U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

61–229 CC WASHINGTON : 2000

FOSTER CARE INDEPENDENT LIVING

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 13, 1999

Serial 106–22

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means

(

ii

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

BILL ARCHER, Texas, Chairman

PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois

BILL THOMAS, California

E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida

NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut

AMO HOUGHTON, New York

WALLY HERGER, California

JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana

DAVE CAMP, Michigan

JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota

JIM NUSSLE, Iowa

SAM JOHNSON, Texas

JENNIFER DUNN, Washington

MAC COLLINS, Georgia

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio

PHILIP S. ENGLISH, Pennsylvania

WES WATKINS, Oklahoma

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona

JERRY WELLER, Illinois

KENNY HULSHOF, Missouri

SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

MARK FOLEY, Florida

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York

FORTNEY PETE STARK, California

ROBERT T. MATSUI, California

WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington

GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts

MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York

WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee

XAVIER BECERRA, California

KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

A.L. SINGLETON, Chief of Staff

JANICE MAYS, Minority Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut, Chairman

PHILIP S. ENGLISH, Pennsylvania

WES WATKINS, Oklahoma

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

MARK FOLEY, Florida

SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado

JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana

DAVE CAMP, Michigan

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland

FORTNEY PETE STARK, California

ROBERT T. MATSUI, California

WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania

WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana

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

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

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

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

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

is further refined.

iii

C O N T E N T S

Page

Advisory of May 6, 1999, announcing the hearing ............................................... 2

WITNESSES

U.S. General Accounting Office, Cynthia M. Fagnoni, Director, Education,

Workforce, and Income Security Issues, Health, Education, and Human

Services Division .................................................................................................. 15

Casey Family Program, Ruth W. Massinga .......................................................... 6

Courtney, Mark E., University of Wisconsin-Madison ......................................... 23

DeLay, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas,

and House Majority Whip ................................................................................... 36

Keys for Life, Sonja Matheny ................................................................................. 50

Lighthouse Youth Services, and Child Welfare League of America, Inc., Mark

Kroner ................................................................................................................... 11

Orphan Foundation of America, Eileen McCaffrey ............................................... 43

Our House, Inc., Montrey Bowie ............................................................................ 52

People Places of Charlottesville, Kelli Sutton Block ............................................. 46

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Grasso, Kathi L., Baltimore, MD, letter ................................................................ 56

National Independent Living Association, Jacksonville, FL, statement and

attachment ............................................................................................................ 58

(1)

FOSTER CARE INDEPENDENT LIVING

THURSDAY, MAY 13, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in

room B–318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Nancy L. Johnson (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

May 6, 1999

No. HR–6

Shaw Announces Hearing on

Foster Care Independent Living

Congresswoman Nancy L. Johnson (R–CT), Chairman, Subcommittee on Human

Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing on ways to assist States in strengthening and expanding programs for youth emancipating from foster care to help them establish independent living. The hearing will take place on Thursday, May 13, 1999, in room B–

318 Rayburn House Office Building, beginning at 10:00 a.m.

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

hearing will be from invited witnesses only. Witnesses will include scholars, program administrators, foundation executives, and adolescents now participating in

programs designed to help foster children achieve independence through employment or post-secondary education. 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:

The Federal Government now provides States with about $70 million per year to

conduct programs for adolescents leaving foster care that are designed to help them

establish independent living. Research and numerous reports from States conducting these programs indicate that adolescents leaving foster care do not fare

well. As compared with other adolescents and young adults their age, they are more

likely to quit school, to be unemployed, to be on welfare, to have mental health problems, to be parents outside marriage, to be arrested, to be homeless, and to be the

victims of violence and other crimes.

After conducting hearings, talking with program administrators and adolescents

who are in foster care and who have left foster care, and reviewing research and

program information, the Subcommittee is preparing to consider reform legislation.

The central feature of the legislation now being developed would provide States with

both a new framework and new resources to improve and expand their programs

for adolescents likely to stay in foster care until age 18 and for young adults who

have left foster care and are attempting to further their education or to work.

In announcing the hearing, Chairman Johnson stated: ‘‘The legislation we are developing gives States an opportunity to revise and expand their programs for this

group of very needy and often victimized adolescents. Both research and our hearings have shown that most of these young people have tremendous potential and

inner strength. With timely and concrete assistance, they can establish themselves

as successful employees, spouses, parents, and citizens. This is a job that we as a

nation can and must do.’’

3

FOCUS OF THE HEARING:

The hearing is being conducted to stimulate public comment on the Independent

Living legislation that Chairman Johnson and Rep. Ben Cardin (D–MD) are expected to introduce before the hearing. Members of the Subcommittee are especially

interested in comments on whether States should be required to have programs for

youths leaving foster care that provide services to both adolescents still in school

and young adults who have left school up to age 21; whether the major goals of

State programs should be to prepare adolescents for work or for post-secondary education or both; whether States should be required to help these young adults pay

for health care; whether penalties should be imposed on States for violating Federal

rules; and the types of program evaluation that should be used to determine the impacts of State programs.

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:

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

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

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

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

Thursday, May 27, 1999, to A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff, Committee on Ways and

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

Washington, D.C. 20515. If those filing written statements wish to have their statements distributed to the press and interested public at the hearing, they may deliver 200 additional copies for this purpose to the Subcommittee on Human Resources office, room B–317, Rayburn House Office Building, by close of business the

day before the hearing.

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS:

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

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

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

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

files for review and use by the Committee.

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

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

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

on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record.

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

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

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

by the Committee.

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

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

or organizations on whose behalf the witness appears.

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

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

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

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

printing. Statements and exhibits or supplementary material submitted solely for

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

hearing may be submitted in other forms.

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

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

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 availVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:10 Feb 17, 2000 Jkt 061229 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:61229 W&M1 PsN: W&M1
4

ability of Committee materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as noted above.

Cardin and I have called this hearing to get reactions to the indeChairman JOHNSON of Connecticut. Good morning, everyone. Mr.

f

pendent living bill that we introduced this morning. It is our intention to mark up the bill in Subcommittee next week; Full Committee the week after, and go to the floor early in June. The most fundamental principle in our legislation is that States must be responsible for designing and implementing activities to

help young people emancipating from foster care to prepare for and

achieve independent living. The Federal Government will help by

establishing a general framework for State programs by financing

the programs, by providing technical assistance, and by evaluating

the programs, but States must bear primary responsibility for the

structure and design of those programs. If welfare reform is any example, they are definitely up to the challenge. The framework established by our bill is that States must con- duct a program with two major parts. The first part helps children

prepare for independence while they are still living in foster care.

The second part maintains contact with young people once they

leave foster care and are struggling to establish themselves on

their own. Our bill also requires States to prepare children to enroll in postsecondary education—either trade schools or college—

and to move immediately into jobs after they leave foster care. We

are looking for hard-nosed programs that actually get adolescents

ready for either additional education or a real job on the very day

they leave foster care or a combination thereof. Within this broad framework, States are expected to organize their own programs to help as many young people as possible and

to decide how to divide their resources between young people still

in foster care and those who have left foster care and are trying

to achieve independent living. To this end, our bill doubles, from

$70 million to $140 million, the amount of Federal money Sates receive to conduct these activities.

Ben Cardin and I want to do everything possible to help these young people get health insurance. While they remain in foster

care, they are automatically covered by Medicaid, but once they

leave, they are usually on their own. In the bill we introduced

today, States are required to provide Medicaid coverage to young

people who have left foster care and are under the age of 21. However, CBO has informed us that the cost of this provision is $400

million over 5 years. Because we don’t have enough money to finance the entire $400 million and still double the funding for the

Independent Living Program, we will probably be forced to adjust

this provision to a State option on Medicaid. However, even an option will result in around half of these children getting health coverage. Ben and I are going to continue to do everything we can to

find the money to fully fund this provision, but at the very least

we want to make them eligible for Medicaid or CHIP, Children’s

Health Insurance Program, funding.

Finally, let me emphasize how important it is that the Congress

consider and pass this legislation. Every year, around 20,000 of our

5

Nation’s young people are emancipated from foster care. They must

adapt to the demands of becoming an adult, which is an exceptionally difficult and perilous undertaking in any society at any time,

but in 21st century America, with its emphasis on education and

technology, the transition is even more difficult, and these young

people must face these perils without the safety net provided by a

family. Imagine that—we do less for children aging out of foster

care—young people aging out of foster care than we do for welfare

recipients moving into the work force; than we do to help disabled

people looking for work. Look at the whole infrastructure of supported work—the supported work system that we have for disabled

people, and it is simply a crime that we do so little to prepare and

support young people who are going to become independent at the

age of 18 with literally no backing from an organized adult community.

I am filled with both admiration for how hard most of these

young people try and shame that our society provides so little assistance to these richly deserving kids. Our bill by no means solves

the problem, but it is a great step in the right direction and more

important, still, is a signal to these young people that the rest of

us recognize their plight, believe in them, and are willing to help.

Ben.

Mr. CARDIN. Well, Madam Chair, let me first thank you and congratulate you for your strong leadership in this area. You have

made foster children a major focus of this Subcommittee, and we

are going to be able to achieve some, I think, very commendable

results as a result of what you have been able to do.

Two months ago, we held a hearing on foster children, and as a

result of that hearing we heard firsthand the problems that foster

children are having who age out of foster care; that we don’t do

enough as a society to deal with their needs for independent living.

As a result of that hearing, as a result of your leadership today,

we have a bipartisan bill that I have joined you in filing that provides additional assistance to children aging out of foster care.

I look forward to marking up that bill shortly and being able to

see the benefits of that legislation. As you point out, it doubles the

amount desperately needed of Federal funds for the Independent

Living Program; it strongly encourages the States to provide Medicaid coverage to all former foster children between the ages of 18

and 21, and it gives the States the flexibility to use a portion of

the Independent Living funds to cover housing needs of children.

I think each of those provisions is extremely important and will

have major impact on having a more successful transition from

being a foster child to an independent living arrangement.

The needs have been documented; you and I have talked about

this at great length; the people who have testified previously have

brought out the reason why we need to move forward with legislation. I introduced a bill earlier. The bill that we introduced today

doesn’t cover everything that was in that bill, but I am very satisfied that we have reached an agreement that can make major

progress in this area. I should also point out that the administration in its budget came forward with an initiative for foster children, and I think our action today is consistent with the administration.

6

So, Madam Chair, I really do look forward to the witnesses today

and moving forward on this legislation. Every year, 20,000 children

are aging out of foster care, and it is important that we move forward with this initiative, and I thank you again for holding this

hearing.

Chairman JOHNSON of Connecticut. Thank you, Ben, and while

the first panel is coming forward, Ruth Massinga from the Casey

Family Program; Mark Kroner, director of the self-sufficiency division of Lighthouse Youth Services; Cynthia Fagnoni, the Director

of Income Security Issues for the GAO; Mark Courtney, associate

professor of social work at the School of Social Work and Institute

for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin-Madison,

and while you are getting yourselves assembled, let me just say

that it really has been a enormous pleasure to work with Ben on

this. You know, it is wonderful to have a colleague who has had

a long and serious interest in this area, that comes to it with a lot

of background and dedication, and his first bill was an enormous

help. It is also a pleasure to have the administration both really

seriously interested in dealing with a problem and a realistic partner in trying to shape the best bill we can within the context of

our current circumstances, so we look forward to your testimony

today.

I am sorry, is it Massinga?

Ms. MASSINGA. Yes.

Chairman JOHNSON of Connecticut. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF RUTH W. MASSINGA, CHIEF EXECUTIVE

OFFICER, CASEY FAMILY PROGRAM, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

Ms. MASSINGA. Good morning, Madam Chairman and Representative Cardin. I really want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of the bill which you and Representative

Cardin have introduced about the transitions of young people from

foster care to adulthood. This is an issue that has been a longstanding concern to many in the organization that I serve.

As I said, I am Ruth Massinga, and I am chief executive officer

for the Casey Family Program, a national operating foundation

headquartered in Seattle serving children and families in 14

States. Established in 1966 by Jim Casey, the cofounder of the

United Parcel Service, and his family, this program has been working for more than 32 years with nearly 3,300 individual young people who are or have been in foster care with the goal to help them

achieve self-sufficiency and become productive adults.

Your strong commitment and diligent efforts to improve the opportunities for success to the more than 20,000 youths who emancipate from the Nation’s foster care system each year, are laudable.

Too many of them leave with a resume of sustained child neglect

and abuse, repeated losses of primary family member, emotional

immaturity, and uneven development of basic skills.

Your introduction of this bill is a clear signal that you are truly

committed to helping young people transition out of foster care and

succeed. As a former State secretary of human resources responsible for child welfare services in Maryland from 1983 to 1989, as

well as from the vantage point of 10 years at the Casey Family

Program, I know that these young people can succeed and know

7

what it takes for that to happen. Your bill moves us closer to accepting the challenge to match the complex needs of these youths

with the commitment of more resources to create responsive, reliable support that will help them address the hazards facing them

as they venture out into the world.

What does practice wisdom and the best of the limited research

available tell us about what works to help these young people find

their way in the world? Of course, it begins with the primary care

givers—the foster parents, the family members—knowing how and

when to unlock each child’s potential for learning and achieving

just as it does for your children and mine. Foster parents need to

know how to stimulate and motivate, enlisting the aid of teachers

and nurturers to systematically determine the skills and potential

assets that can be cultivated in each child as early as possible after

they enter care and certainly earlier than age 16.

Based on that systematic skill assessment, parents and other

professionals can pursue strong educational opportunities and independent living skills training to meet the specific needs of the child

or youth. Because we know that youth leaving foster care invariably seek support and direction from birth family members, there

needs to be a special focus on engaging all of these adult players

as part of the young person’s transition. These aspects of best practice are likely to be put in place under the broad directions of the

bill as you are proposing them, and I would ask that you make

these as explicit as possible.

There are two other areas of the bill that I urge you to consider

strengthening: creating accountability structures based on child

outcome or results and underscoring the need for promoting the

need for systems integration. To know whether or not the bill that

you are introducing is effective, we really must know what actually

happens to these young people. Therefore, accountability must be

based on child outcomes not just on the services provided.

The child outcome identified in your bill could be sharpened and

strengthened. In measuring the effectiveness of services, it is important not just to inquire about educational activities and the

number of years in school but rather to determine whether the

young person has graduated or earned a GED; to verify completion

of vocational training, attainment of employment and at what wage

level, and to inquire about stable housing, for how long, and whether it is subsidized or not.

Now, I know more than most that we have not been diligent in

this field in collecting the data necessary to measure the outcomes

achieved by the young people served by the foster care system. For

us at the Casey Family Program, a private organization with resources to focus on results, we have come late to the recognition

that we now need outcomes stated preferably in comparison with

cohorts of young people with similar circumstances. To remedy this

data deficit during the early nineties, the program took the first

longitudinal look at how 106 young adults from our Boise Division

fared after leaving Casey between the years 1974 and 1992. The results revealed the importance of comparing youths with education

and parenting skills. In 1998, we began to look at our alumni more

systematically and with the collaboration of the University of

Washington, the University of Michigan, and Harvard University,

8

we started to design a comprehensive outcome study of over 700

youths who left the Casey Program between 1988 and 1998 along

with youths who emancipated from the public child welfare systems in Washington and Oregon State. We will be happy to share

these data as they become available with the Subcommittee.

So, as you double Federal outlays for independent living and at

the same time extend the age of eligibility, I believe it is critical

to develop fair and firm ongoing accountability systems capturing

the results associated with the implementation of the bill.

One place where I can offer you some data is in strong support

to extend eligibility for Medicaid coverage from age 18 to 21. In

1998, the Casey Program served approximately 250 youths with

transitional services. Eighteen of our total costs were spent on

health care and 15 percent were spent on mental health services.

In the same time period, we provided scholarship assistance to students attending 2- and 4-year, postsecondary education programs.

Of these costs, 13 percent were spent on health care. Absent our

support for these services, these young people would have gone untreated, because they were ineligible for other publicly funded programs. This, as you know, is a population at risk for chronic, expensive, disabling conditions if left untreated.

In addition to tracking results, we need to understand how these

results were achieved and to capture the key factors that make an

appreciable difference in achieving good or bad outcomes. Equally

important to accountability is the need to promoting systems integration. My bias is that these youth need systems that bundle services in groups or patterns that are easy for young people and their

foster families or adult mentors to navigate.

The bill, as drafted, identifies the different services and resources

for young people but doesn’t speak to the need for them to operate

in a user-friendly way. I know that you are acutely aware that, for

sometimes good and sometimes indefensible reasons, professionals

from health and disciplines operate as if we are hermetically sealed

from one another. In truth, to be effective, the child welfare system

must talk to the education system or the skills assessment of the

young adults will be less robust than needed. The job training system needs to work with the transportation system or young people

can’t get to the jobs for which they must be prepared. Housing

services must connect with social services or young people may not

sustain themselves.

We ask that this legislation promote the integration of service

delivery and promote ease of access for these young people.

In sum, I thank your for your efforts and hope that the development of permanent connections among and between people in these

systems as well as accountability for results end up with a better

system for these young people emancipating from foster care of

which we can all be proud. In that regard, I am reminded of Jay,

a young person who came to us at age 14 following years of trauma

and abuse. Not long after, he became involved with the juvenile

justice system, struggled with drugs, and refused all efforts of help.

It would have been easy for people to write him off, but his foster

parents and the staff stuck with him, and now he is a sous chef

and wanting to give back to other young people. What you propose

9

in this bill is what we want for Jay and all young people, and I

thank you for your efforts. [The prepared statement follows:]

Statement of Ruth W. Massinga, Chief Executive Officer, Casey Family Program, Seattle, Washington

Good morning Madam Chairwoman, Representative Cardin, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the transition of

young people from foster care to adulthood, an issue that has been of long-standing

concern to me and to the organization that I serve. My name is Ruth W. Massinga and I am Chief Executive Officer of The Casey Family Program, a national operating foundation headquartered in Seattle, Washington serving children and families in 14 states. Established in 1966 by Jim Casey,

co-founder of United Parcel Service (UPS), and his family, the Program has been

working for more than 32 years with nearly 3,300 individual young people, who are

or have been in been foster care, with the goal of helping them develop into selfsufficient, productive adults.

I want to begin by thanking Chairwoman Johnson and Representative Cardin for their strong commitment and diligent efforts to improve the opportunities for success for the more than 20,000 youth who emancipate from the nation’s foster care

system each year; too many of them leave care with a resume of sustained child

neglect and abuse, repeated losses of primary family members, emotional immaturity and uneven development of basic skills. Your introduction of this bill is a clear signal that you are truly committed to helping young people transitioning out of foster care to succeed. As former State

Secretary of Human Resources responsible for child welfare services in Maryland

from 1983 to 1989, as well as from the vantage point of ten years at The Casey

Family Program, I know that these young people can succeed, and know what it

takes for that to happen. This bill moves us closer to accepting the challenge to

match the complex needs of these youth with the commitment of more resources to

create responsive, reliable supports that will help them address the hazards facing

them as they venture out into the world. What does practice wisdom and the best of the limited research available tell us

about what works to help these young people find their way in the world? Of course,

it begins with primary caregivers knowing how and when to unlock each child’s potential for learning and achieving, just as it does for your children and mine. Foster

parents need to know how to stimulate and motivate, enlisting the aid of teachers

and mentors, to systematically determine the skills and potential assets that can

be cultivated in each child, as early as possible after they enter care (certainly earlier than age 16).

Based upon that systematic skills assessment, parents and other professionals can

pursue strong educational opportunities and independent living skills training to

meet the specific needs of the child or youth. Because we know that youth leaving

foster care invariably seek support and direction from birth family members and

other significant community connections, there needs to be a special focus on engaging these players as part of the young persons’ ‘‘transition team.’’

These aspects of best practice are likely to be put in place under the broad directions of the bill as proposed, though I would ask this Committee to make these as

explicit as possible. There are two specific areas of the bill that I urge you to consider strengthening: (1) creating accountability structures based on child outcomes,

and (2) underscoring the need for promoting the need for systems integration.

To determine the effectiveness of services and programs, we must know what actually happens to these young people. Therefore, accountability must be based on

child outcomes, not just on services provided. The child outcomes identified in the

bill should be sharpened and strengthened. In measuring the effectiveness of services it is important to not just inquire about educational activities and number of

years of school, but rather to determine whether the young person has graduated

or earned a GED; to verify completion of vocational training, attainment of employment and at what wage and to inquire about stable housing, for how long and

whether it is subsidized or not.

I know more than most that we have not been diligent in collecting data necessary to measure the outcomes achieved by the young people served by the foster

care system. The Casey Family Program, a private organization with resources to

focus on results, has come late to the realization that we need outcomes data, preferably in comparison with other cohorts of young people in similar circumstances.

To remedy this data deficit, during the early 1990’s The Casey Family Program took

the first longitudinal look at how 106 young adults from our Boise Division fared

10

after leaving Casey between 1974 and 1992. The results revealed the importance of

preparing youth with educational, employment and parenting skills.

In 1998, we began to look at our alumni more systematically and, with the collaboration of the University of Washington, University of Michigan and Harvard

University, have started to design a comprehensive outcomes study of over 700

youth who left The Casey Family Program between 1988 and 1998, along with

youth who emancipated from the public child welfare systems in Washington and

Oregon states. We will be happy to share these data when they become available.

As you double federal outlays for independent living, and at the same time extend

the age of eligibility, I believe it is critical to develop fair and firm ongoing accountability systems capturing the results associated with implementation of the bill as

well as the broadly defined summative evaluation of this total effort that is a part

of the current language of the bill. We cannot continue to settle for the significant

lack of data about effective uses of the federal and state funds spent on independent

living programs to date.

One place where I can offer you some data is in strong support to extend eligibility for Medicaid coverage from age 18 to 21. In 1998, The Casey Family Program

served approximately 250 youth with transition services across this age group.

Eighteen percent of our total costs, which were $631,900, were spent on healthcare

and 15 percent were spent on mental health services. In the same time period we

provided scholarship assistance to students attending 2- and 4-year post-secondary

education programs at an average cost of $10,873. Of those costs, 13 percent were

spent on healthcare. Absent Casey support for these services, these young people

would have gone untreated because they were ineligible for other publicly-funded

programs. This is the population at-risk for chronic, expensive disabling conditions

if left untreated.

In addition to tracking results we need to understand how they were achieved and

to capture the key factors that make an appreciable difference in achieving good or

bad outcomes. Among the questions to be pursued by additional research include:

what interventions are most effective for which children, the duration of their delivery and by whom (the foster parent, social worker, teacher, etc.), and what service

configuration or program models are most cost-effective.

Equally important to creating accountability structures based on child outcomes

is the need for promoting systems integration. My bias is that these youth need systems that bundle services in routes or patterns that are easy for young people and

their foster families or adult mentors to navigate. Sometimes we use professional

jargon, such as systems integration, to describe this.

The bill as drafted identifies the different services and resources for young people,

but does not speak to the need for them to operate in a user-friendly way. I know

that you are acutely aware that, for sometimes good and sometimes indefensible

reasons, professionals from helping disciplines operate as if they are hermetically

sealed one from the other. In truth, to be effective, the child welfare system must

talk to the education system or the skills assessment and development work will

be less robust than is needed. The job training system needs to work with the transportation system or young people cannot get to jobs for which they may be prepared.

Housing services must connect with social services or the young people may not sustain themselves in housing or jobs, or secure the primary or mental health resources

they need. We ask that this legislation promote the integration of service delivery

and promote ease of access for these young people.

We at Casey have come to learn that to a young person, permanent connections

among and between people in these systems are the key to success. I am reminded

of Jay, a young man who came to us at age 14, following years of trauma and abuse.

Not long thereafter he became involved with the juvenile justice system, struggled

with drugs, and refused all offers of help. It would have been easy to write Jay off.

Yet his foster mother and his social worker stayed connected to him and were vital

links for him to the resources in the community that finally enabled him to kick

his habit, establish a work history and to stick with vocational training. He is now

a chef at a highly respected restaurant in Seattle, married and the committed father

of a small child, dedicated to speaking out for the young people that follow him in

the system.

Thank you for your hard work on behalf of Jay and the thousands of young people

who make that transition from the foster care system into adulthood each year.

What you propose in this bill is what we all want for our own children—the opportunities, supports and in the end connections to significant adults in order to become

healthy, productive and contributing citizens in their communities. I thank you all

for your commitment to these young people.

f

11

Chairman JOHNSON of Connecticut. Thank you very much.

Dr. Kroner.

STATEMENT OF MARK KRONER, DIRECTOR, SELF-SUFFICIENCY SERVICES, LIGHTHOUSE YOUTH SERVICES, CINCINNATI, OHIO, AND CHILD WELFARE LEAGUE OF AMERICA,

INC.

Mr. KRONER. Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee,

good morning. My name is Mark Kroner, and I am the director of

self-sufficiency services for Lighthouse, a nonprofit organization

based out of southern Ohio. Since 1986, I have been running our

agency’s Independent Living Program, and over that period of time,

we have assisted between 600 and 700 young adults who are trying

to make the difficult transition to life on their own after the child

welfare system, and we have no doubt that this legislation would

greatly increase the chances of success for these young people and

also decrease the suffering of many youth in the country who leave

the foster care system and can’t go back home to their families.

The youth in our program in Cincinnati have mothers who are

mentally ill and are chemically dependent, fathers who are in jail

or nowhere to be found, and these are kids who the local professional system has fully realized that they cannot go back to live

with their families for any extended period of time. Many of the

youth that we are working with enter the system for the first time

at 16 or 17, and it is often a little too late to find an adoptive family or a foster home who is willing to take in an older teenage with

a tattoo and an attitude.

A lot of the teens that we work with have made it clear that if

they were placed in a group home or any type of group situation

or even a family foster home, that they would run away, because

they were used to being on their own, fending for themselves. What

they are really asking for is a place free from their chaotic and

abusive natural family households.

Permanency for a lot of the kids in the system I think means

learning to live independently, and I would like to quickly share

some of our agency’s observations. We learned early on, back in the

eighties, that if we were really going to prepare these kids quickly

for life on their own that they would need to learn from the direct

experience of living independently while still in the custody of caring adults, and, as Mrs. Johnson said, using the hard-nosed approach, we began placing kids in their own apartments as young

as 16, 17, and 18 back in the early eighties, and we immediately

saw that they were, indeed, learning something, and they were

being caringly coerced into taking on adult responsibilities. We

have had any number of 16- to 17-year-olds who have done very

well in this situation.

The teens that have come through the program over the years

have shown us what they need to do and learn in order to become

more self-sufficient, and a lot of times what that means is putting

them out on their own and allowing them to make dozens of crazy

mistakes and foolish choices. For example, going for a day without

food, because they spent the food allowance on a new CD or makeVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:10 Feb 17, 2000 Jkt 061229 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:61229 W&M1 PsN: W&M1
12

up—or coming at night and standing out in the snow, because they

can’t find out what they did with their key. We have kids that have

gotten evicted from their apartments, because they couldn’t control

their noisy friends of family members, and we have had kids who

have actually had their entire savings stolen by mothers who came

to visit them who were addicted to crack. What I am trying to say

is we want these kids to make these mistakes while they are still

in the custody of an agency that can help them process what happened; and go over the situation.

This bill’s provision of funding for housing is exactly what the

field of independent living needs to get to the next level of effectiveness. Our State has amended licensing rules to allow for the living

arrangement options, and we have many landlords here willing to

give our kids a chance. We also have a local service system that

has finally gotten to the point where we focus more on what kids

need to do and learn rather than on all the possible things that can

go wrong.

We have also learned that no one living arrangement works for

all the youth that are sent to us, and over the last decade and a

half we have developed a continuum of housing options that include individual scattered-site apartments, shared homes in which

three or four youths live in a house with a live-in adult, host homes

in which we find an adult or two that will allow a youth to move

in with them if they have a spare room. We use boarding homes,

all different types of roommates situations, and temporary shelters

for youth who need to be removed from their apartments or any of

these other places, sometimes on very short notice.

Extending the period of care to 21 is also a no-brainer for us in

Cincinnati, especially for youth with developmental disabilities. We

are seeing probably a third of our caseload that had diagnosable

developmental disabilities, and these kids are functioning at a 12-

to 15-year-old level by the time they reach 18. They probably will

not be able to graduate from high school until they are in their

twenties or even later than that.

In sum, what we are trying to do in Cincinnati is design a system that somewhat resembles that of a healthy family who is trying to help one of their own kids move out for the first time. I think

this legislation is going to help make the system get more in touch

with modern realities. Virtually no American teenagers are expected to be totally self-sufficient at 18. I noticed the other day that

most of the college seniors that are doing their field placements

with our agency right now still live at home with mom and dad.

It is obvious to us that foster youth in our country need what all

teens need—time to grow up, ongoing support from caring adults,

financial support for a reasonable amount of time, health insurance

covered by mom and dad or us until they can afford it, an affordable place to live when cut off from adult support and second

chances when they fail, and I think that this proposed legislation

wisely addresses all of these points.

We can never do enough for our own kids or the kids in the system, but we certainly can do better than what we are doing now.

There is no magic in this legislation or what we are doing in Cincinnati, just the common sense that says we cannot expect kids in

13

the foster care system to do what any normal teen cannot do without years of financial and emotional support.

We appreciate your efforts.

[The prepared statement follows:]

Statement of Mark Kroner, Director, Self-Sufficiency Services, Lighthouse

Youth Services, Cincinnati, Ohio, and Child Welfare League of America,

Inc.

Good morning Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee. My name

is Mark Kroner and I am the Director of Self-Sufficiency Services for Lighthouse

Youth Services—a private nonprofit organization based in Southern Ohio since

1969. Lighthouse Youth Services is one of over 450 member agencies of the Child

Welfare League of America that provides independent living services to youths leaving foster care.

I have been involved in training and consulting with dozens of organizations nationwide that are trying to develop independent living programs. Since 1986 I have

been running our agency’s independent living program in Cincinnati. Over that period of time we have assisted nearly 700 youths who are trying to make the difficult

transition from foster care to living on their own.

We are greatly encouraged by this Subcommittee’s interest in providing supports

to youths exiting foster care. The Foster Care Independence Act will provide much

needed support and flexibility to the states so they can provide better services to

kids making the transition from foster care to independence.

Many of the youths in our program at Lighthouse have mothers who are mentally

ill or chemically dependent, or have fathers who are in jail or nowhere to be found.

These youth were abused, neglected or abandonedto the point where caring professionals realized that they would never be able to count on living with their families

of origin for any extended period of time. We have to focus our energies on helping

youth build workable futures for themselves.

Many of the young people in our county entered the child welfare system for the

first time when they were 16 or 17—often too late to find an adoptive family or a

foster home willing to take in an older teenager with a tattoo and an attitude. Many

of the teens referred to us made it clear that they would run from a foster or group

home if placed there. They were used to being on their own and fending for themselves. They just wanted a place free from the abuse and chaos of their natural family households.

Up to a third of the teens we serve have a diagnosable developmental disability.

Many of these youth are functioning at a 12–14 year old level at age 18. They are

usually several years behind in school and are not ready to graduate from high

school until they are 20 or 21. They will in no way be able to become totally selfsufficient at age 18.

Permanency for many of these youths means learning to live independently. Even

if they do spend time with family members, their chances for success are improved

if they learn to count on themselves to solve their daily problemsand have the

knowledge, experience and skills to do so.

These foster youth receive a ‘‘double-whammy’’ when they reach 18. First, they

learn emphatically that their families of origin are not going to help them. Then,

they learn that the services and supports they had received in the child welfare system abruptly end.

The Foster Care Independence Act recognizes that these youths need additional

help. This legislation provides new and expanded opportunities for us to help these

young people. The services supported by this bill would greatly increase the chances

of success for these youths who need to venture out on their ownmany years ahead

of their peers who often receive full or partial support from their families until their

mid twenties. The services offered under the existing Title IV–E Independent Living

program have begun to address the needs of youth leaving foster care, but we need

to do much more.

The Foster Care Independence Act addresses three important areas that will

greatly increase the chances of success for youth aging out of foster care:

Helping young people acquire the skills and knowledge they need to become selfsufficient.

Providing health care coverage for youth up to age 21.

Increasing housing options for youths who have left foster care.

I know you have heard testimony from many others that will give you a clear national picture of the situation and relevant statistics. I would like to give you more

of a perspective from the front line and share some of our agency’s observations.

14

We learned early on that the best preparation for independence that the youth in our program could have was the direct experience of living on their own while

still in the custody of caring adults. We learned that independent living services

without housing was like driver’s training without the car. Life skills training without the actual experience of living alone and using those life skills was not enough—

young people need real-life practice in order to really learn. At Lighthouse Youth Services, we started placing foster youth in their own apart- ments a number of years ago so that they could have the experience of learning to

live on their own. Despite a lot of gray hairs and after-hours pages, we saw that

these kids were indeed learning, and could be ‘‘constructively coerced’’ into taking

on adult responsibilities at 18 or 17. We even have had a number of young people

live on their own and do very well at age 16. Using Title IV–E Independent Living funds, we began a countywide self-suffi- ciency training program for all youth in out-of-home care. This training has made

a noticeable difference in the ability of youth referred to our apartment program to

make a quick adjustment to living independently. Allowing youth to participate in

this program beginning at age 14, which would be made possible by the Foster Care

Independence Act, would make our efforts even more effective.

The teens coming through our program taught us what they needed to do and

learn in order to become more self-sufficient. Sometimes it meant letting them

makes dozens of crazy mistakes and foolish choices: • going to school without lunch because they spent their food allowance on a new

nose ring. • getting evicted because they couldn’t control their noisy friends. • losing a job after forgetting to budget for bus fare. • having their hard earned savings stolen by a visiting mother, addicted to crack. • receiving a $200 phone bill after allowing ‘‘friends’’ free use of the apartment phone. • standing out in the snow at 2 a.m. wondering where the key went. But our teens made these mistakes while they were still in our care—and have our support in going over the events leading up to the mistake, the consequences,

and the ‘‘what to do next time’’ speech.

Over the last decade Lighthouse Youth Services has created a continuum of hous- ing options that include: • individual scattered-site apartments; • small shared-homes that house 3–4 youth and a live-in adult; • host homes in which a youth shares a house with one or two adults; • access to a boarding home for females in the city center; • roommate situations; and • temporary shelters for youth that can’t stay in their own apartments. All states need support and flexibility to establish similar continuums, and to extend services to youth leaving foster care. The Foster Care Independence Act would

allow states to use up to 30% of Title IV–E Independent Living funds, which are

increased in the Foster Care Independence Act, to be used for the room and board

costs for youths ages 18–21. These additional funds will foster the creativity that

states need to develop their own housing continuum and related services for these

very vulnerable youth.

Our state has amended licensing rules to make the less-restrictive and semi-supervised living arrangements possible. We have found many landlords who are willing to give our kids a chance. (They tell us our kids are no worse than the general

public.) We have a local system that focuses more on what youth need rather than

on all of the things that could possibly go wrong. We expect our youth to make a

lot of mistakes until they get it right. What they really need is help acquiring the

skills they need to become self-sufficient.

In short, what we are trying to do in Cincinnati is to create a system that somewhat resembles the caring but challenging atmosphere that healthy families try to

create when helping their young adults leave home. Our model might not work in

some of the larger cities where rents are sky high or apartments are scarcebut some

version of it could.

We are fortunate in Cincinnati. We have one of those rare situations in which the

public children’s service staff, juvenile court personnel, and private providers have

reached a general agreement as to what services need to be provided. We see a lot

of successes and even some miracles from time-to-time. But we also see a larger

group of youth leaving us with a long way to go before they are totally self-sufficient. We know we’re not yet doing enough.

Next month, 18 youths in our Independent Living Program will graduate from

high school or receive their GEDs. It would be a real shame to hand them their diplomas and then tell them they are totally on their own.

15

Extending services and housing assistance to youth until 21 is a no-brainer. It is

obviously what is needed to best help all foster youth, and especially those with developmental disabilities.

In summary, it is obvious that the foster youths in our country need what all

teens need:

• time to grow up;

• ongoing support from caring adults;

• financial support for a reasonable period of time;

• health insurance until they can afford it;

• chances to learn from mistakes and direct experience;

• an affordable place to live when cut off from adult support; and

• second chances when they fail.

The Foster Care Independence Act addresses all of these needs. With this legislation we have a wonderful opportunity to make a significant positive difference in

the lives of one of the most vulnerable groups of people in our country. We can

never do enough for our own kids or for the kids raised in the child welfare system

but we can do better than what we are doing now. The existing Independent Living

program has done a lot to help prepare youths leaving foster care for adulthood.

Since that program began operating in 1987, the number of teens in the foster care

has increased dramatically. We also now recognize that these youths leaving care

need a broader range of supports and serivces than are available within existing

programs.

There is no magic in what we are doing in Cincinnati or in what this bill

proposesonly the common sense that says we can’t expect foster youth to do what

any normal youth couldn’t do without years of sustained help and financial support.

Our foster youth need the additional supports provided by the Foster Care Independence Act.

Chairman J

Ms. Fagnoni.

OHNSON of Connecticut. Thank you very much.

f

STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA M. FAGNONI, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES,

HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION, U.S.

GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

Ms. FAGNONI. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the

Subcommittee. I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Independent Living Program and the needs of youth leaving the foster

care system. I would like to focus my remarks on the problems

faced by foster care youth once they leave care; what is currently

known about the extent of services provided by the ILP, and what

is known about the effectiveness of the ILP. My testimony is based

on ongoing work for the Subcommittee, including a visit to locations in California, Maryland, New York, and Texas and a preliminary review of about one-third of the 1998 annual ILP reports that

States provide to HHS.

Research has shown that many former foster care youth face difficulties in making the transition from foster care to self-sufficiency. Many of these youths have serious educational deficiencies,

rely on public assistance, and often find themselves lacking adequate housing. At the same time, research has also shown that addressing these deficiencies can have a positive effect on former foster care youth. For example, completing high school prior to leaving

foster care was positively related to stable employment, not being

a cost to the community, and overall self-sufficiency.

To better enable youth to make the transition from foster care

to self-sufficiency, State ILPs provide a wide array of services.

These include helping youth complete high school or get a GED,

16

prepare for postsecondary or vocational education, and prepare for

employment. To cite just one example, youths in Baltimore receive

employment-related training that covers topics, such as writing resumes, preparing for interviews, conflict resolution, and job retention.

However, in some of the sites we visited, we find that the ILPs

could not fully provide services that matched the employment potential of foster care youth to appropriate employment pathways.

For example, officials in three of the sites we visited cited a lack

of vocational opportunities that could be appropriate for youths.

Many States also help youths develop daily living skills, such as

money management, health, safety, and hygiene, self-esteem, parenting, cooking, and problem-solving. For example, youths in

Contra Costa County, California attend a series of workshops that

cover money management, health and hygiene, parenting and sexual responsibility, and effective communication skills among others.

However, we also found that important hands-on activities designed to provide youth with practice and daily life tests and experience were limited in some of the sites we visited. Issues such as

safety regulations in group homes inhibit or prevent certain activities from occurring, such as practicing cooking.

States also offer a variety of additional services to further help

youth transition to living on their own. These include supervised

practice living arrangements, such as transitional housing programs, and after-care services for youth who have just left the foster care system. In Baltimore, for example, the Challengers Independent Living Program provides youth with apartments for 18 to

24 months that are furnished and supervised by service providers.

Program staff offer educational, vocational, clinical, and home life

support, including additional independent living skills training.

However, the transitional housing programs we visited have a

limited number of spaces available—from 6 to 12 spaces. One transitional housing provider in Texas told us that while the program

has space for 6 youths, the provider had identified an additional 80

to 100 youths who could benefit from this type of housing program.

Both current and former foster care youth in California and Texas

also told us of the need for additional transitional housing arrangements.

Youth who have left the foster care system often encounter hardships and need aftercare services from time to time once they are

living on their own. Although all of the sites we visited provide

aftercare services for youth who have left the foster care system,

officials noted that the services offered are not extensive. For example, Texas officials noted that aftercare services are only available

for 6 months after the youth exits care.

Given the significant challenges that foster care youth face in

moving from foster care to adulthood, it is important to understand

how effective ILPs are in moving these children and ensuring positive outcomes. However, few data are available to help in understanding what outcomes are achieved through these programs.

We found three studies from Baltimore County, Maryland, Harris County (Houston, Texas), and New York City which linked participation in the ILP with improved education, housing, and other

outcomes. In the Maryland study, youth who received ILP services

17

were more likely to complete high school, have an employment history, and be employed when they left foster care. In Texas, graduates of the State’s ILP achieved full-time employment earlier and

were more likely to complete high school or a GED at a younger

age than youth that did not receive independent living services. In

New York City, studies showed that 75 percent of the youth in one

program had completed high school; 72 percent had full-time employment when they left the care, and 65 percent had savings accounts.

While information on program outcomes is limited, State and

local officials we spoke with indicated that determining outcomes

for former foster care youths is important, and two locations have

begun to design strategies to capture this much needed information. Contra Costa County, for example, has funded a 2-year study

geared toward measuring outcomes. Similarly, the Maryland Association of Resources for Families and Youth, an association of private service providers, recently began a project to collect key data

on youth in foster care, upon exit from care, and at various intervals after leaving care. In our ongoing work, we plan to explore innovative practices States are using to provide services to foster care

youth and also to examine HHS’s role in developing and implementing performance measures.

Madam Chair, this completes my statement. I would be happy to

answer any questions. Thank you.

[The prepared statement follows:]

Statement of Cynthia M. Fagnoni, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues, Health, Education, and Human Services Division,

U.S. General Accounting Office

Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Department of Health and Human

Services’ (HHS) Independent Living Program (ILP) and the needs of youths leaving

the foster care system. While some foster care youths may be adopted or reunited

with their families, each year approximately 20,000 exit the foster care system with

the expectation that they will be self-sufficient. Yet many of these youths face serious problems, including homelessness, lack of employment stability, incarceration,

and pregnancy at an early age. Recently, the Congress has raised concerns that ILP,

designed to help foster care youths transition to living independently, does not provide the necessary life skills to complete basic education, find and maintain employment, or to otherwise live self-sufficiently after leaving care.

Today, I would like to focus my remarks on (1) the problems faced by foster care

youths once they leave care, (2) what is currently known about the extent of services

provided by ILP, and (3) what is known about the effectiveness of ILP. My testimony is based on our ongoing work for this subcommittee, including our visits to

locations in California, Maryland, New York, and Texas and a preliminary review

of about one-third of the 1997 annual ILP reports submitted by states to HHS.

In summary, the few available studies that track youths who have exited foster

care reveal that many have a difficult time making the transition to living on their

own. The studies found that a substantial portion of these youths have not attained

basic education goals, such as completing high school, and are dependent on public

assistance. In addition, many experience periods of homelessness after leaving care

and have other difficulties that impede their progress toward self-sufficiency, such

as being unemployed. In an effort to help foster care youths become self-sufficient,

state ILPs offer a wide array of independent living services, including education and

employment assistance; training in daily living skills, such as managing money,

housekeeping, and personal hygiene; and additional transitional services, such as

supervised practice living. However, program administrators acknowledge that independent living services fall short in key areas. These administrators report that developing appropriate employment opportunities for foster care youths, providing supervised transitional housing arrangements, and developing program activities that

provide opportunities to practice the skills learned or enhance youths’ self-esteem

18

1 Under title IV–E of the Social Security Act, federal matching funds based on the state’s Medicaid matching rate are provided to states for foster care maintenance costs to cover a portion

of the food, housing, and incidental expenses for foster care children from families eligible for

benefits under the former Aid to Families With Dependent Children program using 1995 eligibility criteria. States incur all foster care costs for children not eligible for federal support. 2States can receive federal foster care maintenance payments for eligible children while in

foster care family homes, private for profit or nonprofit child care facilities, or public child care

institutions. Youths become ineligible for federal foster care maintenance payments at age 18. 3Westat, Inc., A National Evaluation of Title IV–E Foster Care Independent Living Programs

for Youth (Washington, D.C.: HHS, 1991). 4 Richard P. Barth, ‘‘On Their Own: The Experiences of Youth After Foster Care,’’ Child and

Adolescent Social Work, Vol. 7, No. 5 (Oct. 1990). 5Mark E. Courtney and Irving Piliavin, Foster Youth Transitions to Adulthood: Outcomes 12

to 18 Months After Leaving Out-of-Home Care (Madison, Wisc.: University of Wisconsin, 1998).

has been difficult. Moreover, there are few evaluations that link program objectives

to outcomes, leaving questions concerning the effectiveness of the current array of

independent living services.

BACKGROUND

ILP was initially authorized by P.L. 99–272 and reauthorized indefinitely as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (P.L. 103–66). The act authorized

federal funding of $70 million per year for states to establish and implement services to assist youths aged 16 and over make the transition to independent living

from foster care. Services are provided for a short period of time, and states have

the flexibility to design services to meet a wide range of individual needs. A portion

of the federal funds—$45 million—are distributed to states as an entitlement based

on each state’s proportion of all youths receiving federal foster care payments in federal fiscal year 1984 across the United States.1 States are eligible to receive an addi- tional share of the remaining $25 million in federal funds if they provide funds to

match the federal dollars received. Recently, the Congress and the Administration

proposed new initiatives designed to further help adolescents move from foster care

to adulthood, including increased program funding, medical care coverage, and housing supports. HHS issued instructions to states in December 1993 outlining allowable ILP serv- ices. These services include education and employment assistance; instruction in

daily living skills; and transitional support services, such as supervised practice living. In addition, states must provide youths written transitional independent living

plans based on an assessment of their needs and may establish outreach programs

to attract individuals eligible to participate to the program. Further, ILPs may include counseling and other similar assistance related to education and vocational

training, preparing for a general equivalency diploma (GED) or higher education,

and counseling and training to enhance basic living skills and interpersonal and social skills. Eligible participants for independent living services include all youths

aged 16 and over for whom federal foster care payments are being made.2 At their

option, states may also serve foster care youths not receiving federal assistance and

former foster care youths who were in foster care after the age of 16. Likewise,

states may provide services to any of these youths until the age of 21. Youth participation in ILP services is voluntary.

RESEARCH SUGGESTS THAT FOSTER CARE YOUTHS STRUGGLE TO REACH

SELF-SUFFICIENCY

Many foster youths have a difficult time making the transition from the foster care system to self-sufficiency. While there are few available studies tracking youths

who have exited foster care, our review of these studies reveals some consistent

findings. Research has shown that many former foster care youths have serious education deficiencies and rely on public assistance. For example, a 1991 Westat study

of foster care youths interviewed 2.5 to 4 years after they left care found that 46

percent of these youths had not finished high school.3 Additionally, almost 40 per- cent were determined to be a cost to the community, such as being dependent on

some form of public assistance or Medicaid. Other research shows similar results.

A 1990 study of former foster care youths in the San Francisco Bay Area who had

been out of care at least 1 year but no more than 10, showed that 55 percent left

foster care without graduating from high school and that 38 percent still had not

graduated at the time of the study.4 Similarly, the University of Wisconsin recently

studied youths who had been out of care between 12 and 18 months and found that

37 percent had not finished high school and 32 percent were receiving public assistance.5

19

6 Homes for the Homeless, Homelessness: The Foster Care Connection (updated Apr. 1997),

http://www.opendoor.com/hfh/fostercare.html (cited Dec. 9, 1998).

In addition, former foster care youths often find themselves lacking adequate

housing. The Westat study reported that 25 percent of the youths were homeless

at least 1 night. Likewise, the University of Wisconsin study found that, since leaving care, 14 percent of the males and 10 percent of the females had been homeless

at least once and 22 percent had lived in four or more places in the previous 12

to 18 months. The connection between homelessness and prior episodes of foster

care can also be seen in a 1997 study of 400 homeless individuals.6 This study found

that 20 percent had lived in foster care as children and 20 percent had one or more

children currently in foster care.

Additional difficulties may further impede former foster care youths’ ability to become self-sufficient. For example, the Westat study found that 51 percent of the

youths were unemployed and 42 percent had given birth or fathered a child. Similarly, the University of Wisconsin found that 39 percent of the youths were unemployed and that 27 percent of the males and 10 percent of the females were incarcerated at least once.

At the same time, research has shown that addressing these deficiencies can have

a positive effect on former foster care youth. The Westat study found a connection

between certain variables and the youths’ ability to live independently. For example,

the study showed that completing high school prior to leaving foster care was related to stable employment, not being a cost to the community, and overall selfsufficiency. Further, youths who held at least one job during their stay in foster care

were more likely to maintain a job after care.

Findings from the three studies we reviewed are summarized in table 1.

Table 1: Outcome Information on Former Foster Care Youths Reported in Three Recent Studies

Study and samples on which percentages are based Outcome information on former foster care youth

Westat (1991) study of 810

former foster care youths in

eight states at 2.5 to 4 years

after leaving care.

Education:

—46 percent had not completed high school. Employment:—51

percent were unemployed.

—62 percent had not maintained a job for at least 1 year.

Other:—40 percent were a cost to the community.

—25 percent were homeless at least 1 night.

—42 percent had birthed or fathered a child.

Courtney and Piliavin (1998)

study of 113 former foster

care youths in Wisconsin at

12 to 18 months after leaving

care.

Education:

—37 percent had not completed high school.

Employment:

—39 percent were unemployed.

—19 percent had not held a job since leaving care.

Other:—32 percent received some kind of public assistance.

—12 percent were homeless at least once (14 percent males

and 10 percent females).

—22 percent had lived in four or more places.

—44 percent reported problems with acquiring needed medical

care.

—27 percent of males and 10 percent of females were incarcerated at least once.

Barth (1990) study of 55

former foster care youths in

the San Francisco Bay Area

at least 1 year and no more

than 10 years after leaving

care.

Education:

—38 percent had not completed high school.

Employment:

—25 percent were unemployed.

Other:

—53 percent reported serious financial hardships.

—47 percent received some form of public assistance or had

problems paying for food or housing.

—35 percent were homeless or moved frequently.

—38 percent did not have health or medical coverage.—13

percent reported hospitalization for an emotional problem.

—40 percent of females reported a pregnancy.

—35 percent had been arrested or spent time in jail or prison.

20

MULTIPLE SERVICES ASSIST YOUTHS IN ACHIEVING INDEPENDENCE BUT

FALL SHORT IN KEY AREAS

To better ensure foster care youths are prepared to live as self-sufficient adults, state ILPs provide an array of services, including assistance with completing education and finding employment; developing the basic skills needed to live independently, such as money management, hygiene, housekeeping, and nutrition; and transitional services, such as supervised practice living arrangements. However, state

and local administrators acknowledge that their current ILPs fall short in key

areas. For example, some programs do not sufficiently seek out employment opportunities in the community and offer few opportunities for youths to participate in

real-life practice opportunities or esteem-building experiences. Moreover, some programs could not provide adequate housing or other transitional assistance for

youths still in care and those who have left care.

Education and Employment Assistance

Our review of annual state reports and our visits to four locations show that

states provide services to help youths (1) complete high school or a GED, (2) prepare

for post-secondary or vocational education, and (3) prepare for employment. For example, in Contra Costa County, California, an education specialist meets with

youths to discuss education goals, review grades, and assess education needs. If a

youth is behind academically, tutoring services are provided. The specialist also sets

up tours at local colleges and vocational programs and assists youths in completing

financial aid applications. A job development specialist assists difficult to employ

youths find self-supporting employment through such means as coaching, counseling, and on-site job development training. The specialist also coordinates career

fairs. Youths in Baltimore receive employment-related training that covers topics

such as writing resumes, preparing for interviews, conflict resolution, and job retention.

However, in the locations we visited, we found that the ILPs could not fully provide services that matched the employment potential of foster care youths to appropriate employment pathways. For example, officials in three of the locations we visited cited a lack of vocational opportunities appropriate for youths. State and local

coordinators in Texas indicated that few apprenticeship positions are available,

while officials in Baltimore and New York City reported a lack of affordable vocational programs or funds to pay for such programs. Baltimore officials also reported

that culinary arts and technology-related programs—two programs popular with foster youths—are very expensive. Of the four locations we visited, only Texas offers

statewide tuition waivers for all state-supported vocational, technical, and post-secondary schools.

We also found that connections between ILP and potential employers are not thoroughly developed. For example, ILP coordinators in one location said they did not

have time to establish relationships with many employers and that employment development efforts in their location were informal. State officials in California and

Maryland indicated that they recognize more public-private partnerships to provide

youths with employment opportunities are needed. In addition, New York City officials reported that they are just beginning to devise ways to link with employers

to enhance youth job prospects, such as developing internship opportunities. Several

officials also pointed out that more staff need to be assigned to accomplishing this

task.

Assistance in Learning Daily Living Skills

Our review of annual state reports shows that many states help youths develop

daily living skills. Each location we visited conducts independent-living skills classes

to teach youths tasks that are necessary to live self-sufficiently. For example, youths

in Contra Costa County, California, attend a series of workshops that cover life

skills such as money management, health and hygiene, parenting and sexual responsibility, and effective communication skills. Money management covers topics

such as how to prepare a budget and how to open and use a checking account. In

the San Antonio, Texas, area, life-skills classes meet for 8 weeks and cover core

areas, including personal and interpersonal skills, health and safety, money management, and planning for the future. In New York City, life-skills classes provide

similar instruction as well as instruction on housekeeping, health care, interpersonal skills, food management, transportation, and family planning.

However, important hands-on activities to practice daily life tasks and experiences

to develop self-esteem were limited in some of the locations we visited. Some state

and local program officials acknowledged the importance of allowing youths to attempt (and perhaps initially fail) daily tasks—including cooking, cleaning, doing

21

laundry, and comparison shopping—until they become proficient at these tasks. Program officials in two locations and foster care youths in three locations reported that

issues, such as safety regulations for group homes, inhibit or prevent certain activities, such as practicing cooking. In some group homes, laundry products and cooking

utensils may be locked away from youths. In addition, esteem-building experiences

are often limited to a small number of youths. For example, local officials in Texas

reported that opportunities for foster care youths to participate in post-secondary

school conferences or extended outdoor activities were limited. In addition, programs

offering adult mentors—in an attempt to build positive and lasting relationships—

serve a small number of youths. For example, a foster care service provider in

Texas—contracted by the state specifically to develop mentor programs—reported

difficulties finding mentors. However, officials in all locations saw some type of mentor program as one method to provide youths with a vocational role model and opportunities to practice other independent living skills they have learned.

Housing and Other Transitional Support Services

Based on our review of annual state reports and site visits, states offer a variety

of additional services to further help youths transition to living on their own. These

include supervised practice living arrangements—such as transitional housing programs—and aftercare services for youths who have left the foster care system. Transitional housing programs—while designed slightly differently in each location—provide an opportunity for youths to experience living independently while still receiving supervision and financial support. In Baltimore County, Maryland, for example,

the Challengers Independent Living program seeks to provide youths who have previously lived a dependent lifestyle with different or improved means to cope with

present and forthcoming independence once they leave foster care. Foster care

youths can reside for 18 to 24 months in apartments furnished and supervised by

the service provider and receive a weekly stipend to purchase clothing, food, and

household supplies. They also are responsible for cleaning their apartments and

doing their laundry. Each youth’s foster care payment covers the cost of rent, utilities, and administration of the program. Program staff also offer educational, vocational, clinical, and home-life support, including additional independent-living skills

training.

Officials in the four locations we visited reported that the number of supervised

transitional housing sites is very limited and that they could not provide adequate

housing assistance for both youths in care and those who have left the system. The

programs we visited have a restricted number of spaces available—from 6 to 12

spaces. One transitional housing provider in Texas indicated that while the program

has spaces for 6 youth, an additional 80 to 100 youths with no housing upon exiting

foster care could benefit from this type of housing program. A transitional housing

provider in a second location explained that program staff carefully screen youths

for readiness and accept only the most promising teens into the program. Current

foster care youths in Texas and former foster care youths in California also emphasized the need for additional transitional housing arrangements.

Youths who have exited foster care face a number of obstacles in finding housing,

according to officials in the locations we visited. For example, many landlords are

reluctant to rent apartments to a youth without work experience or credit history.

In addition, foster care youths who live in urban areas often do not earn a sufficient

income to pay the rents found in large cities and may find it difficult to save enough

money to pay for a security deposit. Officials in Baltimore reported that the local

social services department often writes a letter to the landlord on behalf of youths

to help them obtain housing.

Finally, officials at the locations agree that youths who have left the system often

encounter hardships and need aftercare services from time to time. Although all of

the locations we visited provide such services, some officials noted that their

aftercare services are not extensive. For example, in Texas, aftercare services are

only available for 6 months after the youth exits care. The services consist mainly

of referrals to other service agencies, visits to colleges, and a small stipend for 4

months. Aftercare services in Baltimore County and New York City are limited to

referring the youths to other agencies who can assist them. However, at both of

these locations, youths have the opportunity to remain in foster care until age 21

under certain circumstances. Contra Costa County, California, previously offered

aftercare to youths up to age 19 on a case-by-case basis; new state legislation mandates that ILP now serve youths to age 21.

22

7Maria Scannapieco and others, ‘‘Independent Living Programs: Do They Make A Difference?’’

Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, Vol. 12, No. 5 (Oct. 1995). 8 Jane T. Simmons, ‘‘PAL Evaluation Final Report,’’ unpublished report submitted to Harris

County (Texas) Children’s Protective Services (Mar. 6, 1990). 9Gerald P. Mallon, ‘‘After Care, Then Where? Outcomes of an Independent Living Program,’’

Child Welfare, Vol. 77 (Jan./Feb. 1998). 10 Edmund V. Mech and others, ‘‘Life-Skills Knowledge: A Survey of Foster Adolescents in

Three Placement Settings,’’ Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 16, Nos. 3/4 (1994), pp.

181–200.

INFORMATION ON PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS IS LIMITED

Given the significant challenges that foster care youths face in moving from foster care to adulthood, it is important to understand how effective ILPs are in better ensuring positive outcomes. However, few data are available to help in understanding

what outcomes are achieved through these programs. States are required to report

to HHS participant achievement 90 days after program completion, such as the

number of youths who are employed, have completed high school or a GED, are attending college, and are living independent of public assistance. However, state and

local officials reported much difficulty in finding youths to determine their living

status once they leave care. These officials indicated they either do not follow up

with youths after leaving foster care or have little success finding youths. For example, a Maryland official stated that response to follow-up contact in the past was

very limited and that only 15 percent of youths returned follow-up letters. Local officials in Texas estimated that about 30 to 35 percent of youths disappear during the

initial 90-day period and that some can only be located through word-of-mouth or

sibling contacts. They noted that following up with youths who received a stipend

as part of aftercare is less difficult.

In addition, few formal studies have been conducted that measure ILP effectiveness. We found three studies—from Baltimore County, Harris County (Houston,

Texas), and New York City—that linked participation in ILP with improved education, housing, and other outcomes. In the Baltimore County study, youths who received ILP services were more likely to complete high school, have an employment

history, and be employed when they left foster care.7 In the Harris County study, the authors found that graduates of the Texas ILP achieved full-time employment

earlier and were more likely to complete high school or a GED at a younger age

than youths who did not receive independent living services.8 The New York City study of independent living services provided by Green Chimneys Children’s Services showed 75 percent of the youths had completed high school or a GED, 72 percent had full-time employment when they left care, and 65 percent had savings accounts.9 Another study linked certain foster care placements with greater attain- ment of practical living skills.10 This study found that foster care youths placed in apartment-type transitional housing scored higher on life-skills knowledge assessment. Finally, the Westat study found that youths who received training in money

management, obtaining a credit card, and buying a car, as well as help in how to

find a job and appropriate education opportunities were more likely to maintain a

job for at least a year. However, in some instances, ILP did not have the desired

effects. For example, in the Westat study, researchers found that receiving independent living services did not significantly reduce the probability of early parenthood. In addition, the Harris County study found that program participants younger

than 21 were more likely to be dependent on different forms of public assistance—

specifically subsidized housing and food stamps—than the group of nonprogram participants under age 21. State and local officials indicate, however, that determining outcomes for former foster care youths is important, and two locations have begun to design strategies

to capture this much needed information. Contra Costa County, California, for example, has funded a 2-year study geared toward measuring outcomes. The study

will determine the status of youths at the time they enter ILP—such as foster care

placement stability, academic performance, and living-skills assessment—and measure youth outcomes after ILP services are given. One goal is to use the information

to develop better aftercare programs. Similarly, the Maryland Association of Resources for Families and Youth—an association of private service providers—recently began a project to provide the answers to three questions: Whom do we

serve? What services do we provide them? and What are the outcomes of those services? The project requires data collection while the youths are still in care; upon exit

from care; and at 6-, 12-, and 18-month intervals after leaving care.

In our continuing analysis of ILPs, we plan to explore in greater detail many of

these issues, including any innovative strategies being implemented in the states.

We also plan to look at HHS’ role in ensuring that performance measures are identiVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:10 Feb 17, 2000 Jkt 061229 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:61229 W&M1 PsN: W&M1
23

fied and implemented. This information will be presented in our final report to the

Subcommittee.

Madam Chair, this concludes my prepared statement. At this time, I will be happy to answer any questions you or the other Members of the Subcommittee may

have.

are glad your plane got you here in time, and we are looking forChairman J

It is a pleasure to welcome Mark Courtney from Wisconsin. We

OHNSON of Connecticut. Thank you very much.

f

ward to hearing what you have to say.

STATEMENT OF MARK E. COURTNEY, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,

SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK AND INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH

ON POVERTY, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN–MADISON

Mr. COURTNEY. It is a pleasure to be here; thanks for inviting me. Today, I am going to share with you the results of a study that

I have been conducting with Irving Piliavin and Andrew GroganKaylor in Wisconsin of youth that have aged out of the foster care

system in Wisconsin during 1995 and 1996. I am also going to

share with you my observations regarding the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999.

Our study is following foster youth from before they left the sys- tem until 3 years after they exited. Thus far, we have interviewed

141 youths while they were in care, and we have been able to follow about 80 percent of them, or 113, for about 12 to 18 months

after they have left the system. All of them have been in care at

least 18 months and on an average over 5 years. So, from our perspective, we believe the system had a clear responsibility to prepare them for independence.

We asked a number of questions about whether they had been trained in areas specified in law and regulations, and we found

that on average about three-quarters of them claimed that they

had been trained in any given area. However, far fewer had actually been provided concrete assistance in carrying out essential

tasks associated with independent living. For example, fewer than

one-fifth have received any job training; participated in a mock job

interview; been told how to apply for public assistance; received

help finding a job or help obtaining housing, personal health

records or health insurance. Not surprisingly, then, over one-quarter of the foster youth felt either not at all or not very well prepared in a number of important areas, including getting a job,

managing money, obtaining housing, knowledge of community resources, parenting, and living on one’s own.

Almost a third of the youths were at or below an eighth-grade

reading level when we first contacted them near the time when

they should have been graduating from high school. Not surprisingly, given their educational deficits, by 12 to 18 months past discharge, 37 percent of the young adults had not completed high

school; 55 percent had completed high school or an equivalent, and

only 9 percent had entered college.

The former foster youths had significant unmet health and mental health needs. Forty-four percent of them reported having trouble obtaining medical care most or all of the time since leaving the

system. Of these, 90 percent reported that this was due to a lack

24

of health insurance coverage or care simply costing too much. Nearly half of our respondents had received mental health services in

the year prior to our interview with them while they were in the

system, yet only one-fifth had received any mental health services

since leaving the system in spite of no change in their overall, relatively poor mental health.

The bottom line is that achieving self-sufficiency is difficult, to

put it mildly, for a large percentage of the former foster youth.

Fewer than half had at least $250 when they left the system. Only

three-fifths were working when we interviewed them

postdischarge, and even those employed, on average, earn less than

someone working full-time in a minimum wage job. All told, 44 percent of the group had either been homeless, incarcerated, or received public assistance since leaving the care of the State.

These findings give pause. At the same time, they provide support for the provisions of the Foster Care Independence Act of

1999. The proposed legislation recognizes the considerable unmet

health and mental health needs of youth aging out of foster care.

From our perspective, common sense calls for extension of Medicaid

eligibility for this population through the age of 21. The act would

also make available substantial, additional funding for support for

youth making the transition to independence both before and after

they leave the protection of the formal foster care system.

Currently, most services focus on educating foster youth about

independent living skills through training programs prior to their

discharge from the system, while providing limited, if any, handson experience for youth. What is most sorely lacking are adequate

opportunities for former foster youth to return to the system for

help when that help is most needed and appreciated after they are

on their own. As an aside, we found that three-quarters to fourfifths of them expected that they would be able to do that, and that

was one of the most troubling findings, that they actually believed

they could go back to the system and get help.

In addition to providing a much needed increase in basic funding

for independent living programs, the Foster Care Independence Act

would allow States the flexibility to use Federal funds for much

needed concrete assistance in dealing with obstacles to self-sufficiency, particularly noteworthy, given the level of homelessness

and housing instability of this population, both in our study and

others, the provision of allowing a portion of the funds to be used

for housing assistance for former foster youth under the age of 21.

Last, the legislation would ensure that independent living programs would be subjected to much more thorough outcome evaluation than in the past. our Nation has spent over $1 billion on these

programs in the past decade while learning almost nothing about

what works for whom.

In summary, available evidence suggests that many if not most

foster youth who age out of foster care, our children, have a very

difficult time landing on their feet when they are pushed out of the

door of this system. The Foster Care Independence Act would give

States the funds and flexibility to better support these youth in

achieving self-sufficiency as well as hold States accountable for

demonstrating the effectiveness of their efforts. That completes my

remarks.

25

[The prepared statement follows:]

Statement of Mark E. Courtney, Assistant Professor, School of Social Work

and Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Today I am going to share with you some results from a study conducted by myself, Irving Piliavin, and Andrew Grogan-Kaylor at the University of WisconsinMadison of the experiences of foster youths who aged out of the Wisconsin foster

care system in 1995 and 1996. I will also share with you my observations regarding

the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999.

Our study is following foster youth from before they left the system until three

years after they exited. Thus far we have interviewed 141 of them while they were

in care and 113 of those, or about 80 percent, 12 to 18 months after they were discharged from the system. The youths had been in care at least 18 months, an average of over five years, and therefore we believe that the system had a clear responsibility to prepare them for independence.

We asked whether they had been ‘‘trained’’ in a number of areas specified in law

and regulations. The average percentage of sample members reporting that they had

been trained in a given area was 76 percent. However, far fewer had actually been

provided concrete assistance in carrying out essential tasks associated with independent living. For example, fewer than one fifth had received any job training, participated in a mock job interview, been told how to apply for public assistance, received help finding a job, or help obtaining housing, personal health records, or

health insurance. Not surprisingly, over one-quarter of the former foster youth felt

either not at all, or not very well prepared in a number of important areas including

getting a job, managing money, obtaining housing, knowledge of community resources, parenting, and living on one’s own.

Almost a third of the youths were at or below an eighth grade reading level when

we first contacted them. Not surprisingly, given their educational deficits, by 12 to

18 months past discharge 37 percent of the young adults had not yet completed high

school, 55 percent had completed high school or an equivalent, and only 9 percent

had entered college.

The former foster youths had significant unmet health and mental health needs.

Forty-four percent of them reported having trouble obtaining medical care most or

all of the time. Of these, 90 percent reported that this was due to a lack of health

insurance coverage or care costing too much. Nearly half of our respondents had received mental health services in the year prior to our interview with them while

they were in out-of-home care. Yet, only about one-fifth had received any mental

health services since leaving care in spite of no change in their overall relatively

poor mental health status.

The bottom line is that achieving self sufficiency was difficult for a large percentage of the former foster youth. Fewer than half had at least $250 when they were

discharged from the system. Only three-fifths were working when we interviewed

them 12 to 18 months after discharge. Even those employed earned on average

slightly less than a full-time minimum wage worker. All told, 44 percent of the

group had either been homeless, incarcerated, or received public assistance since

leaving the care of the state.

These findings give pause, but at the same time they provide support for the provisions of the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999. The proposed legislation recognizes the considerable unmet health and mental health needs of youth aging out of

foster care. Common sense calls for extension of Medicaid eligibility to these youth

through the age of twenty-one. The Act would also make available substantial additional funding for support to youth making the transition to independence both before and after they leave the protection of the formal foster care system. Currently,

most services focus on educating foster youth about independent living skills prior

to their discharge from the system, while providing limited if any ‘‘hands-on’’ experiences for youth. What is most sorely lacking are adequate opportunities for former

foster youth to return to the system for help when that help is most needed and

appreciated, after they are on their own. In addition to providing a much needed

increase in basic funding for independent living programs, The Foster Care Independence Act would allow states the flexibility to use federal funds for much-needed

concrete assistance in dealing with obstacles to self sufficiency. Particularly noteworthy, given the level of homelessness and housing instability of this population,

is the provision allowing up to 30% of funds to be used for housing assistance to

former foster youth under the age of 21. Lastly, the legislation would ensure that

current and future independent living programs would be subjected to much more

thorough outcome evaluation than in the past. Our nation has spent over one billion

dollars on these programs over the past decade while learning almost nothing about

26

what works for whom. In summary, available evidence suggests that many if not

most youth who age out of foster care, our children, have a very difficult time landing on their feet when they are pushed out the door of the system. The Foster Care

Independence Act of 1999 would give states the funds and flexibility to better support these youth in achieving self sufficiency as well as hold states accountable for

demonstrating the effectiveness of their efforts.

for their testimony, and I thank you, Mark, for this report on some

concrete research. Unfortunately, we haven’t been doing this kind

Chairman JOHNSON of Connecticut. All right. I thank the panel

f

of research very long and don’t know a lot more about what we are

doing. So, we do appreciate your research and look forward to actual follow up on children, of young people. I want to ask you—you have all commented on the lack of data and the need to really look at outcomes and what that tells us. I

assume most of you are familiar with the AFCARS, Adoption and

Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System, which we put a lot of

money into, a lot of time, and a lot of years to establish. There is

resistance, naturally, to altering the AFCARS system, and there is

some concern about how much we can alter it and not cause some

really big problems. So, I am not intimately acquainted with the

AFCARS system; I am merely spouting this information. I theoretically know it, but I don’t practically. For those of you who have a

lot more practical understanding of the system than I do, do you

think we—are there specific modest changes that we could make

that you think wouldn’t be too difficult for the system to absorb but

would give us better information?

Ms. Massinga.

Ms. MASSINGA. Thank you. I suggested some measures like

knowing whether or not kids have graduated from high school; like

knowing whether or not kids drop-out and how long they have been

a drop-out. I appreciate the difficulty for States to make adjustments, because as you say we are just raising the level of data

gathering, and I know that those are difficult decisions, but it

seems if we really pressed for results-oriented data as well as information on how kids progress; results that are key—like ‘‘Are kids

well? Are they receiving health services?’’—and so forth. I think it

might be very useful.

Mr. KRONER. I think that one of the hardest things to do in the

field of independent living is to keep track of kids once they leave

the system. One study we were involved with actually hired a team

of researchers to call kids every 3 months to make sure they knew

where they lived and saw how they did, and it showed a lot of positive success for independent living programs, but if you don’t have

a group of people assigned to do that, these teens are like every

other teen in America—they tend to move around a lot. One move

and they are out of your research pool. So, we have to find some

way to keep track of these kids; give them some kind of card that

they can call in every now and again to report on what they are

doing and give them some type of financial incentive for calling

back in. But, other than that, it is really tough to keep track of

them.

Ms. FAGNONI. I should point out, as we note in our testimony,

HHS does require States to provide annual reports on the indeVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:10 Feb 17, 2000 Jkt 061229 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:61229 W&M1 PsN: W&M1
27

pendent living programs, but the one measure that tries to track

to what happens to youth after they leave the foster care system

asks for information on what has happened to them 90 days after

they leave the system. And there are two issues with that. One is,

even with the 90 days, which is a fairly short period of time, we

were told by officials that they had difficulty locating the youth

even within that short period of time, but the issue is they will also

note that 3 months is not a long enough period of time to really

know youth are faring once they leave the system.

Mr. COURTNEY. I think if the primary concern—and I believe the

primary concern should be what is happening after they have left

the system—that AFCARS isn’t really the best mechanism for

doing that for a number of reasons. I believe that the Federal Government should, through the States, periodically do the kind of assessment that we are doing on a sample of children who are leaving the system, so we periodically have a sense, generally, how

these folks are doing after they leave the system. And combine that

with some systematic assessments of different approaches to doing

independent living services, because there are myriad approaches

to try and prepare people and then support them after they are on

their own, and we haven’t done rigorous evaluation really of any

of those. I think doing both of those things would, one, give us the

sense of generally how folks are doing, and then, two, give us a

sense of what works for whom.

It is very difficult to follow them. We think we are pretty good

at this. We have the highest response rate of any study we know

of, and we spent between $250 and $300 per interview to find these

folks after they left the system.

Chairman JOHNSON of Connecticut. Since we are, for the first

time, giving them real money for the program after age 18 to 21,

we certainly do have to require something other than that one

interview that was really related to an old foster care program. It

really doesn’t reflect the kind of program that we are setting up.

So, one of the reasons you just got the draft this morning are that

there are a lot of things that have been discussed and negotiated

around this kind of issue, and so I do look forward to your input

in the next week as to what you think we should do in that area;

also, as to what you think of the sections of the bill that say ‘‘These

are the kinds of services you can provide or these are goals,’’ because it is not easy to describe in spite of the fact that you have

probably Members in this Subcommittee who are more interested

in these kids than often is the case in the Congress and know more

about it. I find it hard to find a way to talk about the issue of personal maturity in the legislative language, and since in the end

that is what this is all about, we do need to be able to do that.

I have a couple of other questions, but I am going to come back

to those if we have time. We do have another panel, so we want

to be sure to get as much testimony in the record before one of our

key Members has to leave.

Ben.

Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Madam Chair. Of course, it is a pleasure to have Ruth Massinga with us today. She was secretary of our

human resources agency when I was in the State legislature. We

worked very closely together, and she brought a lot of creative soluVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:10 Feb 17, 2000 Jkt 061229 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:61229 W&M1 PsN: W&M1
28

tions to problems that we have in Maryland. It was our loss when

you moved on, but it is nice to have you here today, so, welcome.

I did appreciate your testimony as to trying to get better information on outcomes. Following on what Mrs. Johnson has said, it

is important that we have adequate information to be able to

evaluate how programs are working and whether additional resources will be needed, and we do look forward to working with all

of you in developing that. We have language in our bill that requires HHS and the States to establish and track outcomes, so it

is part of our interest, and we think it is very important.

I am curious as to how you would rank the different obstacles

that face young foster children who are aging out of foster care? Is

it the lack of education? Lack of independent skills? Is it the lack

of health insurance? Is it lack of job training? Lack of housing? I

mean, I know all of these are factors, but could help us rank where

you think the highest priorities of needs are for those children

aging out of foster care? Who wants to take a crack?

Mr. KRONER. I will jump right in on that. I think the number one

thing that all these kids need is real life experience. They need to

get out there and feel what it means to live on their own and to

have that daily real life experience hit them on the head—budgeting their money, managing their time, controlling their friends,

dealing with their family members, dealing with a real life landlord, real life tenants, and things like that. The second thing is I

think we need to start a lot earlier. There is a provision in the bill

to start at 14, and I think that makes total sense.

What our county has done is we have a countywide self-sufficiency program for youth regardless of where they are at—foster

homes, group homes—everybody starts at 16, and the kids that

come from that program into our apartment program, you can tell

that they really kind of understand what they are getting themselves into, but it is a combination of starting earlier; doing a lot

of life skills training before the kids are placed out on their own;

placing them out on their own; doing life skills on top of that, and

then I think then you will see things happen.

Ms. MASSINGA. I think, though, Mark, let us not underestimate

the fact that there is continuity of relationships, because part of

what I think Mrs. Johnson and you, Mr. Cardin, alluded to is how

do you bring it all together? All those things that you ticked off are

needs, but if kids don’t have adults that they trust to help them

figure out, ‘‘OK, I made this mistake, so what am I going to do tomorrow, because I still have this need around health care; I still

have a need around housing?’’ That is where they get in trouble.

So, it is the lack of knitting it all together and having adults who

systematically help them figure it out, just like your own kids that

your program addresses. You know, if they make a mistake, you

have got to have real life experiences, but you also have to have

those experiences under the tutelage of people who will help you

and say ‘‘It is not fatal. Pick yourself up and move ahead.’’ And,

frequently, we give people skills but not human support, and so

they fall apart.

Ms. FAGNONI. In our examination of research, we do note that

the research that has tried to look at outcomes and link different

efforts of outcomes has shown that something really important is

29

that youth complete high school before they leave foster care. So,

there are some concrete sorts of actions that are most helpful if

they can complete those before they are out on their own.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Courtney.

Mr. COURTNEY. I would really agree with the argument that real

life experience is very important. We found that training per se

was not at all related to any of the important outcomes we looked

at. Now, granted, this is one study in Wisconsin, and we are looking globally at the State of Wisconsin. We did find that youth who

had engaged in some of the concrete experiences I talked about

(they had their medical records; they had actually gone out and

looked for jobs; they had had to deal with landlords) fared better

in terms of employment and housing stability, and so forth.

Another thing is I like the part of the bill that provides flexibility

for providing housing, because we find a huge amount of homelessness and housing and stability in this population. My partner in

this got involved in this kind of research, because he is a very

prominent homelessness researcher, and he was struck by the high

percentage of adults who are homeless who lived in foster care.

And then, last, social support—sort of another way of talking

about having stable relationships with adults. We find that social

support is actually the best predictor in our study of favorable outcomes; that they report that they have various kinds of social support to back them up, the ones who don’t fall through the cracks.

Mr. CARDIN. Well, I appreciate all of your testimony particularly

as to specific State studies. Obviously, I was most impressed with

the results from Baltimore County. Ms. Fagnoni, your conclusion is

that those children who had participated in independent living did

better in graduating from high school and finding employment. Do

you know how many of the children who were aging out of foster

care had an opportunity to participate in the program for independent skills?

Ms. FAGNONI. I don’t have the statistics on that specific program.

I do know that of the 70,000 or so foster care youth who fall into

the category of being in the age group close to aging out, that, perhaps, half of those receive some sorts of independent living services

but a far smaller percentage actually receive some of the concrete

types of assistance and are able to be in independent living types

of programs and transitional housing programs that seem to be

very helpful.

Mr. CARDIN. I would be interested—if you could make that available, I would be interested in seeing what percentage we are currently reaching in the jurisdiction I represent.

Ms. FAGNONI. OK.

Mr. CARDIN. Thank you.

[The information follows:]

At the independent living hearing on May 13, 1999, Representative Ben Cardin

asked GAO to provide him the percent of youth served under ILP in his congressional district. Unfortunately, Maryland does not keep statistics by congressional

district. However, following is information on Baltimore City and Baltimore County.

This information is for FFY 1998—the most recent year data is available.

30

Location

Youth Eligible

for ILP

Youth Served

by ILP

Percent

Served

Baltimore City ......................... 878 823 94%

worthwhile public hearing and enormously informative. I can attest

Chairman J

Mr. ENGLISH

Baltimore County .................... 165 135 82%

OHNSON

. Thank you, Madam Chair. This has been a truly

of Connecticut. Mr. English.

f

to the fact that I came into this with scant knowledge of the independent living programs for youth and foster care. This hearing

has been helpful for me to appreciate, for one thing, how little we

in Washington know about what is going on out there. I think

there seems to be consensus on this panel that there ought to be

some form of performance measurement applied to State programs

that we fund. Can you comment—starting with Mr. Courtney, on

how difficult it would be to develop a worthwhile system of performance measurement, and what would be your thoughts on what

would necessarily be included at a minimum?

Mr. COURTNEY. The difficulty would really depend on what it

was you wanted to know.

Mr. ENGLISH. What should we know?

Mr. COURTNEY. Well, we should know certainly whether they

graduate from school—that is relatively easy although not trivial

to come up with that information. We should know about employment stability and housing stability, and we should know about institutionalization, because we find one-fourth of the males in our

sample who were abused and neglected (they were not adjudicated

delinquents) were incarcerated within a year of leaving the system.

So, those are some basic things. Institutionalization history, education history, many States could get that information together.

When you look at housing stability, employment stability, you have

got to survey them, and the problem is they won’t all be involved

in your program. This is a problem with a lot of the research. We

have research on people who choose or are able to participate in

these programs, and you have a huge group that are not participating, and to get that kind of information on everyone would be

an expensive proposition. To do it periodically, so that you have an

idea, a representative idea, of what is happening in every State, I

think is feasible and could be done with the funding you are talking about.

Mr. ENGLISH. Ms. Fagnoni, what would you add to that?

Ms. FAGNONI. Well, I would agree that those are some of the key

measures—graduating from high school, employment, obtaining

and retaining employment, housing stability, and whether or not

there are other poor outcomes, such as institutionalization, but I

also agree that the difficulty lies more in trying to get some of the

information than it does in sort of figuring out what the key things

you want to know about people who are self-sufficient adults.

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Kroner.

31

Mr. KRONER. Yes, I think most of what I was going to say has

been said. I think that the issue—one of things I wanted to make

a point of is that we have noticed that a lot of young people that

didn’t do well right after they left the program came back a year

later and were doing really well, so I think that there is a problem

here in the sense that you are going to see this roller coaster effect

with these kids for a couple of years. The other fact is there is no

control group since we can’t compare this group to a normal group

of teens that would be forced to go out on their own. Even whatever

we find is not really going to give us a clear picture, but I think

I would look at housing stability; I would look at involvement with

the criminal justice system, and I would look at the involvement

with the mental health system and any type of reinvolvement with

the county welfare of State welfare systems.

Mr. ENGLISH. Is there any way of measuring the safety of the

people that are participating in these programs?

Mr. KRONER. If you could have contact with these kids, you could

get a lot of information about how safe they felt and how safe they

were and things that happened to them. Again, the issue is trying

to find them once they are out of the system.

Mr. ENGLISH. Ms. Massinga, what do you think?

Ms. MASSINGA. Well, I think the list that you have heard is a list

that I agree with. To go to the question of how to gather the data,

it seems to me that this is not unlike the issues that you are looking at as you look at what happens with people who are leaving

public assistance, that the longer we look at it, if we have relatively decent data, we can start to make some judgments about

what is happening, and you know that the States are beginning to

step up to the challenge, not all in the same way, but States are

beginning to really step up to the challenge of providing much

longer term data about results. You can’t get it all on everybody,

as Mark points out—both Marks—but I think if there is some expectation that there is rigor associated with the measures—and

you have heard about half a dozen which we all think are important, I think it is possible to start to develop the mindset in States

and localities that outcomes, the results, are the real things that

matter. So, I think that that is why you are focusing on accountability structures in that way as you have, as you tried to look at

other systems particularly reform of public welfare is an important

statement and signal for your Subcommittee to make that it is important to work on this issue of results-oriented measures.

Mr. ENGLISH. Ms. Fagnoni, you made a comment during your

testimony that you have discovered that in some cases group home

regulations are an impediment to the implementation of independent living programs. Could you elaborate on that in my remaining few seconds?

Ms. FAGNONI. For example, one of the things we found is that

sometimes the utensils one would need to cook with are locked

away, and when I inquired about the reason for that, it is a safety

issue, and among cooking utensils are knives which could be used

by one youth against another, but it clearly limits their ability to

have practical experience in cooking which is a key element in

independent living. So, that is one example.

32

Mr. ENGLISH. Do you run into other examples where State regulations create a barrier to independent living programs being successfully carried forward, and is there something we should ask the

States to do in the way of deregulation that would make it easier

to move independent living programs forward?

Ms. FAGNONI. I think I don’t have a great deal of detail on that.

This is an ongoing study we are doing, and we have some anecdotal

examples. That is something we could think about exploring a little

more. I don’t know whether people who are in the field have dealt

with that.

Mr. KRONER. Mr. English, yes, I think there are a lot of States

that still do not allow youth to be placed into their own apartments

without 24-hour supervision, and that is the biggest impediment to

making something like this happen. They are so concerned about

liability issues, and I think what a lot of States are doing is allowing the private nonprofits to take on that role and assume some of

the liability for the individual placements.

Now, we have a similar situation with a lot of our foster parents.

They will not allow the youth in their homes to go into the kitchen,

because they don’t want them to mess the kitchen up. They won’t

let the kids use their washers and driers, so not only are these kids

not learning from a regular family, they are being systematically

kept from learning things that they are going to need to know. So,

I think that there are policies at the program and there are policies

at the State level that are blocking a lot of this from happening except in Ohio.

Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you. That is an important qualifier——

[Laughter.]

And I thank the panel. Madam Chairman, I thank you for your

patience.

Chairman JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Camp.

Mr. CAMP. I am not from Ohio; I am from Michigan, but thank

you all for your testimony very much, and obviously the concern is

that kids walk off a cliff after they leave foster care, and I really

don’t have any questions for you, but I appreciate the testimony,

and I have read your statements. I may not be here for all of your

verbal testimony, but I think obviously the idea of trying to have

self-sufficiency for kids after they leave the foster care system is

very important and getting the information to understand what

their needs are.

But I—when you hear that many of them are below the eighthgrade reading level at least in the Wisconsin-Madison data, I think

that is a real concern, and I want to thank the Chairman for introducing this independent living bill and having this hearing, and I

do want to work with the Subcommittee also particularly on the

issue of health care and Medicaid, potentially, for some of the

young people who need it transitioning out of what probably was

a pretty difficult situation or they wouldn’t have been in foster care

in the first place, and hoping to see them become productive citizens. I certainly wasn’t productive at 18, and I think many people

aren’t, and it takes a couple of years to get the skills needed to be

productive. So, I want to pledge my efforts to work with the Chairman and thank all of you for your testimony. Thank you.

Chairman JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Watkins.

33

Mr. WATKINS. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to thank

all of you for your dedication and interest in this legislation. I

would like to share some of my experiences of having been a foster

parent. We adopted a young lady when she was age 15. My wife

and I had a home licensed and available for young ladies. You have

them for a while, and you lose a chunk of your heart every time

they leave. I think for every child there is a different variable. I

think it is just like raising your own kids; they are all different.

We never worry about messing up the kitchen; there are foster parents that probably do. I think our biggest problem, Madam Chair,

is that we probably need more and better foster homes. We need

more incentives for families who have been successful, to have foster children. Let me tell you, there is no one raised anymore poorer

than I was as a kid. We had a hard time working things out as

family, because a lot of the administrative people in the welfare

program and DHS. They thought our family, because of its economic class, didn’t qualify. Instead of looking at it as, ‘‘Hey, if you

have got a family that has been able to have some success’’—and

I don’t want to be saying it is that successful, but it is a process

to follow. I think, those children to go through instead of putting

them back into a situation of just a little bit of survivability out

there. We should give them a way that they can see and feel and

touch and be a part of successful families. Families that have—

maybe worked their way through college, maybe worked scrubbing

floors and worked on farms and done all those things, but the children see that there is a work ethic there, too.

Now, what that experience, Nancy, has done for the Wesley and

Lou Watkins family, we ended up finally adopting a young lady, 15

years of age, who was going to be thrown back into a worse situation. We were fortunate enough, she came to us and said ‘‘Will you

adopt me?’’ We said we would, and she is now a professional lady.

We put every dollar back into a college account for her, every single

dollar. I think that we need to look at how to lure more families

into having foster children and possibly even adoption. I think

some type of tax credits that would allow these type of families opportunities would do that.

We had to try to make sure that the dollars—if I can just take

a moment or two on this—didn’t become a tax burden for us in

bringing up that little girl. We wanted to let her become successful

in her right. She didn’t know who her father was; her mother was

an alcoholic and a drug person, but now I would like to say she is

a very professional person. She has given us a granddaughter, a

Native American. I just think we have got to get more successful

families in the foster care program and help them to have a little

independence. We must try to figure out how we get some more

solid families involved in trying to help one-on-one with these families.

Madam Chair, I would like to really work in some direction along

that line how we can lure more successful families into becoming

foster parents. You know, it didn’t pertain to everything, but I

think every one of us in this room is different, and I think every

one of these foster children is different.

Chairman JOHNSON of Connecticut. Thank you. Thank you, Congressman Watkins.

34

It is very frustrating legislating from the Federal level, because

I honestly don’t know how prescriptive to be or how clearly to delineate things, but when you tell me that foster parents don’t want

their kids to do the laundry, have they no understanding at all of

what their responsibility is as foster parents? Wes’ comments about

he and his wife putting aside the stipends so these kids would have

some savings is really wonderful. All my kids are asking, ‘‘Could

we have a say in how that money is spent?’’ How do we get foster

parents to teach kids if you have $100, go to the store, see what

you would really like, see that you can get maybe one and a half

garments with that significant amount of money, and then go back

at the sales and compare and see how much further the $100 will

go? So, they learn—take them to second-hand clothing shops. My

kids both outfit all of their children at tag sales. It is now beneath

them to pay full price. They won’t even let me pay full price. When

I go and talk to single parents about this, they think that somehow

I am demeaning them by suggesting that they look at these other

places. How do we teach this kind of economy? We all grew up on

it, so we have no feelings about checking out those sources, but we

don’t teach this.

On health care, most of our foster kids live in cities. There is not

a city in America, big city, that doesn’t have a community health

center provided with Federal funds at which anyone over 18 can

get everything but hospital care on a sliding scale fee. For them it

would be free. Even if you pay the maximum cost for a full physical, it is $27. Why aren’t we—talk about real life experience—

walking them over there, helping them sign up, making sure they

see their physician the first time. When you say hands on, I really

see what you mean, but how do we also get the system to think

about all the things there are you need to do just to run your life

hands on and help them do that.

Now, to get back to something that you brought up, Ms.

Massinga, that really struck me. How are we going to get the agencies to cooperate and integrate better? And, most importantly, how

are we going to get that larger family—I thought that was a very

interesting point you made, and you just breezed over it in one sentence—it is absurd that we don’t—just like when a kid now under

the Safe Homes Act comes into the system, we get the larger family

involved in thinking about how do we manage this child and how

you get them out, and we do a lot more on welfare reform with kinship care. In other parts of the system, we are beginning to look

at the larger family and where the resources are to support this

child. We really do need to build that, and we don’t have that yet.

So, I want to just hear any of your comments on how do we create some continuity of relationships for that child in their larger

community? What should be our responsibility in this bill to urge

the States to have some continuity of relationship between the individual, the kid, and the system, and the integration of the resources and getting really some language about practical education,

or how do we talk about that to ourselves so that the States will

really think about that? We don’t have very much longer for this

panel, so I am throwing that out.

I just want to throw out one other thing, then I will give you a

brief comment, but please get back to us on these things. Once we

35

get done with foster care, there are similar kids who are not under

the State’s charge, and they are brave, courageous kids. They can’t

live at home; they won’t live at home the circumstances are so bad;

they want to stay in high school; they are sleeping in cars; they are

sleeping from one friend’s house to another, because our shelters

cannot accept them.

And one last comment, we do in this bill prohibit the use of

money for housing under 18. That is because that is the way the

old system was. We may need to change that. So, think about those

things, and if you want to make any closing comments and then

get back to us on some of these things, but we need to do a good

job on this, because we have got another group of kids out there

we have got to think about next.

Ms. MASSINGA. Well, you know, I certainly—and I am sure my

colleagues—welcome the idea to think further about the issues that

you have raised, but I want to say to Mr. Watkins, you are very

right. One of the issues about this bill, I hope, is that we start to

build some continuity over time between foster parents and extended kin so that the attachment they feel for these kids will help

to create that web of relationships that help them do well. And if

we can—one of the things we have got to do is figure out how to

incentivize foster parents and value them, because we don’t do that

well in this country, by and large, and that is part of why these

kids feel and we in the system act as if 18 is the place when you

fall off the cliff with the relationships, and in real life that really

doesn’t work that way. So, I will be happy to think further about

other ways to build on those kinds of——

Chairman JOHNSON of Connecticut. And as you look at the final

draft of the legislation, help us see where it is we need to say what.

Anyone else?

Mr. KRONER. Yes, I think extending the age to 21 is going to do

us a world of wonders for establishing that continuity. It just gives

everybody more time to get to know each other, and we have kids

that are referred to us at 17 that are out—at 17 and a half that

are out at 18, and 6 months is nowhere long enough to get to know

somebody much less develop a meaningful relationship.

I think we also need to recognize the role that foster parents

have played and adoptive parents in some cases in the lives of

these kids and try to keep them involved with the kids when they

move over to independent living; have some kind of incentive, even

if it is financial, for those foster parents to maintain contact—have

those kids over for dinner and things like that. That would make

a big difference to both the independent living programs as well as

the kids that are making that transition.

Ms. FAGNONI. I think the focus on outcomes can help in the sense

that to the extent that we can see more studies and get a better

understanding of outcomes associated with different programs and

then start to look at what do those programs have as elements that

help achieve certain outcomes, I think that may help reinforce

some of things you have heard today in terms of the need for the

real hands-on experience and the concrete experience.

So, I think you are right. It is difficult to figure how much you

prescribe in terms of what goes to these kids, but I think your focus

36

on outcomes can really help over time, at least, shed some light on

what does and doesn’t work.

Mr. COURTNEY. I would like to really second that. I think it will

be very difficult at this point to be very prescriptive in terms of

telling the States, ‘‘These are the things you need to do.’’ However,

I can say from Wisconsin that the example of providing data, concrete data on what has happened to kids has completely transformed that State’s point of view on this subject. I mean, there was

very little attention to it, and, to their credit, the minute these data

came out, the State said, ‘‘Well, we have to do something about

this.’’ There was a lot of media attention to it, and now we are putting together a commission that is going to meet around the State;

share this information; get information from community members,

foster parents, foster kids, and completely revamp the system in

Wisconsin, I expect. That is certainly the intention. So, I think concrete data periodically on how kids are actually doing is enormously powerful information to have, and we simply haven’t had

that.

Mr. WATKINS. Do we have a study, because we should be measuring outcome, I think—I know I am out of order here, Madam

Chair—but we need to be able to measure it. You know, my wife

and I, we lost—I felt like I was a failure for the first three or four

or five foster children we had, and each time one of them left,

thank God my wife was insistent on the last young lady, because

she is the one that later we ended up adopting, and we got a wonderful daughter out of it, but you lose part of it. You just don’t

want to go through it again after you lose your heart enough times,

but we need some way to have a way to measure successes, and

I think it would breed success. It is just like, Madam Chair, trying

to get families make it more conducive to get families that have

achieved certain success to bring young people in those so they can

witness that. They can witness success and role models and realize,

hey, they can do it, and I think we can get maybe the outcome up

a little higher and keep raising that on up if we possibly can, but

I would like to look at that and see.

Chairman JOHNSON of Connecticut. I thank the panel very much

for your testimony and its conciseness, and I look forward to any

comments you might have on the draft which is still evolving.

Thank you.

And now it is my pleasure to call as a witness our Majority

Whip, Tom DeLay, who comes to this subject with a great deal of

personal experience as a foster father, and thank you, Tom, for

your long interest in this subject and your encouragement and support.

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM DELAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND HOUSE MAJORITY WHIP

Mr. DELAY. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman. I am really excited and confident that you are doing this bill and that you are

holding this hearing, and I do appreciate the opportunity to speak

here today on behalf of the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999,

introduced by yourself, Madam Chairman, and the Ranking Member, Ben Cardin.

37

It is very difficult to put my experiences down in a short presentation, and I wanted to touch on a couple of issues, but having foster children opens your eyes to what is going on in the world with

our children, and I have got a lot of story to tell, but I will try to

keep it as brief as possible.

As you know, this legislation recognizes that youth who are turning 18 and leaving foster care, they experience serious problems

trying to make it on their own. They are not prepared by the

present system for that terrible word called ‘‘emancipation day.’’

We just really need to change that word. It frightens them when

you talk about emancipation. It sort of implies that they were incarcerated in the foster care system. Many of those youth have not

even graduated from high school; they are not employable, and

they lack the basic skills like cooking and making a paycheck last

through the week. It has been our experience that children we had

gotten from other foster homes were not even taught how to shop

for clothes. They were issued t-shirts and blue jeans and never had

been into a store and didn’t even know the sizes that they wore

much less being turned out on the street to fend for themselves

when they don’t even know how to shop for clothes.

When these young people leave foster care, they are not only

leaving the emotional support of foster families, but they are also

forced to leave behind their housing and their Medicaid. The Johnson-Cardin legislation is vitally important, because all of these

problems are addressed in this proposal while at the same time you

allow the States to design and conduct their own programs, and I

think that is vital and key to the success that you are trying to

reach.

I am also pleased that the Subcommittee has worked so hard to

produce a bill that will be revenue neutral before it leaves this

Subcommittee, yet will effectively address the imminent needs of

our children aging out of the foster care system. I plan to cosponsor

this legislation, but it is not as a Congressman that I am here

today but as a foster parent.

My wife, Christine, and I currently are blessed with two adolescent foster children, the older of whom will be emancipated on

June 24, and I wanted to share with you several of the situations

that the current system has placed us in. Let me just say at the

outset my concern is not for our family. I share these examples

with you on behalf of other foster families who may not have the

financial means to address some of these issues. I believe that too

many adolescents leave their foster homes unable to meet their

most basic needs for survival. It is my experience that the current

system leaves children who exit the foster care system without the

skills, the tools they need to live independently.

They also—the system leaves children in deep fear. One of the

most traumatic things that happened to my foster daughter was

the day that we told her that she would have to start planning for

emancipation day. She went back down to her room—we didn’t

know this till later—and cried herself to sleep, because she was

scared to death, and she is about to be 18. And the second traumatic experience for her was meeting with CPS, Child Protective

Services, and making her make decisions and making her face the

fact that on June 24 she was on her own. My oldest foster child,

38

though, she will attend college starting in August; she is officially

emancipated in June, and of course we will care for her for the interim 6 weeks, but there are many foster kids whose foster families

can’t afford to keep them after the funding stops. She will also lose

her Medicaid benefits in June, and I just ask the question, what

do children who have medical needs do after emancipation?

I am fortunate enough to be able to care for my foster daughter’s

needs after her emancipation, but, again, I am worried about all

those foster children whose foster families do not have the resources to pay out of pocket for medical expenses, and an important skill to have as these kids make the transition to adulthood

and independence and attempt to find jobs or attend college, is the

ability to even drive a car. We recently enrolled our two kids in

driver’s ed and discovered that we had to pay $570 for their course

out of our pocket; again, not a problem for us, and we did it willingly, but circumstances might be very different for another family,

and it is for those families that this bill is so vital.

We are sentencing our kids to failure and chronic dependency if

we do not arm them with the skills and the resources that they

need as they transition out of foster care. The result time and time

again is more of these young adults are on welfare; more former

foster kids are homeless, and more and more of them are in jail

and committing crimes. We must empower State and local governments to cut bureaucracy with increased flexibility and enable

them to provide the children in our foster system with a transition

system that actually prepares them to live as independent functioning productive members of our society, and I thank you,

Madam Chair.

[The prepared statement follows:]

Statement of Hon. Tom DeLay, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Texas, and House Majority Whip

I am Tom DeLay, House Majority Whip from the 22d District in Texas.

Madam, Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak here today on behalf of

the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 introduced today by yourself and Ranking

Member Congressman Ben Cardin.

This legislation recognized that youth who are turning 18 and leaving foster care

experience serious problems trying to make it on their own. Many of these youth

have not graduated from high school, are not employable and lack basic skills like

cooking and making a paycheck last through the week. When youth leave foster care

they are not only leaving the emotional support of foster families but are also forced

to leave behind their housing and their medicaid. The Johnson-Cardin legislation

is important because all of these problems are addressed in this proposal while at

the same time allowing the States to design and conduct their own programs.

I am also pleased that the committee has worked so hard to produce a bill that

will be revenue neutral before it leaves committee, yet will effectively address the

imminent needs of our children again out of the foster care system.

I plan to co-sponsor this legislation, but it is not as a Congressman that I am here

today, but as a Foster Parent.

My wife and I currently are blessed with two adolescent foster children, the older

of whom will graduate from high school June 24th.

I want to share with you several of the situations the current system has placed

us in.

Let me say at the outset, my concern is not for our family, I share these examples

with you on behalf of other foster families who may not have the means to address

some of these issues.

I believe that too many adolescents leave their foster homes unable to meet their

most basic neneds for survival.

It is my experience that the current system leaves children who exit the foster

care system without the skills and the tools they need to live independently.

39

My oldest foster child will attend our local community college starting in August.

She is officially ‘‘emancipated’’ in June. Of course, we will care for her in the interim

6 weeks; but there are many foster kids whose foster families cna’t afford to keep

themn after the funding stops.

She will also lose her medicaid benefits in June.

What do children who have medical needs do after emancipation?

I am fortunate enough to be able to care for my foster daughter’s needs after her

emancipation.

But again, I am worried about the foster children who’s foster families do not

have the resources to pay out of pocket for medical expenses.

An important skill to have as these kids make the transition to adulthood and

independence, and attempt to find jobs or attend college, is the ability to drive a

car.

We recently enrolled the kids in Drivers Ed and discovered that we had to pay

the $570 dollars for their course out of pocket. Again, not a problem, and we did

it willingly.

But circumstances might be different for another family, and it is for those families that this bill is so vital.

We are sentencing these kids to failure and chronic dependency if we do not arm

them with the skills and the resources they need as they transition out of care.

The result, time and again, is more of these young adults on welfare, more former

foster kids homeless, and more in jail and committing crimes.

We must empower state and local governments to cut bureaucracy with increased

flexibility, and enable them to provide the kids in our foster system with a transition system that actually prepares them to live as independent, functioning, productive members of society.

story about even the driver’s license. We take that so for granted.

Thank you.

Chairman J

Mr. DELAY. Yes, my daughter was 17 years old. The other probOHNSON of Connecticut. That is a very interesting

f

lem, too, is no one allows them to drive, because your insurance

goes through the roof, and, therefore, none of them have driver’s

licenses. And the second is the foster care agency—this is all before

emancipation—doesn’t want the liability of the child being in a

wreck. Our foster care agency had the unfortunate experience of a

foster mother allowing her daughter to drive the car having never

driven the car, and she had a wreck and was killed. They almost

were out of business. So, now they don’t want any of their kids to

drive. So, when they turn 18, they can’t even drive. Even if they

wanted to, they can’t drive.

Chairman JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Watkins. Excuse me, Mr.

English.

Mr. ENGLISH. Madam Chair, I don’t have any questions, but I

thank Mr. DeLay for coming in and walking us through some of

his personal experiences which I think are very compelling. We

very much appreciate your insight, sir. We hope we are going to be

able to produce legislation that will go the distance. It has clearly

already attracted bipartisan support and with the leadership of the

Chair, hopefully, the House will act on this legislation this year.

So, we thank you for being with us.

Mr. DELAY. Well, I will do my part, Mr. English, to make sure

it is going to the floor.

Chairman JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Camp.

Mr. CAMP. Well, thank you for—I am way down here. I am still

in the room, though; that is all that counts. [Laughter.]

40

Chairman JOHNSON of Connecticut. This is the arbitrariness of

the Subcommittee’s election system. He has actually been on this

Subcommittee longer than most of us.

Mr. CAMP. Thank you very much for your testimony and for what

you are doing for your foster children, because your support of this

issue and these concerns will help move this along in the Congress.

You know, it is interesting, because I have had other foster families

tell me about the driving issue, and it is tough to get on your own

without being able to get some work especially in rural areas in

this country where there isn’t any mass transportation.

So, thank you for being here and for your testimony, and I look

forward to working with you on this legislation. Thank you.

Mr. DELAY. I just might say, I thank you for your comments, Mr.

Camp, but I also say it is very, very tough to have a 17-year-old

boy that wants to drive and telling him he isn’t driving, that creates many problems inside the home. [Laughter.]

Chairman JOHNSON of Connecticut. That is right. Mr. Watkins.

Mr. WATKINS. Tom, I am interested in what you are doing. It is

a blessing. My wife and I have gone through that as we have

shared and we opened our home for girls. They provide all kinds

of unbelievable experiences, and I guess you try to work through

it.

You know, we are fortunate. Like you say, you were a businessman before you came here, and you are now in Congress, and I was

a businessman and now Congress, and we are able to do some

things, and thank God that we have been fortunate enough to do

that. But how do we attract more families?

We are a product of our environment, and, believe me, I grew up

in a small community of less than 200; everyone knew each other;

I mean, everybody. However, let me tell you, I do, though, worry

and have laid awake at night over how do you save inner city kids?

They have no chance of having a role model in many cases, and

how do you give them a chance to see the other side of that mountain, that there is something there? Fortunately, my wife, Lou, and

I—I married a preacher’s daughter, she has a heart. I will be very

honest, when we lost one of our foster children, Debbie—we had

her for 11 months, and she ran away, I refused to have any more

foster children. I told my wife, ‘‘No.’’ You know, she called me when

I was in the State senate and says, ‘‘There is a young lady named

Sally that needs a place to stay,’’ and I first said, ‘‘No.’’ She said

to me, ‘‘So, you mean you will not let Sally come over for dinner?’’

‘‘No, I didn’t say that Lou. Yes, she can come for dinner.’’ Well, she

put Sally right across from me. [Laughter.]

All during that night, I had to sit there over dinner and look at

this little, beautiful, young lady that had come to our house with

only a small brown paper sack of clothes; that is all she had. Well,

when we did the dishes, my wife said, ‘‘What do you think?’’ And

I said, ‘‘Let her stay.’’ She is now our daughter, fortunately, and

has a beautiful granddaughter for us. We put every dollar back

that came to us as foster parents into a college fund, so she knew

that she had a way of getting a college education. As the daddy,

so to speak, I thought she should have majored in home economics.

Right? Most girls should, right? [Laughter.]

41

Old-fashioned dad. When she came home from the first month of

college and said, ‘‘Daddy, if you don’t let me major in agriculture,

I am going to quit.’’ So, I said, ‘‘You go get your degree in agriculture; I want you to get a degree.’’ She now is a very professional

person in farm finance work.

How do we get more successful families involved in doing foster

care and all? Many of our parents—and this is not all bad, I understand—but many of them are really low-income people that unfortunately have not ever been able to accomplish with education and

they are needing to use what money comes in of dollars to exist.

So, the day comes when they have to let them go, because it becomes a burden. They come in your home and in 6 more weeks on

down the road you are going to do it, because you have to bridge

the gap, and it is the best thing for that child. And I think we were

trying to say what is the best thing for the child even if we had

to keep her another year or 2 years. It doesn’t matter, because we

put every dollar back into a college fund for this young lady that

we adopted then as our daughter. We had one heck of a time trying

to adopt her, because of the complications from foster care to being

able to adopt. It was a terrible experience going through that, but

I think if we could give them—and that is why I was interested in

the measurement of success—how do we allow them to bridge the

gap, so they can become successful young people? There are a lot

of them that have got tremendous ability.

Mr. DELAY. Well, Mr. Watkins, first of all, I want to hire your

wife for the Whip organization; maybe that is how I can get your

vote. [Laughter.]

I now know how to get to you. [Laughter.]

Mr. WATKINS. You usually get results, too.

Mr. DELAY. Very quickly, I have the same concern. I have a lot

of criticism of the foster care system, not of the individual people,

but the system itself is about to fail, because I have seen in associating with foster parents, a lot of foster parents—in fact, it was exhibited in the foster home that our boy came from—they are doing

it for the money, and they are warehousing the kids; they are sticking them in rooms; not allowing them to come out; not teaching

them a thing, and just collecting a check, and we have to address

that someday, but the other side, too, is—and it is the reason that

I have started becoming very vocal—my wife and I decided early

on when we got involved with abused children many years ago that

we wouldn’t tell anybody, because we didn’t want people to think

that we were doing it for politics——

Mr. WATKINS. Right, right.

Mr. DELAY [continuing]. And the more we got into it and the

worse we saw, we felt like that I was put here for a purpose and

maybe this is the purpose to raise the visibility of what is going

on with our abused children, and the more and more that I speak

out and have spoken out just in the last few months, the more people have come to me, people of means that have come to me and

said, ‘‘You know, I have got a big, empty house, and I could do this.

If you can do it, I can do it.’’ And they start checking into it, and

it helps the local organizations—in our case, Child Advocates of

Fort Wayne County and others in our foster care system, Houston

Achievement Place—to recruit, because we are giving them names

42

and those kinds of things, and it is like the old starfish story—you

know that story, right? Where the father and the son were walking

on the beach, and the beach was littered with starfish, and the father picked up one and threw it back in the sea, and the son said,

‘‘Well, daddy, what are you doing that for? You will never be able

to pick up all these starfish and throw them out to sea; it doesn’t

matter?’’ And the daddy looked down at the son and said, ‘‘It matters to them.’’ And if we do it one kid at a time, one foster home

at a time, we can make a huge impact.

Mr. WATKINS. The same reason, though. I didn’t go public a lot

earlier, because I thought people would think I was doing this politically. I probably talked more about it right here on this Subcommittee the last 2 years than I have any other time. In fact, I

kind of fell in this thing. I didn’t really know this was going to be

part of that Subcommittee, and maybe there is a reason for it. I

think there is a lot of additional things that we all can do to help

elevate that and make it—notch it up a lot more in success, and

I appreciate what you and your family are doing, and maybe we

can——

Mr. DELAY. Well, I appreciate that. I will just close with saying,

Madam Chairman, that I feel very, very strongly that you cannot

disconnect the community involvement. There is a role for government to play in dealing with abused and neglected children, but

the most effective success with these children come from organizations that raise their own money from their own communities and

connects people to people by doing that, and people are interested

in a young person as that person and that name and not a number,

and we can never ever discourage that. We should focus on community-based programs, certainly overseen by government programs,

but we should never ever discourage communities from raising

their own money, getting involved, and running their programs.

Chairman JOHNSON of Connecticut. Well, I thank you for your

testimony and for your experience and consider it a great asset to

our Subcommittee that Wes has had direct experience and you

have direct experience. Passage of the Adoption and Safe Families

Act 2 years ago is making an enormous difference——

Mr. DELAY. Yes, it is.

Chairman JOHNSON of Connecticut [continuing]. In breaking

down the barriers for foster parents to adopt children, and actually

that is where the growth is in adoptions, and that is one of the big

centers of growth in adoptions. And, also, that business of the bill

requiring a 15-month plan and getting kids out of homes that are

never going to come around for them and into permanent homes,

so we hope that we will reduce the flow of kids into foster care, and

we hope we will deal better through this bill with older kids who

have been in foster care for a long time, and then there is a way

to begin looking at how we do fund the States so that being a foster

parent could be more like being a day care provider; something

that requires you to provide a certain level of education and actually pays you more than just the mere stipend that we currently

pay and carries a lot more responsibility with it.

I don’t know what the answer is, but I think your point about

community is very important. This business of placing kids in a

community 25 miles or 50 miles from where all their friends are

43

and ripping them out of one high school where they are being successful because now they have to move to a home that is in a different community. It is the most disheartening thing to talk to kids

who have finally stabilized themselves, and then have the worker

appear 1 day to completely throw the pieces of their lives up in the

air again. So, there is a lot of work to be done on the system itself,

but part of the problem is the rigidity of how we fund it, and we

do have to approach that.

As to your comments on this bill, we certainly will pay for it, but

we are about $130 million short of being able to make sure that

the kids can participate in Medicaid, and I think we do have to find

a way to make sure that when they turn 18 they don’t lose access

to health care, because adolescence is such a very, very important

time to learn to take care of yourself physically and also a critical

time to deal with certain mental health and substance tendencies

that really are the difference between making it as an adult and

not making it.

So, thanks for your interest and support. We appreciate it.

Mr. DELAY. Thanks very much.

Chairman JOHNSON of Connecticut. The final panel, let me bring

forward Eileen McCaffrey, executive director of the Orphan Foundation of America; Kelli Sutton Block of the People Places of Charlottesville, Charlottesville, Virginia; Sonja Matheny, student at

North Carolina Central University, Center of Keys for Life Program, Maryland, and Montrey Bowie, a high school student from

Ellicott City, Maryland, Our House program: and my colleague, Mr.

Cardin, is due to return any minute. We are going to start with Eileen McCaffrey from the Orphan Foundation.

STATEMENT OF EILEEN MCCAFFREY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

ORPHAN FOUNDATION OF AMERICA, VIENNA, VIRGINIA

Ms. MCCAFFREY. Madam Chair, thank you for having me, Members of the Subcommittee. I am very, very pleased to be here today.

At this point, nearly every one of my buttons have been pushed.

You have raised issues that I think about, I breathe, I sleep——

Chairman JOHNSON of Connecticut. Not exactly the buttons you

would expect of the Ways and Means Committee unless it is to set

tax policy. [Laughter.]

Ms. MCCAFFREY. Right. So many of the things that have been

raised here today have answers. They are not easy, but there are

things we can do that will make a difference. In reference to this

bill, you have done a really good job. It is quite obvious that you

have listened to the kids. We hear them throughout this bill. The

fact that you put in specific language about independent living programs and things they should cover—hard skills—that is important. You touched on the issue housing, money, support services for

kids till 21, thank you.

The framework flexibility you have defined with these issues and

goals must be addressed with independent living programs. The

couple of things you asked about as far as reporting and what is

reasonable to expect. We need to involve the kids. We need to get

them to understand that them answering these surveys, them participating in the program is a way that they can give back. I have

personally known over 1,000 foster children, and 999 of them want

44

to improve the system. If we build them into the system, if we ask

them to participate as equals, as stakeholders, they will absolutely

help define outcome, and they will answer those surveys. One of

the other issues brought up was how to make these programs more

effective? Again, involve the children. Involve community groups,

involve adoptive parents.

Right now, programs are defined by people, by program experts,

and they don’t necessarily meet the needs of the kids. A number

of years ago, I was at a conference, and a woman from California

was saying they would use their State independent living money to

hire a doctor—it was a girl’s program with gynecologists—to see

the girls. So, I politely asked her, ‘‘Where are you?’’ assuming they

were in rural California. And she said, ‘‘We are in L.A.’’ I couldn’t

believe it. I couldn’t believe it. And I said to her, ‘‘Well, what about

the clinics? Those girls will have to use these clinics in a couple of

months.’’ ‘‘Well, it would be easier,’’ and she just kept telling me

it would easier, and I kept saying, ‘‘Easier for who?’’ And that is

the point. Programs have to be designed with the kids in mind.

Much of what was said today was about the different groups of

kids, and, yes, there are absolutely a number of low functioning

foster youth, and there are high functioning foster youth. One of

the concerns I have is that independent living programs will start

creaming the crop. Those kids want to stay in care, because they

have reached a level of understanding what they can get from the

system, and I don’t mean that in a negative sense. They realize

they need more support; they will stay in care. It is the kids who

have been let down so often, who are so angry, and they have not

connected with anyone in the system that will leave. So, I think

States—I think the reporting mechanism is critical; can’t stress it

enough. I think they have to be held accountable similar to the

ways we are looking at schools and doing scorecards on those, the

American public deserves to know the billions of dollars are spent

in foster care, and that will only be told with outcome. So, please—

and that is one of the things that has to stay in this bill.

We would also like to see more innovative programs being highlighted and used as models; programs that absolutely stress work

and career training. There is a program called Our House in Maryland that you will hear from. It is built around work, and by giving

the kids an idea of what employment they will go into, they can

effectively do independent living skills; they can effectively do

school, GED work. I think unless we start talking to these kids

about apprentice programs, about all the different options, we are

going to lose too many.

Last, I would like independent living programs to better train—

I think the whole system has to gear everyone involved in a foster

kid’s life in the independent living concept. Foster parents need to

be trained as group home workers who are often very low paid and

underskilled. You have to understand the concept of independent

living, and they themselves many need some training. They may

not have made some good choices along the way or fulfilled their

process. It is not reasonable to expect them to help the kids do it

unless we train them.

Additionally, there are—this country is founded on volunteerism.

People call my organization every day saying, ‘‘How can I help?’’

45

There really needs to be mechanisms for volunteers and mentoring.

More than anything, that is what these kids need. They need relationships with people, and then they will come back to the system,

and they will tell them their outcome. As we talked about—as Mr. Watkins talked about recruiting fos- ter parents, I have some strong ideas on that. We can do that; we

can do better, but the system has to be opened up. We have to take

it away from child welfare experts and make it more community

based. Let those experts share their expertise, but let us learn from

parents who have successfully raised children. Let us take from existing resources—nonprofits that are in the community, church

groups, business associations. There are so many resources in this

rich country that to think our foster children are going without is

a tragedy.

Most of what needs to be said has been said already, and I do

just want to reiterate that these children are assets, but they are

falling through the cracks, and we all lose, and I think we could

work together. I think that States need the flexibility, but they

need to be held accountable, and they need to better incorporate existing resources into their programs rather than constantly creating new. Thank you.

[The prepared statement follows:]

Statement of Eileen McCaffrey, Executive Director, Orphan Foundation of

America, Vienna, Virginia

I would like to begin by thanking you Madam Chairman and Rep. Cardin for your

work on this bill and say it will increase much needed services for a nearly forgotten

group of American teenagers. We as a country must begin to value the potential of

foster youth and see them as an asset. This will require increased monetary investment and emotionally supporting their dreams by nurturing and guiding them

through the array of choices they face as young adults.

As Members of this esteemed committee each of you are well aware that too many

of our nation’s former wards of the state end up as grim statistics. When these kids

lose, we all lose. Whether you are look at the bottom line and see annual loss of

productivity or believe there is a moral obligation to provide quality services, the

fact is we have a vested interest in the 25,000 children that annually age out of

foster care.

The $140,000,000 expenditure proposed in this bill will support states’ initiatives

to better serve foster youth ages 16 to 21. You have wisely provided concrete guidelines after hearing foster youth’s frustration at being ill prepared for the work world

and post secondary education and training. Additionally, you realize foster teens

have not been given enough emotional and financial support as they take those first

steps toward independence and adulthood.

The bill gives states the flexibility they need to design and implement successful

and innovative programs. Yet, within the framework of flexibility you have clearly

defined the issues and goals that must be addressed by independent living programs

nationwide. The Orphan Foundation of America supports the specific language included in section 477. We applaud the emphasis on hard skills such as budgeting,

substance abuse prevention, career and goal planning, and post secondary preparation for youth ages 16 ¥18. Moreover, thank you for recognizing the need to provide

financial, housing, counseling and other support services to youth until they turn

21.

This bill directs social services to develop programs that meet the needs of the

whole child, including emotional and social needs. Every foster youth should have

the opportunity to develop relationships within their community that will provide

them with personal and emotional support. Children aging out of foster care desperately need friendship that will not end when their case is closed. Successful Independent Living Programs are have a multitude of community partners and devote

resources to recruiting and training mentors, life skills trainers, employment and

internship sponsors.

I also believe this bill does due diligence with the American tax payers money by

allocating $1,500,000 for review and reporting. The detailed data you request is not

46

cumbersome or overwhelming. Complete data collection will help all interested parties identify trends, spot weaknesses and deficiencies that can be corrected, and recognize efficacy. Given the total expenditures on the foster care system it is incumbent upon social service agencies to make this information public record. This is a good bill that provides a much-needed infusion of money into programs that are critical to the success of our nation’s foster teens. The three recommendations I would make to the committee are:

1) Do not lessen the reporting requirements. Consider it an annual health care checkup, some states will leave with a clean bill of health while others work with

the Department of Human Services to find treatment and remedies for their shortcomings. The U.S. taxpayer deserves to know the outcome of foster youth. 2) Allocate pilot project funding for innovative training, work and intern programs that address the needs of lower functioning foster youth. States could use this

money to support partnerships with businesses and existing nonprofits that train

youth for careers before discharge. The Maryland based OUR HOUSE Youth program trains young men to be carpenters; this model could be replicated. Programs

should help youth begin apprenticeships in culinary arts, welding, etc. 3) Direct states to incorporate independent living education into training for foster parents, group home workers and case managers. Everyone involved in foster care

must begin to realize they are a youth resource in this ongoing process that begins

the day the youth enters care. Members of this Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to share my opinions with you. On behalf of the many foster teens and volunteers who work with these

youth through the Orphan Foundation of America thank you for developing and

supporting this bill.

city, beautiful town.

Chairman J

Ms. Block, from the People Places of Charlottesville—beautiful

OHNSON of Connecticut. Thank you very much.

f

STATEMENT OF KELLI SUTTON BLOCK, PEOPLE PLACES OF

CHARLOTTESVILLE, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA

Ms. Sutton Block. Yes, thank you. Jenny was gang raped at 12 and never told anyone, and her mother kicked her out of the house,

because she was failing school and acting out sexually. She is now

19; was in independent living for a year, and her case was closed

a year ago when she couldn’t stay in school. Lance was home schooled by his father until he was 11 and beat- en when he didn’t know the right answer, while his blind mother

sat in the next room. He just turned 18 and lives in an independent living program. John’s mother has been in and out of jail for drugs his whole life. He has never met his father, and he saw his sister murdered in

his home when he was 10 years old. He is now 15 and will begin

independent living services next year.

My name is Kelli Sutton Block, and these are some of the children with whom I have met on a weekly basis. I work for People

Places which is one of the oldest therapeutic foster care programs

in the Nation. Today, I will tell you what we at People Places see

as the essentials to any successful independent living program, and

I will tell you briefly about the program we have developed to meet

these needs.

The primary goal of an independent living program is to prepare

adolescents in foster care to lead healthy, productive lives. In order

to do this, we have identified three critical elements of successful

independent living programs. Those elements are that the program

must be individualized to the foster adolescent; they must be based

in reality, and they must be therapeutic.

47

To be successful, an independent living program must be individualized. Adolescents in foster care span a vast range of skills and

abilities. What works for one child will not necessarily work for another. Jenny, for example, with an IQ of 80 and a fear of open

spaces will have very different needs from Lance, with an IQ of 120

and a history of aggression. These children need to be worked with

individually. Each adolescent should have a customized, independent living plan with specific treatment goals to emphasize the

child’s skills and account for his or her deficits. This, of course,

calls for small caseloads for independent living workers.

Second, if we are truly expecting to improve the lives of these

adolescents, we must develop programs that are based in reality

and are not just built to ease our collective conscience.

Three aspects of independent living programs require practical

and realistic solutions. First, monthly stipends must be sufficient.

Jenny, living on a stipend from the State, had $160 a month after

paying her rent and utilities; that is $5.30 a day to pay for all of

her food, transportation, and personal items. To create an expectation that a child should become independent and to not give him

or her enough money to do so, is to create disdain and distrust for

the system and for the people who work within it.

Second, independent living programs must support older adolescents as they learn to get and keep a job. As noted, children from

foster care come from a variety of backgrounds. There are many

children for whom postsecondary education is completely unrealistic. For these children to simply hold a decent job for the rest of

their lives would be an unprecedented victory in their families. We

must support them as they learn to do this.

Third, all independent living adolescents must have health care

coverage. Learning to take responsibility for oneself is a critical

part of becoming independent as you mentioned. We must give

these children the means to do so. Two weeks ago, John broke his

ankle. If he were not covered by Medicaid, something as simple as

this would have quickly put him into debt adding to his already

considerable stresses.

Independent living programs must be therapeutic. They must address the social and psychological needs of adolescents in foster

care as well as their practical needs. As we all know, many foster

children come from tragic childhoods of abuse and neglect. Teaching a child budgeting skills is a total waste of time if he cannot effectively express himself; cannot endure stressful situations, or cannot summon the courage to get out of bed in the morning.

Jenny stopped by the other day and intimated that she is finally

ready to talk to someone about when she was raped 7 years ago.

Her case was closed last year, however, and she no longer receives

Medicaid or any health care services. She makes 6 dollars an hour

as a chambermaid in a hotel.

If these children are ever expected to participate in society, they

must have access to mental health services until they are at least

21. As young adults not even old enough to drink alcohol, these

children cannot be expected to pay for psychotherapy. Indeed, they

won’t be able to afford it, and society will pay the price one way

or the other.

48

At People Places, we have developed a transitional independent

living program called the Guide Program for foster adolescents who

are not quite ready to live on their own. In the Guide Program, a

teenager in foster care rents a spare room from a responsible,

trained adult. This adult functions as a mentor, a friend, a sounding board, and safety net for the teen. The 18 months they spend

together is a way for the teen to learn experientially what it takes

to live on one’s own. In addition, each teen has a case manager who

helps them set weekly goals in the domains of home, education or

work, self, and community. Their weekly allowance is determined

by their progress on these stated goals.

Over time, these teens take on increased responsibility and meet

with their case manager less frequently. They also meet in peer,

skill-building groups to learn practical independent living skills

and to process their learning experiences. The long-term goals are

for the teen to gain competence, personal accountability, integration into the community, and a strong confidence in themselves.

In conclusion, to prepare foster adolescents to make their way in

our society is a complex task. These are children who come into

care with many different needs, many painful histories, and many

different ideas of what they want from life. Independent living programs operate within the small but critical, stressful stage of late

adolescence. To best serve these children, programs need to be individualized, based in reality, and to be therapeutic. In order to build

such programs sufficient funds and services are desperately needed. This legislation is certainly a step in the right direction.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement follows:]

Statement of Kelli Sutton Block, People Places of Charlottesville,

Charlottesville, Virginia

INTRODUCTION

Jenny was gang-raped at twelve, never told anyone, and her mother kicked her

out of the house because she was failing school and acting out sexually. She is now

19, and her case was closed a year ago. Lance was home-schooled by his father until

he was eleven, and beaten when he didn’t know the right answer, while his blind

mother sat in the next room. He just turned 18, and is in an independent living

program. John’s mother has been in and out of jail for drugs his whole life, he has

never met his father, and he saw his sister murdered in his home when he was ten

years old. He is now 15, and will begin independent living services next year.

My name is Kelli Sutton Block, and these are some of the children with whom

I have met on a weekly basis. I work for People Places, which is one of the oldest

therapeutic foster care programs in the nation. Today I will tell you what we, at

People Places, see as the essentials to any successful independent living program,

and I will tell you briefly about the program we have developed to meet these needs.

The primary goal of an independent living program is to prepare adolescents in

foster care to lead healthy, productive lives. In order to do this, we have identified

three critical elements of successful independent living programs. These elements

are that the programs must be individualized to the foster adolescent, they must

be based in reality, and they must be therapeutic.

INDIVIDUALIZED

To be successful, an independent living program must be individualized. Adolescents in foster care span a vast range of skills and abilities. What works for one

child will not necessarily work for another. Jenny, for example, with an I.Q. of 80

and a fear of open spaces will have very different needs from Lance, with an I.Q.

of 120 and a history of aggression. These children need to be worked with individually. Each adolescent should have a customized independent living plan with speVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:10 Feb 17, 2000 Jkt 061229 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:61229 W&M1 PsN: W&M1
49

cific treatment goals that emphasize that child’s skills and account for his/her deficits.

PRACTICAL AND REALISTIC

If we are truly expecting to improve the lives of these adolescents, we must develop programs that are based in reality, and are not just built to ease our collective

conscience. Three aspects of independent living programs require practical and realistic solutions.

First, monthly stipends must be sufficient. Jenny, living on a stipend from the

state, had $160. a month after paying her rent and utilities. That’s $5.30 a day to

pay for all of her food, transportation, and personal items. To create the expectation

that a child should become independent, and to not give him/her enough money to

do so, is to create disdain and distrust for the system and for the people who work

within it.

Second, independent living programs must support older adolescents as they learn

to get and keep a job. As noted, children in foster care come from a variety of backgrounds. There are many children for whom post-secondary education is completely

unrealistic. For these children, to simply hold a decent job for the rest of their lives

would be an unprecedented victory in their families. We must support them as they

learn to do this.

Third, all independent living adolescents must have health care coverage. Learning to take responsibility for oneself is a critical part of becoming independent. We

must give these children the means to do so. Two weeks ago, John broke his ankle.

If he were not covered by Medicaid, these unexpected medical bills would have

quickly put him into debt, adding to his already considerable stresses.

THERAPEUTIC

Independent living programs must address the social and psychological needs of

adolescents in foster care, as well as their practical needs. As we all know, many

foster children come from tragic childhoods of abuse and neglect. Teaching a child

budgeting skills is a total waste of time if he cannot effectively express himself, cannot endure stressful situations, or cannot summon the courage to get out of bed in

the morning.

Jenny stopped by the other day, and intimated that she is finally ready to talk

to someone about when she was raped seven years ago. Her case was closed last

year, however, and she no longer receives Medicaid, or any health care services. She

makes $6.00 an hour as a chambermaid in a hotel.

If these children are ever expected to participate in society, they must have access

to mental health services until they are at least 21. As young adults, not even old

enough to drink alcohol, these children cannot be expected to pay for psychotherapy.

Indeed, they won’t be able to afford it, and society will pay the price, one way or

the other.

ONE EXAMPLE

At People Places, we have developed an transitional independent living program

called the Guide Program for foster adolescents who are not quite ready to live on

their own. In the Guide Program, a teenager in foster care lives with a responsible,

trained adult. This adult functions as a mentor, a sounding board, and a safety net

for the teen. The 18 months they spend together is a way for the teen to learn, experientially, what it takes to live on one’s own.

In addition, each teen has a case manager who helps them set weekly goals in

the domains of home, education/work, self, and community. Their weekly allowance

is determined by their progress on these stated goals. Over time, the teens take on

increased responsibility and meet with their case manager less frequently. The longterm goals are for the teen to gain competence, personal accountability, integration

into the community, and a strong confidence in themselves.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, to prepare foster adolescents to make their way in our society is

a complex task. These are children who come into care with many different needs,

many painful histories, and many different ideas of what they want from life. Independent living programs operate within the small but critical, stressful stage of late

adolescence. To best serve these children, programs should be individualized, based

in reality, and therapeutic. In order to build such programs, sufficient funds and

50

services are desperately needed. This legislation is a step in the right direction.

Thank you.

Chairman J

Ms. Matheny.

OHNSON of Connecticut. Thank you very much.

f

STATEMENT OF SONJA MATHENY, STUDENT, NORTH

CAROLINA CENTRAL UNIVERSITY, KEYS FOR LIFE

Ms. MATHENY. Good morning. My name is Sonja Matheny. It is

a great honor to speak on behalf of older foster youth. I am 19

years old. I attend North Carolina Central University where I am

a third-year business administration major. I have been a ward of

the court since I was 2 years old—the DC court, District of Columbia. Being in foster care in the foster care system is difficult for

most children. At a young age, we will know that we will come—

the day will come when we will lose our financial and emotional

support. We have to work twice as hard and quickly to be prepared

to take care of ourselves at a young age.

When we turn 18, most of us are terminated from the child care

system. A few lucky ones, like me, receive support until they turn

21. In my case I have been luckier than many of my peers. At 16,

I became part of the Keys for Life Independent Living Program located here in Washington, DC. This program has encouraged me

to strive for success. While I was in high school, it offered me tutoring, life skills training, SAT preparation, college preparation, and

internship opportunities.

In preparation for college, the program sent me to local and outof-state college tours; paid for some of my college application fees,

and helped me find financial aid. Keys for Life was there to assist

me with each step of the college enrollment process. I do not know

if I could have done all the necessary things to prepare for college

without them. It is difficult for a 17- or an 18-year-old to keep

track of all the details and deadlines especially when your life may

be chaotic. Many foster teens live in group homes that are noisy

and have lots of people coming in and out. They have no private

space to keep their important papers, and the adults in the home

may not encourage them or support their goals.

Keys would like to help guide me through the financial aid process, and they introduced me to the Orphan Foundation of America.

The Orphan Foundation provides scholarships to young people in

foster care. Their staff consists of volunteers, and their funding

comes from the direct contributions of people concerned about

young people in foster care.

This year, I will receive $5,000 from the Orphan Foundation, but

they cannot afford to help everyone who wants to go to college. I

will be using the money to pay for my room and board. When a foster youth has goals, they need to be helped by many different

groups of people like the Orphan Foundation. Unfortunately, my

brother who is also on foster care has not benefited from the independent living program. It is important that people understand

when the system lets kids down too many times, they will stop

having faith in it. This happens too often. Kids just want out of the

51

system, and they realize too late that the time they had with the

independent living program could have helped them.

Although my brother has worked hard pursuing his college degree, he has to pay for everything by himself. He was terminated

from the system without any transition and had to move from the

foster home before he had the opportunity to finish school. Overnight, became fully responsible for all of his expenses. He is now

24 years old and still striving to fulfill his dream of finishing college.

I would like to recommend three improvements that need to be

made within the independent living program. The first one, the

program should be available for any foster teen who is 14 or a

freshman in high school. If students became part of the program

in ninth grade, they will have—if they become part of the program

in ninth grade, they will have a better chance of realizing that

staying in school and getting good grades is the key to having the

opportunities as an adult. I hear many people in the program say

that they could have done much better in school had they started

the independent living program sooner. From age 16 to 21 is not

enough time to fully prepare someone for a successful life.

Second, there should be a transitioning support plan for every

foster youth before they age out. This transitional plan would help

young adults put in place the stable living conditions necessary to

finish college and training school or get a job.

And, last, for the youth who are in college, independent living

money should be available to pay for room and board. Living on

campus provides students with a stable environment so the students can focus more on their studies. Thank you.

[The prepared statement follows:]

Statement of Sonja Matheny, Student, North Carolina Central University,

Keys for Life

Good Morning, my name is Sonja Matheny and it is a great honor to speak on

behalf of older foster youth. I am nineteen years old and I attend North Carolina

Central University, where I am a third year Business Administration major. I have

been a ward of the District of Columbia since I was two years old.

Being in the foster care system is difficult for most children. At a young age, we

know the day will come when we lose all of our financial and emotional support.

We have to work twice as hard and quickly to be prepared to take care of ourselves

at a very young age. When we turn eighteen most of us are terminated from the

foster care system; a few lucky ones like me receive some support until they turn

twenty-one.

Most of us are terminated before we are ready. Throughout our years in care,

there has been inadequate support from foster families, group homes, social workers, and people around us do not understand how hard it is not having a family

and home of your own. Many of my peers lose confidence in the system and do not

believe that programs like independent living can help them get ready to be on their

own. Growing up is a daily process and short term programs like Independent Living can’t make up for the years of not having any guidance towards adulthood.

In my case, I have been luckier than many of my peers. At sixteen I became part

of the Keys for Life Independent Living Program located here in Washington D.C.

This program has encouraged me to strive for success. While I was in high school,

it offered me tutoring, life skills training, S.A.T preparation, college preparation,

and internship opportunities. In preparation for college, the program sent me on

local and out-of-state college tours, paid for some of my college application fees, and

helped me find financial aid.

Keys for Life was there to assist me with each step of the college enrollment process. I do not know if I could have done all the things necessary to go to college without them. It is difficult for a 17 or 18 year old to keep track of all the details and

deadlines, especially when your life might chaotic. Many foster teens live in group

52

homes that are noisy and have lots of people coming and going, they have no private

space to keep important papers and the adults in the home may not encourage or

support their goals.

Keys for Life helped guide me through the federal financial aid process and they

introduced me to the Orphan Foundation of America. The Orphan Foundation provides scholarships to young people in foster-care. Their staff consists of volunteers

and their funding comes from the direct contributions of people concerned about

young people in foster care. This year I will receive a $5,000 from the Orphan Foundation but they can not afford to help everyone who wants to go to college. I will

be using their money to pay for room and board. When a foster youth has goals they

need to be helped by many different groups of people like the Orphan Foundation.

Unfortunately, my brother who was also in foster care has not benefited from an

Independent Living Program. It is important people understand that when the system lets kids down too many times they stop having faith in it. This happen often,

kids just want out of the system and some realize too late that they do need the

help of a independent living program. But unlike my friends at college who have

families that take them back—foster kids can=t return.

Although my brother has worked hard pursing his college degree, he has to pay

for everything himself. He was terminated from the system without any transition

plan and had to move from the foster home before he had the opportunity to finish

school. Overnight he became fully responsible for all of his expenses. He is now

twenty-four years old and still trying to fulfill his dream of finishing college.

Although Independent Living Programs definitely provide many benefits, I would

like to recommend five improvements that need to be made.

1) The programs should be available to any foster teen who is 14 or a freshman

in high school. If students become part of the program in ninth grade, they will have

a better chance of realizing that staying in school and getting good grades is the

key to having options as an adult. I hear a lot of people in the program say they

could have done much better in school if they had started the independent living

program sooner. From age sixteen to twenty-one, is not enough time to fully prepare

someone for a successful life.

2) There should be a transitional support plan for every foster youth before they

age out. This transitional plan would help young adults put in place the stable living conditions necessary to finish college or training school or get a job.

3) For the foster youth who are in college, independent living money should be

available to pay room and board at school. Living on campus provides students with

a stable environment so the student can focus more on their studies.

4) All foster youth should have health care coverage until they complete school

or job training. Part of the transitional plan should include being able to join a

health insurance plan when Medicaid expires.

5) Lastly, more civic organizations and businesses should be encouraged to become

involved with foster youth. All children should have relationships with people outside of the foster care system that help them feel like they belong to society.

In conclusion, I want to thank you for increasing the funding for independent living programs to $140,000,000 and ask you to make sure that states spend the

money in ways that will truly help more foster youth gain independence and live

prosperous lives.

much.

Thank you.

Chairman J

Mr. Bowie.

OHNSON of Connecticut. Excellent. Thank you very

f

STATEMENT OF MONTREY BOWIE, HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT,

OUR HOUSE, INC., ELLICOTT CITY, MARYLAND

Mr. BOWIE. Hi. My name is Montrey Bowie, and I am 17 years

old. I was born in Frederick, Maryland. I completed the ninth

grade when I was in school. I had a tough time when I was young.

I had grown-ups who did not care about me, did not spend much

time with me. I began to get in trouble when I was 9 years old and

still growing up so my life could not take care of me. When I was

13, the State pulled me out of my home, and I went from group

53

home to group home 4 times total until I was 15 years old. I did

not learn anything about how to live or how to take care of myself.

Then the State put me in a foster home with six other foster kids.

The seven of us had to share two bedrooms, and the lady was not

kind to me. Again, I was very much alone and had no growing up

support.

Finally, after a year in this home, I ran away. I survived by getting into trouble, but soon I was caught and placed in another foster home, and this home also did not address my needs. I took a

job at McDonald’s, but I realized that I was not going to have much

of a future there. I wanted to be a carpenter and own my own construction business. I heard about Our House Youth Home, and I

went for an interview. It is located between Washington and Baltimore. I got accepted there a year ago, and I am still currently enrolled there.

At Our House, we do three things. We learn carpentry during the

day; we have our high school classes at night, and we do community service work every Saturday. We won the top county award in

1997 and the top State award in 1998 for all of the hours of volunteer work that we do to help other people. I will be taking the high

school diploma next month. I will be graduating from Our House

this summer.

I will turn 18 at the end of the summer. I do not have a home

to go to, and I will be on my own soon. I have to find a place to

live and start paying a security deposit to even have a phone installed. This is very scary for me. For the first time in my life, I

will be completely on my own.

I will have a job with a carpentry union in Frederick, Maryland,

because Our House Youth Home taught me carpentry and guaranteed all of its graduates a job in construction field, but I must have

transportation to belong to a union, because there are carpenter’s

jobs all over the different construction sites. I might get a car that

has been donated to Our House, but auto insurance costs a lot of

money, and insurance companies won’t donate even 1 month’s premium.

Despite the uncertainty of my whole life in front of me, I still feel

lucky. At Our House, I have gained self-respect, a work ethic, and

a carpentry trade, and a high school degree. I have social workers

to give me weekly counseling sessions and to talk with me if I ever

need someone to listen to me.

They have been preparing me for adult life. I have weekly life

skills training, group counseling, CPR certification, and even a 2-

month public speaking course. I have had volunteer GED students

who have taught me how to study. I feel Our House has given me

a lot of tools that will help me, but they need help. They need an

after-care program. They need a place for guys like me who are

just 18. You see, at 18, most kids have to leave their programs, because 18-year-olds are considered adults. I am still going to need

an adult to talk with me who cares about me. I am still going to

need a grown-up who I can trust to help me make decisions. I

might even need some counseling before I go out completely on my

own.

However, many of my friends from foster care have only a high

school degree and no job skills. They will have to work at minimum

54

wage, but when we are on our own, we all will have to purchase

sheets, towels, dishes and pans, food, and clothes as well as worrying about our transportation to and from our job. I don’t understand why there can’t be more Our House homes to help them get

ready.

I have five following recommendations: first, kids who have no

parents to help them or to give them guidance need a jumpstart

on life to make them successful and taxpaying citizens; second, we

need mentors who we can call on when things get us down; third,

we need help in putting a security deposit on our first month

apartment, on our phone, our auto insurance, our first month’s

rent, our linen, cookware, our furniture, and transportation; fourth,

we need more youth homes like Our House—every kid needs this

kind of training; fifth, we need Congress to look over the State

spending of funds for us, because I don’t believe the State of Maryland did such a good job with me. They never seem to have enough

money to take care of us properly.

And the last I want to say is I am going to be a good citizen, and

I am going to give back to this country. Thank you.

[The prepared statement follows:]

Statement of Montrey Bowie, High School Student, Our House, Inc., Ellicott

City, Maryland

My name is Montrey Bowie, and I’m 17 years old. I was born in Frederick, MD.

I completed the 9th grade when I was in school.

I had a tough time when I was young. I had adults who did not care about me,

who did not spend much time with me. I began to get in trouble when I was 9 years

old, and still the adults in my life could not take care of me.

When I was 13, the state pulled me out of my home, and I bounced from group

home to group home—4 in all until I was 15. I did not learn anything about how

to live, or how to take care of myself.

Then the state put me in a foster home with 6 other foster kids. The 7 of us had

to share two bedrooms, and the lady was not kind to me. Again, I was very much

alone and had no adult support. Finally, after a year in this home, I ran away.

And I survived by getting in trouble. But soon I was caught, placed in another

foster home, and this home also did not address my needs. I took a job at McDonalds, but I realized that I was not going to have much of a future there. I wanted

to be a carpenter, and own my own construction business.

I heard about Our House Youth Home, and I went for an interview. It is located

between Washington & Baltimore. I got accepted there about a year ago, and I am

still currently enrolled there. At Our House, we do 3 things: we learn carpentry during the day, have our high school classes at night, and do community service work

every Saturday. We won the top county award in ’97 & the top state award in ’98

for all the hours of volunteering that we do to help other people.

I will be taking the high school diploma exam next month, and I will be graduating from Our House this summer. I will turn 18 at the end of the summer.

I do not have a home to go to, and I will be on my own. I have to find a place

to live, and start paying security deposits to even have a phone installed. This is

very scary for me. For the 1st time in my life, I will be completely on my own.

I will have a job with the carpenter’s union in Frederick, MD, because Our House

Youth Home taught me carpentry, and guarantees all its graduates a job in the construction field.

But I must have transportation to belong to the union, because its carpenters

drive all over to different construction sites. I might get a car that’s been donated

to Our House, but auto insurance costs a lot of money, and insurance companies

won’t donate even one months’s premium.

Despite the uncertainty of my whole life in front of me, I still feel lucky. At Our

House, I have gained self-respect, a work ethic, a carpentry trade, & a high school

degree. I had social workers to give me weekly counseling sessions, and to talk with

me if I ever needed someone to listen to.

They have been preparing me for adult life. I have weekly life skills training,

group counseling, CPR certification, and even a two month public speaking course:

55

Toastmasters. I have had volunteer GED tutors who have taught me how to study.

I feel Our House is giving me a lot of tools that will help me.

But they need help: they need an aftercare program. They need a place for guys

like me who are just 18. You see, at 18, most kids have to leave their programs

because 18 year olds are considered adults. I am still going to need an adult to talk

to who cares about me. I am still going to need an adult who I can trust to help

me make decisions. I might even need some counseling, before I go out completely

on my own.

However, many of my friends from foster care have only a high school degree, and

no job skills. They will have to work at minimum wage. But when we are on our

own, we all will have to purchase sheets, towels, dishes & pans, food, and clothes,

as well as worrying about our transportation to and from our jobs. I don’t understand why there can’t be more Our House Youth Homes to help them get ready.

I have the following 5 recommendations:

1st—Kids who have no parents to help them or to give them guidance, need a

jump start on life to make them successful & tax paying citizens.

2nd—We need mentors who we can call on when things get us down.

3rd—We need help in putting a security deposit on our 1st apartment, on our

phone, our auto insurance, our 1st month’s rent, our linens & cookware, our furniture, and transportation.

4th—We need more youth homes like Our House. Every kid needs this kind of

training.

5th—We need congress to look over the state’s spending of funds for us, because

I don’t believe the state of Maryland did such a good job with me. They never

seemed to have enough money to take care of us properly.

And the last thing I want to say is, I am going to be a good citizen, and I am

testimony, and I particularly congratulate the two of you on the extraordinary intelligence of your testimony and the professionalism

going to give back.

Chairman JOHNSON of Connecticut. I thank the panel for their

f

with which you delivered it.

It is really a testament that you have been able to use the resources that did come to you, though late on, with such very good

effect, and it is very encouraging to hear that clearly your friends

in those programs also have been able to benefit.

But you are absolutely right, it is really scandalous that we

should be telling children—one of the earlier people—maybe, perhaps, it was you, Ms. McCaffrey, who testified about the fear—or

Tom DeLay—and we do hope to make very significant change in

this program.

It is frustrating, because we hear all the people testify and say

what good programs, and so you want to say, ‘‘Listen, State, you

are going to have to do this program.’’ But every child is different,

and every community is different, and so communities do have to

tailor and develop their programs. We can do a much better job of

sharing successful programs throughout the States. We don’t do a

good job of that. In many ways, the whole foster care system has

been a sort of little secret off to the side that we don’t talk about,

and the more—you may have heard the earlier panels talk about

how once you have the data everybody says ‘‘Wow.’’

We had testimony about 2 weeks ago on the Adoption and Safe

Families Act, and person after person said, ‘‘Once we had to focus

on this issue, we did a much better job.’’ So, we are hoping through

this legislation to get States to focus; to give them more resources;

to have them look at what actually happens as a result of the efforts they make. I mean, look at all the money that was, frankly,

wasted on you when you were young, because it was not helping

56

you do the right thing, but it was costly. So, as we get each piece

moving along a little better, we hope to figure out how to get the

whole system to be, frankly, more child-centered but also more realistic and more practical.

One of the things that—as you write this legislation, you want

to say, ‘‘These kids should be number one on the work study programs in the high schools.’’ Well, you can’t necessarily mandate

that, but we certainly will in the report language try to cite that

kind of issue. First of all, if you do that here, it gets referred to

another Committee, and you might never get it back. So, you do

have to be careful telling people how you think they can do it best,

because you are the results of really caring people thinking about

how can we do this best, and, clearly, there is a way to do this best.

So, we hope that we will put some money out there and create

a different framework within which people cannot only think about

these things and can use the money more flexibly but will be held

more accountable, and it will be more visible of what did happen

and why did it happen? The testimony that we had both at our initial hearing and along the way as to the lack of any support for

kids in getting education—both of you got education. Montrey, you

got a trade that pays well, and you, Sonja, are in college, and those

things open up opportunity, and so much of the money that we

spend in the system doesn’t open up opportunity.

So, we do hope that we will make big change, and I thank you

for your very specific recommendations. I appreciate that. I appreciate the thoughtfulness and straightforwardness of your testimony. I very much appreciate the fact that you have been able to

put aside feeling sorry for yourselves and ‘‘how come I haven’t got

a better break in life?’’ and make the breaks for yourself now; I admire that.

Thank you all for your testimony. The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

[Submissions for the record follow:]

KATHI L. GRASSO, ESQ.

Baltimore, Maryland 21218

May 26, 1999

The Honorable Nancy L. Johnson, Chair

& Subcommittee Members

Subcommittee on Human Resources

Committee on Ways and Means

U.S. House of Representatives

Rayburn House Office Building, Room B–317

Washington, DC 20515–6216

RE: Statement of Kathi L. Grasso, Esq., on H.R. 1802

Dear Chairwoman Johnson and Subcommittee Members:

I am submitting these comments on the ‘‘Foster Care Independence Act of 1999,’’

H.R. 1802, as a private citizen, not on behalf of my current employer. Having been

court-appointed counsel for hundreds of youth in child abuse cases while employed

at Maryland’s Legal Aid Bureau and the Maryland Disability Law Center, I was

moved to write because many of my former clients would have greatly benefited

from the provision of services envisioned by H.R. 1802. As you are aware, too many

adults who have been in foster care as children experience homelessness, imprisonment, violence, poor health outcomes, and the devastating effects of poverty.

I commend the Chairwoman’s sponsorship of this bill that has the potential to enhance opportunities for foster care youth to participate in much needed independent

living programs, as well as facilitate their access to appropriate health care. I supVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:10 Feb 17, 2000 Jkt 061229 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:61229 W&M1 PsN: W&M1
57

port increased funding for these services and Medicaid expansion, but wish to address issues, including the juvenile court’s role in monitoring the provision of services, that if addressed could further enable youth transitioning from foster care to

receive meaningful independent living services.

From my work as an attorney for youth and now with the American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law, I have come to learn that too many teens

in foster care, especially those with developmental and mental disabilities, are denied access to services necessary to enable them to make the transition to young

adulthood and self-sufficiency. Reasons include:

• Limits on the jurisdiction of some state courts to preside over cases of youth

over eighteen years of age;

• Lack of or inadequate independent living programs and services;

• Limited financial resources for these programs;

• Some states not opting to pay for foster care and/or independent living programs/services for youth older than 18;

• Rigid standards for admittance into existing programs;

• Variance in case worker competence (e.g., some may be ignorant of adolescent

development and needs; lack rapport or ability to communicate with teens); and

• Lack of uniformity in how programs are administered or operated.

THE COURT’S ROLE IN MONITORING THE PROVISION OF INDEPENDENT LIVING

SERVICES

In accordance with federal law, this nation’s juvenile and family courts play an

instrumental role in monitoring the provision of permanency planning services to

abused and neglected children, including independent living services. I know from

personal experience that many of my older clients aged eighteen to twenty-one

would have been denied transitional living services if the court had not maintained

jurisdiction over their cases after their eighteenth birthdays, and if they had not

had access to their own legal counsel to advocate for services.

In some states, such as Maryland, courts have the authority to review cases of

youth in foster care until the person turns twenty-one years of age and can ensure

that these young people are not inappropriately denied foster care and transitional

living services. In other states, court jurisdiction is terminated once the youth turns

age eighteen and as such, there may be no independent judicial oversight.

For example, in L.Y. and Melody v. Department of Health and Rehabilitation

Services, 696 So.2d 430 (Fla. App. 1997), Judge Pariente, in a concurring special

opinion, voiced frustration with Florida’s statute terminating court jurisdiction over

children in foster care at age eighteen stating that juvenile court jurisdiction should

be co-extensive with the obligation of the Department to provide services to individuals who have been previously placed in foster care. Id., at 432. He acknowledged

the trial judge’s concern that there will be no effective oversight to ensure that the

Department provides the services that it is obligated to provide. Id., at 433. Concerned about diminished funding for children’s services, he adds:

With these budgetary cuts in mind, are the children over eighteen, regardless of

how well they may or may not be doing, the next targets? This Court fears that they

are, and that a large number of children are going to be cut loose with no resources

other than to resort to public assistance, crime, prostitution, and other degrading

acts in order to survive. Did the people who may be cutting them loose adequately

fulfill their responsibility to prepare these people for independence?

Id., at 434. The court goes on to encourage ‘‘HRS in Tallahassee, the Guardian

[Ad Litem] program and all responsible child advocates [to] band together to advocate amending the law in order to allow some independent oversight of the manner

in which there is review for children who choose to remain in extended foster care

beyond their eighteenth birthdays.’’ Id., at 435.

To ensure that courts are involved in the implementation of the proposed legislation, I recommend that the bill incorporate additional provisions under Section

477(b)(2) and (b)(3), respectively, to require that states in their state plans and certification process detail how they will coordinate with their courts to promote judicial involvement in supporting youth who are transitioning from the child welfare

system through their twenty-first birthdays. This coordination could include educating judges and lawyers on transitional living issues and encouraging states,

when necessary, to extend their courts’ child welfare jurisdiction to allow juvenile

judges to preside over the cases of dependent youth eighteen to twenty-one years

of age.

58

1 United States General Accounting Office, Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Human Resources, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives,

Foster Care: Health Needs of Many Young Children Are Unknown and Unmet, GAO/HEHS–

95–114 (May 1995); Chernoff, R, Combs-Orme, T, Risley-Curtiss, C, Heisler, A, Assessing the

health status of children entering foster care, Pediatrics, 93(4): 594–601 (April 1994); Horwitz,

SM, Simms, MD, Farrington, R, Impact of developmental problems on young children’s exits

from foster care, Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 15(2):105–110 (April 1994); Halfon,

N, Berkowitz, G, Klee, L, Mental health service utilization by children in foster care in California, Pediatrics, 89(6): 1238–1244 (June 1992); and McIntyre, A, Keesler, T, Psychological disorders among foster children, Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 15(4), 297–303 (1986).

ENSURING THAT ALL DEPENDENT YOUTH 18–21 HAVE ACCESS TO FOSTER CARE AND

INDEPENDENT LIVING SERVICES

In addition to the court’s role in monitoring services, I am concerned that the pro- posed legislation may have the unintentional effect of pushing youth upon their

eighteenth birthdays out of stable foster care placements. The bill’s purpose section,

as well as other language, appears to indicate that the bill is only addressing the

needs of youth who are former foster care recipients. Some examples include the following: • Sec. 477 (a)(1), ‘‘to identify children who are likely to remain in foster care until 18 years of age....’’; • Sec. 477 (a)(2), (a)(3), ‘‘to help children who are likely to remain in foster care until 18 years of age....’’; • Sec. 477 (a)(5), ‘‘to provide...services to former foster care recipients....’’; • Sec. 477 (b)(3)(A), ‘‘that the State will provide assistance and services to children who have left foster care....’’; and • Sec. 477 (b)(4)(C), ‘‘all children in the State who have left foster care....’’

Would this legislation allow independent living funds to be appropriated for tran- sitional living services to youth who still reside in foster care placements after age

eighteen and until age twenty-one? Many youth will benefit from the stability of

being in a family foster home after age eighteen and at the same time will be in

need of services to enable them to transition to self-sufficient adulthood. For instance, what about the nineteen or twenty year old youth who lives with a foster

family and attends a local college? If states wanted to take advantage of increased

independent living funding, would some youth be unnecessarily removed from their

stable foster home environments and forced to live on their own?

We should work to ensure that youth in foster care are afforded the same opportunities for family life as non-foster care youth. I would therefore recommend that the

bill be amended to extend foster care maintenance payments to dependent youth up

to age twenty-one and ensure that youth, aged eighteen to twenty-one, in foster care

can also be recipients of independent or transitional living services.

ENSURING THAT ALL DEPENDENT YOUTH 18–21 HAVE ACCESS TO APPROPRIATE

HEALTH CARE

Studies indicate that a significant number of children and youth coming under the

auspices of juvenile, dependency and family courts have disabling, chronic, and life

threatening conditions that are not always identified and treated.1 Expanding Medicaid coverage to youth transitioning from foster care aged eighteen through twentyone is essential if we are to increase the chances of this at-risk population of youth

being physically and mentally healthy as adults.

I appreciate the opportunity to comment. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

f

KATHI L. GRASSO, ESQ.

Statement of National Independent Living Association, Jacksonville,

Florida

The National Independent Living Association(NILA) submits this document as

testimony to the distinguished members of the House Ways and Means’ Subcommittee on Human Resources. The National Independent Living Association is an

association connected to hundreds of public and private agencies, state agencies, foster care parents, individuals and foster care youth who represent 50 states across

the nation. These member agencies and individuals represent foster care youth and

services, youth at risk and young people in out of home placements in need of extending, quality care in order to make the transition from care to independence sucVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:10 Feb 17, 2000 Jkt 061229 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:61229 W&M1 PsN: W&M1
59

1 Alliance For Children & Families, Into the Newsroom, public relations staff, February 28– March 2, 1999. Study contracted by the U.S Department of Health and Human Services.

cessful. Many of our members are state coordinators, provide specialized services

and focus their programs specifically on independent living services and transitional

living skills. On behalf of our members and on behalf of over 500,000 young people

in care, we thank you for the opportunity to submit our recommendations and comments for your review. In 1989, the founders of NILA were instrumental in shaping the legislation for foster care youth. They made positive change in policy and began a movement

across the nation that connected foster care services, providers, and youth together.

Over the years, the networking and advocacy that has taken place for young people

in out of home care has sparked concerns for the constant changes and problems

young people face, in society and programming. These issues have become NILA’s

focus as many of the young people leaving care become homeless, incarcerated, pregnant and in greater need of mental health and medical services. As Bill Pinto, Program Director for Connecticut’s Department of Human Services, stated in his March

9th testimony to the Subcommittee on Health and Human Resources, ‘‘To me, the

story of Independent Living in the United States is one of ’tragedy and triumph’.

The tragedy is that, far too often, graduates of the American child welfare system

become America’s homeless, prisoners, public assistant recipients and psychiatric

patients.’’

NILA feels very strongly about it’s commitment and responsibility to the older youth in America who are in alternative care. Entering into adulthood can take

many forms, and particular experiences or events may be viewed as turning points

for individuals during which new directions are taken. Research has shown that

positive youth development is fostered when adolescents have a sense of industry

and competency, a feeling of being connected to others and to society, a belief that

they have control over their lives and a stable identity. Many of the children placed

in out of home placements are victims of abuse, abandonment, parents with addictions and many other hardships. These youth require security and support that will

aide them in their growth as young adults to feel connected, in control and with

a sense of identity. We have a responsibility to do more for the young people aging

out of the system than we have been. The challenges young people face at age 18

are tremendous and it may be that the absence of support from families, societal

institutions, communities and friends, rather than any given problem behavior, explains the failure or inabilities of some adolescents to achieve successful adulthood.

We must support their desire to complete their education, find gainful employment,

and their will to become independent, healthy members of society. It is critical that

we begin recognizing the transition from childhood to adolescence to self-sufficiency

or adulthood, is a process, not an event.

The bipartisan bill being introduced will play an important role in promoting the successes of young people in out of home placements transitioning to independent

living. Unfortunately there is no single ‘‘cure all’’ solution, but NILA supports all

efforts made for better policy and programming for these youth. In 1997, Congress

passed the bipartisan Adoption and Safe Families Act which ensures that more

young people in foster care will have safe and permanent living arrangements.

While this was monumental for many children and youth, adoption is not possible

for every child in alternative placements. The ‘‘Transition to Adulthood Program Act

of 1999,’’ being introduced by U.S Representative Ben Cardin (D–MD) and U.S. Representative Nancy Johnson (R–CT) addresses many of the issues for Independent

Living Services programs and the young people they serve. NILA is pleased that

Congress and the Clinton Administration are addressing the needs of our young

people. In fact, a study contracted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services concluded that emancipated youth are a troubled population.1

• Two thirds of the 18 year olds in the study did not complete high school or a

GED• Sixty-one percent had no job experience. • Thirty-eight percent had been diagnosed as emotionally disturbed • Seventeen percent had a drug abuse problem • Nine percent had a health problem. • Seventeen percent of the females were pregnant • Of the total 34, 600 youths emancipated from foster care during the study pe- riod, 40 percent received no independent living services to help them prepare for responsible adult life. • For those who had received services, the study found that many of the skills encouraged by the Independent Living Programs were positively related to good outcomes once the adolescents left foster care.

60

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

Understanding Youth Development: Promoting Positive Pathways of Growth; January 1997.

A good example of this is the story about a young man in foster care who just reached his 18th birthday. He is forced to leave his current placement and is exited

out on his own. For much of his life he has become significantly familiar with the

word ‘‘survival.’’ He has survived a childhood of abuse, neglect and domestic violence, multiple placements in foster homes, group homes and alternative care. He

knows how to survive street life, sleepless nights under bridges, in cars and at various friends homes and lonely holidays without family. But he doesn’t know how to

fill out a job application or how to interview for a job, let alone maintain one. He

doesn’t know how important completing his education will be to his future or how

to find permanent, safe housing. He is arrested for stealing food, and while jail isn’t

ideal, it is three square meals, a bed to sleep on and a roof over his head. Meanwhile, the young lady he got pregnant is having the baby. She is familiar with the

welfare system and knows how to survive on it and manipulate it. But she doesn’t

know how important pre-natal care is nor does she have strong parenting skills because she has never known a positive parent role model. As dramatic as this

sounds, these two young people represent a large number of youth being emancipated from care every year. NILA believes the issues that youth in out-of-home

placements are faced with are among the most integral, important issues facing

Congress. If the well being of our children is a priority, then we must act with vigor. NILA’s Board of Directors, members and its legislative committee have reviewed the highlights of the bipartisan bill being introduced and have outlined additional

recommendations and other improvements that we believe will better address the

needs of young people making the transition to adulthood. • An increase in the Independent Living budget from $70 million to $140 million. Current allocations to states remains based on the 1984 census and overall dollars

have not been increased since 1992. A substantial increase is pertinent to the delivery of services to youth who are suppose to receive them. • National policy for states flexible funding that provides measurable outcomes for design and implementation of programming specific to older youth in out-ofhome care.

While there are many responsible programs that are providing quality, extended care to youth aging out of the system, there are many, unfortunately, that continuously fail our older adolescents. Policy that promotes accountability and outcome

measures will also promote proper and safer exits from care for youth. • Reallocation of funds based on the average of the last two years’ foster care cen- sus (both IV–E and non IV–E eligible). This number should be re-calculated regularly to allow for the shifts in the popu- lation. The distribution formula for the Independent Living IV–E initiative funds

has not been updated since 1984. For many states the current formula does not

meet their needs for the increased number of youth they are serving. • Employment tax credit for hiring current or former foster care youth. Less than half of the youth emancipated from care without support or aftercare, are unemployed. Only 38% maintain a job for over a year. Incentive to employers

to work with and train these youth could prove to be very affordable. When adolescents perceive their futures in terms of work that will allow them to have positive

work experiences and become economically self-sufficient, they are more likely to

feel a sense of responsibility and capability to manage their future. • An increase in allowable savings for youth up to $5,000. NILA strongly recommends that young people graduating from foster care not be penalized by becoming ineligible for Title XX or other social services for maintaining

a personal savings plan. • Lowering the age for IV–E eligibility to 14 years. The younger an adolescent begins to get involved in skills training, self-prepara- tion and specialized programming, the more likely the results will be positive. Studies have shown that if in early adolescents (ages 11–14) and through mid-adolescence (ages 15–17) characteristics of competency, connectedness, self control and

identity are nurtured, it is more likely that these youth will engage in pro-social

behaviors, exhibit positive school performances and be members of nondeviant peer

groups.1

• No more than 40% of allocations to be spent on room and board and at least

60% of the funds to be spent on training and services to prepare youth for selfsufficiency. Allocations for room and board are very important to assisting programs in transitioning youth to self-sufficiency and long term independent living. It is apparently evident that skills training and support services and after care are the back

61

bone to the success of ‘‘long-term.’’ Therefore a greater percentage of the funding

needs to go to training and programming that promotes preparedness.

• NILA supports the Data Reporting Requirements proposed in the bipartisan bill

being introduced.

NILA recommends additions to the data requirements be; the number of youth

who are in college, post secondary education and other trade/training educational

institutes.

• A stronger emphasis on educational assistance and preparation for employment.

The Westat study, conducted in 1989–1990, showed that youth who received continued services and support to attend continuing educational programs, were more

likely to obtain employment that provided a comfortable wage for living. They were

also more likely to abstain from re-entering the system as criminals, welfare recipients or homeless members of society.

• Requirements that states will provide some assistance to youth, who are not

otherwise covered by medical insurance, to obtain and pay for their medical services

until age 21.

There are 20,000 youth who age out of foster care every year. Not one of them

should be without health coverage of some type. The security of these youths medical and mental health is critical to the success of their futures.

• Allow youth in out of home placement to remain in care until age 21 if they

are completing their education and preparing for their transition to adulthood.

Many youth are forced to leave care upon reaching the age of 18. Many have not

completed their education by this time and are forced to drop-out for various reasons. Continued emotional and tangible support for these young people, coupled

with programs designed to promote education and life skills training, will most likely encourage youth to reach for higher education accomplishments.

• Continuation of services to youth who have left care, such as housing and financial assistance, up until age 21.

Between the ages of 18–21 the process of transitioning from adolescence to adulthood needs continued services. Transitional housing is essential to those youth who

require some structure and supervision. Supervised group homes and apartments,

subsidized housing and community based training should all be part of the process

for continuum of care to youth.

• Allow youth to re-enter foster care after age 18.

Often times youth who have been part of multiple placements, traumatic, abusive

histories and no family network or support, have a great desire to venture out of

care and try ‘‘freedom’’ on their own. Statistics show that many of these young people often flounder and falter at their first attempt to independence. However, trial

and error can be a clever teacher. Many youth realize ‘‘freedom’’ is more than just

’being on your own’ without adult supervision. It is knowlege and a good sense of

direction. Many wnt and need to return to a sense of connectedness and security

while they maneuver themselves comfortably into self-sufficiency. States should be

given incentives to allow youth who leave voluntarily at age 18, to re-enter voluntarily at any time prior to age 21.

• Provide one year of after care services up to age 21.

After care has proven itself to be a significant factor in a young person’s ability

to adjust to the transition into independent living. Many programs across the nation

already have built-in after care programs. These programs should be the models

that other after care programs are designed after. They are strong examples of how

essential it is to the success of these youth exhibiting responsible actions

and lifestyles.

4Research and evaluation to determine best practices in preparing youth for adult

life.

In order for the transition from childhood to adolescence to adulthood to progress

efficiently, it is crtical that we evaluate effective programming, successful training

approaches, and the emotional and physical well-being of these youth. It is just as

important the we continue to research the trends and effects of societal change and

assess the challenges in their home environments to begin implementing preventative programming as well.

NILA strongly implores the honorable members of the Subcommittee for Health

and Human Services to act right now on behalf of all the young people in alternative care by passing a bill that will enhance the quality of care, build a strong

sense of community and continue the development of good programming. The challenges our young people face are getting bigger and tougher everyday. The opportunity to create policy that is in their best interests and will contribute to their

transition into adulthood, is now. In closing, John F. Kennedy said it best;

62

‘‘All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it

be finished in the first one thousand days, nor in the life of this AdministraNILA Management Staff

tion, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet... But let us begin.’’

NILA Designated Representatives Sheet

f

James D. Clark, Executive Director

NILA Headquarters

4203 Southpoint Blvd,

Jacksonville, FL 32216

904–296–1055 ext 1025

Robert E. Arnold, Assistant Executive

Director

NILA Headquarters

4203 Southpoint Blvd,

Jacksonville, FL 32216

904–296–1055 ext 1018

Shelly R. Davalos, NILA Coordinator

NILA Headquarters

4203 Southpoint Blvd,

Jacksonville, FL 32216

904–296–1038, fax 904–296–1953

NILA Board of Directors Executive

Committee:

Cathy Welsh, Chair

South Bronx Human Development org

One Fordham Plaza, Suite 900

Bronx, NY 10458

Kathi Crowe (Vice Chair)

Rhode Island Department of Children &

Families

610 Mt. Pleasant Ave, Bldg 2

Providence, RI 02908

Lee White, Treasurer

Northwest Media

326 West 12th Ave.,

Eugene, OR 97401

541–343–6636 fax 541–343–0177

Diann Stevens, Secretary

Ohio Department of Social Services

1951 Gantz Rd.

Grove City, OH 43123

614–278–5974 fax 614–278–5988

Youth Board Members:

Geisha Grice—California Youth

Connections

San Francisco, CA 94104

Srv510–351–4401

Shanequa AndersonLeakke & Watts

Bronx, NY 10451

714–293–1194

Amanda Knight—Missourti Division of

Family Srv

573–751–4319

Board of Directors By Region

Region I: Kathi Crowe (Vice Chair)

Region II: Karen Lendon

Leake & Watts

Yonkers, NY 10704

718–617–5100 fax 718–893–1268

Region III: Patrick Patrong

Maryland Ind. Living Program DHR

Baltimore, MD 21201–3521

410–767–7634 fax 410–333–0127

Region IV: Don Adams

South Carolina Dept. of Social Services

Columbia, SC 29202–1520

803–898–7715 fax 803–898–7652

Region IV: Lori Day

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33325

954–916–9403 fax 954–524–4451

Region V: Diann Stevens (Secretary)

Regiion VI: Rhonda Dyer

Pathways Youth Home

San Antonio, TX 78250–63009

210–521–8288 fax 210–543–9553

Region VII: Dotti Banks

Missouri Division of Family Services

Jefferson City, MO 65103

573–751–4319 fax 573–526–3971

Region VIII: Sharon Collins

Catholic Charities Arch of New Orleans

Marrero, LA 70072

504–340–5100 fax 504–347–0095

Regiion IX: Beverlee Kroll

Arizona Dept Economic Security—ACYF

Phoenix, AZ 85007

602–542–3981 fax 602–542–3330

Region X: Lee White (Treasurer)

State Seat: Janet Luft

Texas Dept. Protection & Regulatory

Austin, TX 78714–9030

512–438–5442 fax 512–438–3782

Private Seat: Cathy Welsh (Chair)

Æ