 years, I have watched far too many children grow 

up unnecessarily in foster care, while their parents were given opportunity after opportunity after opportunity to remedy what 

brought their child into care. 

What has been most valuable about ASFA was the change in 

focus in foster care services, from endless efforts at reunification to 

reasonable efforts, with an emphasis on permanent families for 

children. For many children, this has been a blessing. We have 

broadened our understanding of adoptive potential and are far 

more proactive about looking for permanent homes and encouraging foster parents, including relatives, to consider the permanence of adoption. We are finalizing adoptions not just of young 

children, but also teenagers up to the age of 18, as well as children 

with significant medical and mental health needs. 

49

All of that being said, when ASFA was passed there were those 

who believed that all children are adoptable and that ASFA would 

eliminate the need for long-term foster care. In reality, there are 

not enough homes capable of meeting the needs of our most damaged children, and many of our adolescents simply don’t want to 

be adopted. They have strong connections with families, though 

troubled, may be loving. 

In Baltimore County, one-fourth of the children who are under 

our care are over the age of 13, and 50 percent of our overall population is over the age of 15. It’s important to remember that there 

will always be children who the State, you, and I, will be responsible for. We have an obligation to these children to be the very 

best parents we can be. 

In our rush to terminate parental rights, some children will be 

left legal orphans, while others whose adoption has been finalized 

are beginning to trickle back into foster care. Some of these families are committed to their children and working toward reunifications, while others have abandoned their children once again to the 

foster care system. 

It is important to keep in mind as well that no new Federal 

funds were made available to carry the mandates of the ASFA legislation. For example, case workers are now spending three times 

as much time in court, paperwork requirements continue to burgeon out of control, and efforts to recruit, train, and support adoptive families for very damaged children must be expanded. 

I was glad to hear you mention the GAO report on the 

Professionalization of Child Welfare. No matter what legislation is 

passed, no matter what incentives are made available, no matter 

what regulations are implemented, I firmly believe that without 

well-trained, adequately compensated, and professional staff, good 

results for vulnerable families and maltreated children will continue to be elusive. 

You have heard today with respect to the financing of child welfare services that there are widespread sentiments that Federal 

Title IV–E funding is inflexible and eligibility requirements are 

outdated. Commenting first on eligibility, I have never quite understood why the government’s commitment isn’t to all children in 

government custody, not just those from impoverished homes, and 

surely it’s time to reevaluate basing Title IV–E reimbursability on 

whether or not the home would have been eligible for an AFDC 

grant, according to standards that are now 7 years old. 

Looking to the future, I understand there is some talk of block 

granting Title IV–E funds under the guise of offering greater flexibility. I believe that to be simply wrong. When we look back at our 

Nation’s experience with Title XX block grants, we know that while 

there was a substantial allocation for family services when States 

had control of the funding, many of them stopped using them for 

the purpose for which they were intended. 

Once the impact of block granting Title XX funds was felt, the 

number of children entering foster care grew dramatically, virtually wiping out the progress made by the first permanency planning legislation. 

In summary, overall ASFA has had positive outcomes for many 

children. Continued progress toward a quality child welfare system 

50

is critical. To the last half of the 19th century, we believed that orphan trains were a progressive way to care for orphans and maltreated children. I am hopeful that in another hundred years a revolution of social conscience will allow us to look back at the child 

welfare practices today with shock and amazement, that helpless 

children were given such short shrift in the land of plenty. 

While ASFA has yielded many successes, the child welfare system is far from what our most precious resource, our children, need 

and deserve. These children depend on society’s largess for their 

very existence. Please don’t let them down. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Schagrin follows:]

Statement of Judith M. Schagrin, Assistant Director for Children’s Services, Baltimore County Department of Social Services, Baltimore, Maryland 

Thank you for the opportunity to share the perspective on implementation of the 

Adoptions and Safe Families Act from those of us doing the work. I began my career 

in child welfare shortly after the implementation of the Adoptions Assistance and 

Child Welfare Act passed in 1980 (P.L. 96–272). As an administrator, I have been 

responsible for integrating the changes brought about by the ASFA legislation into 

our agency’s practice. 

The shift brought about by the Adoptions and Safe Families Act away from protracted reunification efforts to an emphasis on achieving timely and permanent family placements for children has been of significant value. Over my 20 years in child 

welfare, I have watched children grow up unnecessarily in foster care while their 

parents were given opportunity after opportunity to remedy the issues that resulted 

in placement. When reunification cannot occur, ASFA has enabled us to move more 

quickly toward adoption or legal guardianship. Our understanding about adoptive 

potential has broadened significantly. We are finding adoptive homes for older children and those with multiple physical and emotional complications while for other 

children, relatives are stepping forward willing to offer the permanence of adoption. 

Especially for children under the age of six, one of the positive results in my own 

county has been that the length of stay has steadily dropped since ASFA implementation, from 21 months pre-ASFA to 15 months since July 1999. 

Significantly, however, while ASFA created a number of new mandates for states, 

no additional federal funds were provided to meet these requirements. For example, 

caseworkers now spend three times as much time in the court, and recruitment efforts for families willing to adopt very special needs children need to be more intensive and far-reaching. Equally disturbing, little emphasis has been placed nationally 

on the professionalization of child welfare staff or lowering of caseloads to make this 

very important work possible. Increasingly studies are demonstrating the value of 

a social work degree to achieve better outcomes for children and their families. No 

matter what legislation is passed or what regulations are implemented, without 

well-trained, adequately compensated, and professional staff good results for vulnerable families and maltreated children will continue to be elusive. 

This being said, some ASFA provisions have been problematic:

• A waiver of reunification efforts can be requested based on extreme circumstances. However, from our experience in Maryland it is uncertain whether 

the court can and will terminate parental rights at a contested TPR hearing 

when no efforts were made to provide reunification services. 

• When ASFA was passed, there were those who believed that we would soon see 

the end of foster care, that all children are adoptable. An adoptive home will 

be found for a child at high risk for mental illness; a psychotic nine year old 

exhibiting destructive, assaultive, and sexualized behavior will need far more 

intensive supervision and treatment. It is critical to understand that there will 

always be children that the state will raise; we have a moral obligation to be 

the very best parent we can for those children. 

• The emphasis on termination of parental rights at 15 out of 22 months without 

some reasonable certainty of an adoptive home will create an increasing pool 

of legal orphans. 

• Children are beginning to re-enter foster care after the dissolution of their finalized adoptions; sadly enough this is likely to be a trend given the enormous 

challenges for families caring for very disturbed and damaged children. 

51

• Outcome and other child welfare accountability measures don’t necessarily 

measure the quality of care. Child welfare suffers from a dearth of meaningful 

research designed to establish protocols for successful interventions and meaningful performance measures. 

• While lengths of stay may be decreasing, we have experienced an increase in 

the number of children entering foster care. Baltimore County’s overall number 

of children in care has increased over the past ten years from 469 in July ’93 

to 682 children today, 51% of whom are over the age of 13. This is a population 

with significant mental health needs who may be coming from families in which 

substance abuse, mental illness, parental abandonment or incarceration, and 

domestic violence have been the norm. Adoption may not be reasonable or possible.

As Congress considers future financing policy in child welfare, the outdated eligibility for, and inflexibility of, Title IV–E federal funding are major issues. Commenting first on eligibility, surely it is only reasonable to anticipate that the federal 

government’s commitment to children in government custody be inclusive of all foster children, not just those from impoverished homes. Basing eligibility for federal 

funding on whether a family would have met eligibility standards for the outdated 

Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program using the ‘‘look back’’ 

date of June 1, 1996, carries a heavy price to administer and has resulted in fewer 

eligible children. Certainly a review of this requirement is long overdue. 

While the inflexibility of IV–E funds is indeed a problem, block granting these 

funds in exchange for flexibility would be disasterous. Dismantling federal oversight 

and accountability is simply an abdication of responsibility for our nation’s most 

helpless children, those who are in fact the state’s children. To understand the 

downside of block granting child welfare funds, it is important to examine our nation’s experience with the Title XX funds block granted by in the early 1980’s. While 

there was originally a substantial allocation for family services—preventive, reunification, aftercare, etc.—when states had control of the funding, many ceased using 

the funds for their original intent. It is no coincidence that once the impact of block 

granting Title XX funds was felt, the number of children entering foster care grew 

dramatically, virtually wiping out the progress made by the implementation of the 

first permanency planning legislation, P.L. 96–272, in 1980. Please do not repeat 

this mistake; surely a better means of incorporating enhanced flexibility would be 

to revise current government regulations relating to federal child welfare funds. 

In summary, overall the Adoptions and Safe Families Act has had positive outcomes for many children but continued progress is critical. Through the last half of 

the 19th century, we believed that Orphan Trains were a progressive way of meeting the needs of orphans and maltreated children. Perhaps in another 100 years a 

revolution of social conscience will cause us to look back at the child welfare practices of today with shock and amazement that helpless children were given such 

short shrift in such a land of plenty. While ASFA has yielded some successes, our 

child welfare system is far from what our most precious resource, our children, need 

and deserve. These children depend on society’s largesse for their very existence; 

please don’t let them down by abdicating federal responsibility for these children 

and their families.

Ms. Schagrin. Now we will turn to S. Truett Cathy, founder and 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much for your testimony, 

f Chairman of Chick-fil-A, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. Cathy. 

STATEMENT OF S. TRUETT CATHY, MEMBER, HORATIO ALGER 

ASSOCIATION, AND FOUNDER, WINSHAPE CENTER, INC., 

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 

Mr. CATHY. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, may 

I share with you a story about Woody Faulk. Woody was brought 

to my Sunday school class by a neighbor. Woody was a victim of 

circumstance. His mother and father divorced when he was 4. He 

lived with his mom in Lake City, Florida, where he joined the Boy 

Scouts. He was off on a scouting trip when he was located by a patrolman who told him his mom had been killed instantly in a car 

52

accident. Soon after that he was notified that his father, who lived 

in California and whom he had not seen for years, died. He had 

one sister, a college student, and an aunt and uncle. He was 

brought to Jonesboro, Georgia to live in my community with his 

aunt and uncle. 

Realizing his needs, I gave him a lot of my time and attention 

and invited him to live with us. Woody, at the age of 13, came to 

me and told me, he said, when I grow up, I want to work for you. 

He said he didn’t want to operate one of those Chick-fil-A units, 

but he wanted a desk and a secretary like I had. 

Today he has accomplished that goal. He graduated from the 

University of Georgia with high honors. I served as best man at his 

wedding. He achieved a Master of Business Administration at Harvard and is happily married and has three precious little girls. 

Woody has accompanied me here today. 

From this experience came the motivation for me to start foster 

homes. I created WinShape Homes. I saw there were many children in America who never stole anything, never used drugs or alcohol, but were seeking some guidance and encouragement from 

others. 

The children we try to identify are those who do not have serious 

behavior problems, but oftentimes have heavy baggage. We have 

been successful in keeping sibling groups together. We currently 

have 89 siblings in our program that would otherwise not be together. 

The homes we have established have 12 children in each home. 

These homes are described as all-American, fashionable homes, 

with a large amount of acreage for the children to run and play. 

We employ full-time parents who view their responsibilities as a 

calling, not a job. 

All of these children are treated as my own grandchildren. I play 

the part of an adopted grandpa. I tell the children they do not have 

to call me grandpa, but those who do call me grandpa get more. 

[Laughter.] 

I introduce them to others as their grandpa by choice. They chose 

me, and I chose them. We tell the children this is your home for 

as long as you like. This is your place where you bring your children and tell them, ‘‘This is where I grew up.’’ You do not have to 

worry about a caseworker coming and taking you away to another 

foster home. They feel secure and stable. 

I endorse adoption. Adoption is wonderful if it takes place at an 

early age, the earlier the better. It is very difficult for an older 

child to make the adjustment to comply with the rules and regulations of the home. 

About 2 years ago we had three sisters who had been with us 

for 61⁄2 years, who were happy, well adjusted, and well bonded to 

their house-parents and other family members. Their caseworker 

was mandated by the Federal government to find an adoptive 

placement for these girls, even though the girls did not want to be 

adopted. The adoption process was started and was very upsetting 

to the girls, as well as the whole family. After two potential placements disrupted, WinShape went before the Commissioner of the 

State of Tennessee to ask for his consideration in leaving the girls 

53

with WinShape as a long-term placement. The case was reviewed 

and WinShape was granted custody and the girls are still with us. 

Approximately 5 years ago WinShape Homes had three bi-racial 

children who have been living with us for almost 3 years. The children were thriving for the first time in their lives and doing well 

in school. The State of Georgia decided to look for an adoptive 

home for these children and eventually found one, even though it 

has seven other children. Before the year was out, the adoption disrupted, the kids were back to their old emotional state of mind, and 

they were split up and sent to different facilities. We had already 

filled their beds and had no room for them at the time. It is very 

emotional and upsetting when we lose a child, not only to the 

house-parents, but very upsetting to their grandpa. 

In some cases, I have gone through the court system and personally become legal guardian of nine children in order to keep them. 

WinShape Homes currently has 36 private placements. 

WinShape has 14 homes, 9 in Georgia, 3 in Tennessee, 1 in Alabama, and 1 in Brazil, that serve 134 children. The house-parents 

are role models for the children, often blending their own natural 

children together, all treated equally. We have had only two 

changes in house-parents during the 15 years we’ve been in business. 

I was in Washington this past week where I serve as a member 

of the Horatio Alger Association, where we recognized 104 children 

who came from poverty and abused situations, who have overcome 

their upbringing to set high goals for themselves. They were 

awarded——

Chairman HERGER. Mr. Cathy, if you can sum up, your time 

has expired. We certainly will put all your testimony in the record. 

Mr. CATHY. All right. Let me close by saying I highly endorse 

adoption. I am responsible for two boys being adopted, but neither 

worked out. While I know that adoption is great, there is a place 

for foster care, particularly those of an older age. We generally select children from school age. We are what is classified as an ‘‘AllAmerican home’’ by the parents there, to nurture the children off 

to school, to greet them when they come home, get them to the doctors and dentists and other places, and get them to participate in 

the school activities. We feel we are rendering a service, and we 

would like to be able to use that and to continue on since we have 

had so much success in this area. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cathy follows:]

Statement of S. Truett Cathy, Member, Horatio Alger Association, and 

Founder, WinShape Center, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia 

My thanks to U.S. Representative Mac Collins, and others responsible for extending this invitation to speak to you today on a subject very dear to my heart—foster 

care. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, may I tell you a story about 

Woody Faulk. Woody was brought to my Sunday school class by a neighbor. (I have 

taught Sunday school for 47 years.) Woody was a victim of circumstance—mother 

and dad divorced at the age of 4. He lived with his mom in Lake City, Florida, 

where his mom worked two jobs. Woody joined the Boy Scouts (and later made 

Eagle Scout) early in his life. He was off on a scouting trip when he was located 

by a policeman who told him his mom had been killed instantly in a car accident. 

Soon after, he was notified that his father, who lived in California and whom he 

had not seen for years, had died. He had one sister, a college student, and an aunt 

and uncle. He was sent to Jonesboro, Georgia to live in my community with his aunt 

54

and uncle. There they made room for Woody to share a bedroom with his cousin 

who was the same age as Woody. 

Realizing his needs, I gave him a lot of my time and attention with the consent 

of my wife, Jeannette and our three children, who were all in college at that time. 

Woody, at the age of 13, came to me in church to tell me when he grew up he wanted to work for me. He said he didn’t want to operate one of our Chick-fil-A units, 

but wanted a desk and secretary like I had. Today, he has accomplished his goal. 

I attended his graduation at the University of Georgia. He received high honors in 

marketing. I served as best man in his wedding. He achieved an MBA at Harvard 

and is happily married and has three precious little girls. Would you please recognize Woody Faulk who accompanied me today. 

From this experience came the motivation to start foster homes, and I created 

WinShape Homes as part of my foundation, WinShape Centre. I saw that there 

were many children in America who never stole anything, never used drugs or alcohol, but were seeking some guidance and encouragement from others. 

The children we try to identify are those who do not have serious behavior problems, but often time have heavy baggage. We have been successful in keeping sibling groups together. We currently have 89 siblings in our program that would, otherwise, not be together. 

The homes we have established have 12 children in each home. These homes are 

described as All-American, attractive and comfortable with a large amount of acreage for the children to run and play. We employ full-time parents who view their 

responsibilities as a calling, not a job. All of these children are treated as my own 

grandchildren. I play the part of an adopted grandpa. (I tell them they do not have 

to call me grandpa, but they get more if they do!) I introduce them to others as their 

grandpa by choice—they choose me and I choose them. We tell our children, you’ll 

be here forever. This is the place you bring your children and tell them ‘‘this is 

where I grew up.’’ You do not have to worry about a caseworker taking you to another foster home. 

I endorse adoption. Adoption is wonderful, if it takes place at an early age—the 

earlier the better. It is very difficult for an older child to make the adjustment and 

comply with the rules. 

About two years ago, we had three sisters who had been with us for 61⁄2 years 

who were happy, well adjusted and had bonded with their houseparents and other 

family members. Their caseworker was mandated by the federal government to find 

an adoptive placement for these girls, even though the girls did not want to be 

adopted. The adoption process was started and was very upsetting to the girls as 

well as the whole family. After two potential placements disrupted, WinShape went 

before the Commissioner of the State (Tennessee) to ask for his consideration in 

leaving the girls with WinShape as a long-term placement. The case was reviewed 

and WinShape was granted custody. The girls are still with us. 

Approximately five years ago, WinShape Homes had three bi-racial children who 

had lived with us for almost three years. The children were thriving for the first 

time in their lives and doing well in school. The State (Georgia) decided to look for 

an adoptive home for the kids and eventually found one—even though it was with 

seven other children. Before the year was out, the adoption disrupted, the kids were 

back to their old emotional state of mind and they were split up and sent to different facilities. We had already filled their beds and had no room to take them 

back. It is very emotional and upsetting when we loose a child, not only to the 

houseparents, but to their grandpa. 

I was responsible for securing the adoption of two boys to two different families 

that I knew well, but neither worked out. The adopted parents had a six month trial 

period after which they did not have to keep the child. You can imagine the trauma 

to that child’s life—to be rejected after a short period of time. 

In some cases, I’ve gone through the court system and personally become legal 

guardian of nine children in order to keep them. WinShape Homes currently has 

custody of 36 private placements. 

WinShape now has 14 homes—9 in Georgia, 3 in Tennessee, 1 in Alabama and 

1 in Brazil, that serve 134 children in these homes. The parents are role models 

for the children, often blending their own natural children together, all treated 

equally. We have had only two changes in houseparents since we began in 1987. 

I was in Washington this past week where I serve as a member of the Horatio 

Alger Association. We recognized 104 children, who came from poverty and abused 

situations who have overcome their upbringing to set high goals for themselves. 

They were awarded a $10,000 scholarship to the college of their choice. These Horatio Alger Scholars were selected from 7,000 applications. 

55

There is a problem in America today—how to handle deprived children. A child 

today only has a 50–50 chance of having both mom and dad living under the same 

roof. 

Mr. Chairman, I applaud the work of Congress focusing on the long-term security 

of children who have been displaced from their biological family for one reason or 

another. I hope the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act has had many positive outcomes. However, one unintended consequence has been the impact on our program, 

and possibly others like ours. 

While we do not believe our program is sole answer to the problems facing displaced children, I strongly feel we are part of the solution, a larger solution of providing alternatives to courts and child welfare agencies. 

Right now, with the sole emphasis on adoption, reunification, or placement with 

a relative, programs like ours are not having the chance to help children which may 

benefit most from a permanent and stable placement. In other words, for some children, adoption is not in the best interest of the child. For instance, many children 

have been in our care for several years and have bonded with their houseparents. 

Some of our children are part of sibling groups who do not want to be split up. Others still have relationships with their parents, grandparents or other family, and 

severing of parental rights (as required for adoption) may not be the best option for 

that child. 

What I am asking this committee and Congress to do is give courts and child placing agencies the flexibility to consider plans like ours on an equal footing with adoption and other permanency alternatives when developing permanency plans for children, which would include the incentive payments to State agencies that you are 

considering today. While we have many private placements, and could accept only 

private placements in our homes should we so choose, we feel children in State custody are just as deserving of our services and that the State and WinShape can both 

benefit by working together. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, my goal is to impact the lives of children in a positive 

way, and give them what they may never have otherwise—a loving, permanent, 

home. My foundation is endowed to continue to add homes and grow long after I 

am gone, and I hope, with your help, it will have the opportunity to keep serving 

the most vulnerable of our society, our children. 

There is a need for programs such as ours. I could tell you many wonderful stories 

of our successes and a few failures. But the success stories far outweigh the failures. 

That’s what motivates me to be better and encourages me to do more. We’re not 

perfect, but we are making efforts to help those who desperately need help.

credible example of your involvement of going the extra mile, and 

Chairman HERGER. Mr. Cathy, I want to thank you for the inf then some, to help those who are so in need. Thank you very much, 

and thank you for being here and for your testimony today. Next 

we will turn to Mark Hardin, Director, National Child Welfare Resource Center on Legal and Judicial Issues. Mr. Hardin. 

STATEMENT OF MARK HARDIN, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CHILD 

WELFARE RESOURCE CENTER ON LEGAL AND JUDICIAL 

ISSUES, AND DIRECTOR OF CHILD WELFARE, CENTER ON 

CHILDREN AND THE LAW, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION 

Mr. HARDIN. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, 

I very much appreciate the opportunity to testify today. I’m going 

to cover four points. 

First, the role of courts in achieving goals of ASFA; second, how 

the Federal Court Improvement Program (CIP) helps States implement ASFA; third, continuing barriers courts are facing in playing 

their role in the implementation; and finally, some promising new 

developments in the CIP. 

I am sure you’re very well aware of the critical role that court 

decisions play in the foster care system. After all, courts decide 

when children can be placed in foster care, whether and when they 

56

can be returned home, and whether children are going to be placed 

in new permanent homes. When judges make mistakes or delay decisions, a child can suffer injury, even death. A family can needlessly be broken up and a child can languish for years in foster 

care. So, obviously, the performance of courts has a lot to do with 

the ultimate success of ASFA. 

The ASFA, incidentally, includes a number of specific directives 

to courts with regard to findings courts are supposed to make, 

deadlines for hearings, and also what is supposed to happen at different hearings. 

My second point is about the Federal CIP and how it’s making 

a difference in ASFA implementation. The CIP provides grants to 

State courts. It goes to the highest State court and the money is 

exclusively to be used in improving the way the courts perform in 

child abuse and neglect foster care adoption cases. Every State has 

accepted these funds as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto 

Rico. 

Nearly every State CIP project played a major role in developing 

the State laws to implement ASFA. Many have revised court rules, 

court forms, and court procedures. The CIP projects have also done 

a great deal to educate their practitioners. They have developed judicial bench books, and lawyer manuals. Every program has done 

repeated training on ASFA. 

They have also been involved in many, many other ways in implementing ASFA, including reorganizing courts. I will just say 

that attached to my written testimony is an article about that. 

My third point is about the persistent barriers facing courts in 

implementing ASFA. In ABA’s opinion, the CIP is a remarkably effective Federal program, especially given the funding level. On the 

other hand, we feel that most courts have not yet received the level 

of excellence that we think is possible that, in fact, we know is possible by the examples of some courts. 

One serious barrier is still excessive judicial workloads in many 

courts. Many judges still don’t have the time to devote to each case 

to really take a careful individualized look at the situation of the 

child and the family. 

Another problem is unevenness of legal representation. This is 

important. After all, attorneys and guardian ad litems and counsel 

volunteers are very largely responsible for providing the information to the judge, that the judge takes into account in making decisions. Again, CIP projects have been very helpful, but we have a 

long way to go. 

Finally, I want to mention some promising signs of progress, 

even regarding these very difficult challenges. To improve judicial 

workloads, we are improving our ability to determine how many 

judges are needed and court staff are needed to handle these challenges. The ABA, the National Council of Juvenile Family Court 

Judges, and the National Center for State Courts are together 

working hard on this. We feel the State CIP projects are very receptive. 

There is also some hope for improvement of legal representation. 

Many States are adopting strict performance standards for attorneys in our field. The ABA has also endorsed standards. 

57

There is a recent book describing how to reorganize and improve 

law offices to be more effective. There is a lot to be said about that. 

Again, there’s a lot to be done, frankly, in terms of legal representation. 

Another important development is the courts are developing a 

better capacity to evaluate their own work. We think this is critical. There are now a few States that are able, through their use 

of computer technology, to gather routine data measuring how 

they’re doing. 

One example, of course, is their timeliness, where are they finding delays, where are they doing well, and moving their cases 

through the courts. There are some modest Federal funds just released under the Strength and Abuse Neglect Courts Act (SANCA), 

and we’re excited about that because we think that can expand 

some of these initiatives. We hope that SANCA funding will continue and, indeed, grow. 

Another development is courts are increasing long-range planning. A new Federal program instruction is working on that. 

To sum up, CIP has done much to improve court performance. 

It’s not going to solve all the problems, but we think it will help 

countless children achieve safety and permanency. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hardin follows:]

Statement of Mark Hardin, Director, National Child Welfare Resource Center on Legal and Judicial Issues, and Director of Child Welfare, Center 

on Children and the Law, American Bar Association 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to 

testify this afternoon. 

On behalf of Alfred P. Carlton, Jr., President of the American Bar Association 

(ABA), I am pleased to appear today before the Subcommittee and to submit this 

statement regarding the contribution of the Court Improvement Program to the success of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. The ABA continues its strong 

support of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), which is helping to achieve 

higher levels of safety, permanency, and well being for foster children. The ABA also 

continues to support the Court Improvement Program (CIP), which is helping to 

achieve systemic improvement of our Nation’s juvenile dependency court systems, 

so that all children who have been the victims of abuse and neglect can achieve 

safety and permanency and enjoy the stability and love of family. 

The ABA has for many years devoted considerable attention to improving court 

processes affecting children in foster care. In 1980, the ABA House of Delegates 

adopted a resolution in support of passage of the Federal Adoption Assistance and 

Child Welfare Act of 1980, P.L. 96–272, 42 U.S.C. §§ 620–629, 670–679. In 1988, the 

ABA House of Delegates further called for substantial amendments to that Act to 

strengthen the role of the legal system and ensure more consistent services for children. These amendments included creation of federal fiscal incentives to courts to 

reduce or limit delays in foster care litigation and improve court rules governing foster care cases. In February 1997, the ABA House approved a recommendation supporting federal legislation to remove barriers to adoption, which formed the basis 

for our support of ASFA. 

The ABA Center on Children and the Law has been actively involved with improving the handling of child abuse and neglect proceedings for many years, developing model statutes and court rules, providing technical assistance to states, and 

developing legal manuals for attorneys and judges. The Center has also provided extensive training throughout the United States to help courts and child welfare agencies comply with the mandates of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 

(ASFA). 

I am the Director of Child Welfare at the American Bar Association Center on 

Children and the Law and also Director of our federally supported National Child 

Welfare Resource Center on Legal and Judicial Issues. For over 25 years, I have 

specialized in legal issues concerning child abuse and neglect, foster care, and adoption. I have also testified before this Subcommittee a number of times during my 

23 years at the ABA. 

58

I testify today about how the CIP is helping state courts implement ASFA. As you 

know, the CIP provides grants to each of the highest state courts, specifically to improve their performance in child abuse, foster care, and adoption cases. During my 

testimony, I will discuss four points:

• First, the critical role of courts in achieving the goals of the federal Adoption 

and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA). 

• Second, how the Court Improvement Program helps state courts implement 

ASFA. 

• Third, continuing concerns facing the courts. 

• Fourth, promising new ways that the Court Improvement Program can help 

make ASFA more effective.

1. Courts play a critical role in achieving the goals of ASFA. 

You are already aware, I’m sure, that courts play a central role in planning and 

decisionmaking for children in foster care. Courts make a whole series of pivotal decisions concerning each foster child. Among other things, courts decide whether a 

child will be placed in foster care, be returned home, and—when return home is not 

possible—whether a child will be placed in a permanent new home. 

Because they are charged with making these decisions, judges play a vital role 

in achieving the ASFA goals of child safety and permanency. Safety for an abused 

child may require a judge to authorize the child’s placement in foster care. Permanency for a neglected child who can’t safely return home may require a judge to free 

the child for adoption. 

When judges make errors or delay decisions, the results can be severe. A child 

can suffer injury or even death, a family can needlessly be broken up, and a child 

can languish for years in foster care instead of growing up in a new safe, permanent 

home. 

So, court performance is a key to achieving the goals of ASFA. And besides being 

essential to achieving ASFA’s goals, courts must also implement the letter of ASFA. 

That is, important ASFA requirements specifically apply to courts. For example, 

ASFA requires courts to:

• Determine whether agencies have made reasonable efforts to preserve families 

or to achieve new permanent homes for foster children; 

• Conduct timely and decisive permanency hearings, to assure timely permanent 

homes for children in foster care; 

• Hear termination of parental rights petitions; and 

• Decide whether and when children are to be adopted, placed in legal guardianship, or in other permanent placement arrangements.

2. The Court Improvement Program has had a major role in helping courts to implement ASFA. The Court Improvement Program has played a major role in ensuring that the courts implement ASFA. Nearly every CIP project has helped develop 

state legislation to implement ASFA requirements. Many have revised court rules 

and procedures to conform to ASFA. Still others have redesigned court forms to set 

forth decisions and findings that ASFA requires. 

Of course, it is not enough to change laws, procedures, and court forms. Practitioners have to understand and apply the intent of the law. Most CIP projects have 

made substantial efforts to accomplish this. For example, CIP projects have:

• Provided training for judges, attorneys, and other advocates, which focuses on 

the goals and requirements of ASFA; 

• Developed benchbooks for judges to help judges implement ASFA; and 

• Developed ASFA manuals and instructional materials for attorneys.

Further, state CIP projects have helped courts make organizational changes to facilitate their implementation of ASFA. Many projects have helped courts tighten 

scheduling to ensure timely permanency hearings and timely termination of parental rights proceedings. CIP projects also have funded evaluations to measure how 

well courts are actually following legal deadlines, including ASFA deadlines, and 

how well they are achieving timely permanency for foster children. 

CIP projects have engaged in a wide range of other activities to help implement 

ASFA and achieve its goals. An article describing these activities, entitled Court Improvement for Child Abuse and Neglect Litigation: What Next? is attached to the 

ABA’s written statement.

3. Courts continue to face barriers in their implementation of ASFA. 

In spite of the efforts of CIP projects, many courts do continue to face barriers 

to full implementation of ASFA. While CIP is a remarkably successful federal proVerDate jul 14 2003 01:16 Dec 06, 2003 Jkt 090545 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A545A.XXX A545A
59

gram, particularly given its modest level of funding, most courts hearing child protection cases have not yet achieved the level of excellence that is possible. 

One of the most persistent and serious barriers to judicial excellence is excessive 

judicial workloads. Many judges still have too many child protection cases and not 

enough time to handle each of these complex and highly sensitive cases. 

Another serious problem is the persistence of judicial rotation and master calendars. Although CIP has helped decrease these practices in many states, there still 

are many courts where the same judge does not usually hear all stages of a child 

protection case. The results of this are additional court delays, less efficiency, 

judges’ loss of important information about the children and families, and judges 

who have less authority and responsibility for their cases. 

Equally important is the continuing uneven quality of legal representation. This 

is vital, because attorneys, GALs and CASA volunteers largely control what information comes before judges in child protection cases. While CIP projects have 

helped improve advocacy, major improvements are needed in such areas as the hiring and appointment of counsel, attorney compensation and working conditions, and 

attorney oversight and evaluation. 

Still another barrier is how difficult it is for courts to know how well they are 

performing in child protection cases. It is difficult for judges and court administrators to get an accurate overall picture of how they are affecting the lives of children 

and families. 

Finally, few judges in sparsely populated rural areas are able to gain the needed 

knowledge concerning child protection litigation. Most such judges still hear a wide 

range of cases, making it difficult or impossible to become expert in the area of child 

protection.

4. In spite of these difficulties, there are new ways that the Court Improvement 

Program is helping courts tackle these difficult barriers to achieving the goals of 

ASFA. 

While we must recognize the persistence of these formidable problems, there are 

promising developments related to each of them. Regarding judicial workloads, there 

have been advances in calculating the numbers of judges needed to handle child protection cases. The American Bar Association, the National Council of Juvenile and 

Family Court Judges, and the National Center for State Courts are working together to advance and disseminate these methods of assessing judicial workloads. 

With respect to master calendars and judicial rotation, there are nationally accepted standards opposing these practices in child protection cases. These practices 

have gradually declined, in large part due to the federal Court Improvement Program. But we need to remain focused on these issues. 

There is hope for major improvement in legal representation in child protection 

cases. Many states have adopted standards for attorney performance in these cases 

and many others are likely to do so soon. State courts have begun to improve their 

practices of appointing attorneys, in some cases developing contracts that set high 

expectations. A recent ABA book explains how child protection agencies can reorganize and improve their law offices. Important research has begun concerning attorney workloads. 

Promising new developments suggest that courts will become increasingly well informed concerning their own performance. A new federal Program Instruction directs CIP projects to reassess their performance, as they did after CIP was first enacted. In addition, states are beginning to gain the capacity, through the use of computer technology, to collect routine information regarding their performance, such 

as information concerning the timeliness of their hearings and decisions, the consistency of important procedural protections such as notice and appointment of counsel, 

and the safety of children after court proceedings begin. 

The American Bar Association, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court 

Judges, and the National Center for State Courts have developed standard measures of court performance and are working together to help state CIP projects to 

put them into place. This work includes helping state and local courts use computer 

technology to measure their performance. Modest federal funding under the 

Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act will add momentum to this development. 

Reinforcing the courts’ emerging ability to objectively assess their performance are 

new efforts at long-range judicial planning. The new federal Program Instruction 

calls upon CIP projects to engage in careful strategic planning for improvement, including long- and short-range goals, tasks, and deadlines. 

The Program Instruction also calls upon courts to coordinate their self-improvement planning with state agencies, pursuant to federal Child and Family Services 

Reviews (CFSRs). CFSRs are comprehensive federal-state reviews of each state’s 

60

* Mark Hardin is the Director of the National Child Welfare Resource Center on Legal and 

Judicial Issues at the ABA Center on Children and the Law. The Resource Center is funded 

by the U.S. Children’s Bureau. Views expressed in this article have not been endorsed by the 

ABA Board of Governors or House of Delegates and therefore do not necessarily reflect official 

policies of the American Bar Association. In addition, they do not represent the views of the 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau. [i] Information for this article is based on a variety of sources. First, during the early years 

of the CIP, when state courts were conducting their self-assessments, the National Child Welfare Resource Center for Legal and Judicial Issues prepared a compendium and analysis of selfassessment findings. (The Resource Center is an activity of the ABA Center on Children and 

the Law and is funded by the U.S. Children’s Bureau.) Second, for the last five years, the Resource Center has interviewed all state CIP directors and has prepared a report on the progress 

of every state CIP program. Third, we systematically collect and disseminate materials developed by CIP projects. Fourth, staff of the Resource Center, including the author, provides training and consultation to state courts throughout the United States. In the course of our training 

and consultation, we are able to observe a wide range of CIP efforts. [ii]Public Law 103–66, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act §§ 13711–13712. 

overall child welfare system. Following each CFSR, there is a Final Report of the 

findings of the review, and each state drafts and negotiates a Program Improvement 

Plan (PIP) with the Federal government. Specifically, the Program Instruction calls 

upon CIPs to take into account in their strategic plans the court-related findings 

of the state’s CFSR Final Report as well as the court-related portions of the state’s 

PIP. 

Overall, CIP has done a great deal to increase judicial understanding of child protection litigation, to improve attorney performance, to make organizational improvements, and to secure additional state resources. With your support, it will continue 

to do so. While the Court Improvement Program will not solve all the problems in 

court performance for abused and neglected children and their families, it will continue to make a major difference in the lives of countless abused and neglected children and their families. 

We appreciate the opportunity to testify. 

Thank you very much.

COURT IMPROVEMENT FOR CHILD ABUSE AND

NEGLECT LITIGATION: WHAT NEXT? [i]

By Mark Hardin *

Director, National Child Welfare Resource Center on Legal and Judicial Issues 

—A Service of the U.S. Children’s Bureau

The following is a draft version of an article that will appear in forthcoming issues 

of ABA Child Law Practice, http://www.abanet.org/child/15-12toc.html, and ABA 

Child CourtWorks, http://www.abanet.org/child/courtworks.html, both published by 

the ABA Center on Children and the Law. 

INTRODUCTION

The Court Improvement Program (CIP) is a federal grant program designed to improve the quality of court proceedings in child abuse and neglect cases. Over eight 

years have passed since CIP was enacted in 1993.[ii]

State CIP projects have worked to improve child abuse and neglect litigation since 

the mid 1990s and some have made stunning progress. This article discusses CIP 

accomplishments, describes continuing barriers to court improvement, and recommends future directions for the program. 

CIP projects can help practitioners achieve excellence in various ways. For example, they can reduce delays; improve practitioners’ skills and knowledge; and improve workloads, thus allowing practitioners to better prepare for hearings making 

possible more thorough hearings. Ultimately, court improvement projects strengthen 

court decisions in child protection cases, thereby improving the lives of abused and 

neglected children. 

This article will provide a national overview of child protection court improvement 

projects, describe what such projects are doing throughout the country and suggest 

future directions. In describing CIP accomplishments and new directions, this article provides examples of CIP activities throughout the United States. Because of 

space limitations, however, only a few examples are presented. For a more comprehensive description of CIP activities, see D. Rauber, Court Improvement Progress 

Report 2002 (ABA).

61

[iii] House Conf. Rep. No. 103–213, U.S. Code Cong. and Ad. News 1993, 103rd Cong., 1st Sess., 

Vol. 3, 1530–1533. 

Sidebar #1

CIP Basics

Funding 

• State CIP projects are funded by Federal grants to state courts, 

supplemented by state funds. Federal authorization for CIP funds 

appears in Title IV–B of the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. §§ 629f–

629h. • Federal funding goes to the highest court of each state, which 

administers the CIP funds and directs the project. • All 50 States plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico receive 

federal CIP grants. • The amount of the grants is based on a $85,000 minimum plus 

additional funds based on the total number of children in the state. In 

FY 2002, grants ranged from approximately $99,000 for Wyoming to 

$1,071,000 for California. • In 2002, Congress reauthorized CIP for another five years. 

Use of Funds 

• Each state has wide discretion in how to use CIP funds. The state 

must use the funds to improve litigation for abused and neglected 

children. • Each state must have a strategic plan for improvement, including a 

comprehensive new self-assessment of courts’ performance in child 

abuse and neglect cases. 

Key dimensions of CIP efforts include improving timeliness of judicial decisions 

in abuse and neglect cases, enhancing judicial expertise, improving legal representation quality, refining the judicial process, and upgrading judicial administration. For 

each topic, this article examines what CIP has achieved in the eight years since its 

enactment and suggests new directions for court improvement. 

‘‘Achievements’’ mean positive changes that have taken root in many courts and 

appear to have momentum. ‘‘New directions’’ mean changes that show great promise 

but are challenging or have not yet gained widespread momentum. 

TIMING OF DECISION MAKING

Reducing judicial delay was a key goal of the original CIP legislation.[iii] Reducing 

judicial delay supports an overall goal of federal foster care legislation and accomplishes two important purposes in child abuse and neglect cases: (1) abused and neglected children are more quickly placed in permanent homes rather than spending 

large parts of their childhood in unplanned foster care; (2) children are spared painful, frightening uncertainties about their future. That is, while a court hearing and 

decision is pending, an abused and neglected child may fear the judge’s decision. 

The delay—although reasonable or necessary to the attorneys and judge—can be 

highly stressful and seemingly endless to the child. 

Current CIP Achievements and Activities

Timelines. Nearly every state CIP project has tightened state deadlines for child 

abuse and neglect litigation. Many of these efforts have focused on implementing 

the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA), which created tighter deadlines 

for permanency hearings and set a deadline for filing termination of parental rights 

petitions. Many CIP projects have led efforts to set deadlines that are stricter than 

those required by ASFA. 

Further, some CIP projects have focused on imposing or shortening deadlines not 

explicitly required by ASFA. For example, North Dakota has adopted stricter deadlines for adjudication hearings. Others, such as Oregon and Texas, have enacted 

laws limiting the duration of efforts to reunify children once removed from home. 

Continuances. A number of states have tightened criteria and procedures for 

continuances. For example, a West Virginia court rule bars judges from granting 

continuances except for compelling reasons, and Oregon law requires special findings when judges grant continuances. Other states have discouraged the use of continuances through training (e.g., Washington) and other states have done so through 

educational materials such as benchbooks. 

62

Caseflow management. States are also increasingly applying caseflow management principles to child protection cases. For example, a number of projects (e.g., 

Connecticut, Maine, Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Washington) conduct case management conferences before the court hearing to decide whether to grant a temporary custody order. Many local courts have 

implemented pretrial hearings to speed adjudication and termination of parental 

rights proceedings. 

Judicial compliance. States are increasingly recognizing the need to measure 

judicial compliance with deadlines. Utah and Michigan enacted laws requiring 

courts to measure their adherence to deadlines in child abuse and neglect cases. 

Several jurisdictions, such as Arizona, Colorado, Oregon, and Utah, have made impressive documented improvements in the timeliness of the judicial process. 

Appellate process. A number of state appellate courts are working to reduce 

delays in appeals. These include Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, Minnesota, 

Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, and Wisconsin. 

California and Iowa have sharply reduced the time of appeals, with appeals now 

typically taking about 31⁄2 months from the trial court order to the appellate decision. To accomplish this, both states thoroughly redesigned their appellate process 

for child protection cases. 

New Directions to Improve Timeliness

Automation. A few states are using automated systems to measure judicial timeliness. Arizona is setting up a computerized system to measure timeliness and expects to issue the first reports during 2003. Colorado, Maryland, and Oregon, among 

others, also have automated systems that generate data on timeliness. Nationwide, 

however, progress in implementing such measurement is difficult and slow. 

Using computers to project future hearing deadlines and inform parties of deadlines is another way courts are avoiding delays. For example, during early hearings, 

parties are informed when the permanency hearing is due and when, if the family 

reunification plan does not succeed, the agency will be expected to file a petition 

for termination of parental rights. Washington state CIP pilot projects have used 

computers for such purposes. 

Cooperative Delay Reduction Projects. Another promising development is cooperative delay reduction projects in which state child protection agencies work with 

courts, attorneys, and other agencies to identify and correct delays. Such projects 

have been successful in New York and New Jersey, for example, and some states 

may initiate them through state Child and Family Service Review (CFSR) Program 

Improvement Plans (PIPs). Oregon, for example, has included such projects in its 

PIP. 

Comprehensive Deadlines. A logical development in establishing deadlines is 

to make them complete and systematic for dependency cases. This means (a) establishing deadlines that govern every step of the judicial process, ensuring that there 

will always be a deadline for the next hearing and (b) setting deadlines for completing as well as initiating hearings. Michigan has gone far in establishing such 

comprehensive deadlines, setting statutory deadlines for initiating and completing 

all major stages of the court process in child protection cases. 

JUDICIAL EXPERTISE

Child protection cases are complex and share several unique characteristics:

(1) Unique legal hearings—typically including shelter care, adjudication, disposition, review, permanency, termination of parental rights, post-termination review, post-termination permanency, and adoption. Each hearing has a distinct purpose and differs procedurally. It takes time, effort, and experience for judges to understand how each hearing should work to achieve positive results for abused and 

neglected children. 

(2) Serious, complex family problems—A rough analogy might be that child 

protection cases are to family law as homicide is to criminal law. Abusive and neglectful parents typically have severe dysfunctions and abused and neglected children typically have acute special needs. It is challenging for agencies, mental health 

experts, and courts to know whether to try to preserve a family with such dysfunctions and special needs. It takes time and effort for judges to learn how to hear and 

resolve these issues and to know how such issues should affect decisionmaking at 

each stage of the process. 

(3) Large bureaucracies—Not only is the state of local public child protection 

agency intensively involved, but also other government agencies such as law enforcement, substance abuse treatment, and mental health. Judges have to learn how 

63

[iv]M. Hardin, D. Boyd Rauber, and R. Lancour, Volume 1, Representing Clients, State Court 

Assessments 1995–1998 Dependency Proceedings 33–39 (ABA 1999).

these bureaucracies function in these cases, to be able to perform their child protection oversight role assigned by Congress and the state legislature. 

A key purpose of CIP is to better prepare judges to cope with these complexities. 

CIP programs in every state have focused on improving judges’ understanding of 

these difficult cases. 

Current Achievements and Activities

Growing awareness and appreciation. A striking achievement of CIP is a 

growing judicial understanding of the challenges of child protection litigation. In 

courts throughout the United States, child protection cases are no longer the invisible area of litigation that they were when CIP was first enacted. 

Educational opportunities. Because of CIP, a wide range of educational materials on child protection cases is available. There are now benchbooks on child protection law in at least 16 states (e.g., Arkansas, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, West Virginia, 

and Wyoming) and several states produce specialized newsletters (e.g., California, 

the District of Columbia, Georgia, Maryland, Nebraska, New Mexico, Tennessee, 

and Wyoming) and reports on child protection laws. 

Because of CIP, judges also receive more frequent and consistent training on child 

protection issues. Nearly every state CIP program is providing more judicial training, and state courts are including more child protection presentations in their judicial education programs than before CIP. 

Overall, although increases in judicial expertise are incremental in child protection cases and vary by state and locality, such increases are impressive given the 

relatively few years since CIP’s enactment. 

New Directions

Systematic training. To help judges gain expertise, courts need to develop more 

systematic training. Judicial training programs should ensure all new and experienced judges receive essential information about child protection litigation. State judicial educators can play a role by identifying basic information judges need in child 

protection cases and by developing a system to give them this information. At the 

same time, judicial educators can provide more in-depth information for judges who 

sit exclusively in family or juvenile court. 

Specialized judges. Given the complexity of child protection cases, it is desirable 

to have specialized and highly trained judges to hear them. Several states are developing statewide family courts. In Texas rural areas, most child protection cases are 

now heard in ‘‘cluster courts,’’ by judges who specialize in child protection cases. 

There is not yet a clear national trend toward specialized judges hearing child protection cases, however. 

Specialized dockets. A number of courts (e.g., in Montana, Nevada, and San 

Diego) are experimenting with sub-specialized ‘‘problem solving court’’ dockets such 

as ‘‘family [child protection] drug courts’’ and ‘‘mental health courts.’’ In drug court 

experiments, a judge sets aside a period of time to hear child abuse or neglect cases 

involving parents whose substance abuse led them to abuse or neglect their children. Careful evaluation of these and other specialized courts are needed to determine their effectiveness. 

LEGAL REPRESENTATION

Advocates largely control the flow of information to the court. Advocates present 

testimony, frame issues, and present arguments to the court. Without diligent, 

skilled attorneys, the court misses vital facts and does not consider important legal 

and factual arguments. In short, it is very difficult for judges to make sound, timely 

decisions without competent attorneys. 

Attorneys need knowledge, motivation, and time to present the cases properly. Because family problems are generally tangled and complex, the attorney, like the 

judge, needs to understand the basic language and concepts used by social workers 

and mental health professionals. The attorney must spend time investigating cases 

and arrange expert testimony when needed. 

Unfortunately, many judicial self-assessments conducted in the late 1990s demonstrated significant deficiencies in the quality of legal representation in child protection cases. Some assessments reported that attorneys were frequently unprepared, took too little time to present their cases, and were replaced by other attorneys while cases were pending.[iv]

64

[v]See Sanders, Using Contracts to Improve Representation of Parents and Children, 5 Child 

CourtWorks, Issue 6 (ABA, November 2002). [vi]See generally, M. Laver, Foundations for Success: Strengthening Your Agency Attorney Office (ABA 1999). 

Current Achievements and Activities

Training and mentoring. State courts are expanding their training and mentoring for attorneys handling child protection cases. Nearly every state CIP provides 

training for attorneys. The number of attorneys interested and committed to child 

protection cases is also rising. CIP activities, by increasing the visibility of dependency practice, are contributing to this trend. 

Many courts mandate training for court appointed attorneys. For example, many 

attorneys must participate in training to remain eligible for paid court appointments 

to represent parents and children. In some courts, such as in Massachusetts, San 

Francisco, and West Virginia, attorneys must assist a more experienced attorney in 

child protection cases before becoming eligible for such appointments. 

Children’s attorney standards. A number of states’ CIP projects have developed standards for children’s attorneys in child protection cases and this trend continues. Among these states are Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, 

Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, 

Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia. The 

standards for children’s attorneys specifically describe good practice in child protection cases. 

Representation of all parties. Other projects have worked to make sure parties 

are represented at all stages of the court process. Some states, such as Florida, have 

taken steps to ensure that agency caseworkers do not have to represent themselves 

in important court hearings and others, such as Connecticut, ensure that indigent 

parents and children are represented at the critical initial emergency removal 

(‘‘shelter care’’) hearing.

New Directions

Parent and agency attorney standards. A few states are developing standards 

for parents’ and government attorneys in child protection cases. For example, Oregon has standards for parents’ attorneys, Georgia has developed guidelines for government attorneys, and the District of Columbia recently adopted standards for attorneys representing parents, children, and agencies. California law requires counties to develop standards. 

Contracts. Another important development in improving the quality of legal representation is to more purposefully use contracts for such representation. Most 

states and counties that contract for attorneys to represent parents, children, or 

child protection agencies specify only that they are to provide legal representation. 

Contracts for legal representation can go farther. They can specify minimum requirements for attorneys in representing their clients, as in Arkansas and Maryland 

as well as in Santa Clara and San Diego Counties, California. They can provide for 

judicial or peer oversight of attorney performance, as in San Francisco. They can 

also require attorneys for children and parents to meet with their clients before the 

day a case comes to court, and can specify minimum requirements for case preparation.[v]

Law office management. Law offices for attorneys handling child protection 

cases can do much to improve legal representation. Better recruiting and hiring 

practices, stronger supervision and support, more methodical performance evaluation for attorneys, career tracks in child protection, and better pay and working conditions can make a great difference.[vi]

Attorney ethics. Ethical guidance to attorneys can help clarify the outer limits 

of professional behavior in child protection cases. This includes ethics training and 

materials and bar association enforcement activities in extreme cases. If an attorney 

fails to take minimal steps to competently represent a child, parent, or agency, there 

should be practical consequences for such failure. 

Compensation. It is difficult to expect full and competent representation by attorneys when compensation is grossly inadequate. There is great unevenness in attorney compensation in the United States, with some jurisdictions paying enough 

to attract and retain competent attorneys.

IMPROVED JUDICIAL PROCEDURES IN CHILD PROTECTION CASES

Over the last 25 years, the role of courts in child protection cases has changed 

dramatically. Court procedures have not always kept up with this new role, however. While Congress and state legislatures have directed courts to ensure timely 

permanent homes for abused and neglected children, most states have not developed 

65

[vii]See, e.g., M. Hardin, Improving Permanency Hearings: Sample Court Reports and Orders

(ABA 1999, 2002). 

procedures for judicial ‘‘permanency’’ hearings to help ensure a thorough and decisive process.[vii] Likewise, while courts are directed to review case progress, many 

states have failed to organize review hearings to effectively provide such oversight. 

While courts have increasingly become involved in decisions affecting the rights of 

parents and children, procedural protections have remained underdeveloped. 

In addition, in many courts, dependency cases still lack essential procedural protections for the parties. For example, parties—most notably noncustodial and putative fathers—do not consistently receive notice of the proceedings or have an opportunity to participate.

Current Achievements and Activities

National Standards. A major achievement of CIP is that there are now widely 

accepted, comprehensive national standards for child protection litigation, i.e., the 

Resource Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases

(NCJFCJ 1995). CIP has played a major role in advancing national acceptance of 

the Resource Guidelines. 

The Resource Guidelines describe how to conduct hearings; outline characteristics 

of the judicial process that transcend specific hearing types; and address a wide 

range of important procedural issues, such as notice, who should be present, advice 

of rights, key judicial findings, and issues to address at different hearings. 

State CIP projects have supported a variety of activities to implement the Resource Guidelines, such as incorporating key parts of the Guidelines into benchbooks 

and procedural guides, and adapting judicial checklists from the Guidelines. Notably, New Hampshire has combined into a comprehensive manual of protocols, the 

Resource Guidelines, ABA Sample Court Rules for Abuse and Neglect Cases, and 

ASFA requirements. Missouri’s pilot courts were specifically designed to implement 

the Resource Guidelines. Minnesota and Missouri have developed checklists for 

judges, patterned in part after the Resource Guidelines. 

Laws and court rules. Most state court systems have improved laws or developed new court rules to improve the quality and sophistication of judicial procedure. 

Examples include:

• Earlier and more complete hearings following children’s removal from home as 

recommended by the Resource Guidelines (Arizona and Philadelphia). 

• Notice to noncustodial parents and putative fathers when children are placed 

in foster care (Massachusetts, Idaho, and Michigan). 

• Timely steps to resolve paternity when a child enters state foster care (New Jersey). 

• More complete and accurate judicial findings following hearings. This creates a 

clearer record upon which to make decisions later in the judicial process. 

• Judicial forms designed to reinforce good practice in child protection cases. Such 

forms remind agencies, attorneys, and judges to address key issues in different 

types of hearings, and encourage judges to make a record of their key findings 

and decisions.

Finally, many state CIP projects are experimenting with mediation and increased 

involvement of extended families in case decisions (family group conferences). In 

some courts, as in Hawaii and Santa Clara, California, these experiments are being 

carefully evaluated, using such social science principles as the random case assignment and statistical evaluation of case results.

New Directions in Improving

Judicial Procedures

Courts are beginning to develop and use electronic court forms, which both reinforce good practice and allow flexibility for individual case differences. Such forms 

also make it easier to prepare court orders rapidly and to distribute them while the 

parties remain in the courthouse after a hearing. For example, West Virginia has 

developed and piloted software for this purpose and the court in San Antonio, Texas 

has used electronic court forms for this purpose. 

In the future, electronic court forms should include templates allowing electronic 

filing of documents in child protection cases and avoiding the need to retype information already known to the court. 

On-line bench books eventually should complement electronic forms. Such bench 

books will include automated reminders of deadlines and of the issues to address 

at each hearing.

66

[viii] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and 

Families, Program Instruction ACYF–CB–PI–03–04 (March 28, 2003). 

IMPROVED JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION

The role of courts in child protection cases in recent years is expanding. Courts 

must review and monitor the progress of child protection cases and make timely decisions in child protection cases. In addition, because courts interact constantly with 

child welfare agencies and with other key governmental and private agencies, court 

staff must meet with them to work out efficient processes for such things as scheduling hearings, subpoenaing witnesses, and receiving and reviewing court reports. 

Changes in judicial administration are needed to enable courts to fulfill these new 

responsibilities. Accomplishing these tasks requires new administrative duties and 

job descriptions for court staff, as well as new administrative responsibilities for 

judges.

Current Achievements and Activities

Coordination with agencies. Many courts are expanding their coordination 

with child protection agencies and other entities in addressing mutual logistical and 

administrative issues. California’s judicial standards explicitly call for this type of 

cooperation. 

Some courts have encouraged agencies to locate critical services at or near the 

court. For example, in Louisville, Kentucky, drug testing and child support referrals 

are available before parents leave the courthouse. 

Assessments. Another critical development is that more courts are evaluating 

their performance in child protection cases, starting with the judicial self-assessments in the late 1990s. These self-assessments may cover a range of performance 

areas, including timeliness, legal representation, judicial expertise, procedural fairness, and considerate treatment of persons appearing before the court. 

Recent self-evaluation has occurred, for example, in Utah (statewide), Kansas 

(statewide), Missouri (pilot courts), Virginia (statewide), and Colorado (pilot family 

courts). A number of other state courts have worked with the state agencies in examining specific cases to prepare for the state’s Child and Family Services Review 

(CFRS). See sidebar. 

A recent Federal Program Instruction requires all state CIP projects to comprehensively reassess their progress in improving court performance in child protection cases since the earlier self-assessments in the late 1990s.[viii]

Improved information for parties. Many courts have taken concrete steps to 

make sure parties better understand the court process. For example, Illinois and 

Iowa have produced brief materials explaining the court process to parents in 

English and Spanish. California, Maine, New Mexico, and Tennessee, among others, 

have produced materials for children. Vermont, Georgia, Tennessee, Minnesota, Mississippi, and Montana have produced videotapes explaining the court process.

New Directions in Judicial Administration

Quality assurance. Quality assurance—regular and periodic evaluation of court 

proceedings—is essential for courts that want to consolidate and continue their improvement process. 

In Arizona, the state CIP project is going beyond occasional self-assessment to establish quality assurance. A team of individuals from the Administrative Office of 

the Courts regularly travels to various courts to review compliance with rules, 

timelines, and statutes. Other states, such as Virginia, use a combination of statistics on court performance and teams to help local courts interpret the numbers, 

evaluate their practices, and identify needed improvements. 

Improved workload analysis. Courts have increasingly recognized the need for 

improved workload analysis—to determine how many judges, how many attorneys, 

and the numbers and types of court staff needed to fulfill national standards and 

to improve performance. Procedures, calculations, and standards are needed to objectively determine workload needs, taking into consideration both in-court and outof-court time. Without objective and defensible standards for determining workload 

needs, it will be hard for courts to achieve excellence as described in the Resource 

Guidelines. 

Long-range vision for the courts. Courts need a clear picture (‘‘vision’’) concerning the long-term objectives and directions of court improvement. Because raising the court process to the level described in the Resource Guidelines is hard, there 

is a risk that such vision will fade. Courts can compromise their vision of the future 

by concluding desirable changes are not really ‘‘needed,’’ impractical, or politically 

too difficult to achieve. 

67

Minnesota courts are developing and implementing their vision of court improvement through their Children’s Justice Initiative. The Chief Justice has joined with 

the Commissioner of the Department of Human Services to set new goals in child 

welfare. To help accomplish this, the Chief Justice has designated a lead judge in 

28 counties, and in turn, each lead judge has developed a multidisciplinary team 

to identify needs and improvements. The Children’s Justice Initiative will be phased 

into all counties by 2005. 

One key to establishing a vision for the courts is making explicit long-term plans 

for change and closely linking CIP efforts to these plans. In Minnesota, each county 

‘‘Action Plan,’’ must follow a state template, which includes expectations regarding 

many practices set forth in the Resource Guidelines. Part of this planning also includes the uniform collection of data for each county, to be used in planning and 

evaluation. 

Such long-range planning stands in sharp contrast to the practice of simply using 

CIP funds to pay for discrete small projects that are not designed to grapple with 

fundamental flaws in the court process. For example, instead of establishing small 

local ‘‘add on’’ projects that do not challenge current weaknesses in the court process, a state CIP should focus on its highest priorities. 

The recent Federal Program Instruction requires all CIP projects to engage in 

comprehensive strategic planning.

Sidebar #2

Involvement of State CIP Projects in Child 

and Family Services Reviews (CFSRS)

• Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs) are comprehensive 

federal reviews of state performance in child welfare. • CFSRs are important to courts because: 

Æ CFSRs measure the performance of the State as a whole, including 

the courts and executive branch agencies. Æ CFSRs play a central role in federal and state efforts to reform 

state child abuse and neglect interventions and therefore will have 

a substantial impact on child abuse and neglect litigation. 

Æ In the 2002 reauthorization of CIP, Congress called upon the courts 

to participate in Program Improvement Plans (PIPs) developed 

through the state CFSR, as the courts ‘‘deem necessary.’’

Æ A recent Federal Program Instruction outlines how courts should 

consider CFSR findings in developing strategic plans. 

For more information about the role of courts in CFSRs see Hardin, Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs): How Judges, Court Administrators, and Attorneys Should Be Involved

(ABA 2002), online at http://www.abanet.org/child/rclji/cfsr1.pdf; reprinted in 5 Child 

CourtWorks, Issues 2, 3, and 4 (ABA, March, April, May 2002). Contact Yvonne Brunot, American Bar Association, 740 15th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005; telephone 202/662–1746; 

fax 202/662–1755; e-mail: brunoty@staff.abanet.org. 

Another key part of long-range CIP planning is participation in Federal-State 

Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs), which are comprehensive reviews of 

overall state performance in child welfare. CFSRs, which began in the last several 

years, are important to CIP for several reasons: (a) CFSRs measure the performance 

of the state as a whole, including the courts as well as executive branch agencies; 

(b) CFSRs will play a central role in reforming state child abuse and neglect interventions therefore will have an important influence on child abuse and neglect litigation; and (c) CIP legislation requires the courts to participate in Program Improvement Plans (PIPs) developed through the state CFSR. A number of CIP 

projects, such as Arkansas and Oregon, have played a significant role in their state’s 

CFSR. 

The recent Federal Program Instruction requires CIP projects to take CFSR findings into account in developing their own strategic plans. The Program Instruction 

also directs CIP projects to work toward CFSR outcomes related to children’s safety, 

permanency, and well being. Finally, the Program Instruction directs CIP projects 

to include in their own planning, court-related portions of the state’s PIP. 

When the economy inevitably improves, it will become possible in many states to 

secure resources for improving child protection litigation without taking away resources for other court proceedings. Achieving this will require both a strong vision 

for change and strong support from both inside and outside the judicial system. 

This, in turn, requires maintaining and strengthening partnerships with the child 

protection agency and the community. 

68

Improved technology. Courts can use new technology to redesign internal processes. This may include routinely developing data for performance measurement as 

discussed above and using computers to schedule and prepare court calendars, track 

cases, electronically file and transmit orders, and exchange data with other entities. 

To use automation more effectively, state CIP projects need to hire experts in the 

court process to determine the courts’ technology needs in child protection cases. 

Such experts need not be experts in technology, but must be given time to identify 

the court’s technology needs, learn basics about technology, and work closely with 

the court’s information technology experts. 

Cost effectiveness. Since CIP was enacted in 1993, very little has been done to 

focus on the cost effectiveness of various court reforms. Documenting cost effectiveness is a useful way to improve efficiency and argue for needed court funding. Areas 

that should be studied include:

• Efficient use of court staff. 

• How the organization of dockets affects the time and costs of attorneys and 

child protection agency staff. 

• Cost savings of alternative dispute resolution in child protection cases. 

• Costs savings for agencies resulting from court reforms that speed termination 

of parental rights and adoption.

Sidebar #3

More Information About Court Improvement Activities

While this article describes many impressive examples of state and local 

CIP activities, there are far more examples then there was space to 

mention. The following sources provide further information about state 

and local CIP activities, as well as materials produced by CIP projects: 

• Child CourtWorks. The National Child Welfare Resource Center on 

Legal and Judicial Issues (Resource Center) produces this free 

newsletter, which describes important new developments in court 

improvement. To subscribe, contact Lisa Waxler, 202/662–1743; fax 

202/662–1755; e-mail: waxlerl@staff.abanet.org. 

• Annual Court Improvement Progress Reports—an annual report 

summarizing state and national CIP activities over the previous year. 

Past reports are available in hard copy and future reports will be 

available both online and in hard copies. 

• Court Improvement Catalog. The Resource Center collects and 

summarizes materials produced by CIP projects that are of interest to 

other states. Summaries of these materials are available online, both 

by state and subject matter, at http://www.abanet.org/child/cipcatalog/

home.html. For many of the summarized materials, the catalog 

provides direct links, enabling the user to download them. For others, 

the catalog provides directions for ordering copies. 

• Court Improvement Website. The Resource Center maintains a Web 

page at http://www.abanet.org/child/rclji/home.html with online 

articles, federal laws and regulations, publications lists and ordering 

information, links, descriptions of services available from the Resource 

Center, and other information. There is a special Web page on court 

improvement, which has many online court improvement articles. Its 

Web address is http://www.abanet.org/child/courtimp.html. 

• Child-court Listserve Group. The Resource Center operates a large 

national listserv group named child-court, which exclusively discusses 

court improvement for child abuse and neglect litigation. While 

membership in this group is open, all messages are prescreened, so 

that only messages with substantive information regarding court 

improvement are sent to the group. To join child-court on line, go to 

http://www.abanet.org/child/discussion.html or e-mail Yvonne Brunot 

at brunoty@staff.abanet.org and ask to join. 

• Child-case Listserve Group. The Resource Center also operates a 

national listserv group named child-case, which, unlike child-court, 

discusses individual case situations and technical legal issues related 

to child abuse and neglect litigation. Membership in this group is 

open only to attorneys and judges. To join child-court on line, go to 

http://www.abanet.org/child/discussion.html or e-mail Yvonne Brunot 

at brunoty@staff.abanet.org and ask to join. 

69

• United States Children’s Bureau. The United States Children’s 

Bureau, which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, administers CIP. Among other things, the Web site includes 

information about CIP and CFSRs and the text of Federal regulations 

and written policies. The Children’s Bureau Web site address is

http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/programs/index.htm. 

CONCLUSION

What is Excellence?

Excellence in child protection cases is no mystery. Here are some obvious features:

1. Timeliness—courts promptly schedule hearings, complete them without delay, 

and make timely ultimate decisions in each case. 

2. Skilled and knowledgeable practitioners—imagine a patent tribunal where 

judges and attorneys knew little or nothing about patent law and basic engineering 

principles. 

3. Thoroughness—parties have the full opportunity to present their views, the 

court touches on all key issues, and the judge effectively communicates his or her 

decisions to the parties. 

4. Procedural fairness—all parties receive timely notice, all have competent representation, and courts apply fair rules of evidence. 

5. Fair treatment of parties—all receive courteous treatment, hearings occur when 

scheduled, parties receive understandable information about the court process, communication in court is clear, and there are decent facilities for courtrooms and waiting rooms.

Many courts have progressed in these areas through CIP efforts, yet there is still 

much to do. In fact, courts such as those in Cincinnati and Grand Rapids, Michigan 

have demonstrated excellence in many ways. Achieving state and national excellence will require close attention to infrastructure issues, sufficient resources, and 

strong support from within and outside the court system. 

An Overview Of Judicial Advances to Achieve Excellence 

The following is a short list of key judicial advances to achieve excellence in child 

protection litigation:

• Quality assurance through periodic automated and qualitative performance 

measurement. • Demonstration programs that receive enough funds to show results and be scientifically evaluated. • Workable workload calculations and standards for judges and attorneys. • Job and task descriptions for court staff accompanied by workload standards 

and calculations. • Long-range planning to achieve excellence. • Systematic approaches to achieve excellence in legal representation. • Improved cost-effectiveness analysis of court improvement. • Increased specialization and stability of judges, who are selected in large part 

based on their skills and knowledge related to child protection litigation.

Every one of these reforms is practical. Abused and neglected children deserve all 

final witness is Jennifer Miller, Senior Associate, Cornerstone Conof them and more.

Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Hardin. Our 

f sulting Group, Houston, Texas. Ms. Miller. 

STATEMENT OF JENNIFER MILLER, CORNERSTONE 

CONSULTING GROUP, HOUSTON, TEXAS 

Ms. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the 

Subcommittee. We welcome this opportunity to testify on the Adoption Incentive Program and to share findings from ‘‘A Carrot 

Among the Sticks,’’ a survey that we conducted in 2001. This afternoon I will summarize the results of our survey and conclude with 

some recommendations about future incentive programs. 

70

In 2000, Cornerstone Consulting Group received funding from 

the David and Lucille Packard Foundation to study States’ experiences with the adoption incentive bonus. We conducted phone 

interviews with 50 States and the District of Columbia. 

The two questions we asked that are likely to be of most interest 

to this Committee are, first, did States do anything differently to 

respond to the incentive, and second, how did States reinvest the 

bonus dollars they received? 

To address the first question, States reported they did not 

change adoption practices to respond to the adoptions incentive 

program. The program was authorized during a period when States 

were already changing their adoption systems to reduce the number of children in foster care. The bonus provided an extra incentive to keep moving in the right direction, but in no case were improvements in the adoption process motivated solely by the existence of the bonus. 

States, however, did report two very important side effects of the 

availability of the bonus on their systems. First, it stimulated improved data systems to ensure accuracy about the number of children adopted, and second, it fostered better collaboration with the 

courts to ensure timely and accurate transfer of information about 

finalized adoptions. 

We also asked States how they reinvested their bonus dollars. 

When the incentive program was first authorized, some feared that 

States would not reinvest bonus dollars into adoption services and 

that funds would be used for staff and other general child welfare 

activities, with little accountability. Our survey found, on the contrary, bonus dollars were invested directly back into the adoption 

system. 

Post-adoption services and recruitment of adoptive families were 

a high priority for many States. Several States invested their funds 

into activities to move existing cases through the system more 

quickly. Examples of such activities include training, contracting 

with providers to conduct home studies, providing additional legal 

services, and conducting adoption awareness campaigns. 

What was the general outlook among those we interviewed toward the adoption incentive program? In general, child welfare officials we interviewed were very positive about the adoption incentive program. They believe it brought needed attention, energy and 

excitement to the adoption arena. 

As the title of our survey suggests, the child welfare system is 

one with a long history of threatened sanctions from the Federal 

government, as well as extensive reporting in the media about failures of the system. Rewards for success have helped create a more 

positive environment for workers, supervisors, and administrators. 

On the other hand, the following concerns were raised in our 

interviews, as well as in subsequent discussions about the current 

proposal for reauthorization. These should be considered as part of 

any future decisions about this program. 

First, the bonus should reward other forms of permanency. Our 

respondents said that the bonus places value on adoption above all 

other forms of permanency, even when adoption may not be the 

most appropriate option for some families. Agencies should be reVerDate jul 14 2003 01:16 Dec 06, 2003 Jkt 090545 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A545A.XXX A545A
71

warded for all permanency options they thought, not just permanency for adoption. 

Second, fundamental restructuring of child welfare financing is 

needed. The bonus does not change the fundamental structure of 

child welfare financing, and in the future States will not be able 

to maintain the same level of momentum toward permanency without access to more flexible resources and new investments for a 

wide range of child welfare services. We are pleased that the President’s budget proposes to address this concern and look forward to 

more specifics about this proposal. 

Third, many State adoption increases are leveling off. Many have 

expressed concern that States will find it increasingly difficult to 

surpass a previous year’s baseline number as the increase in adoptions begins to level off. For instance, in fiscal year 1998, the first 

year for which the bonus was available, States earned $42.5 million. By contrast, in 2001, they only earned $17.5 million in bonus 

funds. With the new proposal for incentives to adopt older youth, 

however, States may have a new opportunity to surpass their baselines, particularly if adoption of older youth has not been a major 

priority in the past. 

Fourth, incentives should support practice to remove barriers to 

permanency. Some have suggested that States should be rewarded 

for improving the process by which children achieve permanency. 

Suggestions included rewarding States for improved court procedures and reducing the length of time to termination of parental 

rights. 

Finally, bonus funds should be reinvested into the child welfare 

system. Our survey found that in the States there was little public 

input into decisions about how to reinvest bonus funds. In the future, the adoption incentive program should provide measures to 

continue to hold States accountable for reinvestment of bonus 

funds into a wide array of services to promote all forms of permanency for abused and neglected children. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Miller follows:]

Statement of Jennifer Miller, Cornerstone Consulting Group, Houston, 

Texas 

Cornerstone Consulting Group welcomes the opportunity to testify on the Adoption Incentive Program and to share findings from ‘‘A Carrot Among the Sticks,’’ a 

survey we conducted in 2001. Cornerstone is a consulting firm focusing on health 

and human services solutions, organizational development and community revitalization. In the area of child welfare, Cornerstone has conducted several studies exploring aspects of child welfare policy and practice and has also provided technical 

assistance to state and county agencies on a variety of child welfare issues. 

Our survey on the Adoption Incentive Program summarizes states’ experiences 

with implementation and reports on how states reinvested their incentive funds. 

Through our interviews with each state child welfare agency, we learned that the 

adoption incentive provides states with a stimulus to continue promoting permanency through adoption for children in foster care. The incentive is reinforcing the 

priority of finding a permanent home for children in a timely way and is providing 

needed funds to shore up the infrastructure of state adoption programs. 

We are pleased that the President’s budget proposes to continue the Adoption Incentive Program and that it creates a new incentive to promote adoption of older 

youth. Recent analyses of data from the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) have demonstrated that the population of children waitVerDate jul 14 2003 01:16 Dec 06, 2003 Jkt 090545 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A545A.XXX A545A
72

1Maza, Penelope. ‘‘Who is Adopting Older Children?.’’ The Roundtable of the National Resource Center on Special Needs Adoption, Volume 16, Number 2, 2002. 2Maza, Penelope. ‘‘The Age Factor in Adoption.’’ The Roundtable of the National Resource 

Center on Special Needs Adoption, Volume 16, Number 1, 2001. 

ing for adoption became older between fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 2000.1 Researchers estimate that at 8 or 9 years of age, the probability that a child will stay 

in foster care becomes higher than the probability that they will be adopted.2 Many 

states have been working hard to recruit adoptive homes for older youth, and the 

newly proposed incentive program provides them with an opportunity to reinforce 

this priority. 

The Adoption Incentive Program has worked well to reinforce the priorities of the 

Adoption and Safe Families Act. As we state in a summary of findings from our report, however, it is only one piece of a much larger effort to promote permanency 

for children. Incentives might also be available to promote other forms of permanency for children, including reunification and guardianship. In addition, in order 

to make sustained change in the child welfare system, we must fundamentally 

change the ways services to children and families are funded by providing more 

flexibility to state and local agencies and making new investments in a wide array 

of child welfare services, including prevention, early intervention, foster care, and 

post permanency activities. 

Background and Methodology for the Survey

The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), adopted by Congress in 1997, placed 

renewed emphasis on the safety of children in child welfare systems by requiring 

states to make more timely determinations about permanent arrangements for children in state custody. The overriding message of ASFA was that foster care is not 

the best place for children to grow up and states must make more determined efforts to find permanent homes for children who cannot be returned to their biological families. 

One of the most novel provisions in AFSA was the Adoption Incentive Program, 

which encourages states to find adoptive homes for children who are legally eligible 

for adoption by granting a financial incentive for each foster child the state places 

in adoption above a baseline number. Congress authorized a bonus payment of 

$4,000 for each foster child adoption and $6,000 for each special needs adoption 

above the baseline. The Department of Health and Human Services calculated the 

baseline by averaging each state’s number of finalized adoptions of children in foster 

care for 1995, 1996, and 1997. 

Between 1997 and 2001, adoptions increased substantially; to date, every state in 

the country received a bonus for at least one of the years in which the incentive 

was offered. Total bonus amounts were $42.5 million for 35 states in FY 98, $51 

million for 43 states in FY 99, $11 million for 35 states in 2000, and $17.5 million 

for 23 states in 2001. 

In 2000, the Cornerstone Consulting Group received funding from the David and 

Lucile Packard Foundation to study states’ experiences with the Adoption Incentive 

Bonus. We conducted telephone interviews with 50 states and the District of Columbia. In some states we spoke with directors of child welfare, while in others we 

spoke with adoption specialists. It is important to note that this survey covered bonuses for fiscal years 1998 and 1999. Since then, two additional years of bonuses 

have been distributed to the states. 

Among the questions we investigated were the following: Did states do anything 

differently to respond to the incentive? How did states reinvest the bonus dollars 

they received and how did they make reinvestment decisions? Is the Adoption Incentive Program a powerful enough incentive to move policy and practice in a different 

direction? Is it a wise use of federal resources? Are there other incentives Congress 

might consider to promote permanency for children in foster care? 

Our inquiry was limited in several respects. Time constraints prevented us from 

developing a complete view of how the states’ efforts to enhance adoption fit into 

the context of the whole child welfare system. We also relied on self-reported answers without independent verification. Our sources varied somewhat from state to 

state, including staff from different levels of the state organizations, and responses 

may have varied with the source. Finally, we spoke only to staff at the state level 

and did not gain perspectives from those at the local level. 

Despite these limitations, we believe that we gained an accurate picture of the 

states’ experiences with the adoption bonus and some useful suggestions for the use 

of bonuses to promote adoption and other permanency options. 

73

Findings

States were already significantly enhancing efforts to promote adoption.

In general, states reported that they did not change adoption practices to respond 

to the Adoption Incentive Program. The program was authorized during a period 

when states were already changing their adoption systems to respond to internal 

and external pressures, such as the enactment of state and federal legislation, litigation, the financial burdens of foster care, and public dissatisfaction with the status of children in foster care. The bonus provided an extra incentive to keep moving 

in the same direction, but in no case were improvements in the adoption process 

motivated solely by the existence of the bonus. 

States did report two important side effects of the availability of the bonus on 

their systems: first, it stimulated improved data systems to ensure accuracy about 

the number of children adopted. Second, it fostered better collaboration with the 

courts to ensure timely and accurate transfer of information about finalized adoptions.

States reinvested bonus funds into activities to strengthen the adoption 

system.

When the incentive program was first authorized, some feared that states would 

not reinvest bonus dollars into adoption services and that funds would be used for 

general child welfare activities with little accountability. Our survey found that on 

the contrary, bonus dollars were invested directly back into the adoption system. 

Post adoption services and recruitment of adoptive families were a high priority for 

many states. Several states invested their funds into activities to move existing 

cases through the system, or reduce the backlog of waiting children. Specifically, 

states made investments in the following:

• Post adoption services (n=16) • Recruitment of adoptive families (n=11) • Distribution to county child welfare services, in some cases based on performance (n=11) • Training for adoption staff, mental health providers, etc. (n=9) • Contract enhancements for case management, recruitment, home studies, etc. 

(n=7) • Adoption awareness (n=6) • Legal services to expedite adoption (n=5) • Subsidy increases (n=4) • General child welfare services (n=3) • Staff (n=2)

Although the amount of the bonus funds was small in relation to total child welfare budgets, states made strategic decisions about how to use the money to fill gaps 

and to continue building the infrastructure of their adoption systems. Usually, these 

decisions were made as part of the executive budget process at the state agency 

level. Some states contacted local departments to help them identify critical needs, 

while others consulted with private contractors. A handful of states used reinvestment funds to respond to needs identified by existing committees or task forces. No 

state had a process that included families or the general public in deciding how incentive funds would be used. 

Because the bonus received by most states was relatively small, few states experienced resistance to using funds in very flexible and innovative ways. Some states 

argued that if the bonuses had been larger, they might have had more trouble keeping the funds in their departments to fill critical gaps.

States found the adoption bonus a useful strategy with limitations.

Many respondents felt strongly that, while the adoption bonus is a useful strategy 

to create incentives toward adoption in the short run, many other areas must be 

addressed to promote permanency in the long run. Several states responded that 

they would like to see an incentive for achieving permanency in general, including 

reunification, guardianship, and adoption. Respondents most commonly mentioned 

incentives for preventing foster care placement and for shortening the length of time 

children stay in the system as potential ways to improve permanency goals. 

Respondents indicated several other areas where incentives or increased funding 

might be appropriate, including:

• Improved court processes 

• Adoption within one year of Termination of Parental Rights 

74

• Fewer adoption dissolutions and disruptions 

• Adoption Tax Credit 

• Funding for post adoption services 

• Funding for more preventive services 

• Research, particularly in the area of adolescent issues 

• More discretionary funding to promote better practice

In general, the child welfare officials we interviewed were positive about the 

Adoption Incentive Program. They believed it brought needed attention, energy, and 

excitement to the adoption arena. In a system with a long history of threatened 

sanctions from the federal government, rewards for good behavior have helped create a more positive environment for workers, supervisors, and administrators. Further, the bonus created a data collection system that allows states to measure their 

progress toward increasing the number of adoptions and to compare their progress 

with that of other states. 

On the other hand, many noted a concern about rewarding states for increased 

numbers rather than better outcomes, although few feared that agencies would 

make the wrong decisions in individual cases in a quest for bonus funds. Further, 

states that began successfully increasing adoptions in the mid-1990s, before the 

baselines were calculated, did not realize the same level of award as states that 

began reforms later. These state officials would like to have flexible resources to 

continue making improvements in their child welfare and adoption systems. Finally, 

perhaps the greatest criticism of the bonus is that it does nothing to change the 

largest impediment to child welfare reform: the structure of federal funding for child 

welfare. 

Implications and Conclusions 

The adoption incentive bonus is a creative federal strategy to boost attention and 

resources to the adoption system. It has allowed state agencies to invest a modest 

amount of additional resources in areas of greatest need without creating new funding sources. 

Yet, the following concerns were raised in our interviews, as well as in subsequent 

discussions about the current proposal for reauthorization. These should be considered as part of any future decisions about this program.

The bonus should reward other forms of permanency.

First, the bonus places value on adoption above all other forms of permanency, 

even when adoption may not be the most appropriate option for some families. 

Agencies should be rewarded for finding safe and stable homes for children, not only 

for placing children with adoptive families. Rewards for all permanency outcomes, 

including reunification, guardianship and adoption, are appropriate.

Fundamental restructuring of child welfare financing is needed.

Second, the bonus does not change the fundamental structure of child welfare financing, which is a high priority for many concerned about abused and neglected 

children. In the future, states will not be able to maintain the same level of momentum toward permanency without access to more permanent and flexible sources of 

funding, as well as new investments, to support all forms of permanency, including 

family preservation, reunification, guardianship, kinship care arrangements, and 

adoption. This includes making more resources available to help achieve good adoption outcomes through post adoption services and supports. 

It is critical that any financing reform ensures more flexibility and new investments in the financing system, while also ensuring safety and permanency for all 

children who must be placed in foster care. We are pleased that the President’s 

budget proposes to address this concern and look forward to more specifics about 

this proposal. We also look forward to the work of the independent and bi-partisan 

Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care.

Many state adoption increases are leveling off.

Third, many have expressed concern that states will find it increasingly difficult 

to surpass a previous year’s baseline numbers as the increase in adoptions begins 

to level off. Many states have already made great strides in reducing the backlogs 

in their systems and are not seeing the level of increase that they saw in previous 

years. For instance, in FY ’98, the first year for which the bonus was available, 

states earned $42.5 million. By 2001, states only earned $17.5 million in bonus 

75

funds. In the long term, the questions of how to sustain investments made with 

bonus dollars and how to sustain adoption reforms generally will be of concern.

Incentives should support practices to remove barriers to permanency.

Fourth, the bonus places emphasis on increased adoption numbers, with little attention to improved outcomes for children in foster care or improving the process 

by which children achieve permanency. Some have suggested that states be rewarded, for instance, for improved court procedures, reducing the length of time to 

termination of parental rights, completing timely home studies, reducing adoption 

disruptions and dissolutions, and recruiting eligible adoptive homes. Identifying best 

practices in adoption and supporting more research to understand which policies 

and practices promote good adoption outcomes would also increase the value of the 

bonus. This will be particularly true with the incentive to achieve adoptions for 

older youth. More focus on what works to recruit adoptive homes for older youth 

and to achieve more timely permanency for older youth is critical.

Bonus funds should be reinvested into the child welfare system.

Perhaps the most critical issue is how to ensure that states continue to reinvest 

bonus dollars in the child welfare system. With the national and state economies 

lagging, it will be more difficult to keep these dollars in the child welfare system 

in general, and the adoption system in particular. And with very little public input 

into how these dollars are invested, there will be little accountability for decisions 

on spending the resources. In the future, the Adoption Incentive Program should 

provide measures to continue to hold states accountable for reinvestment of bonus 

funds into an array of services to keep children out of foster care, support them once 

in foster care, and provide post permanency supports once they have achieved permanency through reunification, adoption or guardianship. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on this program; we look forward 

to continuing dialogue about how to best achieve safety, permanency and well-being 

for our Nation’s most vulnerable children.

turn to questions. Ms. Arnold-Williams, in your testimony you 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Ms. Miller. Now to 

f highlighted that your State has a 12-month limit on reunification 

efforts for families. This is shorter than the requirement implemented by the ASFA that requires States to initiate termination of 

parental rights for children who have been in care for 15 of the 

past 22 months. There has been testimony presented today that 

points to this 15 of 22 provision as problematic because it does not 

require enough time to address all the issues a family might have. 

What has been Utah’s experience with this shorter timeframe? 

How would you respond to this criticism? 

Ms. ARNOLD-WILLIAMS. It is a great question. We actually 

had the 12-month limit prior to ASFA. We initiated major child 

welfare reform in 1994 in our State with the State overhaul of our 

legislation. So, the 12 months predated that. We actually have 6 

months for small children, with the option to renew, and I stress 

on that, there is the option for the judge to extend that if in fact 

the parents are making substantial progress on their treatment 

plan. So, that is one way that we deal with that, is—I think as was 

said earlier—it is a clear message from the judge from day one that 

you are expected to be at work on your plan now. So, we have not 

experienced difficulty with that, because there is that provision to 

extend if we are making progress. 

I would relate that the hardest issue on that is around substance 

abuse, as was mentioned earlier today. So, it has also taken, on the 

part of my Substance Abuse Division, concerted efforts. We had 

76

created dependency drug courts that provide intensive, quick treatment and follow-up that tie in with that, as well as additional residential treatment options, where moms can bring their children 

with them and engage in intensive treatment, residential treatment, along with employment opportunities and those types of 

things. 

So, you have to back it up with strong services. If you shorten 

that timeframe, it can’t be the State’s responsibility that the family 

is not following through with their treatment plan because things 

are not available. So, that is how we have addressed it. 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much. Now I turn to the 

Ranking Member, the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cardin, to inquire. 

Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Utah as well as all the 

States have opportunities for waivers or exceptions to the time limits when the interests of the child so determine. So, I think that 

is important. 

Let me thank all of you for your testimony. I thought this was 

a very impressive panel. Mr. Cathy, I want to thank you for setting 

a national example of how one person can make a difference in the 

lives of so many children. So, thank you very much. Ms. Schagrin, 

I also want to thank you for not only devoting your life to this 

issue, but also as a parent. Thank you for doing that. 

I think there is general consensus here that the States need 

flexibility and they need resources in order to deal with this issue, 

and that we can improve upon our current program. I think there 

is agreement there. Let me just caution, if I might, though, that 

in our haste to get the flexibility that you might want at the State 

level, that if we move toward block granting, there are going to be 

problems, there is going to be—just talking from a pragmatic point 

of view. I think most of you have agreed that the adoption bonus 

has been helpful. It hasn’t been the sole reason for the increases 

in the numbers of adoptions, but it has been a useful means to access additional resources to accomplish a mutual objective. 

We have problems in child welfare with addiction. I am afraid 

that unless the Federal Government makes that a priority, with 

some funding flow toward that, we are not going to make progress 

in that area. I think Mrs. Johnson was right to underscore that 

issue—80 percent, I think she mentioned. We have problems with 

the qualifications and training of caseworkers. We know that. Yes, 

the States are addressing that issue, but if the Federal Government provides an incentive, we will move a little bit faster and 

more children will be served. 

So, yes, we need to make sure that we provide flexibility to our 

States, and a better job than we are doing currently. We also need 

to make sure that the Federal Government speaks to the priorities 

that are needed and allows the States to develop the models that 

will accomplish that. Therefore, I would just urge us to be very 

cautious on recommendations that I think can move us in the opportunity direction, because if you move toward block grants, that 

is usually the first step toward the reduction of Federal support, 

which I think could become a problem for us. 

So, I would welcome any—if you want to comment on that, fine. 

I see everybody shaking their head. Unfortunately, the record 

77

doesn’t pick that up. Let me point out that every witness agreed 

with everything I just said. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman HERGER. Does shaking mean you disagree? 

Mr. CARDIN. Representative Heaton. 

Mr. HEATON. Yes. I am an Appropriations Chair. When I make 

my appropriations, I like to know where my money is going, and 

I like to know that they are making good use of it. Once in a while, 

I am tempted to micro-manage just a little bit, but for the most 

part, I know that if I give them the flexibility, and I have my outcomes, I can get what I want. Flexibility is the key. Too many 

times things are—the appropriations are categorical and we can’t 

bundle things. We don’t get the flexibility to address specific issues. 

So, I am asking—I approach the block grant with some caution, 

but if you give us the flexibility—tell us the outcomes that you 

want, hold our feet to the fire, and if we don’t get to those outcomes, there should be some strong interest from Congress in why 

we didn’t get there. We ought to be ready to explain why we didn’t, 

and we ought to have some reason how we can get to where you 

want us. 

Mr. CARDIN. I approach it a little bit differently. I think maybe 

I come to the same conclusion. I think that Congress needs to establish expectations and we need to provide the resources so that 

you can accomplish it, and give you the flexibility to meet the 

needs of your particular State in accomplishing them. I think the 

adoption bonus was a good example. We wanted to achieve a certain result, and there was money on the table in order to do it, so 

there was an incentive. 

Mr. HEATON. Just to continue, that is why we are taking a look 

at approaching our child welfare system in maybe a different way 

than we have in the past. We want to purchase results. We look 

at our providers and say, if you deliver and provide us the result, 

we will pay you a bonus. If you fail, we will punish you. 

Mr. CARDIN. Yes. Ms. Ashby, I think, wanted to make a quick 

comment. I know my time is about expended. 

Ms. ASHBY. Yes, just a brief comment. I am in agreement with 

the other two comments on what you said. Of course, in order to 

have outcomes, in order to hold feet to the fire, as was said, you 

have to have data. That, of course, was our bottom line, that you 

have to do evaluations, you have to have data reported, and so 

forth. If you don’t have that, you don’t have outcomes. 

Mr. CARDIN. Thank you. 

Chairman HERGER. You’re welcome. Ms. Ashby, I have a question for the GAO. The ASFA included provisions intended to facilitate interjurisdictional adoptions. However, your testimony highlights a number of significant barriers that remain to facilitating 

the adoption of children across State lines. In a recent report you 

completed in 1999, as required by ASFA, you recommended that 

HHS should do more to help States facilitate these adoptions. It 

seems that barriers still remain if you are highlighting this problem again in your 2002 report. What did you recommend, and do 

you still think these steps are necessary to help States? 

Ms. ASHBY. Yes. Basically, we recommended in our 1999 report 

that HHS provide an action plan to help States coordinate with one 

78

another, or to help child welfare within the States coordinate with 

each other and come to agreements and common systems for interjurisdictional placements. 

Now, one of the major problems that we saw back then and we 

still see, or saw in our most recent work, had to do with the home 

studies. Those have not been standardized. Although there is an 

Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children that has actually 

been adopted by each State, it is a uniform law in each State, and 

it has formalized the process in terms of interjurisdictional adoptions, but within that process, it is very complex. 

There are a number of places where documents and forms are reviewed, and home studies—there are different requirements in different States. There are home studies in each State, but they don’t 

have the same requirements. So, you have one or more persons in 

the State requesting a home study in another State, mandating 

what needs to be done and reviewing what comes back. You have 

reviewers in the home State during the home study. Depending on 

at what point a home study is done, and sometimes has to be 

redone—if, for example, in another State you’re simply looking for 

a family that is willing to adopt, but you don’t have a specific child 

in mind, a home study is done. That home study might have to be 

updated or redone once a specific child is available for adoption. If 

there is a period of time before that child becomes available, perhaps the home study has to be updated every 6 months or every 

year, depending on the particular State’s rules. 

So, our recommendation was that HHS—although HHS does not 

have direct control of what goes on in the States—HHS could formulate an action plan that would be a guide for States to, among 

themselves, come up with more uniformity, more collaboration. 

Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Ms. Ashby. Now I 

turn to the gentleman from Washington, Mr. McDermott, to inquire. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I listen to you, 

having come up here as an NCSL witness a couple of times in the 

past, and all of you, I think to myself, we are talking here about 

a $43 million program, right? That is what this is, this incentive 

for adoptions? This is—that is a rounding error up in this part of 

the world. 

What isn’t a rounding error is the cut in the Community Development Block Grant, when we promised you $2.8 billion and you 

now get, what, $1.7 billion? You both—at least Representative 

Heaton and Ms. Arnold-Williams, you mentioned it. How—are you 

just too polite to rail? You are talking about $43 million here, but 

that is $1.1 billion that was taken out of the system. Never mind 

what inflation is. 

The States are in—if your States are anywhere near what Washington State is at the moment, you are in a big hole. 

Ms. ARNOLD-WILLIAMS. Maybe if I could respond first on that. 

I mentioned the large increase in State general funds in my child 

welfare budget. Much of that was to make up the loss of SSBG 

money. Our legislature in the good years was able to do that. We 

are a State that spends the vast majority of our SSBG on child welfare. I spend it primarily on that, senior services, and disabilities. 

79

So, those reductions in SSBG did hit us very hard in child welfare. 

Now, if those were to continue to happen——

Mr. MCDERMOTT. The State made it up? 

Ms. ARNOLD-WILLIAMS. Our State made it up in child welfare, 

not in the other service areas, in terms of that. Then the other 

thing, and I think it is interesting with the SSBG report due to 

come out now, and we saw an early release of that, we transfer 

temporary assistance for needy families (TANF) money. We transfer TANF into SSBG in our State, and we are in a position where 

we are still able to do that to make up that difference. I spend the 

majority of that transferred TANF dollars in my child welfare division. 

So, that is how we have pieced it together. It is contingent on 

having the TANF money to transfer—which is less and less available now, as TANF caseloads are going up——

Mr. MCDERMOTT. The TANF—are going up? 

Ms. ARNOLD-WILLIAMS. Yes. Right. Which means my TANF 

agency needs the money for TANF benefits, and may not have the 

same option to transfer as much into SSBG. So, we do support restoring SSBG. It is a critical—it is one of the most flexible funds 

we have in order to meet and fill in the gaps that we can’t fund 

with Title IV–E and some of those other funding sources. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. How do you do it in Iowa? 

Mr. HEATON. Well, we came up short $5.7 million in child welfare, and we had to do a supplemental. We used some one-time 

moneys, found some one-time moneys, and——

Mr. MCDERMOTT. What was the one-time money that you 

used? 

Mr. HEATON. We used it from a senior living trust fund. Moved 

it from senior living trust to pay for Medicaid, which displaced general fund dollars, and moved the general fund dollars to child welfare. Yes, 1996, a deal was made that SSBG was supposed to be 

$2.8 billion, and we haven’t seen it. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. How does your delegation from Congress explain to you why they did that to you? 

Mr. HEATON. Well, I tell you, Congressman, to be quite honest, 

I’ve never got up on my box and railed. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Well, I suggest you call Mr. Nussle and ask 

him what he’s up to. 

Mr. HEATON. I’ll do that. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. This whole issue, as I listen to you—I started, when I was in the State legislature back in 1971, started the 

Adoption Subsidy program, which has been going for a long time 

in the State of Washington. I am interested to hear your impressions of whether those adoption subsidy programs really work. Do 

they? 

Ms. SCHAGRIN. Yes. 

Mr. HEATON. Yes, they do. 

Ms. SCHAGRIN. Absolutely. They——

Mr. MCDERMOTT. What does Maryland do in terms of adopt—

if I find a kid who is physically handicapped or mentally limited 

in one way or another, or a mixed-racial child, or whatever—whatever one of those categories of hard-to-adopt kids are? 

80

Ms. SCHAGRIN. Maryland has both the State and of course the 

Federal Subsidized Adoption program, and so families are offered 

a subsidy up to the amount of the foster care grant in order to 

eliminate the obstacles to adoption. So, finances never needs to be 

an obstacle. We are theoretically negotiating the amount of that 

subsidy based on what that child’s needs are. The definition of special needs is very broad. So, it basically includes all children in 

care, but it means that a child who is in a stable, loving, foster 

home, there will be no reduction in the support for that child. 

There is an issue in terms of the Title IV–E adoption subsidy. 

When children are returned to the foster care system, we have to 

keep giving them that subsidy. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. To the parents? 

Ms. SCHAGRIN. Yes. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Why? 

Ms. SCHAGRIN. I would love to know the answer to that. Unless 

the rights have been terminated, our direction has been that it 

needs to continue. What we are starting to do is our court will 

order child support in the amount of the subsidy, but according to 

regulations we have recently been given, we can’t stop the subsidy 

once the child returns. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. You are shaking your head down there at 

the law. 

Mr. HARDIN. Well, I think perhaps that it would be good to 

check with the director of policy at the Children’s Bureau about 

that. 

Ms. SCHAGRIN. I recently—okay, I will do that. We were very 

clearly—and I have read the Title IV–E guidelines carefully. 

Mr. HARDIN. That is my recommendation. Talk to the director 

of policy for the Children’s Bureau. 

Chairman HERGER. The time has expired. I thank each of you. 

Just to correct the record, we have a very recent study that has 

come out by the Center for Law and Social Policy in which they 

stated that ‘‘The national caseload has fallen 3 percent since the 

start of the recession.’’

With that, let me conclude with a question, if I could, to Ms. Miller. Since 1997, States have received $145 million in adoption incentive payments because of their success in moving children into 

adoptive homes. Can you expand for us, please, on the findings of 

your report, and detail how the States have reinvested these funds 

in their child welfare systems? What further steps should we consider during reauthorization of this successful program to ensure 

that States continue to receive these funds and reinvest these 

funds into their programs? 

Ms. MILLER. Sure. First, on the reinvestment question, I think 

there a number of things that States did to reinvest back into the 

adoption system. Let me say that how much a State received—it 

varies tremendously as to how much a State received, depending 

upon the extent to which they exceeded their baseline. So, depending upon how much they received, they made very strategic decisions about what they could invest in. Those States that didn’t receive as much money, for instance, really invested in one-time activities, things that would really—hiring additional legal expertise 

to help move the backlog in the system, very specific, targeted reVerDate jul 14 2003 01:16 Dec 06, 2003 Jkt 090545 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A545A.XXX A545A
81

cruitment campaigns to find adoptive families. A number of States 

have used technology very strategically in the past to find adoptive 

homes for waiting children. 

So, most of it was reinvested back specifically into the adoption 

system. I think it has been a system that there has not been a lot 

of attention paid to what really works in adoption. I think there 

has been a great deal of momentum in part because of the bonus 

dollars that they’ve had to reinvest and, really, sharing among the 

States about what works to help find adoptive homes for waiting 

children. So, as far as reinvestment is concerned, States made decisions to reinvest for the most part back into the adoption system. 

As far as your other question is concerned about what considerations should be made in terms of future incentive programs, one 

of the things that a lot of people have said is that adoption is one 

form of permanency, but it is not the only form of permanency. 

There are many people who would like to see incentives for both 

reunification as well as for guardianship. A number of States have 

increased their efforts to be able to place children into legal guardianship homes. This is going to be an increasing concern, I think, 

as we try to reduce the backlog of older waiting children, in particular those children 9 and over. Many youth in particular don’t 

want to be adopted. Even though many people feel that that is the 

best form of permanency. They have a tie to their biological family, 

there are cultural reasons that they don’t want to be adopted, and 

so guardianship really provides another form of permanency for 

them. 

In addition, I think we want to pay very close attention to the 

baseline issue. A number of States, when the baseline was first established, felt that they were being compared to years in which 

they had already done quite a bit to ensure that they were moving 

children from foster care. So, they felt that they were being compared to years in which they had already had a great deal of success, so that the comparison beginning in 1997 to the previous 

years was not as fruitful for them as it had been for other States. 

So, I think we want to pay close attention, particularly with this 

new proposal, as to how that baseline is formed. 

Chairman HERGER. Well, thank you very much. I want to 

thank each of you for your outstanding testimony. This has given 

us many ideas as we consider the next steps to improve the child 

welfare system, including reauthorization of the Adoption Incentives program. I look forward to working with each of you, all of 

you in this process. 

With that, this hearing stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the record follow:]

Statement of Child Welfare League of America

The Child Welfare League of America welcomes this opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of more than 1,100 public and private nonprofit child-serving agencies nationwide on the implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act 

(ASFA) (P.L. 105–89) and the use of adoption incentive payments. This hearing represents an important opportunity to review the impact of the law and to take a look 

at what still needs to be done to ensure that all children in this country grow up 

in safe, nurturing families. 

82

1 U.S. Children’s Bureau. (2002). Trends in Foster Care and Adoption as of 11/01/02. Available online at www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/afcars.htm. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services. 2 Ibid. 

3 Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. (2001). Assessing the context of permanency 

and reunification in the foster care system. Washington, DC: U.S.D.H.H.S. 4 Ibid. 

5 Ibid. 

6There were 556,000 children in foster care on 9/30/00. The AFCARS Report: Interim FY 2000 

estimates as of August 2002. Available online at www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/

afcars/report7.htm. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services. 7There were 2,796,000 children referred for possible child abuse and neglect in 2000. Administration on Children, Youth, and Families. (2002). Child maltreatment 2000. Available online at 

www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm00/outcover.htm. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 

POSITIVE OUTCOMES AND DEVELOPMENTS SINCE ASFA

The primary goal of ASFA was to ensure safety and expedite permanency for children in the child welfare system. This goal has been achieved in part. Although the 

entries in care appear to be static, the number of children in foster care has dropped 

slightly, as have the number of children waiting for adoption.1 The most positive 

outcome appears to be the increase in the number of legalized adoptions. The annual number of adoptions increased by 57% since ASFA, from 37,000 in 1998 to 

50,000 in 2001.2 These numbers are much larger than projected, however, the role 

ASFA played in the increase is unclear because some states had already begun renewed adoption efforts prior to ASFA. 

There are other important developments related to ASFA. States have taken the 

ASFA timeframes seriously. They have enacted new legislation and promulgated 

regulations to expedite permanency, consistent with ASFA. Jurisdictions are holding 

permanency hearings sooner, often practicing some type of concurrent planning, and 

establishing a more expedited track for filing petitions to terminate parental rights 

when reunification is not possible or appropriate. The length of time before deciding 

on a permanency plan has been reduced. States are looking for tools to assist in expediting permanency, including concurrent planning, guardianship, and kinship 

support.3

In addition to the permanency option of adoption, there appears to be a broadening of the traditional notion of permanency in some states and localities. This includes states increasingly turning to relatives as a permanency option and making 

relatives a part of the permanency process. States report an increase in the use of 

temporary and permanent relative placements over the past few years. There are 

a number of new state initiatives in the areas of guardianship and kinship support. 

Some states are working to relieve relative burdens by using mediation and financial support to address relatives’ needs, including guardianship programs and kinship assistance (subsidized and unsubsidized).4

Additional practice improvements have been noted in some jurisdictions. There is 

an increased use of family-based approaches and interventions including family 

group conferencing, family mediation, and Family-to-Family and other neighborhood 

foster care approaches. These approaches stress non-adversarial, collaborative efforts to achieve permanency for children. Similarly, there is greater use of voluntary 

relinquishment and open adoption, especially in conjunction with concurrent planning and foster parent adoption. 

Finally, to achieve timely permanency for children, in many jurisdictions, there 

has been an increased and continuing focus on collaboration between public and private agencies and across systems to improve permanency for children.5

AREAS WHERE IMPROVEMENT IS NEEDED

While ASFA has had some impact on increasing the number of adoptions from 

the foster care system, and possibly reducing the number of children in foster care, 

it is clear that more needs to be done. While there has been a decrease in number of children in foster care in the last year or two, there continue to be 

over 500,000 children in care.6

Families continue to come to the attention of the child welfare system because targeted early intervention supports are not available. Without these 

services, many families will require intensive and extensive interventions.7 Appropriate services for families whose children are already in care and who must meet 

the ASFA time frame are also lacking. In many communities, there continue to be 

insufficient substance abuse, mental health, and other treatment resources for families, as well as sufficient housing and economic supports. All families—whether 

formed through reunification, adoption, kinship guardianship, or another permanent 

83

8 National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information. (n.d.) Safety, Permanency, 

Well-being. Child Welfare Outcomes, 1999: Annual Report. Washington, DC: Administration for 

Children and Families. Available online at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/

cwo99/index.html. 9 Ibid. 

10See Summary, Conclusion, and Final Notes, The Impact of ASFA on Children and Families 

of Color, Proceedings of a Forum. (2002). Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America. 11 Ibid. 12Maza, P. The Role of the Single Mother in the Adoption of Children from the Child Welfare 

System. Adoption News, 3 (4) 3. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America. 13Presentation by P. Maza, CWLA National Conference, March 2003. 14 AFCARS REPORTS (FY 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001) Op. Cit. 15Maza, Penelope, L. Ph.D., Senior Policy Research Analyst, ‘‘Is the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) Doing What it is Supposed to do?’’ November 7, 2002 workshop, Ft. Lauderdale, 

FL. 

plan—need follow-up support and assistance if they are to be successful. These services are rarely offered and are greatly needed to preserve permanency and prevent 

re-entry into the system. 

Children of color continue to be over represented in the child welfare 

system. For all states, the rate of entry of African American children was higher 

than the rate for Caucasian children, and in 30 states it was more than 3 times 

higher.8 Forty percent of the children in foster care are black, non-Hispanic, 38% 

are white non-Hispanic, 15% are Hispanic, and 2% are Native American.9

The lack of preventive and treatment services appears to also be particularly relevant for families of color, whose children are disproportionately 

represented in the child welfare system.10 Preventive and treatment services 

need to be culturally competent and available in the family and child’s language. 

In five states (NM, CA, AZ, CO and TX), over 30% of the children in the child welfare system are Hispanic. In both North and South Dakota, Native American children make up more than 25% of the children in foster care.11 Further, AFCARS 

tells us that minority children are primarily adopted by single parents.12 These parents, often relatives, need ongoing support by the agency, if they request it, so that 

they can best care for their children. 

The age of children in foster care waiting to be adopted has increased 

dramatically and there has been limited success in moving older children 

and youth to permanency. The average age for a child to become legally free for 

adoption has increased, the median age of waiting children has increased, and over 

half of the waiting children are over 8 years old.13 Concerted efforts are still needed 

to assist youth not only with independent living skills, but also with permanent, 

supportive relationships. For youth who enter the system at an older age, the use 

of voluntary relinquishment, open adoption, guardianship and other participatory 

approaches, are needed to assist youth and their families to achieve permanency. 

Additionally, although the time from removal to termination of parental rights 

(TPR) has decreased, the time from TPR to adoption has increased, with the 

total time in care for waiting children remaining constant at 44 months.14 Adoption 

work is intense and time consuming if done right. Yet, child welfare caseloads for 

adoption workers are increasing. Just this week, the Wisconsin Department of Family Services proposed eliminating 12.5 special needs adoption workers and five offices due to a 3.2 billion state budget shortfall. 

Workforce issues pose a challenge to ensuring children’s safety and care.

A major challenge in reducing the number of children entering or remaining in outof-home care or waiting for an adoptive family lies in the ability of a well-staffed 

and well-trained child welfare workforce. Caseworkers must assist families that are 

experiencing difficult and chronic family problems. They must also achieve the goals 

of safety and permanency and make lifetime decisions for the child within the ASFA 

timelines. Yet, the safety and permanency of children is hampered due to large caseloads, caseworker turnover and minimal training. 

The need for foster and adoptive families continues to grow. In fiscal year 

2001, the federal government reported that foster parents adopted 59% of the children from the foster care system.15 Many states are instituting expedited permanency planning systems that seek to place foster children with ‘‘resource families’’ 

who will eventually become the adoptive parents. Despite this trend, the need for 

unrelated adoptive families has not diminished because there continue to be waiting 

children. 

Geographic barriers continue to delay adoptive placement for some children. ASFA mandated that barriers to inter-jurisdictional adoptive placement be 

eliminated. Adoption 2002, a report issued by the U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS), noted the following geographic barriers to adoptive placeVerDate jul 14 2003 01:16 Dec 06, 2003 Jkt 090545 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A545A.XXX A545A
84

16 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1997) Adoption 2002. Washington, DC: 

author. 17The Cost of Protecting Vulnerable Children III, Occasional Paper Number 61, Roseana Bess, 

Cynthia Andrews, Amy Jantz, Victoria Russell, Rob Geen, The Urban Institute. 

ments: lack of dissemination of information about waiting families and children; reluctance on the part of agencies to conduct home studies to place children who are 

outside their jurisdictions; reluctance of agencies to accept some studies conducted 

by agencies in other jurisdictions, difficulties in transferring Medicaid benefits; and 

issues with the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC).16 Although there is a national Internet Photolisting service, AdoptUSKids, and many 

states have Internet registries that feature waiting children and families, workers 

do not often search these registries for families. Many remain reluctant to list available families, or to utilize families from other jurisdictions. Yet, adoption recruitment has become increasingly national, even global, in scope, and in order to ensure 

that children are placed in a timely way with waiting families, these barriers need 

to be addressed. 

ASFA also underscored the continued importance of the courts in ensuring timely 

permanency for children. Greater judicial involvement and oversight is required to 

provide added protections for foster children. To be effective, everyone must work 

together to streamline court processes, ensure timely and complete documentation, 

ensure the participation of all relevant parties, and maintain a sense of urgency for 

every child. Courts have been challenged to fully respond to the ASFA requirements, with limited new resources. Judicial caseloads, inadequate representation, unnecessary delays, and unprepared workers and legal counsel are but 

a few of the possible difficulties encountered. 

REALIZING THE GOALS OF ASFA

While some progress has been reached since the passage of ASFA, much more 

needs to be done to ensure that all children in this country grow up in safe, nurturing families. Several pieces of legislation have already been introduced this year, 

which would help advance that goal. 

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 cash welfare system. This provision requires states to maintain the same eligibility standards that existed in July 

1996. 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 numbers of children are eligible for support under these two funding 

streams. Data gathered by the Urban Institute indicates that as of 2000, approximately 57% of all children in out-of-home placement were eligible for IV–E funding.17 Other data from HHS indicate this percentage is even lower. Some states may 

be able to serve less than one-third of their children in out-of-home placement 

through the use of IV–E foster care fund. If the current system remains in place, 

fewer and fewer children will be eligible for federal foster care and adoption assistance. CWLA recommends that the eligibility link should be eliminated so all children 

in foster care receive federal assistance. The Child Protective Services Improvement 

Act (H.R. 1534) changes Title IV–E eligibility to link it with a state’s TANF cash 

assistance program standards. Similar legislative language was included in a TANF 

reauthorization bill (S. 2052) introduced by Senator Rockefeller in 2002. 

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. 

85

18The AFCARS Report: Interim FY 2000 estimates as of August 2002, Op. Cit. 19 Benedict, M.I., Zuravin, S., and Stallings, R.Y. (1996). Adult functioning of children who 

lived in kin versus non-relative family foster homes. Child Welfare, 75 (5), 529–549; Berrick, 

J.D., Barth, R.P., and Needell, B. (1994). A comparison of kinship foster homes and foster family 

homes: Implications for kinship foster care as family preservation. Children and Youth Services 

Review, 16 (1–2), 33–63. 20 U.S. Children’s Bureau. (2002). 

Often, the family can identify what is needed, can 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. 

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. CWLA 

strongly supports efforts led by this Subcommittee and the Administration to secure 

increased resources for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program. Currently 

funded at $405 million, Congress may approve up to $505 million annually for this 

program. 

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.18 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. Worker skills are 

addressed below, as are the need for accessible and culturally appropriate support 

and treatment services for families with children. Also addressed is the critical need 

for after care or post-permanency services to ensure that safety and permanency are 

maintained following reunification. 

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. 

Kinship Permanency and Guardianship 

CWLA believes that 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. A federally funded guardianship permanency 

option should be available 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.19

Twenty-five percent of children in care are living with relatives, some of who will 

not be able to return to their parents.20 States vary in their use of relative homes 

for foster 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. 

The Act To Leave No Child Behind (H.R. 936) and the Child Protection Services 

Improvement Act (H.R. 1534) would allow states to claim reimbursement under the 

Title IV–E foster care program to address these needs. 

Post Permanency/Post Adoption Services 

Post permanency services are needed to support permanency when children have 

been reunified with their families, adopted, or when relatives have assumed legal 

guardianship and permanent care. Services need to be available, affordable, accessible and appropriate to the family’s needs. To accomplish this for all children and 

86

families requires a system of service delivery which will ensure that post-permanency services are available and accessible in all parts of the country, both rural 

and urban; that sufficient funding is available to ensure services will continue to 

be available as the needs of the families and children change; and that an appropriate range of services are developed to meet the varying needs of adoptive families, birth families, and adopted children. The provision of these services would support reunification, prevent recidivism of children reentering foster care, and maintain permanency for adopted children and those in guardianship arrangements. 

Due to the increased number of termination of parental rights, more special needs 

children are now waiting for an adoptive family or have been adopted. They need 

treatment services to a greater or lesser degree until they reach adulthood (or perhaps the rest of their lives). The services should be tailored to the specific needs 

of each child and family. They may range from occasional respite, to time limited 

therapy for the child and/or the parents, to day treatment, to residential care. Adoptive parents need a variety of supports to prevent disruption or dissolution. These 

needs are predictable, but states have no way of knowing the extent of the need or 

the cost. Potential adoptive families need to be able to adopt without fear that they 

cannot afford to adopt a ‘‘special needs’’ child because of potential extensive costs. 

It is imperative that appropriate services be ready for these families and their new 

children. Currently, in many jurisdictions, if an adopted child needs residential 

treatment, the adoptive family must give up custody of the child, and the child reenters the foster care system for services. 

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. 

Access to Mental Health Services 

It is estimated that 20%, or 13.7 million American children have a diagnosable 

mental or emotional disorder. Nearly half of these children have severe disorders, 

but only one-fifth receive appropriate services. For children living in foster care 

today, the problem is even more serious. Eighty-five percent of the 547,000 children 

living in foster care have a developmental, emotional, or behavioral problem. Most 

of these children have experienced abuse and/or neglect and are at high risk of emotional, behavioral, and psychiatric problems. Upon entering foster care some children already have a diagnosed serious emotional disturbance and require significant 

services. In addition, all children who are separated from their families experience 

some trauma and may require mental health services. 

To improve the integration and coordination of services between the child welfare 

and mental health systems, CWLA supports the funding of $10 million for the Improving Mental Health and Child Welfare Services Integration Program. This program, which is yet to be funded, was authorized to provide coordinated child welfare 

and mental health services for children in the child welfare system. It will provide 

a single point of access in order to better provide children with appropriate services, 

including comprehensive assessments, coordinated service and treatment plans, integrated mental health and substance abuse treatment when both types of treatment are needed. With improved coordination and access to services and treatment, 

mental health services provided to children and youth that come to the attention 

of the child welfare system can be achieved in a more appropriate, efficient, and 

cost-effective manner. 

Substance Abuse Treatment Services For Families 

Families in the child welfare system need access to appropriate substance abuse 

treatment. A common thread in child protection and foster care cases is the high 

percentage of children, their parents, or both who have a substance abuse problem. 

Up to 80% of the children in the child welfare system have families with substance 

abuse problems. 

ASFA has designed to promote the safety and permanence of children by expediting the timelines for decision-making. That law requires that a court review plan 

for a child’s permanent living arrangement be made within 12 months of the date 

a child enters foster care. It also requires that if a child is in foster care for 15 or 

the most recent 22 months that a petition to end a parent’s rights to the child must 

be filed, unless certain exceptions apply. To ensure that permanency decisions can 

be made for children whose families have alcohol and drug problems, special steps 

must be taken to begin services and treatment for the family immediately upon a 

child’s entry into foster care or regain custody of their children. These resources for 

substance abuse treatment for families are chronically in short supply. There is a 

national shortage in all types of publicly funded substance abuse treatment for 

those in need, especially for women with children. All states report long waiting 

lists. Alarmingly, over two-thirds of parents involved in the child welfare system 

87

21 U.S. Children’s Bureau. (2002), Op. Cit. 22The AFCARS Report: Interim FY 2000 estimates as of August 2002, Op. Cit. 23 Ibid. 

need substance abuse treatment, but less than one-third get the treatment they 

need. 

This need is addressed in the Child Protective Services Improvement Act (H.R. 

1534). Senator Olympia Snowe (R–ME) has also reintroduced the Child Protection/

Alcohol and Drug Partnership Act, S. 614, and Representative Rangel is expected 

to reintroduce the companion bill in the U.S. House of Representatives in the near 

future. This bill will provide new resources ($1.9 billion over five years) for a range 

of state activities to improve substance abuse treatment. State child welfare and 

substance abuse agencies, working together, will have flexibility to decide how best 

to use these new funds to enhance treatment and services. For example, states may 

develop or expand comprehensive family-serving substance abuse prevention and 

treatment services that include early intervention services for children that address 

their mental, emotional, and developmental needs as well as comprehensive homebased, out-patient, and residential treatment for parents with an alcohol and drug 

abuse problem. 

Adoption Incentives to Increase Adoptions

The adoption incentives program that rewards states for increasing the number 

of ‘‘special needs’’ children adopted from foster care needs to be reauthorized and 

modified. Last year, only twenty-eight of the states and territories received an incentive award since they were not able to continue to increase their adoptions over 

their established baseline. Yet, the national total number of adoptions was very 

close to the previous year (50,600 in 2000 and 49,617 in 2001).21 States were not 

able to receive these payments because the backlog of foster parent adoptions in almost all states has been cleared, the number of children entering the foster care 

system has decreased slightly, and fewer children are considered ‘‘special needs’’ due 

to the AFDC 1996 income eligibility requirement, which has not been increased to 

keep up with inflation. Meanwhile, states are continuing to complete a record number of terminations of parental rights proceedings (75,000 in 2000),22 and the number of children waiting for an adoptive family is decreasing. We also know that of 

the children still waiting for adoption, those who will not be adopted by their foster 

parent or relative are older and have more challenging needs. 

CWLA supports a change in the adoption incentives program. We agree with the 

Administration’s proposal to create a new, additional, second baseline predicated on 

the number of children nine years of age or older that had finalized adoptions last 

year. This will focus on those children who have been identified as more than likely 

not to achieve an adoptive home due to their age. AFCARS has indicated that age 

is the most important factor for a child waiting for permanency.23

CWLA recommends that the original baseline also be modified. Although all 

states, during at least one of the program years, received an incentive bonus, many 

were not able to fully participate. States that had already begun to focus on increasing the number of adoptions prior to the implementation of ASFA were not able to 

continue to show an increase as their adoptions had already been processed in a 

timely manner. Additionally some states were able to finalize many adoptions in one 

year, which resulted in an artificially high baseline for the remaining years. We recommend that the original baseline be reset to allow states a more level playing field. 

An incentive to place a set percentage of the children waiting adoption would allow 

those states whose foster care populations are declining to continue to be rewarded 

for good work. It would also allow other states that have been excluded from the 

incentive program to again participate. These are states that have maximized finalizations in one year and/or have already reached a static waiting child population. 

Reducing Inter-Jurisdictional Barriers to Adoption

To secure additional adoptive homes, inter-jurisdictional barriers need to be eliminated. The interstate compacts (ICPC and ICAMA), designed to facilitate interstate 

placement, need to be modified. A subcompact to ICPC or a new compact could be 

created that is dedicated to only interstate child welfare adoptions. This would help 

facilitate adoptions across state lines. In order to expedite these inter-jurisdictional 

adoptions, a new compact should address the purchase of service process. 

Building a Strong Child Welfare Workforce

Successful outcomes for children and families in child welfare depend heavily on 

the quality of services received, and in turn, on the ability of the workforce delivering them. Yet, child welfare agencies across the country are facing a workforce 

88

24 Child Welfare: HHS Could Play a Greater Role in Helping Child Welfare Agencies Recruit 

and Retain Staff, General Accounting Office, GAO–03–357, March 2003. 

crisis on many fronts. Attracting, training, and retaining qualified staff at all levels 

has become increasingly challenging. Staff shortages and high turnover rates have 

grown with the increasingly rigorous demands of the work, low to modest compensation, and competition with other more attractive options in the current booming job 

market. Child welfare workers must be prepared to handle caseloads typically well 

beyond recommended national guidelines. Every day they work with children and 

families with complex problems and often in situations that may jeopardize their 

safety. 

New evidence recently released a report from the U.S. General Accounting 24 Office found that states failed to meet some of the outcome measures in the Child and 

Family Services, due, at least in part, to workforce deficiencies. Areas where measures were not met due to workforce issues included: timely investigation of abuse 

complaints, efforts to reduce the risk of harm to the child, the ability to maintain 

stable foster care placements, establishing permanency goals for the child in a timely manner, involvement of children and families in case planning, and adequately 

monitoring child safety and well-being. 

The Child Protective Services Improvement Act (H.R. 1534) begins to address 

these workforce issues by creating an incentive fund to help states build a strong 

workforce and also provides loan forgiveness for students who work in child welfare 

system. 

Training

An important workforce issue is the need for training for both new staff and ongoing training for current staff. States must be able to ensure worker competencies 

through the provision of comprehensive, rigorous, competency based training programs. We believe that an important part of this strategy is to allow states that 

contract their services to private agencies to be able to use federal IV–E training 

dollars to train this important part of the workforce. Legislation introduced by Representative Weller (H.R. 1378) and the Child Protective Services Improvement Act 

(H.R. 1534) accomplishes that goal. 

National Standards and the Child and Family Service Reviews

ASFA required states to develop and implement state standards to ensure that 

children in foster care are provided quality services. There is considerable variability across states in meeting this requirement. In addition, HHS has established 

‘‘national standards’’ for the Child and Family Service Reviews. These standards are 

specific statewide data indicators that are used to determine, in part, whether or 

not states are operating in substantial conformity with state plan requirements. 

While useful as an aggregate measure, they do not provide detailed guidance to 

states regarding the delivery of quality child and family services. 

The absence of a core set of nationally agreed-upon standards by which agency 

services can be measured seriously compromises quality and consistency across child 

welfare services. The lack of clear agency policy and accountability with regard to 

best practice all too frequently permits ‘‘free-lance’’ and unstructured casework practice. It fosters decision-making that by default may be driven by individual workers 

who are often inexperienced and inadequately trained. The lack of national standards by which agencies are held accountable has played out nationally in recent reports of the disappearance, serious injury and death of children. In addition to these 

most tragic examples, without complying with such standards, many agencies are 

ill equipped to provide the basic care and protection of children and support to families that we expect of an effective child welfare system. 

Unlike other systems that provide critical services to children and families—such 

as schools and hospitals, there are no comprehensive nationally mandated standards 

for child welfare services. For many years, CWLA has been the principal national 

organization responsible for developing child welfare standards. CWLA’s eleven volumes of standards provide best practice guidance on many aspects of child welfare 

including the quantification of caseload ratios. Unfortunately, there remains a wide 

gap between the best practices recommended in these standards and what actually 

occurs in practice in many jurisdictions. 

CWLA proposes the establishment of national standards for child welfare practice 

which would be linked to the Federal Child and Family Service Reviews. Once established, nationally adopted child welfare standards would provide guidance to 

state efforts to achieve the Child Welfare Outcomes and meet the requirements of 

State Program Improvement Plans. Establishing national standards of practice for 

child welfare services, and creating and implementing a process for states to use to 

89

‘‘gear up’’ to the standards would result in more consistent, quality practice across 

jurisdictions and nationally. It would provide clear guidance to the states in their 

efforts to achieve the Child Welfare Outcomes and make improvements as laid out 

in their Program Improvement Plans. It would provide a needed practice framework, enabling child welfare service systems to achieve good outcomes for children 

and families and to be accountable for the important work that they do. 

Tribal Access to Title IV–E Funding 

CWLA supports direct tribal access to Title IV–E funding. Legislation introduced 

by Representative Camp (H.R. 443) allows tribes an option to directly access Title 

IV–E funds from HHS rather then negotiating for these funds in partnership with 

states. Presently the state IV–E agency must be responsible for the placement and 

care of foster children if Title IV–E eligible expenses are claimed; tribal expenditures can only be reimbursed through the state. 

CONCLUSION

CWLA aspires to an America where every child is healthy, safe, and thriving, and 

where all children develop to their full potential, are nurtured, and are able to grow 

into adults who are able to make positive contributions to family, community, and 

the nation. Though most Americans embrace this view and act each day to fulfill 

it with the children they love, more is needed to meet these needs for all children. 

Essential improvements are still needed for the protection and care of children who 

have been abused and neglected. CWLA calls on Congress to act this year to ensure 

that we, as a country, do a better job of protecting and caring for these children.

Statement of the National Indian Child Welfare Association, Portland, 

fOregon 

The National Indian Child Welfare Association submits this statement regarding 

the implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. Our specific comments will focus on how this law has impacted Indian children and families living 

on tribal lands and under tribal jurisdiction. Attached is a brief description of the 

work of our organization. 

With the passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act came sweeping reform 

of child welfare policy and practice in many state and local areas. Hopes of providing more certainty and stability for children caught up in the foster care system 

were key goals for agencies involved in implementing this landmark legislation. 

However, one group of children in the United States has seen little help from this 

law, and, in some cases, has actually seen progress complicated in their search for 

greater permanency. This group is Indian children, both under state and tribal jurisdiction. With some relatively small changes and improvements to federally based 

permanency funding, these children could also receive many of the benefits that 

Congress intended under ASFA. 

The need for stable funding to support permanency services.—Over 

500,000 Indian children are served by their tribal governments based upon their 

status as citizens of that government and the jurisdictional authority that exists for 

those tribal governments. There are over 560 federally recognized tribal governments, and each one provides some level of child welfare services for its member 

children and families. However, the resources to exercise that authority are not 

there for tribal governments, as indicated by the hodge podge of funding streams 

that they have to patch together to create child welfare services in their communities. Federal child welfare funding streams, while available and accessible for all 

states, are not always provided to tribes. The prime example is Title IV–E Foster 

Care and Adoption Assistance program with expenditures of over $6 billion annually. States use this funding to support basic permanency services like foster care 

and adoption assistance, while tribal governments do not have direct access to this 

or any other reliable source of funding. The result is that tribal governments struggle to develop adequate foster care and adoptive home families without basic subsidies for training or support of these families. Children who need placement often 

have to be placed in homes that provide safe and loving environments, but struggle 

to make ends meet with an extra child in the home. This can also lead to foster 

care home burnout and a failed placement. Indian families that would like to adopt 

also have to think twice before making a commitment to a child when they know 

that basic support services may be lacking. This lack of basic permanency funding 

for tribal governments is the single largest impediment to helping Indian children 

find permanency. 

90

Fortunately, the solution is not difficult. Congressman Camp in the House and 

others in the Senate have introduced legislation in this Congress to help fix this inequity and provide tribal governments and Indian children with the same benefits 

from IV–E that all other children enjoy. The legislation in the House (H.R. 443) is 

under this Subcommittee’s jurisdiction and could not only bring more support for 

necessary services, but also open the door to more tribes operating the IV–E program, which contains many of the ASFA requirements. We commend Congressman 

Camp for standing up for Indian children and seeing the need to correct this situation, and we urge the Subcommittee to support this important legislation too. 

Promoting Adoption in Indian Country.—Tribal governments, not unlike 

state governments, are concerned about the permanency of their children. Tribes 

have some of the same obstacles to face in terms of finding permanent placements 

that states do. For Indian children where adoption is an appropriate option, the incentives and support for prospective adoptive parents are not there. Because tribal 

governments cannot currently receive direct funding under Title IV–E, they have 

fewer resources and supports available to assist adoptive placements. Furthermore, 

unlike states, tribes that have increased the number of foster children in adoptive 

placement cannot share in the Adoption Incentives program under ASFA. In some 

cases, where a child is in state custody, but the adoptive placement originates from 

a tribally licensed adoptive home, the state receives the full incentive, while the 

tribe receives nothing. In these circumstances, often the tribe is also performing significant case management services to assist the state also. Providing tribes full access to Title IV–E and the Adoption Incentive Program would make good sense in 

helping tribes encourage adoption in their communities. 

Expanding the range of permanent placements.—While adoption is an appropriate option for many younger children in need of a permanent placement, it 

does not fit well for many older children with special needs. Indian communities, 

like many other communities, have a full range of children that need permanent 

placements. The most difficult placements to secure are often those for older children with special needs. In these cases, more creative thinking and planning needs 

to go into securing a permanent home. Often, the only available homes in these situations are relatives. To enable these relatives to care for these children it takes different kinds of supports and more flexible placement options. Many relatives are not 

willing to adopt in these situations and would prefer to seek a guardianship placement. However, because of the special needs that these children often present and 

the general economic conditions that exist in most tribal communities, it is important to be able to offer a subsidized placement option where services and basic financial assistance can be provided. ASFA acknowledges a range of permanent placement options but does little to provide incentives or greater encouragement to use 

these options. The short time that ASFA has been in place shows us that additional 

efforts and incentives will be necessary to move these types of children from foster 

care into a more permanent living arrangement. 

Improving background checks for tribal foster care and adoptive 

homes.—Because of unintentional conflicts between ASFA and the Indian Child 

Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act (P.L. 101–630), states are unable to 

use tribally licensed foster care and adoptive homes, which are very important to 

the overall goal of helping Indian children under their care secure permanency. The 

Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act requires all tribes that 

license foster care and adoptive homes to conduct extensive background checks on 

these prospective homes. These background checks, which are often more extensive 

than state background checks using ASFA standards, include local, state and federal jurisdictions, but are often not accepted by states because of fears that the tribal background checks done through the FBI will not meet every ASFA requirement 

and might jeopardize the state’s IV–E funding. This results in perfectly safe homes 

for these children being rejected and further delays in helping Indian children 

achieve timely placements. Existing federal law, the Indian Child Welfare Act of 

1978, is also clear that tribally licensed homes should be treated as equivalent to 

state licensed homes for the purposes of helping Indian children find appropriate 

foster care and adoptive homes. We ask the Committee to consider an amendment 

to ASFA that would help clarify and recognize the federal system of background 

checks for tribally licensed homes and eliminate the unnecessary barriers to permanency for Indian children. 

Conclusion.—The ASFA sought to provide some additional tools and guidance in 

meeting the challenges of moving children out of foster care and into more permanent living arrangements. While numbers of non-Indian children have been able to 

secure more timely permanent placements, Indian children have not. The primary 

factors have been less access to basic permanency funding for tribes, less access to 

financial incentives for adoption, a need for greater supports for non-adoptive perVerDate jul 14 2003 01:16 Dec 06, 2003 Jkt 090545 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A545A.XXX A545A
91

manent placements, and resolution of conflicts in federal law that create delays in 

using tribally licensed homes that have undergone federally prescribed background 

checks. These issues can easily be fixed and would lead to Indian children receiving 

a significant improvement in access to permanency. We urge the Subcommittee to 

seriously consider our testimony and work with us to develop some solid solutions 

to these troublesome barriers. 

Thank you again for your consideration of our testimony. 

National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA). The National Indian Child 

Welfare Association provides a broad range of services to tribes, Indian organizations, states, federal agencies, and private social service agencies throughout the 

United States. These services are not direct client services such as counseling or 

case management, but instead help strengthen the programs that directly serve Indian children and families. NICWA services include: (1) professional training for 

tribal and urban Indian social service professionals; (2) consultation on social service 

program development; (3) facilitating child abuse prevention efforts in tribal communities; (4) analysis and dissemination of public policy information that impacts Indian children and families; and (5) helping state, federal, and private agencies improve the effectiveness of their services to Indian people. Our organization maintains a strong network in Indian country by working closely with the National Congress of American Indians and tribal governments from across the United States.

Since 1997, P.L. 105–89, the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), has been 

Statement of Voice for Adoption 

f instrumental in moving thousands of children into permanent, loving adoptive 

homes. Adoptions from foster care have doubled from 26,000 in 1996 to more than 

50,000 in 2002. Most importantly, the law made children’s health and safety the 

paramount concern for child welfare and court workers. 

Although there are many AFSA success stories, areas for improvement on the current law still exist, including interjurisdictional adoptive placements and the Adoption Incentive Program. 

Advancing Interjurisdictional Adoptions

This following is a true story and was taken from Placing Children Across Geographic Boundaries: A Step-by-Step Guide for Social Workers. The guide was written 

by the National Adoption Center and Adoption Exchange Association with funding 

by the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption. This resource guide was compiled to 

address the challenges of placing children for adoption in different geographic regions than where they currently reside.

Zach, Keith, Ashley, Shawn, Eva, and Troy had many challenges. When the youngest was six and the eldest was 12, the six siblings faced the day-to-day realities of 

poverty coupled with learning disabilities, mental retardation and Troy’s blindness. 

Despite these hardships, they had a stable home with parents and, most of all, each 

other.

Their world changed abruptly the day their father died. Reeling from her own 

grief, their mother could no longer adequately care for them. Soon, social services 

stepped in and the children were scattered to six separate placements.

After their mother’s parental rights were terminated due to her neglect of the children, they remained separated in foster care while their social worker sought a permanent home for them.

Across the country, an approved adoptive family saw the pictures of these children 

in a photolisting book. After sending a homestudy, the family was dismayed to learn 

that only families from the children’s state of residence would be considered.

For six years these children waited—six years of their childhood lost to the foster 

care system; six years of tax dollars supporting them. All the while, the family, thousands of miles away, continued to advocate for the children, and, after contacting 

their Governor, finally were allowed to adopt them.

The children, now young adults, moved into their new home when Keith was in 

the middle of his senior year in high school. When asked by his social worker how 

he felt about making such a move, he stated: ‘‘MOVE! All the way across the country? 

Leave my friends, my school? Is it worth it? To be reunited with my brothers and 

sisters, to have a mom and dad, never to have to move again. It’s definitely worth 

it!’’

For the majority of waiting children, a permanent family can be located in their 

own communities. Such placement is often in their best interest as they do not have 

92

to adjust to new schools, cultural differences, and new friends at the same time they 

are adjusting to an adoptive family and home. However, for many other children, 

the local community does not have enough potential families to make this possible. 

For large sibling groups, such as the one mentioned above, or for children with exceptional special needs, teenagers, or children who have waited many years in their 

local foster care system, the largest possible net must be cast to find an appropriate, 

permanent home. 

ASFA recognized the importance of going beyond geographic boundaries to place 

children. The law instructs states not to delay or deny placement of children for 

adoption when an approved family is available outside of the jurisdiction with responsibility for handling the child’s case. To help remove barriers that keep families 

from adopting children who live in a different county or state, the law penalizes 

states’ Title IV–E funding if a violation is found. 

ASFA also requires that states mobilize additional resources to increase the number of adoptive families. P.L. 105–89 mandates that all state child welfare agencies 

include plans for the effective use of interjurisdictional resources such as adoption 

exchanges. 

Although ASFA addresses geographic barriers, lawmakers, families, social workers, judges, and advocates acknowledge that numerous obstacles still exist to moving children between jurisdictions. 

One of the main obstacles to interjurisdictional placements is the lack of uniformity in adoption practice. The absence of national standards for family assessments has resulted in considerable variability among states regarding the content 

and format of home studies of prospective adoptive parents. Differences in home 

study practice have caused states to question the quality of other states’ family assessment processes, particularly when they differ in meaningful ways from the process used by the child’s state of origin. Similarly, there is great variability in the 

quality and intensity of post-placement services that are provided in different jurisdictions. These differences have led to concerns about the level of services and supervision a child will receive if placed with a family in another state, particularly 

when the perception is that those services are not equivalent to what the child 

would have received if placed with a family in the child’s state of origin. 

VFA urges HHS to develop regulatory guidelines and a best practice protocol for 

interjurisdictional adoptive placements. 

Reauthorize Adoption Incentive Payments to States 

The Adoption Incentive Program, considered one of the most innovative provisions 

in AFSA, encourages states to find adoptive homes for waiting children who are legally free for adoption by granting a financial incentive for each foster child that 

the state places in adoption. P.L. 105–89 authorized a bonus payment of $4,000 for 

each adoption from foster care, or $6,000 for each special needs adoption from foster 

care, above the baseline. 

States received millions of dollars in adoption incentive payments during the past 

five years and reinvested their bonus funds for adoption programs, including postadoption services, family recruitment, and adoption promotion and support. 

The program is due for reauthorization this year. Congress must ask the Department of Health and Human Services to restructure the current baselines. Advocates 

and state child welfare workers believe that the existing baselines are now too high 

for states to reach. In 2001, only 28 states were able to increase their numbers of 

foster care adoptions above the current baselines. 

Although details have not been released, VFA supports the Bush Administration’s 

efforts to provide incentives to states for moving older children into permanent, loving homes. Additionally, VFA supports the Administration’s proposal to maintain 

funding for the program at $43 million.

Æ