U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

53–733 2010

HEARING ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 

THE FOSTERING CONNECTIONS TO SUCCESS 

AND INCREASING ADOPTIONS ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INCOME SECURITY AND 

FAMILY SUPPORT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 

Serial No. 111–30 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
ii 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

INCOME SECURITY AND FAMILY SUPPORT SUBCOMMITTEE 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington, Chairman 

FORTNEY PETE STARK, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

JOHN LINDER, Georgia, Ranking Member 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

JANICE MAYS, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

JON TRAUB, Minority Staff Director 

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. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

McDermott Announces Hearing on the Implementation of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act ............................................ 2 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Brenda Donald, Office of the Secretary, Maryland Department 

of Human Resources, Baltimore, Maryland ....................................................... 16 

Erwin McEwen, Director, Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, Chicago, Illinois ........................................................................................... 26 

Jacqueline Johnson Pata, Executive Director, National Congress of American 

Indians (NCAI) ..................................................................................................... 36 

Margaret ‘‘Greta’’ Anderson, Former Foster Care Youth and College Student, 

Au Claire, Wisconsin ............................................................................................ 42 

Linda Spears, Vice President, Policy and Public Affairs, Child Welfare League 

of America, Arlington, Virginia ........................................................................... 46 

Kathleen McNaught, J.D., Assistant Director, Center on Children and the 

Law, American Bar Association .......................................................................... 55 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

American Academy of Pediatrics, Statement ........................................................ 76 

Amy Lemley, Statement .......................................................................................... 79 

Beverly Tran, Statement ......................................................................................... 80 

Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), Statement ........................................ 84 

Children’s Defense Fund, Statement ..................................................................... 89 

Donna M. Butts, Statement .................................................................................... 96 

Frank J. Mecca, Statement ..................................................................................... 98 

Jane Burstain, Ph.D., Statement ........................................................................... 100 

Jodie Lee Klaassen, Statement .............................................................................. 101 

John R. Vaughn, Statement .................................................................................... 102 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
(1) 

HEARING ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 

THE FOSTERING CONNECTIONS TO SUCCESS 

AND INCREASING ADOPTIONS ACT 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INCOME SECURITY

AND FAMILY SUPPORT, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:00 p.m., in Room 

B–318, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Jim 

McDermott [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
2 

ADVISORY 

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INCOME SECURITY 

AND FAMILY SUPPORT 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (202) 225–1721 

September 08, 2009 

ISFS–4 

McDermott Announces Hearing on the 

Implementation of the Fostering Connections to 

Success and Increasing Adoptions Act 

Congressman Jim McDermott (D–WA), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Income 

Security and Family Support of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing to review the implementation 

of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (P.L. 

110–351). The hearing will take place on Tuesday, September 15, 2009, at 

1:00 p.m. in B–318 Rayburn House Office Building. In view of the limited time 

available to hear witnesses, oral testimony at this hearing will be from invited witnesses only. However, any individual or organization not scheduled to appear may 

submit a written statement for consideration by the Subcommittee and for inclusion 

in the record of the hearing. 

BACKGROUND: 

Last September, Congress passed the bipartisan Fostering Connections to Success 

and Increasing Adoptions Act to provide for the most significant changes in child 

welfare policy in over a decade. The new law includes specific requirements aimed 

at improving the oversight of foster kids’ health care needs, educational stability, 

and connection to family members. It provides additional Federal assistance to support caseworker training, to directly assist children in tribal foster care, and to promote policies that provide support and incentives for adopting children out of the 

foster care system. Finally, the law establishes two new important options for States 

to improve outcomes for children in foster care: (1) Federal matching payments for 

States choosing to provide assistance to grandparents and other relatives who become legal guardians of foster children; and (2) Federal matching payments for 

States choosing to continue foster care assistance up to the age of 21 for youth engaged in school, work, or other constructive activities. 

In announcing the hearing, Chairman McDermott stated, ‘‘Our action last fall 

to improve the child welfare system represented a bipartisan, bicameral 

commitment to work together to significantly improve the lives of our most 

vulnerable children. But our work is not done. We need to both ensure a 

successful implementation of this new law and continue to work to improve other aspects of the system in need of reform.’’ 

FOCUS OF THE HEARING: 

The hearing will focus on the implementation of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
3 

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: 

Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit for the hearing record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing page of the Committee 

website and complete the informational forms. From the Committee homepage, 

http://waysandmeans.house.gov, select ‘‘Committee Hearings’’. Select the hearing for 

which you would like to submit, and click on the link entitled, ‘‘Click here to provide 

a submission for the record.’’ Once you have followed the online instructions, complete all informational forms and click ‘‘submit’’ on the final page. ATTACH your 

submission as a Word or WordPerfect document, in compliance with the formatting 

requirements listed below, by close of business Tuesday, September 29, 2009. Finally, please note that due to the change in House mail policy, the U.S. Capitol Police will refuse sealed-package deliveries to all House Office Buildings. For questions, or if you encounter technical problems, please call (202) 225–1721. 

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS: 

The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing 

record. As always, submissions will be included in the record according to the discretion of the Committee. The Committee will not alter the content of your submission, 

but we reserve the right to format it according to our guidelines. Any submission 

provided to the Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for 

the printed record, and any written comments in response to a request for written 

comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any submission or supplementary item 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 submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in Word or WordPerfect 

format and MUST NOT exceed a total of 10 pages, including attachments. Witnesses and submitters are advised that the Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official 

hearing record. 

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

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

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

by the Committee. 

3. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons, and/or organizations on whose 

behalf the witness appears. A supplemental sheet must accompany each submission listing the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

f 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. The meeting will come to order. 

A year ago, Congress passed the ‘‘Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act.’’ The basic premise of the law 

is that foster children need the same things to succeed that all children need: a safe home, caring family, good education, and access 

to health care. And yet, the foster care system too often unnecessarily disrupts connections to family and home and school, whether 

it is expecting foster kids to go it alone at age 18 or denying assistance to grandparents who become legal guardians or unnecessarily 

displacing kids from their schools or separating them from their 

siblings. Now, the result is to sever and to reduce the links that 

foster children need to successfully navigate their way to adultVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:16 Jan 27, 2010 Jkt 053733 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\53733.XXX GPO1 PsN: 53733

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
4 

hood. With the Fostering Connections Act, Congress acted on a bipartisan basis to address these issues in a positive and proactive 

way. 

Recently, our Committee has heard that the timing of the legislation presents challenges for some of the States. Given the recession 

and the havoc it has played on State budgets—and I can testify for 

my own State, as well—while I understand the harsh budget realities faced by nearly every State, I also know that children in foster 

care can’t wait for time when reform is convenient. 

All of us have a responsibility for foster children, and we need 

to squarely meet that obligation. So I, therefore, thought it was 

good to look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the implementation of the law’s new options and requirements. 

The Committee is particularly interested in learning how States 

have extended support to grandparents and other relatives who 

wish to act as legal guardians for foster kids. We are also interested in hearing how States intend to extend foster care services 

up to the age of 21, as well as extend other supports to older youth. 

Furthermore, we would like to know if States have fulfilled the 

new requirements related to providing greater oversight of the 

health care and educational needs of all foster kids, placing siblings 

together whenever possible, and notifying relatives within 30 days 

of a child’s removal from their biological home. 

Additionally, we are interested in learning about the experience 

of those tribal governments who are planning to operate their own 

tribal welfare system, as well as those that are considering such a 

move. And, finally, we are looking forward to hearing about the impact of the law on promoting and increasing the number of kids 

who are adopted out of the foster care system. 

This act was a landmark piece of legislation. It included a number of policy changes and reforms without adding one penny to the 

Federal deficit. The legislation represents the Congress at its very, 

very best. It shows what can be achieved when both sides come together to work in good faith to address a problem. 

There are certainly other challenges in the foster care system 

that demand more of this vision and energy and commitment. And 

I look forward to hearing from all our witnesses today. 

And now I yield to my colleague, Mr. Linder, for any opening remarks he may wish to give. 

Mr. LINDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Today’s hearing reviews the implementation of the Fostering 

Connections law approved last fall. That law made important 

changes we all hope will benefit young people in foster care. 

Changes included stepped-up efforts to place children with relatives instead of strangers and improved incentives for adopting 

children out of foster care. 

I am especially interested in provisions designed to improve the 

school stability and performance of foster youth, among others. We 

need to do a better job of ensuring foster youth stay connected with 

their school. Research and common sense suggest that would help 

more graduate on time instead of dropping out, as too often happens. We welcome the testimony of Kathleen McNaught of the 

American Bar Association on that score, both on implementation of 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
5 

the law and on challenges that remain to making that vision a reality. 

While it is certainly worth reviewing these issues, I am struck 

by what we are not considering today. For example, the Subcommittee has jurisdiction over the special extended unemployment 

benefits program created in June of 2008, which already has been 

extended and expanded twice. The Federal Government has paid or 

promised a total of $73 billion in special and extended benefits to 

date. Proponents suggest that this would stimulate the economy 

and create jobs, yet unemployment has risen to 9.7 percent, nearly 

2 percentage points higher than stimulus supporters predicted. 

Further stretching the bounds of logic, last week the Administration claimed 1 million jobs had been created with the stimulus law. 

In fact, there have been 3 million jobs eliminated since February. 

This weekend, National Economic Council Director Larry Summers 

said, ‘‘Unemployment will, by all forecasts, remain unacceptably 

high for a number of years.’’ 

Just currently approved spending has drained the State and Federal unemployment accounts and will lead to deficits totaling more 

than $100 billion by late 2010 and another $200 billion by 2012. 

Further extensions and expansions will add massively to that tide 

of red ink. But what of the promised jobs? When will they arrive? 

And, in the meantime, how high will unemployment, spending, borrowing, and, ultimately, taxes go? How much will that tax hike 

hurt job creation? 

Those would be good topics for future hearings, too. It is past 

time for us to review how we can really increase jobs so laid-off 

workers can get paychecks, not unemployment checks. 

We also recently learned that stimulus checks were paid to thousands of current prisoners. Was that intended? How much did that 

cost? Is that being fixed? Another excellent oversight hearing for 

us. 

Or how about the fact that New York State recently issued $200 

back-to-school checks to welfare and food stamp recipients using 

Federal stimulus funds under our jurisdiction? That set off a mad 

scramble for ATM withdrawals and spending on liquor, flat screen 

TVs, and who knows what else—all with Federal taxpayer dollars, 

all for the children, and especially stimulative, we were told, because low-income folks were likely to spend the money quickly. 

They did. Yet New York’s unemployment rate remains high and 

rising, as does the debt we are leaving our children. 

So while I welcome today’s hearing, I respectfully suggest there 

are other topics well worth exploring also. Those might also provide 

useful information about ensuring taxpayer dollars are well and effectively spent and maybe even about creating real jobs. Everyone, 

including foster youth as they become adults, would benefit from 

that. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to include in the record 

at this point two articles that detail concerns about recent abuses 

involving stimulus funds. 

The first is an August 27th AP article that notes 3,900 stimulus 

checks went to inmates. As the article relates, some checks were 

sent in error. About 2,200 of the inmates who received checks got 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
6 

to keep them because, under the law, they were eligible, said a 

spokesman for the Social Security Administration. 

The second article from CBS News on September 2nd relates how welfare recipients in New York State received $200 back-toschool payments, which some adults used to purchase flat-screen 

TVs, video game systems, phone cards, and even cigarettes and 

beer—none of which has anything to do with helping school children go back to school, but all of which was paid for with Federal 

stimulus dollars. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Without objection. 

[The statement of Mr. McDermott follows:] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
7 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING53733A.001
8 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING53733A.002
9 

[The information follows:] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING53733A.003
10 

[The information follows:] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING53733A.004
11 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING53733A.005
12 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING53733A.006
13 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING53733A.007
14 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Although, I would point out, those 

subject matters are not before the Committee today. You might 

want to keep them and also submit them again when we do have 

a hearing on issues related to it. 

All Members have 5 working days to submit statements for the 

record. 

And Mr. Camp has submitted a report, which I would like to submit for the record. Without objection, they are entered in the 

record. 

[The information follows:] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
15 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING53733A.008
16 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Mr. Van Hollen is here to introduce 

our first witness. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Well, first, thank you, Mr. Chairman and 

Mr. Linder, for holding this hearing today, and thank you for your 

work on the Fostering Connections legislation. This is an opportunity for us to address the implementation of that legislation. 

I welcome all the witnesses, but I want to give a special welcome 

from my State of Maryland to our secretary of human resources in 

Maryland, Brenda Donald. And I want to thank her for her leadership in Maryland. 

And prior to serving the State of Maryland, helping with foster 

kids and adoption and protective services, she was the deputy 

Mayor of the District of Columbia, working on these issues as well. 

So she has a lot of experience that has been put to very good use 

in our State. And I know the congressional delegation has enjoyed 

working with her and our Governor. 

And welcome to this Committee. Thank you for being here. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Ms. Donald. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BRENDA DONALD, OFFICE 

OF THE SECRETARY, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN 

RESOURCES, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 

Ms. DONALD. Thank you very much. I really do appreciate the 

opportunity to be here with you today. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Can I stop you for 1 second? Your 

whole statement will be put in the record, so we hope that you will 

stay within 5 minutes. 

Ms. DONALD. Absolutely, sir. I know the ground rules. 

And I do want to compliment you on your ‘‘Save the Children’’ 

tie. It is most appropriate for today’s hearing. 

Shortly after Governor Martin O’Malley appointed me secretary 

in February of 2007, I launched a comprehensive child welfare reVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:16 Jan 27, 2010 Jkt 053733 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\53733.XXX GPO1 PsN: 53733

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING53733A.009
17 

form agenda, known as ‘‘Place Matters.’’ The premise is very simple 

and certainly quite consistent with the Fostering Connections Act, 

and that is: Nothing matters more to a child than a place to call 

home. 

Since the inception of Place Matters, Maryland has made some 

significant progress. In just 2 years, we have reduced the number 

of children in care from 10,300 to 8,800 and reduced the number 

of children in group homes by 40 percent. Seventy-2 percent of our 

children are currently in family settings, and we are seeing record 

numbers of adoptions, guardianships, and reunifications. 

I would like to take my few minutes with you this afternoon to 

discuss how we are implementing Fostering Connections in Maryland. The act underscores some of what Maryland is already doing 

around subsidized guardianships and supports for older youth. It 

has also spurred activity in areas that Maryland knows must be 

priorities. In this way, the act provides a catalyst and a foundation 

to support further progress. 

Nonetheless, this is comprehensive and complex legislation. We 

have spent many hours strategizing about how to implement Fostering Connections. As ahead of the curve as Maryland is in some 

ways, it should not be a surprise that we are not quite there yet. 

It will be a major lift to work successfully with our State’s health 

and education systems. In addition, we are operating, as you mentioned, in an economic environment that leaves little room for new 

programs or unfunded mandates. 

In terms of the guardianship program, Maryland provided subsidized guardianship payments before the act was passed. We 

began with a 5-year Federal demonstration waiver that was continued with State funding for about 500 children. Our initial projections call for a recoupment of approximately $600,000 annually 

when the Fostering Connections guardianship program is fully implemented, and our intention is to reinvest those funds to support 

other child welfare programs. 

In terms of kinship providers, currently Maryland makes foster 

care payments to some 700 relatives providing care to about 900 

children. Another 1,700 children, also placed with relatives, receive 

a subsidy through child-only TANF dollars. If all of these kin were 

to become licensed, as is encouraged under the act, this could have 

a significant fiscal impact. 

And I should point out also that all of our kin, whether they are 

licensed and receiving room and board payments or TANF only, 

still receive the same services and supports for their children, and 

their children are part of our foster care system. 

In terms of older youth, Maryland currently provides a robust 

support system for older youth already up to age 21. Now, of 

course, youth over age 18 are currently not eligible for Title IV–E 

reimbursement, so the services are entirely State-funded. When the 

Fostering Connections provisions become effective, they will generate significant additional Federal funds for us to reinvest in critical services for children and families. Thank you very much. 

Maryland’s independent living policy meets virtually all of the 

new requirements, but we still require guidance for a number of 

things: whether we can still make payments directly to youth who 

are in our semi-independent living program; what can be considVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:16 Jan 27, 2010 Jkt 053733 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\53733.XXX GPO1 PsN: 53733

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
18 

ered a supervised independent living setting; what types of, quote/ 

unquote, ‘‘medical conditions’’ might opt youth out of educational or 

work provisions; and what types of ongoing court supervision is required. And we await regulations for those critical elements. 

Fostering Connections provides a good foundation for supporting 

educational stability and good outcomes for children in foster care, 

but Maryland will need time to fully realize this goal. We work 

very closely with our State department of education, and our policies are consistent with the act. However, full implementation requires considerable cooperation and collaboration with 24 local education authorities. There are a number of unanswered questions. 

We have to grapple with issues of attendance records, transportation, and who is responsible for the associated costs. 

In terms of health care, our current health care system meets 

many of the Federal requirements, but we have requested an extension on the full implementation of this provision. We are working with our State department of health around the data-sharing 

element, and those will require legislation and funding for technology upgrades, so we have asked for an extension. 

In summary, thank you again for this landmark legislation. As 

I discuss with my colleagues what is missing, front-end service is 

on everyone’s list. We cannot emphasize strongly enough the benefits of maintaining children safely at home when at all possible. 

Another critical need is that all children and families found to be 

in need of public child welfare services we believe should be eligible 

for Federal support. And I know many of the panelists are going 

to talk about the delink issue, and so I will leave that to their testimony. 

And thank you for your time, and I am available for any questions that you may have. 

[The statement of Ms. Donald follows:] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
19 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING53733A.010
20 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING53733A.011
21 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING53733A.012
22 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING53733A.013
23 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING53733A.014
24 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING53733A.015
25 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING53733A.016
26 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you for your testimony. 

I must say that, like you, we are eager for the Senate to confirm 

some appointments for the Department of Health and Human 

Services on some of these program questions you will be able to get 

answers from the Federal Government. 

Mr. Davis of Illinois is here. 

Mr. Davis, would you like to introduce your guest, Mr. McEwen? 

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And 

it is indeed my pleasure to introduce Mr. Erwin McEwen, the director of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services. 

Mr. Chairman, Illinois is a national leader in developing and 

demonstrating the effectiveness of pioneering child welfare reforms 

and the ‘‘Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act,’’ which enacts many of Illinois’s successful reforms. 

Mr. McEwen, or ‘‘Mac’’ as we know him in Illinois, is responsible 

for much of the vision and dedication to such reforms in Illinois. 

He is a remarkable leader in improving child welfare, and I am 

confident that his experience will help our Subcommittee understand how States are implementing the Fostering Connections law. 

Mr. McEwen has an impressive academic and professional background. He started his social work career 15 years prior to earning 

his master’s degree in social service administration at the University of Chicago. He has worked throughout the Illinois social service community, understanding the child welfare system from the 

ground up. 

Many State advisory commissions and councils have benefited 

from his expertise. Indeed, Mr. McEwen has served as a Member 

of the Illinois Statewide Foster Parent Advisory Council, the Illinois Child Care Association Board of Directors, the Child Welfare 

Advisory Committee on Performance-Based Contracting, and the 

African-American Family Commission’s Monitoring and Oversight 

Committee. 

Mr. Chairman, I have a very active child welfare advisory Committee in my congressional district that is chaired by one of the 

most dynamic and energetic women in America, a woman named 

Annetta Wilson. And they are in constant contact with Mr. 

McEwen and his staff on a regular and ongoing basis. And I look 

forward to his comments today and welcome him. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. You are welcome. 

We are holding this hearing today because we know the State directors are all here in Washington, so we could get some live ones 

right up here today. 

And we welcome you, Mr. McEwen. 

STATEMENT OF ERWIN MCEWEN, DIRECTOR, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, CHICAGO, 

ILLINOIS 

Mr. MCEWEN. Thank you, Chairman McDermott, Ranking 

Member Linder, and a big thanks to Congressman Davis from Illinois, who is a great supporter of our department in Illinois in helping us get the job done. 

My name is Erwin McEwen. I am the director of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services. We call it one of the 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
27 

most reformed child welfare systems in the Nation. We have been 

working really hard since the implementation of the ‘‘Adoptions 

and Safe Family Act’’ in 1997, when we had about 53,000 children 

in care. Now in Illinois we have about 16,000 children in care. And 

so we have really been working on trying to find ways to reduce 

the number of kids in care and better provide services to families. 

And this legislation is a big help to us in accomplishing that. 

Even though we have our deficit challenges and budget problems 

in Illinois, just like a lot of other States, it is not going to prevent 

us from implementing this legislation and some of the important 

parts of it. 

One of the ones I really want to talk about is supporting youth, 

the improvement of being able to provide services to youth between 

18 and 21. In Illinois, we participated in a three-State study with 

Chapin Hall, a longitudinal study that looked at children in care 

who age out of care between the ages of 18 and 21. That study is 

now in its fourth phase, I think, and I think we are looking at kids 

26 years old. 

But what we know from that research is that kids do better 

when they have the support of the State; that a lot of kids in care, 

they graduate high school in later years, 19 and 20, as opposed to 

18 in the general population, and having the benefit and the support of the State is critical. And so we really, really look favorably 

upon that part of the legislation and wish you could implement it 

today rather than wait until October the 1st of 2010. 

In Illinois, we have carried kids in care to 21 for a long time. It 

is optional up to 19. And we recently just passed—Governor Quinn 

signed into law, our legislators passed, ‘‘Foster Child Successful 

Transition Into Adulthood.’’ What this legislation does is it allows 

kids who make the choice of leaving the system at 18 and 19 years 

old and then find out how difficult it is to go it alone to come back 

into care and receive the support of the State up to 21. And we just 

passed that legislation in anticipation of that October the 1st date 

when we will be able to get some help from the Federal Government to also support these kids. 

The idea is that education is extremely important, allowing kids 

to finish school and go on to college. We have got about a thousand 

kids in our Youth in College program in Illinois, of that 16,000 

kids. It is important for foster children to have that opportunity for 

education. 

In looking at education, we have also implemented our 

‘‘SchoolMinder’’ rotational intake. What that does is we try to identify the closest foster home to the child’s home of origin so that 

they don’t have to change schools and so that, if they can maintain 

the same school placement as when they came into care, it helps 

them have better educational outcomes, because we know that 

changing in school placements creates a great deal of problems for 

kids and it sets them back even further than they may already be 

set back. 

We have met some challenges in implementing that program, 

but, using that same technology, we are now able to pinpoint where 

we need to do foster care recruitment so that we can try to increase 

the number of available foster homes and keep those kids close to 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
28 

their homes of origin. And this is, again, going to help us achieve 

those goals in education that we are looking at. 

And we just also recently passed the ‘‘DCFS Service Plans Improvement and Foster Permanency Changes Act.’’ And, in this act, 

we allowed the courts to reinstate parental rights on children who 

turn 13 or older in the system. And I know this may raise some 

eyebrows, but that same study that we did, it also showed that 

kids who turn 13 and 14 years old in the foster care system have 

a 98 percent chance of aging out of care and not going to permanency. 

And so what we were trying to do was create ways of working 

more closely with parents. It doesn’t always lead to reunification, 

but we know when kids exit care they return to their parents’ 

home. And so, how can we work with parents who may be able to 

now care for these teenagers when they were unable to care for 

kids? And how do we help the kids to learn to how to navigate and 

work with their families and not be reinjured or reharmed in returning to home on their own? And so we look forward to working 

in that area, as well. 

The other area that we looked at is supporting relative care. We 

think it is important. We just have one concern about the legislation. In looking at the legislation and understanding that you 

grandfathered in our kids who are in our subsidized guardianship 

category, who are in already through our demonstration project, we 

had concerns about other relatives who might not be licensed or 

unable to become licensed or not willing to engage in that process 

and not being able to claim those kids as well. Because we believe 

that that is great placement for those kids. A lot of the child and 

family services reviews have determined that those are good placements for these children. And we would like to have the support 

of the Federal Government in those placements. 

I see I am out of time. The last thing I wanted to talk about was 

the delinking issue, but I am sure some of our other panelists will 

address that issue as well. 

[The statement of Mr. McEwen follows:] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
29 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING53733A.017
30 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING53733A.018
31 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING53733A.019
32 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING53733A.020
33 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING53733A.021
34 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING53733A.022
35 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING53733A.023
36 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you very much. 

Our next witness is Jackie Johnson Pata, who is the executive 

director for the National Congress of American Indians. 

Jackie. 

STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE JOHNSON PATA, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS 

Ms. PATA. Thank you very much. 

On behalf of our country’s tribal nations, NCIA, National Congress of American Indians, is pleased to present our testimony on 

the implementation of the Fostering Connections Act. 

And I wanted to let you know that our testimony has been drafted in concert with the National Indian Child Welfare Association 

and the Association for American Indian Affairs, who we have been 

collaborating with on the implementation issues. And, of course, we 

look forward to working with this Subcommittee as the act is implemented, with consultation with tribal nations. 

Of course, we have looked forward to this for a couple of decades, 

of trying to get tribal inclusion and access to Title IV–E, and so we 

were very excited around the inclusion. And I am going to talk a 

little bit about what some of our observations are about tribal nations, activities regarding the act, and also some challenges that we 

foresee in the implementation. 

To date, we have 73 tribes who have signaled that they are interested in implementing the program and signed a letter of intent to 

the Children’s Bureau. We have 15 tribal entities who have applied 

for the development grant that support the Title IV–E readiness 

activities for up to 2 years. And given the number of tribes that 

have participated in other kinds of similar Federal programs, like 

the TANF implementation one, that was eligible, this shows a very 

healthy response from Indian country and a great interest in moving forward to participate in these programs that we think are very 

critical to our communities. 

We also have some challenges with these opportunities. But in 

the opportunities it creates, we have seen a lot of things happening 

as far as improved discussions with States as tribes and States 

work on collaborating how the implementation will be and who will 

take responsibility in the coordination. And so, we see an opportunity for improved cooperation and cooperative agreements. 

We also see tribes engaging more in broad child welfare reform 

within their own communities, really talking about where we are 

with the seventh generation and how we are addressing our tribal 

children’s needs. 

And we are looking at additional tribal requests for technical assistance in implementing the program, particularly culturally relevant technical assistance that can help us adapt to our community 

structures. And then we have been having forums at the national 

level with strategies on implementation and trying to share the information and best practices. 

Some of the tribes, a couple of the tribes, see this as an opportunity for totally revamping and really making some meaningful 

system changes. Currently, the Navajo Nation, the largest nation 

in this country, and my own tribe, the Tlingit and Haida tribes of 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
37 

Alaska, are two examples who are seeking this as an opportunity 

for total revamping or really re-evaluating our systems. 

And even though, you know, one of the greatest challenges, of 

course, that all tribes are really having to take time to assess is 

the in-kind contributions. And I think that, you know, we will talk 

a little bit about that, but the match requirement and the challenges that gives for tribes, particularly without really knowing 

some of the nuances of how those regulations will be developed, so 

what will be an eligible match or not. 

And given the current, as you heard from the State directors, the 

current economic conditions of the country affect tribal nations the 

same way. We are trying to get the additional matches that are 

necessary for us to implement these kinds of programs. 

We are looking for opportunities that this act helps our communities. We know that we will have to deal with tribal court and 

code reform. We will have to deal, as I said before, with culturally 

relevant appropriate technical assistance at the local level, but 

clearly developing for the first time the kinds of data and accounting systems that are necessary for our coordination, either with our 

State parties or for reporting requirements to HHS. And so, we 

have been doing a lot of work, our organization, with other organizations, looking at existing systems in tribes that receive Federal 

assistance and how that data reporting works and how we can look 

at streamlining those data systems to make them work in our tribal communities. 

But we also know that it is going to be important for HHS and 

the Children’s Bureau to be very responsive to the unique needs in 

tribal communities, and so we are looking forward to developing forums of ongoing dialog as we talk about program implementation 

and policy development. We want to be able to make sure that we 

utilize the expertise in Indian country and that their voice is heard 

within the Department as they develop their policy regulations and 

that we adequately understand the agency’s requirements and expectations. 

But when we get into some of the implementation challenges, of 

course we were glad that the Committee and Congress made sure 

that tribal consortias were eligible to apply—that is a good forum 

for us—protecting tribal children’s eligibility for services when they 

switch from States to tribal or to direct funding, tribal direct funding. 

But we also know that, as I said earlier, the sufficient non-Federal sources to meet the match requirement is probably going to be 

one of the biggest barriers for tribes as we deal with the implementation. I remember when my own tribe was one of the first ones 

to take on the TANF programs, and we struggled, as a tribe, being 

able to meet the match. We are Alaska tribes with very few resources for our own programs, our own citizens’ programs that we 

need to do. 

And, also, securing the development of compliant automated data 

systems. 

And then, also, the unique tribal service delivery issues with the 

multi-State needs of Navajo Nation, for example. It is over three 

States, and so that nation will have to address the requirements 

of three States. Or perhaps maybe we will be able to work out some 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
38 

flexibility with HHS or re-address or re-evaluate some flexibility to 

be able to make sure that they could have a program that is consistent throughout their nation but still meet the requirements 

that the States will also need. So there will be some conversations 

that we need to deal with that. 

And then, of course, securing the development grants for timely—to be able to assist in the program readiness. Right now, with 

15 tribes already indicating that they would like to apply for those 

funds, that means only a third of those tribes will be eligible to receive the development funds, which means that we will have to 

wait another 2-year cycle before the next third could be eligible. 

And so we are looking at a very slow implementation for tribes unless we are able to deal with the resources. 

And then, as I said earlier, once again, going back to the in-kind 

match, being able to make sure that when HHS develops the regulations, that we are able to broaden the use of those match requirements in the regulations. 

But I would like to thank you very much for making sure that 

tribes were included in this legislation. It was a landmark for us. 

We think it is really going to change the way that we deal with 

the welfare of our Indian children. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Pata follows:] 

Statement of Jacqueline Johnson Pata, Executive Director, National 

Congress of American Indians (NCAI) 

On behalf of our country’s tribal nations, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) is pleased to present testimony on Implementation of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act. The recommendations that we are 

making are supported by the National Indian Child Welfare Association and the Association of American Indian Affairs, with whom we collaborate on this and other 

child welfare matters. We look forward to working with this Subcommittee to ensure 

that the critical programs and initiatives authorized and supported by this body are 

implemented with effectiveness in consultation with tribal governments. 

This Act authorizes tribes, for the first time, to receive administer the Title IV– 

E federal programs for foster care and adoption assistance. While tribal governments are not eligible to receive reimbursement from Title IV–E under this law 

until October 1, 2009, there has been increasing interest from tribal governments 

to prepare for implementation of this important new funding and service opportunities for their children, families and communities. The work of the Ways and Means 

Committee along with this Subcommittee was crucial to the enactment of this new 

law and the many benefits we see beginning to take shape. In particular, we want 

to recognize the leadership of Chairman McDermott, former Ranking Member 

Weller, Representative Pomeroy, and Representative Camp. Through their support, 

the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act authorizes tribes 

to directly administer the Title IV–E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance programs. 

NCAI has facilitated numerous tribal discussions regarding implementation of the 

Act. This testimony reflects our observations on tribal activities regarding the Act 

and some of the challenges to tribal participation in the Title IV–E program. Not 

since the 1978 enactment of the Indian Child Welfare Act has there been a federal 

law with such potential for positively transforming tribal child welfare services for 

American Indian and Alaska Native children. 

As the number of tribal governments participating in the Title IV–E program increases, we anticipate that the number of our tribal children achieving permanency 

will also grow significantly. 

Implementation Achievements 

While at this early stage in the process, there are not any tribes directly administering the IV–E program, there are good indications of interest and progress being 

made towards tribes successfully applying to directly administer the Title IV–E program. As of the date of this hearing, approximately 73 tribal entities have signaled 

their interest in submitting a plan to operate the Title IV–E program through letVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:16 Jan 27, 2010 Jkt 053733 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\53733.XXX GPO1 PsN: 53733

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
39 

ters of intent provided to the Children’s Bureau. These tribal entities include singular tribal governments, tribal organizations, and tribal consortia. They represent 

tribal entities from seven out of the ten federal regions in the United States. In addition, 15 tribal entities have submitted grant applications for the development 

grants authorized under the law that provide tribes with funding to support their 

Title IV–E readiness activities for up to two years. Given the number of tribes that 

applied to operate similar federal assistance programs after they have become available for the first time, including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and 

Child Support Enforcement, these numbers represent a healthy tribal interest and 

movement towards participating in the Title IV–E program. 

Other areas where there are indicators of progress in implementing the new law 

include: 

• Increased discussion with states on collaboration regarding Title IV–E; • More tribes engaging in broad child welfare reform within their communities; • Additional tribal requests for technical assistance on implementing the Title 

IV–E program; and • Forums and workgroups being formed to facilitate discussion of implementation issues and development of tribal strategies for addressing these issues. 

Since enactment last October, states and tribes have been engaged in discussions 

regarding the opportunities present in the new law, the role of each government in 

supporting greater access to IV–E services to tribal children, and new strategies for 

increasing tribal support to operate the program directly. In several states there 

have been discussions about states continuing—and even increasing—tribal access 

to state Title IV–E resources, including funding to meet non-federal match requirements and data collection systems. Some tribes are considering contracting with 

state or county agencies to perform certain specific IV–E functions with the tribe 

as the lead applicant, such as eligibility determinations, and others are looking at 

mutually beneficial training activities authorized under the law. Another important 

area of collaboration is information sharing between tribes and states to help tribal 

children maintain their eligibility for health and other services provided under other 

federal or state programs. Memorandums of Understanding and intergovernmental 

agreements are being discussed and will likely be available for broader dissemination in the future. 

One of the barriers for tribal governments engaging in large-scale child welfare 

reform has been the absence of a solid funding base. With the opportunity to access 

Title IV–E funding many tribes can now consider meaningful systems change. Two 

tribal nations that are engaged in child welfare reform and have expressed an interest in applying for Title IV–E directly are the Navajo Nation and the Tlingit and 

Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska. Both tribes are working with the National Indian 

Child Welfare Association through the Administration for Children and Families’ 

Western and Pacific Implementation Center (www.wpic.org), which is part of the 

Children’s Bureau technical assistance network. These tribes were selected for participation from among a number of applicants, including states, counties and tribes. 

They will be required to evaluate their entire child welfare system, including current and proposed funding sources like Title IV–E, and plan and implement system 

changes to improve outcomes for their tribal children and families. The systems reforms they are planning now will help them become better prepared to operate the 

IV–E program directly and potentially become a model for other tribes. Without the 

potential access to Title IV–E, it is unlikely that these tribes could have undertaken 

these extensive efforts. 

A number of national organizations, both Indian and non-Indian, have come together since last October to provide forums for discussion of key implementation 

issues, such as strategies for culturally-appropriate technical assistance, tribal court 

and code reform, and resources for developing tribal IV–E data systems. The organizations include National Congress of American Indians, National Indian Child Welfare Association, Association on American Indian Affairs, Casey Family Programs 

and Child Welfare League of America. Together they have provided over 20 technical assistance events for tribes both regionally and locally, developed a number 

of critical written resource materials for tribes, and have often consulted with state 

and federal agencies on Title IV–E implementation matters. These collaborations 

have been provided without federal support and are continuing today. 

Several regional Indian organizations, including the All Indian Pueblo Council in 

New Mexico and the Indian Child and Family Resource Center in Montana, have 

been providing technical assistance and helping tribes assess their readiness to operate the Title IV–E program. In addition, we have witnessed a number of states 

holding forums to discuss implementation issues and offer technical assistance to 

tribes when requested. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
40 

Tribes have also had good access to the Children’s Bureau through regional forums and conference calls regarding the new law and program requirements of Title 

IV–E. The Children’s Bureau, like many of the technical assistance providers, has 

a steep learning curve in preparing for implementation of the law, but has provided 

quick responses to issues that have been raised by tribes and Indian organizations. 

The Children’s Bureau has a key role in helping tribes with implementing the IV– 

E programs. This role includes being responsive to unique tribal needs, utilizing the 

expertise and knowledge in Indian Country, and adequately explaining their agency’s requirements and expectations. 

Implementation Challenges 

Congress anticipated several of the challenges that tribes might have in trying to 

implement the IV–E program and included specific provisions to address those 

issues, such as making tribal consortia eligible to apply, protecting tribal children’s 

eligibility for services when tribes switch from an agreement to direct funding, and 

establishing tribal-specific technical assistance. However, some additional challenges 

for tribes are starting to appear. The top challenges currently are: 

• Identifying sufficient non-federal match sources to meet IV–E requirements; 

• Securing the development of a Title IV–E compliant automated data system; 

• Managing unique tribal service delivery issues that were not contemplated in 

the IV–E program; and 

• Securing a development grant in a timely manner to assist program readiness. 

Match Requirements. A key challenge for tribal governments who are considering 

operation of the Title IV–E program is meeting the non-federal match requirements. 

Even with the allowances for the use of third party in-kind sources and expanded 

cash match sources many tribes are finding it difficult to identify sufficient match 

sources. This is not a measure of tribal commitment to the operation of foster care 

services or lack of capacity to effectively run the IV–E program, but rather a reflection of the economic realities that many tribes face. With unemployment rates in 

many tribal communities above 20% and poverty rates well above the national average, many tribes’ ability to generate unrestricted general revenue is extremely limited. This is especially for true for those tribes that are in more geographically isolated rural areas where economic and job development opportunities are scarce. As 

has been the case with the TANF program, tribes that have been able to take advantage of this program are usually those tribes that either have enough of an economic base to match federal payments or have been able to secure matching funds 

from states. While there are benefits for states to provide funding to help tribes participate in federal programs and serve their community members, a number of 

states with tribes in them do not provide this support. 

The Fostering Connections Act provides some use of in-kind funds for tribes to 

use as a non-federal match, and gives DHHS until October 2011 to implement final 

regulations. In light of the difficulty for tribes to identify sufficient match funds, we 

urge that the final in-kind regulations be as broad as possible so as to eliminate 

any unnecessary limitations that are hindering the Act’s effective application. We 

appreciate that Congress provided this flexibility with regard to the final tribal inkind regulations and urge you to monitor this issue. 

Data Systems. Title IV–E requires tribes and states to collect and submit required 

data via an automated data system. State experiences with this task indicate that 

development of this data system can be both very expensive and time consuming. 

One larger tribe recently told us that even with a $300,000 development grant they 

could easily spend all of the development grant, and more, getting a comprehensive 

system in place, and that it would take the full two years or more to develop and 

successfully test the system. As tribes consider whether to apply for and accept development grant funding, the ability to create a viable data system looms very large. 

Tribes are exploring their options, and organizations like the National Congress of 

American Indians and National Indian Child Welfare Association are trying to assist tribes through the creation of written materials and development of open source 

data system software that any tribe could use without expense. In addition, the National Congress of American Indians is developing a report and guidance on data 

system issues for tribes examining the option of operating the IV–E program. The 

Children’s Bureau has indicated that they will soon be issuing data system protocols 

for tribes that will clarify some of the questions, including whether tribes could collect and report data using simplified electronic spreadsheet software. Nonetheless, 

many tribes are interested in developing a more comprehensive system similar to 

the State Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) that provides 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
41 

more coordinated information collection across all child welfare service areas and is 

available for greater federal reimbursement under IV–E. 

Unique Tribal Service Delivery Issue. Tribal service delivery and jurisdictional realities are very different than those for states, which creates unique challenges in 

meeting IV–E requirements and managing the program as effectively and efficiently 

as possible. As an example, several tribes have tribal lands in more than one state. 

Because Fostering Connections requires that individual tribal children’s eligibility 

is based upon the state from which they were removed, tribes with reservation lands 

in more than one state will have to manage differing eligibility standards for their 

children, making program administration complicated and inefficient. These types 

of challenges could be relatively easily addressed if the Children’s Bureau had the 

flexibility to issue waivers to address these types of non-safety issues. 

Development Grants. Title IV–E is an admittedly complex and administratively 

time-consuming program to operate—even for states. Tribes have been working diligently to evaluate their readiness and construct plans for getting their programs 

and communities ready to operate this important program. For most tribes, this 

means securing a development grant authorized under the Fostering Connections 

Act to assist them in many of the readiness activities needed to successfully apply 

for and operate the program. However, the Children’s Bureau estimates that only 

five tribal development grants a year will be available. With 15 applicants this year, 

even under the best circumstances a third of these will have to wait an additional 

two years before beginning their readiness activities and another two years before 

they will likely be able to submit an application for approval. For the children that 

need these services now, the wait to get these services and protections is critical 

barrier. 

Conclusion 

The opportunities for tribal governments under the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act have the potential to transform child welfare 

services for tribal children and families in several significant ways. Creating access 

to new funding to support permanency services, helping provide support for new 

data systems, training of care providers and agency staff, and helping tribal governments fulfill their governmental responsibility to serve their communities are some 

of the most important. As we have seen in other federal programs, tribal governments are ready to apply their expertise and knowledge of their community to develop the most effective programs for their children. We thank you for the opportunity to share our observations regarding the progress tribes are making in implementing the Title IV–E program, and we appreciate this Subcommittee’s support 

and leadership in these crucial matters. 

f 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. I did not point out that the committee 

is joined by one of the Members of the Full Committee, Earl Pomeroy from North Dakota, who is one of those who was very often 

bending my ear on this issue. 

Ms. PATA. Yes. And in my written testimony, we definitely mention that, Earl Pomeroy, and certainly Congressman Camp and 

yourself, who have been very, very instrumental in helping us be 

included. Thank you. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you for your testimony. 

Our next witness is Margaret Anderson. 

I understand you are called ‘‘Greta.’’ 

Ms. ANDERSON. Yes. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. So we will welcome your testimony. 

She is a former foster youth and college student in Wisconsin—— 

Ms. ANDERSON. Correct. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT [continuing]. And is going to tell us 

how it actually works on the ground. 

So, Greta, you are on. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
42 

STATEMENT OF MARGARET ‘‘GRETA’’ ANDERSON, FORMER 

FOSTER CARE YOUTH AND COLLEGE STUDENT, EAU CLAIRE, 

WISCONSIN 

Ms. ANDERSON. Okay. 

Chairman McDermott, Ranking Member Linder, and Members of 

the Subcommittee, I am honored to be given the opportunity to 

share my story with such impactful and inspiring people today. So, 

really, thank you for having me. 

Among the 14 Members of Congress on this Subcommittee, you 

have nearly 40 children—that is a lot—and a few grandchildren, 

too, from what I hear. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. You have been looking on our Web 

sites. 

Ms. ANDERSON. That is right. 

But, in reality, as citizens and as elected officials, you also act 

as Mom and Dad for the half-million children and young adults in 

foster care, and I am one of them. 

My name is Greta Anderson. I am 21 years old and was a foster 

youth in Wisconsin. I am proud to say that I am currently a junior 

at the University of Wisconsin-Stout, but my educational outlook 

wasn’t always so rosy. 

Much of my high school education was attained in hospitals. I attended nine different schools during my high school career, and six 

of them were in hospital-like treatment facilities. A school in a 

treatment facility meant a room designated for us to do homework 

catch-up in, not a classroom where I would be attaining the same 

knowledge as my peers. Consequently, to graduate with my class, 

I took summer school every summer, as well as attending night 

classes 3 days a week on top of a part-time job my senior year. 

With this scattered educational experience, the most I could do 

was to concentrate on finishing high school. When I applied for college, I did so on a whim. I thought my high school career had been 

too messy to ever be considered college material until a school 

counselor told me that I should write a strong essay, fill out an extenuating circumstances form, and apply anyway. 

I took the ACT in June 2006, and, after seeing that I did well 

enough to get accepted, I applied for college in July. I received a 

scholarship from Wisconsin’s Department of Children and Family 

Services in August and officially decided to start school that September. I had no idea how I would finance the following years of 

my education; I just knew that if this was my ticket out I wanted 

to give it my best shot. 

When I was placed into guardianship with a relative at age 16, 

many of the problems that had initially led to my removal from my 

family were better, but they weren’t gone. I felt gypped. I didn’t get 

the help youth who aged out of the foster care system got, but I 

also lacked the financial support from my biological family, meaning I was left to support myself. 

At a Wisconsin Youth Advisory Council meeting in October of 

last year, my State independent living coordinator did a presentation called, ‘‘Exciting New Legislation.’’ When I learned how the 

Fostering Connections Act would impact all youth in care after the 

age of 16, I was ecstatic. I remember turning to the girl next to me 

and excitedly saying, ‘‘This is going to change my life.’’ 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
43 

When the ‘‘Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing 

Adoptions’’ legislation was passed, it made it possible for young 

people across the country who find permanence through guardianship to retain their eligibility for services through their independent living program, including support for higher education. 

This year was the first time my estimated family contribution on 

my FAFSA coincided with the actual financial contribution my 

family is able to make: $0. Access to Chaffee funding and services 

make it possible for me to concentrate on my studies and not be 

faced with choosing to drop out to support myself with minimumwage jobs. Doors have opened because now I am eligible for many 

more potential grant and loan opportunities. 

My first year of college was the first time I had been allowed to 

focus on something bigger than merely surviving, and, although I 

liked it, it was an adjustment. I didn’t know how not to worry 

about my family, and although I had emotional intelligence, I 

lacked a strong foundation in logic-based classes, such as math and 

science. College was the first chance I had to receive a normal education, not one interrupted by placement changes, meetings with 

social workers, and court dates. 

The college experience is one every foster youth deserves. Had I 

not received the additional financial support made possible by the 

Fostering Connections Act, it would have been very easy for me to 

wallow in self-pity about the educational opportunities that were 

not available to me. This semester is the first where I will not be 

taking out the maximum amount in student loans for living expenses. And when I graduate from college, I will be in a stronger 

position to tackle adulthood. 

Over this past summer, I have had the opportunity to intern as 

a FosterClub All-Star. I led conferences aimed at youth empowerment, showing them there is life after foster care and that it can 

be more and better than they ever dreamed. To be able to tell foster youth that there are opportunities out there gives kids without 

a lot of hope something to hold on to. 

I have met so many of my brothers and sisters of the system who 

are hungry for a better future, and you are opening that door for 

them. In one of our workshops, FosterClub asks foster youth who 

plans to go to college and they raise their hand. We always get an 

overwhelming response. Usually at least 90 percent say ‘‘yes.’’ It is 

hopeful to know that foster youth do indeed aspire to pursue their 

educational dreams. 

But we all know that the statistics don’t reflect those dreams 

being reality for most foster youth. Foster care and circumstances 

that lead to it place obstacles in our path that don’t always exist 

for our peers. The fact that even 3 percent of foster youth are going 

to college is a testament to foster kids’ resiliency. I feel like the 

question that we need to be asking is not, ‘‘Why youth are failing?’’ 

but, more important, ‘‘Why do some foster youth succeed? What resources are they using? And how can we help even more foster 

youth succeed?’’ 

For the past 2 years, I have traveled to my State capitol with the 

Youth Advisory Council to advocate for extending foster care until 

21 in Wisconsin. When I spoke to legislators prior to the passing 

of the Fostering Connections Act, I was often told, ‘‘Yes, we agree, 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
44 

but where is the money coming from?’’ For the first time last year, 

I was able to tell them that the Federal Government would support 

State legislators’ decision with funding, and they were much more 

receptive. 

It has been shown through research, which was mentioned earlier, that youth in States where foster care goes until 21 are succeeding at much higher rates. And because of this legislation, many 

States are going to be better prepared to offer their youth that 

chance at success. 

This year marks the 10th anniversary of the ‘‘Foster Care Independence Act,’’ which established the Chaffee program and created 

new opportunities for youth aging out of foster care to achieve their 

goals and dreams. The Fostering Connections Act builds on the legacy of Chaffee to expand opportunities to more foster youth and allows States to truly foster our potential as a parent would. 

Thank you for supporting me and my 513,000 brothers and sisters of the system. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Anderson follows:] 

Statement of Margaret ‘‘Greta’’ Anderson, Former Foster Care Youth and 

College Student, Au Claire, Wisconsin 

Chairman McDermott, Ranking Member Weller, and Members of the subcommittee, I am honored to be given the opportunity to share my story with such 

impactful and inspiring people today. 

Among the fourteen Members of Congress on this subcommittee, you have nearly 

40 children, and probably a few grandchildren, too. In reality, as citizens and as 

elected official, you also act as mom and dad for the half million children and young 

adults in foster care. I am one of them. 

My name is Greta Anderson. I am 21 years old and was a foster youth in Wisconsin. I am proud to say that I am currently a junior at the University of Wisconsin—Stout, but my educational outlook wasn’t always so rosy. 

Much of my high school education was attained in hospitals. I attended 9 different 

schools during my high school career and six of them were in hospital-like treatment facilities. A school in a treatment facility meant a room designated for us to 

do homework catch-up in, not a classroom where I would be attaining the same 

knowledge as my peers. Consequently, to graduate with my class, I took summer 

school every summer as well as attending night classes three days a week on top 

of a part-time job my senior year. 

With this scattered educational experience, the most I could do was to concentrate 

on finishing high school. When I applied for college, I did it on a whim. I thought 

my high school career was too messy to ever be considered college material until 

a school counselor told me that I should write a strong essay, fill out an extenuating 

circumstances form, and apply anyway. I took the ACT in June 2006, and after seeing that I did well enough to get accepted, I applied for college in July. I received 

a scholarship from Wisconsin’s Department of Children and Family Services in August and officially decided to start school that September. I had no idea how I would 

finance the following years of my education; I just knew that if this was my ticket 

out, I wanted to give it my best shot. 

When I was placed into guardianship with a relative at age 16, many of the problems that had initially lead to my removal from my family were better, but not 

gone. I felt gypped; I didn’t get the help youth who aged out of the foster care system got, but I also lacked the support from my biological family, meaning I was left 

to support myself. 

At a Wisconsin Youth Advisory Council meeting in October of last year, my state 

Independent Living Coordinator did a presentation called, ‘‘Exciting New Legislation!’’ When I learned how The Fostering Connections Act would impact all youth 

in care after the age of sixteen, I was ecstatic. I remember turning to the girl next 

to me and excitedly saying, ‘‘this is going to change my life . . .’’ 

When the Fostering Connections to Success and Increased Adoptions legislation 

was passed, it made it possible for young people across the country who find permanence through guardianship to retain their eligibility for services through their 

Independent Living Program, including support for higher education. This year was 

the first time my Estimated Family Contribution on my FAFSA coincided with the 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
45 

actual financial contribution my family is able to make—zero dollars. Access to 

Chaffee funding and services make it possible for me to concentrate on my studies 

and not be faced with choosing to drop out to support myself with a minimum wage 

jobs. Doors have opened because now I am eligible for many more potential grant 

and loan prospects. 

My first year of college was the first time I had been allowed to focus on something bigger than merely surviving, and although I liked it, it was an adjustment. 

I didn’t know how not to worry about my family, and although I had emotional intelligence, I lacked a strong foundation in logic-based classes such as math and 

science. College was the first chance I had to receive a ‘‘normal’’ education, not one 

interrupted by placement changes, meetings with social workers and court dates. 

The college experience is one every foster youth deserves. Had I not received the 

additional financial support made possible by the Fostering Connections Act, it 

would have been very easy for me to wallow in self-pity about the educational opportunities that were not available to me. This semester is the first where I will not 

be taking out the maximum amount in student loans for living expenses,, when I 

graduate from college, I will be in a stronger position to tackle adulthood. 

Over this past summer, I had the opportunity to intern as a FosterClub All-Star. 

I led conferences aimed at youth empowerment, showing them that there is life 

after foster care and it can be more and better than they ever dreamed. To be able 

to tell foster youth that there are opportunities out there gives kids without a lot 

of hope, something to hold on to. I’ve met so many of my brothers and sisters of 

the system who are hungry for a better future, and you are opening that door for 

them. In one of our workshops, FosterClub asks foster youth who plan to go to college raise their hand. We always get an overwhelming response—usually at least 

90% say ‘‘YES.’’ It is hopeful to know that foster youth do indeed aspire to pursue 

their educational dreams. 

But we all know that the statistics don’t reflect those dreams becoming reality for 

most foster youth. Foster care and the circumstances that lead to it place obstacles 

in our path that don’t exist for our peers. The fact that even 3% of foster youth are 

going to college is a testament to foster kids’ resiliency. I feel like the question we 

need to be asking is not why youth are failing, but, more important, why do some 

foster youth succeed? What resources are they using? How can we help even more 

foster youth succeed? 

For the past two years I have traveled to my state capitol with the Youth Advisory Council to advocate for extending foster care until 21 in Wisconsin. When I 

spoke to legislators prior to the passing of The Fostering Connections Act, I was 

often told, ‘‘Yes, we agree. But where is the money coming from?’’ For the first time 

last year I was able to tell them that the Federal Government would support state 

legislators’ decision with funding, and they were much more receptive. It has been 

shown through research that youth in states where foster care goes until 21 are succeeding at higher rates, and because of this legislation many states are going to be 

better prepared to offer their youth that chance at success. 

This year marks the tenth anniversary of the Foster Care Independence Act, 

which established the Chafee Program and created new opportunities for youth 

aging out of foster care to achieve their goals and dreams. The Fostering Connections Act builds on the legacy of Chafee to expand opportunities to more foster 

youth, and allows states to truly ‘‘foster’’ our potential as a parent would. Thank 

you for supporting me and my 513,000 brothers and sisters in foster care. 

Greta Anderson 

Wisconsin 

f 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Ms. ANDERSON. Thank you. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Ms. Linda Spears is the vice president 

for policy and public affairs for the Child Welfare League of America. 

Ms. Spears. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
46 

STATEMENT OF LINDA SPEARS, VICE PRESIDENT, POLICY 

AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, CHILD WELFARE LEAGUE OF AMERICA, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 

Ms. SPEARS. Thank you, Chairman McDermott. 

I have to start by thanking Greta for her wonderful words that 

bring this to reality so that we all understand the concrete nature 

of the benefits that this program can bring to young people. 

I also want to thank the chairman, Ranking Member Linder, and 

Members of the subcommittee for their stellar work in this regard 

and for having this hearing today and inviting us to testify. 

As you all know, this legislation was passed in 2008 to bring 

some of these agenda items to the fore. I will not go through a detailed review of each and every piece of the bill, but I do want to 

highlight for you some of the momentous concerns that we have 

and some of the progress that we think is being made on the legislation. 

As you know, provisions of the bill call for improvements in services to youth in transition, like this young lady sitting next to me; 

improvements in kinship care and guardianship; educational 

awareness and educational programming; health care and adoptive 

services. As you know, each of these pieces is phased and will take 

some time to implement, and many States are struggling with implementation. 

As of October 1st, the legislation will take one important step, 

and that is that it will replace—I am going to start where others 

didn’t, which is to start with the delink, so we talk about it. 

As of beginning October 1, the legislation will take one small but 

important step in beginning to replace the outdated eligibility requirements that now exist in Title IV–E by phasing out the eligibility link between special-needs adoptive children and the nonexistent Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. 

We are looking forward to the completion of this work because 

we believe that this should be extended beyond this to also cover 

eligibility for children in kinship care and in foster care eligibility 

in the same way. CWLA appreciates the recent action of a Member 

of this Subcommittee, Congressman John Lewis, for his recent introduction of H.R. 3329, which addresses this challenge, and we 

look forward to working with him and this Subcommittee on this 

further. 

Positive developments that I want to talk about in regards to implementation: This legislation is historic in its reach and its nature. 

The new policies come, however, at a time, as we have already 

mentioned, that is filled with challenges, as the Nation faces a severe recession. And States are having to enact cuts in not only 

court child welfare services, but across a spectrum of programs that 

affect children and families. 

States in recent years have relied on a range of Federal funds 

to address child welfare service system needs. Two of these are 

TANF and the Social Services Block Grant, which have respectively 

provided 19 and 12 percent of the total Federal funds used for child 

welfare. These two block grants have also been under demand as 

States look to address the concerns created by their straining State 

budgets. As a result, many States have not been able to adopt the 

full provisions that have been required under the new law. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
47 

An additional challenge that we are facing in implementation is 

the challenge of transition from one administration to the other, as 

has already been referenced. Recent history tells us that these 

transitions take longer and longer after each changeover. The end 

result of Fostering Connections has been delay in guidance that is 

needed by the States to do the implementation work that they 

need. As Secretary Donald talked about, many of the requirements 

and guidance that she would like to have she is still waiting for. 

CWLA believes that such an expansive and important reform requires an aggressive promotion and training by HHS in regard to 

what States can and should do in implementing the law. We find 

that, as we talk with our Members, public and private, across the 

country, that they are eager to learn about the new law and how 

the policy changes that it encourages can be implemented based on 

best practice models. But we feel that nothing carries the leadership weight of the HHS in providing some guidance and clarity 

around these issues. 

It is encouraging to see that some of the policy changes are beginning to take place despite barriers that may be in their way. As 

of last week, the Children’s Bureau indicated that seven States, 

plus the District of Columbia, have filed plan amendments to extend Title IV–E funding to kinship subsidized guardianship. These 

States are Connecticut, Maine, Missouri, Oregon, Pennsylvania, 

and Rhode Island, whose request has been approved, along with 

Tennessee. 

In addition, through our informal surveys and our conversations 

with other partner organizations like American Public Human 

Services Association and our discussion with our Members, we 

know that Illinois, Michigan, Oklahoma, Massachusetts, Alaska, 

and New Mexico are among the States who have expressed interest 

and are pursuing consideration for how they can move forward on 

the kinship option. We expect more States to take direct action on 

this as the debate settles and as guidance is provided in greater 

detail. 

Initial guidance in regard to States taking the kinship option 

would suggest that current kin families covered by the State funds 

and other Federal funds, such as TANF, may not be eligible for future Federal funding under the new kinship option, even if the 

child is IV–E eligible and met all the other conditions set out in 

the law when he or she was placed. 

We urge Congress to work with the Administration to address 

the possibility that some of these current kinship families would, 

in fact, be eligible for Federal funding after the State has taken the 

guardianship option. Clarification of this and other possible issues 

will help States to asses their options and to implement the new 

provisions. 

Some guidance may also be needed with regard to how to structure guardianship assistance payment and the process for establishing and adjusting such agreements, as well as the relative consultation process. 

Since many States use TANF through child-only grants, we hope 

that by taking the IV–E option that the decisionmaking around the 

use of this program will not be limited to whether or not there is 

only a financial advantage in TANF or IV–E but whether or not 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
48 

the program choice meets the best interests of the family and the 

child. 

An additional provision that has taken effect addresses the educational stability and requires that, as part of casework plans, that 

when it is in the student’s best interest he or she remain in the 

same school, even if that child resides in another school district’s 

boundaries. 

Recently, States like Pennsylvania and Missouri have taken new 

steps to address the education needs and rights of children in foster care. 

Missouri’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 

sent out instructions to school administrators based on the new legislation and a State bill called State Bill 291, the Foster Care Education Bill of Rights, which requires schools to designate an educational liaison for children in foster care. The child has rights outlined in the Federal act to remain in or near his home school, and 

it outlines options to address the cost of transportation for these 

children. 

In Pennsylvania, as a result of the new law, the State issued new 

guidance in January that, among other issues, addresses the previous prohibitions on children living outside school district lines 

from continuing to attend the same school. In this guidance, the 

State urges local education agencies to develop policies and agreements to address these issues. 

While we are supportive of the requirement, to be truly effective, 

equal responsibility needs to be placed on school and local education, as well as child welfare. Amending the ‘‘Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act’’ will highlight for educators how important it is that the needs of this population be addressed. We also 

urge that, once the leadership is confirmed in both the Department 

of Education and Health and Human Services, that they issue joint 

guidance to the States to make sure that these provisions are carried out. 

We also are looking at the transition planning, et cetera. We feel 

it is vital that we make sure that transition planning requirements 

continue to be monitored. We believe that many States have in 

place the frameworks available to them to do this because of the 

requirements under Chaffee and prior law. We want to make sure 

that we are able to monitor that and to make sure that that happens appropriately. 

A final element that I will want to talk about just a half a second—I know I am exceeding my time, sir—is the health planning 

requirements that were also put into place under the bill. These 

new requirements build on what was already in law to strengthen 

health access and health services for kids, making sure that kids 

in care are screened and that the services they need are delivered, 

and includes better tracking and monitoring of the use of medication. 

Studies indicate that between half and a third of children in foster care exhibit behavior and social competency problems that warrant mental health care. We are not really sure how well and how 

much increased coordination and planning between State child welfare and Medicaid agencies has yet taken place. But a recent letter 

by the American Academy of Pediatrics states that, based on their 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
49 

work with individual chapters, it does not appear that the new requirements of the law are being fully met. 

We urge that when HHS issues its new pre-print, which is the 

form that they submit the 5-year plan on, that we be more specific 

in its direction to States regarding the requirements around planning and consultation that can take place. This will help ensure 

that the services in the law, including screening, monitoring of 

care, and medication tracking and medical records tracking, are 

carried out. 

And, finally, I just want to make mention of two things. One is 

that we know that the needs of this bill have taken us very, very 

far, but there are still areas that we need to address, and that is 

the prevention of child abuse and neglect. We encourage the support and continued work on home visitation and other prevention 

programs that are out, so that we can begin to learn, know, and 

do more that is outcome-based to prevent child abuse and neglect 

as we move forward. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Spears follows:] 

Statement of Linda Spears, Vice President, Policy & Public Affairs, Child 

Welfare League of America, Arlington, Virginia 

The Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) is a ninety year-old non-profit organization representing hundreds of state and local child welfare organizations including both public and private, and faith-based agencies. CWLA members provide 

a range of child welfare services from prevention to placement services including 

adoptions, foster care, kinship placements, and services provided in a residential 

setting. CWLA’s vision is that every child will grow up in a safe, loving, and stable 

family and that we will lead the nation in building public will to realize this vision. 

Chairman McDermott, Ranking Member Linder and Members of the Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, CWLA thanks you for inviting 

us to testify today about the important legislation passed by this Subcommittee last 

year, legislation that resulted in a significant new law on child welfare. 

Historic Legislation 

Last fall, Congress enacted and President Bush signed the Fostering Connections 

to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (Fostering Connections to Success, 

P.L. 110–351). CWLA believes this legislation is the most significant federal child 

welfare legislation enacted in at least a decade—if not since the creation of Title 

IV–E foster care and adoption assistance in 1980. 

Chairman McDermott, CWLA thanks you for your leadership last year and for 

your continuing interest and dedication to addressing the needs of abused and neglected children and all families that come into contact with our nation’s child welfare system. Members of this subcommittee, and key leaders including former Congressman Jerry Weller, the Senate Finance Committee and the staff of this subcommittee working across house and party lines can be proud of your efforts and 

accomplishments in passing P.L. 110–351. This law, when fully phased in and implemented at the state and local level, will have a significant and positive impact 

on outcomes for children and families facing crisis. It takes a major step forward 

in kinship care. It will increase special-needs adoptions across the country. The new 

law begins the critical task of focusing on the overrepresentation of some minority 

populations in child welfare by providing federal funding to some kinship families 

and by allowing direct access to tribal governments—and, by extension, to children 

in Indian country. Under the law youth aging out of foster care will be better 

served. It also holds the promise of improving education and health care for children 

in care and offers the promise of moving this nation, at least in some small way, 

toward a sounder workforce development policy in the area of child welfare. 

Background on Important Policy Changes 

After many years of debate, some experimentation by states and a patchwork of 

financing, Congress has now given states the option to use federal Title IV–E funds 

for kinship guardianship payments for children raised by relative caregivers. Children eligible under this provision must also be eligible for federal foster care maintenance payments, must reside with the relative for at least six consecutive months 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
50 

1 Children who age out of foster care are captured by the AFCARS emancipation data element. 

Children who exit care to emancipation are those who reach the age of majority according to 

state law by virtue of age, marriage, etc. CWLA, Special AFCARS tabulation. 2 H.R. 3329, ‘‘Look-Back Elimination Act of 2009, introduced July 24, 2009. Sponsor Congressman John Lewis (D–GA). 

in foster care, and it must be determined that reunification is not possible and adoption is not appropriate. It also clarifies that under current guidance, states may 

waive non-safety licensing standards (as determined by the state) on a case-by-case 

basis in order to eliminate barriers to placing children with relatives. State agencies 

must exercise due diligence to identify and provide notice to all adult relatives of 

a child within 30 days after the child is removed from the custody of the parent(s). 

A second significant policy area that is addressed in several ways is youth 

transitioning from foster care to independence. A year from now, states will have 

the option to extend care to youth age 19, 20, or 21 with continued federal support 

to increase their opportunities for success as they transition to adulthood. Importantly, the law also attempts to strengthen the current transition planning requirements by requiring states to engage youth more directly in planning and addressing 

their needs after they leave foster care. By requiring child welfare agencies and 

caseworkers to help youth develop a transition plan during the 90-day period immediately before a youth exits from care and directly addressing specific issues such 

as continued access to health care, job training, education, housing and other vital 

services, we can—if properly implemented—assure better outcomes for the more 

than 26,154 1 youth who currently ‘‘age-out’’ of foster care. 

One of the most momentous parts of the new law will begin to take effect in a 

few weeks, on October 1, when tribal governments and consortia will be allowed to 

apply directly to HHS to operate their own Title IV–E foster care, special needs 

adoption, and kinship care programs. These provisions were debated and sponsored 

in Congress for many years and CWLA is pleased they are included in the final law. 

Along with the kinship care provisions, this can be an important tool to help address the challenge of overrepresentation of certain populations in our nation’s child 

welfare system. These changes also begin to address a long-time inequity in access 

and funding that tribal communities have faced for many years. 

Also significantly the legislation takes one small but important step in beginning 

to replace the outdated eligibility requirements that now exist in Title IV–E by 

phasing out the eligibility link between special needs adoption children and the nonexistent Aide to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. This provision 

which also takes effect October 1, means that all children sixteen and older, children in care for five years or siblings of another eligible special needs child will no 

longer have their federal funding and commitment linked to whether or not that 

child was removed from a family that would have been eligible for AFDC as it existed on July 16, 1996. We look forward to seeing Congress completing its work in 

this area by also de-linking kinship and foster care eligibility in the same way. 

CWLA appreciates the recent action of a Member of this Subcommittee, Congressman John Lewis (D–GA) for his recent introduction of H.R. 3329 2 which addresses 

this challenge and we look forward to working with him and the subcommittee on 

this. As part of the adoption improvements included in the Fostering Connections 

to Success Act, Congress also extended and increased the incentive program to encourage more adoptions of older children waiting to be adopted. 

Finally, Congress enacted changes that took effect last October when the bill was 

signed into law, in the areas of workforce development, strengthening education and 

improving health care. These provisions, when fully implemented and practiced, will 

strengthen the child welfare workforce and improve both the health and education 

outcomes for children in care. 

Through Fostering Connections to Success, the availability of federal training dollars to cover training of staff not only in public agencies but in private child welfare 

agencies and for court personnel, attorneys, guardian ad litems, and court appointed 

special advocates can, and we believe will, be an important tool in developing the 

child welfare workforce. 

The health care planning requirement that state child welfare agencies work with 

the state Medicaid agencies and other healthcare experts to create a plan for the 

ongoing oversight and coordination of health care services for children in foster care 

can serve as a tool to address the frequently unmet health and mental health needs 

of children in care. If implemented effectively, we will see better health screenings; 

better identification of needs; greater medical information sharing; greater oversight 

and tracking of medication and increased continuity of care. 

Education outcomes and opportunities for children in foster care will be significantly enhanced due to provisions in the new law, and with an assist from the eduVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:16 Jan 27, 2010 Jkt 053733 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\53733.XXX GPO1 PsN: 53733

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
51 

3 In a national survey, 54% of former foster youth had completed high school. Cook, R. (1991). 

A national evaluation of Title IV–E foster care independent living programs for youth. Rockville, 

MD: Westat Inc. At 12–18 months after leaving foster care, 55% of former foster youth in Wisconsin had completed high school. Courtney, M., & Piliavin, I. (1998). Foster youth transitions 

to adulthood: Outcomes 12 to 18 months after leaving out-of-home care. Madison: University of 

Wisconsin. 4 Allen, T., K.; DeVooght,K., & Geen, R. (2008). Findings from the 2007 Casey Kinship Foster 

Care Policy Survey. Washington, DC: Child Trends. 5DeVooght, K.; Allen, T.; & Geen, R. (2008). Federal, State, and Local Spending to Address 

Child Abuse and Neglect in SFY 2006. Washington, DC: Child Trends. 

cation community. We know this was a key concern for Members of this subcommittee and CWLA appreciates that leadership. There is good reason for this concern. While national data is sparse several individual studies and surveys show that 

half of youth emancipating from foster care will not have received a high school diploma.3

As of last October new requirements in the law are in effect and state child welfare agencies are to coordinate with local education agencies to ensure that children 

are able to remain in the school they are enrolled in at the time of placement into 

foster care, unless that would not be in the child’s best interest. In that case, the 

state must ensure transfer and immediate enrollment in the new school. In addition, the act provides increased federal support to assist with school-related transportation costs. Finally, the state plan must ensure that every child receiving IV– 

E assistance is enrolled as a full-time student or has completed high school. 

Positive Developments In the First Months, Further Action Required 

Before the enactment of Fostering Connections to Success, various state surveys 

found a range of approaches to supporting these families. A recent survey by Child 

Trends determined that 49 states allow kin to pursue a legal guardianship for children in state custody while receiving some financial support. That same survey indicated that forty of these states required that reunification had to be ruled out first 

before support was extended and twenty-eight states reported that adoption also 

had to be ruled out.4

Although the enactment of the Foster Connections to Success Act is historic in 

its reach, it comes at a particularly challenging time. The nation is facing one of 

the most severe if not the most severe recession since the great depression of the 

1930s. As a result, states have been enacting budget cuts that have impacted not 

just the core child welfare services but a cross section of programs that affect families by providing key human services. Just when families face increased stress due 

to layoffs, and reduced wages and incomes, community and societal efforts to cushion the blow are being curtailed. 

States have, in recent years, relied on a range of federal funds to address their 

child welfare systems. Two of these sources are TANF (Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families) and SSBG (Social Services Block Grant) which have respectively 

provided nineteen percent and twelve percent of total federal funds 5 used for child 

welfare as of 2006. These two block grants have also been in demand to fund other 

increasing human service needs in this time of strained state budgets. As a result, 

many states have not yet been able to adopt the options provided to them through 

the new law. 

An additional challenge is the transition from one Administration to the next. Recent history suggests that these transitions take longer and longer after each 

changeover. The end result for Fostering Connections to Success has been a delay 

in guidance that is much needed by the states. CWLA believes that such an expansive and important reform requires an aggressive promotion and training by HHS 

in regard to what states can and should do in implementing the new law. CWLA, 

along with many child welfare and children’s organization, is working to educate its 

membership. We find our member agencies, both public and private, eager to learn 

about the new law and how the policy changes encouraged by the new law can be 

implemented following a best practice model, but we feel nothing carries as much 

force as the leadership of the agencies and the Department vested with the oversight of the new law. 

At the same time it’s encouraging to see that some policy changes are beginning 

to take place. As of last week, the Children’s Bureau indicated that seven states 

plus the District of Columbia had actually filed plan amendments to extend Title 

IV–E funding to kinship/subsidized guardianships. Those states are Connecticut, 

Maine, Missouri, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island (which has been approved), 

and Tennessee. In addition, through informal surveys by organizations such as our 

colleagues from APHSA and through some of our own informal discussions, the 

states of Illinois, Michigan, Oklahoma, Massachusetts, Alaska and New Mexico have 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
52 

6Title IV–E Plans, Kinship Guardianship Assistance Training, Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoption Act of 2008. ACYF–CB-PI–08–007. http://www.cwla.org/advocacy/ 

adoptionhr6893acfinstructions.pdf. 7Foster Care Education Bill of Rights. September 9, 2009. Memorandum to School Administrators, Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. 8 Enrolment of Students. January 22, 2009. Basic Education Circulars, Pennsylvania Department of Education. Online at: http://www.pde.state.pa.us/k12/cwp/view.asp?A=11&Q=84241. 

indicated some interest or preparation in moving forward with the kinship option. 

We would expect more states to take action both as budget debates settle and as 

guidance is provided in greater detail. 

Initial guidance in regard to states taking the kinship care option would suggest 

that current kin families covered through the use of state funds and other federal 

funds such as TANF may not be eligible for future federal funding under the new 

kinship option even if the child had been Title IV–E eligible and met all the other 

conditions set out in the law when he or she was placed in care.6

We urge Congress to work with the new Administration to address the possibility that some of these current kin families would in fact be eligible for federal 

funding after a state has taken the guardianship option. Clarification of this and 

possible other issues may speed up the ability of states to assess their options and 

to implement this kinship provision. Some guidance may also be needed in regard 

to how to structure guardianship assistance payments and the process for establishing and adjusting such agreements and the relative consultation process. Since 

many states have used TANF funds through the child-only grant to fund kinship 

programs, we would hope taking the Title IV–E option would not be based solely 

on the financial advantages or disadvantages of choosing TANF over Title IV–E but 

would be based on what is in the best interest of these families and children. 

An additional provision that has taken effect is Section 204 of the Fostering Connections to Success Act which addresses educational stability. The law now requires 

that as part of the casework plans, when it is in the child’s best interest, he or she 

remain in the same school even if that child resides in another school’s district 

boundaries. As part of this new requirement, states are now allowed to draw-down 

the higher matching Title IV–E maintenance funds instead of administrative funds 

to help address the transportation costs of transporting a child to his or her old 

school. The new provisions also require that when the child must move and cannot 

remain in the same school district, that he or she be enrolled immediately in a new 

school with his or her records. This is an important new requirement in the law 

that we believe will take a continued effort by states to fully implement. It is unclear how well these new provisions have been implemented. Several states have indicated that they do meet the education needs of children in care. Other states have 

indicated to us that it can sometimes be a challenge to get the local school districts 

to focus on this population when schools are challenged on so many other fronts. 

In recent months, other states have taken some action to address state laws that 

may be present barriers that restrict where a child attends school. 

In recent weeks states such as Pennsylvania and Missouri have taken new steps 

to address the education needs and rights of children in foster care. On September 

9, 2009 the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education sent out 

instructions to school administrators based on new enacted state legislation, Senate 

Bill 291. This new ‘‘Foster Care Education Bill of Rights’’ requires school districts 

to designate an education liaison for children in foster care, the child has the rights 

outlined in the new federal act to remain in his or her new school district, and outlined options to address the cost of transportation funding for these children.7 In 

Pennsylvania, also as a result of new laws, the state issued new guidance in January 2009 that among other issues addresses previous prohibitions on children living 

outside school district lines from continuing to attend their same school. In this 

guidance the state urges local school education agencies to develop policies and 

agreements to address the movement of children in foster care and their need to 

remain in the same school districts when it is in their best interest.8

At this point, despite some progress, both administrative and congressional action are needed. As we have seen, the new law now places the burden on child welfare agencies. While we are supportive of such a requirement, to be truly effective 

an equal responsibility needs to be placed on state and local education agencies. 

Amending the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (No Child Left Behind Act), 

will highlight for educators how important it is that the needs of this population 

are addressed. 

Second, we would urge that once the leadership has been confirmed by the 

Senate that both the Education Department and the Department of Health and 

Human Services issue joint guidance to both the state child welfare and education 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
53 

9Landsverk, J.A., Burns, B.A., Stambaugh, L.F., & Rolls Reutz, J.A. (2006). Mental Health 

Care for Children and Adolescents: A Review of the Literature. Retrived online October 22, 2007. 

Seattle: Casey Family Programs. 10 American Academy of Pediatrics. August 20, 2009. Letter to Honorable David Hansell, Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and Families. 11Title IV–E Pre-Print. (2008). OMB Request for Public Comment: State Plan for Foster care 

and Adoption Assistance—Title IV–E. OMB No.: 0980–0141 http://www.cwla.org/advocacy/ 

adoptionhr6893acfpreprint.pdf. 

departments to make sure the education provisions of the new law are carried out. 

Again, we hear examples that some local education agencies when approached by 

child welfare agencies to address these new requirements are unaware of the new 

provisions. As our colleagues from the American Bar Association have indicated, the 

issues surrounding immediate enrollment, the transfer of records in a timely fashion, and the provision of needed transportation services to some foster children are 

complex issues but they must be addressed if we are to assure the education success 

of foster children. CWLA will be working with our child welfare partners, others and 

hopefully Members of Congress to address needed changes in the education reauthorization to close this gap. 

Transition planning is another important provision that was included in the Fostering Connections Act. As of last October, states were required to have new planning requirements for young people preparing to leave foster care. The new law requires caseworkers to actively engage young people no less than ninety days before 

he or she leaves care in developing a plan that is both personalized and at that 

young person’s direction. The plan must include specific options with regard to several important services such as access to health care, housing options, work force 

supports and educational opportunities. This is in addition to requirements around 

transition planning already in the law. CWLA feels it is vital that we make sure 

that these additional transition and planning requirements be carried out the way 

the law specifies, including the requirement that the young people be actively involved and direct the planning. This will take some time to both implement and 

measure. Ultimately if this provision is carried out the way the Subcommittee envisions—and we hope it is—it will mean we have to make sure caseworkers are 

trained and adequately staffed so that they will be properly working with these 

young people to address their varied needs. 

A final element that took effect last October and will be important to see that it 

is effectively implemented are the requirements that we know the Chairman has 

had a great deal of interest in—the new health planning requirements. Similar to 

the transition planning, these new requirements build on what is already in law to 

strengthen health access and health services to children in care. It is vital that children in care be screened and that the services they need be delivered. This includes 

better tracking and use of medication. As your Subcommittee learned from earlier 

hearings, this is not always done. 

As CWLA has stated before, studies indicate that between one-half and threefourths of children entering foster care exhibit behavior or social competency problems that warrant mental health care.9 We are not sure how much increased and 

coordinated planning between state child welfare agencies and Medicaid agencies 

have taken place. A recent letter by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 

states that based on work with their individual AAP chapters, it does not appear 

that the new requirements of the law are being met. We would concur with many 

of the recommendations and suggestions in that letter regarding the kind of consultation between not just the two state agencies but also a host of key stakeholders 

including health care providers and other parties that effect children in child welfare.10

We urge HHS when they issue their new pre-print, which is the form that states 

may use to submit their five year state plan, to be more specific in its direction to 

states to assure that all the requirements around planning and consultation take 

place. This will ensure that the services outlined in the new law such as screening, 

monitoring of and provision of care, the tracking and use of medication and the 

tracking of a child’s medical records are in fact being carried out and are in place 

in all fifty states.11

Fiscal Year 2010 

Two aspects of the law take place in a few weeks when the new fiscal year starts. 

On October 1, tribal governments and consortia will be able to apply to HHS to run 

their own Title IV–E foster care, kinship care and special needs adoption assistance 

programs drawing federal funds directly. Our understanding is that several tribes 

have expressed an initial interest in applying to run their own Title IV–E programs. 

This new law represents a historic opportunity to extend support and funding to NaVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:16 Jan 27, 2010 Jkt 053733 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\53733.XXX GPO1 PsN: 53733

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
54 

tive American populations who for too long have not had equal access to federal 

funding and support. This lack of access to services and support has been a contributing factor to the overrepresentation of Indian children in the child welfare system 

in some parts of the country. As positive as this development is, it too will take time 

to be implemented properly. As we stated in our comments to HHS last May, the 

opportunities presented in this new law can and should encourage collaboration between three key partners: tribal governments, state child welfare agencies and the 

Federal Government, in particular the Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS). As this new law is implemented and as more tribal governments take the 

option to establish Title IV–E Foster Care, Adoption Assistance and Kinship Guardianship programs, we urge the Department to invest the time and resources necessary to assist in the successful implementation of these new plans. Indications are 

that HHS recognizes this challenge. 

A tribal government willing to take on the operation of a Title IV–E program 

must also address issues around data collection and requirements for raising local 

matching funds. While this may take time, we feel that positive initial steps have 

been taken with the increased dialogue and discussion within tribal communities as 

well as between state and tribal governments. 

The second change in law that takes place on October 1 is the gradual de-link 

from the AFDC eligibility requirements for special needs adoptions. At the start of 

the fiscal year, all special needs adoptive children sixteen and older, or children who 

have been in care for five or more consecutive years, and their siblings, placed into 

an adoptive family where one of these children is Title IV–E eligible will all become 

eligible for Title IV–E funding. No longer will the eligibility for federal support be 

limited to children removed from a family that would have been eligible for AFDC 

in 1996. An important part of this phase-out is the requirement that Congress inserted that if a state experiences a savings because federal funds are extended to 

special needs placements not previously covered, those saving have to be reinvested 

into other child welfare services. We recognize the challenges this presents in the 

economic environment states now face but we believe that effective execution of this 

requirement can set up an important avenue to re-invest state dollars into prevention services as a result of the Federal Government taking over a fairer share of 

adoption funding. 

We urge the new Administration to outline how this spending will be tracked 

so that funds now currently within the child welfare system will remain in other 

areas of need such as prevention services and post-adoption services. 

Hopes for the Future 

Although it has been nearly a year since enactment of this law, in terms of implementation, we are just beginning. We feel confident that as state budgets settle, as 

the new Administration fills out its policy positions and they get Senate approval, 

and as organizations such as ours continue our efforts at explaining the opportunities and the best practice approaches, more states will implement changes that will 

move more children toward permanency and that will ultimately improve outcomes 

for children and youth in the child welfare system. We believe that as Tribal governments explore and learn about the potential to draw down direct funding and as 

a dialogue between the Federal Government, the states and tribes expand their initiatives, new partnerships can be built and more children living in Indian country 

will be better served. 

There are provisions of the new law that require regulation and further guidance. 

We hope through guidance from Congress and by soliciting information and views 

from the field including the views of state and local agencies, the public, faith-based 

and non-profit communities and by always including the feedback and concerns of 

children and families most effected by these programs, we can implement all of 

these provisions in a way that will improve outcomes for children and families. We 

urge the subcommittee to continue this oversight and we hope you will be vigilant 

for any way that the law can be strengthened and improved in the coming months. 

Next Steps 

We urge the subcommittee, as the Fostering Connections to Success Act is implemented and phased in, to continue to take the next steps that the Chairman has 

talked about in recent months—as have the leaders of the Senate Finance Committee—about examining ways to provide greater focus and federal support for programs that can prevent child abuse and neglect from taking place. CWLA is very 

pleased that bipartisan legislation introduced by the Chairman, Congressman 

Danny Davis (D–IL) and Congressman Todd Platts (R–PA), which will expand support for proven home visiting programs, is continuing to move forward in Congress. 

It is an important tool that can reduce the incidents of abuse and neglect. We also 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
55 

12 H.R. 5466, ‘‘Invest in KIDS Act’’, introduced February 14, 2008. Sponsor Congressman Jim 

McDermott (D–WA). 13Partnership to Protect Children and Strengthen Families Act (2007) http://www.cwla.org/advocacy/nurturingfamilies.pdf. 

hope that the next phase of reform will allow states to invest Title IV–E funds into 

prevention services that can demonstrate their effectiveness. There are several proposals in development that merit consideration. Last Congress, for example, the 

Chairman introduced HR 5466 12 which included a provision to use Title IV–E funds 

for programs that can reduce placements in foster care, and strengthen post reunification and post adoption services. We have been a part of a coalition of advocacy 

groups, the Partnership to Protect Children and Strengthen Families,13 which has 

offered another example for reinvesting Title IV–E funds. We also feel that the 2010 

budget which includes some limited funding for demonstration projects that seek to 

reduce long term foster care can assist in the development of reforms that can begin 

to help reduce both the number of children entering foster care and the length of 

stay for those children who do have to be placed in care. 

The subcommittee will also be dealing with the reauthorization of TANF. As we 

indicated earlier, TANF contributes nearly one-fifth of federal child welfare funding. 

In regard to the financial role TANF plays, many states have used the TANF block 

grant to invest in innovative ways to provide child welfare services that can help 

prevent placement into out-of-home care. We need to protect these types of investments and perhaps gather a better understanding of how these investments are 

made and how they supplement the system. The subcommittee will also have to examine the link between Title IV–E kinship care and the use of child only placements to make sure children in child welfare receiving kin support through these 

grants are being adequately served. We need to take a careful look at this because 

we do not want a situation where a family is forced into child welfare just to access 

services. At the same time we do not want families already connected to the child 

welfare system to be denied services through Title IV–E. As we indicate earlier in 

this statement, it is important that the choice of the Title IV–E kinship option be 

based on what is in the best interest of the child. 

There are obvious overlaps between TANF and child welfare. Some, even within 

the human service advocacy community, fail to recognize that many of these are the 

same vulnerable families and we need to examine whether or not there is adequate 

coordination between child welfare and TANF agencies. 

Finally, CWLA feels that the reestablishment of a White House Conference on 

Children and Youth, similar to the Aging Conference, would be an important tool 

to help communities and states deal with many of these challenges from creating 

effective community-based prevention strategies to tackling the implementation of 

the Fostering Connections to Success Act. Ultimately the Federal Government can 

provide vital support and leadership—but we will truly improve outcomes for this 

nation’s most vulnerable children and families only if these new laws and programs 

are carried out down to the casework level. This is CWLA’s mission and we believe, 

our collective responsibility. 

f 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Help us pass health care. 

Ms. SPEARS. We will do what we can. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you for your testimony. 

Ms. SPEARS. You are quite welcome. Thank you. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Our next witness is Ms. Kathleen 

McNaught, who is the assistant director of the American Bar Association’s Center on Children and the Law. 

Ms. McNaught. 

STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN M. MCNAUGHT, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CENTER ON CHILDREN AND THE LAW, AMERICAN BAR 

ASSOCIATION 

Ms. MCNAUGHT. Good afternoon, Chairman McDermott, Ranking Member Linder, and Members of the Subcommittee. 

My name is Kathleen McNaught. I am the assistant director for 

child welfare at the American Bar Association’s Center on Children 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
56 

and the Law, as well as the project director for the Legal Center 

for Foster Care and Education, a national technical assistance resource and information clearinghouse on legal and policy matters 

affecting the education of children in the foster care system. 

I am pleased to appear today at the request of Carolyn Lamm, 

president of the American Bar Association. The ABA has long been 

committed to improving the educational outcomes of children in 

care. And in August of 2009, the ABA House of Delegates unanimously passed an education policy urging Federal and State legislators to pass laws and for child welfare and education agencies to 

implement and enforce policies that help advance a child’s right to 

remain in school, complete school, and obtain a high-quality education. 

Thank you for this opportunity to share the views of the ABA on 

foster care and education policy. 

Thanks in no small part to the strong leadership and dedication 

of Chairman McDermott, the Fostering Connections Act contains 

key educational provisions that are essential to breaking the cycle 

of poor educational outcomes for children in foster care. The act requires the child welfare agency to coordinate with local education 

agencies to ensure that children remain in their same school even 

when their living placements change. If it is not in the child’s best 

interest to remain, the agencies must coordinate to ensure immediate and appropriate enrollment in a new school. 

Critically, the act also clarifies that Federal child welfare funds 

can be used by States for reasonable travel costs to allow children 

in foster care eligible for IV–E reimbursement to stay in the same 

school. 

The Fostering Connections Act has brought much-needed attention at both the Federal and the State levels to the poor educational outcomes of children in care and this critical need for collaboration between child welfare and education agencies to improve 

these outcomes. 

As we have heard from my fellow panelists, many States and 

local child welfare agencies are now mobilizing to implement these 

education provisions in their States. Some have organized State or 

local interagency work groups and developed interagency agreements to address educational stability. Some States have adopted 

or are in the process of adopting legislation, regulations, or guidance to identify the responsibilities of each agency in implementing 

these provisions of the act. 

Advocates who represent children and those who are working at 

the systems level are becoming better informed about the law’s requirements and have started to advocate for educational stability 

and immediate school access. As a result, some students in foster 

care are already experiencing improved stability and continuity in 

school. 

While much more work needs to be done, the past 10 months 

have included positive steps forward to changing both policy and 

practice to align with these new mandates. However, despite these 

significant efforts in the States, there are four main barriers to full 

and effective implementation of the educational provisions of the 

Fostering Connections Act. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
57 

Number one, there is a need to create reciprocal mandates in 

education law, requiring education agencies to coordinate and collaborate with child welfare agencies to ensure the stability and continuity of students in care. 

Number two, there is a strong need to provide further clarification that the mandate to ensure school stability includes a mandate 

to provide arrange and fund transportation when necessary. 

Number three, there is a need to provide additional support, 

guidance, and resources to States on how to best work together and 

collaborate across agencies and how to set clear lines of responsibility for each agency. It would be important to see Federal-level 

collaboration between the U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services and Department of Education to serve as a model for 

States. 

Some of the collaboration issues States are currently struggling 

with include: determining which agency will make the best-interest 

determination for the child to remain in their school; what factors 

to consider when you are making that determination; how to identify and involve all necessary individuals, including youth, in these 

decisions; how to create and fund clearly identified points of contact 

in both the child welfare and education agencies at the State and 

local level, desperately needed support to ensure stability and resolve disputes; and how to ensure a child’s right to transportation 

to remain in that school; and how to coordinate to provide, arrange, 

and pay for that transportation. 

Finally, barrier number four to successful implementation: There 

is a need to improve the collection of data that can track education 

outcomes and improvements for children in care. Even in the 

States that have already made some great strides to improve educational stability, there is minimal data to document these advances. 

States must collect this critical data and receive support and 

guidance to track improvements for children in care. Tracking data 

such as attendance, the number of school changes, enrollment 

delays, is necessary to document the implementation of these education provisions, but they also must link them to the improvements and track improvements in educational outcomes for children in care. Without effective information and data sharing across 

child welfare and education agencies, it is impossible to capture 

this critical information. 

In closing, I would like again to thank the Subcommittee for the 

opportunity to present the views of the American Bar Association. 

This is an exciting moment and a real opportunity to improve the 

education and the lives of many children in our Nation’s foster care 

system. 

I would be happy to answer any questions. Thanks. 

[The statement of Ms. McNaught follows:] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
58 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING53733A.024
59 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING53733A.025
60 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING53733A.026
61 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING53733A.027
62 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING53733A.028
63 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING53733A.029
64 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING53733A.030
65 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING53733A.031
66 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you very much. 

Thank the whole panel for your testimony. 

I just have a question that struck me as I listened across the 

whole question of education, because it is sort of woven through 

everybody’s experience, and the decision to keep the child in the 

school that they were going to or trying to place them close to 

home. 

What kind of problems has that created when you have the 

youngster, when they can still go back, walk if they want to, back 

to where they were taken out by the State? It is just sort of Murphy’s law of unintended consequences. I wonder what the response 

is or what experience you have in that. 

Ms. Donald. 

Ms. DONALD. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. I think that is a great 

question; and, of course, every decision we make always has to be 

what is in the best interest of the child. But our experience is that 

if you can keep a child placed first in their own home community 

that then you reinforce ties to family, school, church, and other activities that are less likely to disrupt a child’s life. 

When we first bring a child into foster care, the goal for that 

child always is reunification initially, unless there are extreme 

safety issues. That is what is required under ASFA and we are 

working very diligently within the first 12 months to try to reestablish that linkage with the family and to keep that child connected, 

at the same time, we are supporting the family, doing supportive 

services, enrolling the parents in substance abuse and mental 

health services, if that is necessary. 

Certainly if there are safety issues, extreme abuse or any fears 

of danger of a bad environment for that child to be around, then 

of course we would make a different decision. But the vast majority 

of our children in the beginning we want to keep them close to 

their home communities and try to avoid the total disruption of 

their lives. 

Mr. MCEWEN. I would add to that that, prior to us implementing the school monitoring the rotational intake, we worked 

with foster parents. So we did surveys to try to determine what foster parents were willing to work with biological parents and to 

what extent were they willing to work with biological parents. 

Would they attend school meetings with biological parents and 

would they attend medical appointments with biological parents, 

up to and including would they supervise visitation with the biological parent in their home? 

And so knowing that a significant number of foster parents expressed interest in working with biological parents helped us to 

make that decision to move in that direction. And so it certainly 

sets up some mediation situations in some instances. But a lot of 

times when folks are from the same community, they have knowledge of each other, they may not know each other directly but they 

do have knowledge of each other, that kind of mitigates a lot of 

these problems and situations from coming up. 

The other thing, as Secretary Donald stated, too, is that a lot of 

times we consider kids’ connections to siblings, but their best friend 

and the person who they talk to the most and sought consultation 

sat at the desk next to them, maybe didn’t sleep in the bed next 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
67 

to them. So maintaining those connection with friends and the social connections are particularly important for kids. And so it has 

worked out to benefit a lot of kids. 

And making a decision to not place that kid closer to the school 

is the one that workers have to make. So the foregone decision is 

to first try to keep them in the school, and then prove out or weed 

out why you can’t keep that kid in the school is the approach that 

we have been taking, and so we have seen it happen. 

The problem is we have used up a lot of those foster homes in 

the first couple of years of their program that were closest to the 

kids, to the area where our larger number of kids were coming 

from. So now it is about recruitment and sustaining that available 

pool of foster parents who make the decision to work with both the 

kid and the biological parents. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Greta, can you tell us from your own 

experience with your education, you sort of alluded to some of it, 

but why were the decisions or what were the decisions made and 

how did it effect you? 

Ms. ANDERSON. Sure. When I entered the foster care system, 

I was taken and they hadn’t really fully thought out where they 

would put me, so I went to a residential lockdown facility despite— 

sort of criminalized, despite not having done anything except coming from a messy family. After that, I entered a group home and 

entered the foster care system; and my foster family was in a different school district than the one I was originally from. So I have 

definitely experienced kind of displacement with my education. 

As far as would it have been helpful for me to remain at my 

home school and also maintain those connection with peers, of 

course, definitely. Would it have made me seek out relationships 

with my biological family more than I did after being transferred 

out of that school district? I think that if a child is determined to 

see their biological family, they are going to find a way to do that. 

But I don’t think I ever considered that my school is the way to 

go about doing so. Yeah. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Linder will inquire. 

Mr. LINDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Our colleague, Dave Camp from Michigan, has a long-time interest in these issues and presented a question I would like to present 

to Ms. Donald and Mr. McEwen. 

The law said that States must notify the adult relatives of children entering foster care of their option to participate in the care 

and placement of the child. And a new demonstration grant program will encourage establishment and support of intensive family 

finding efforts to locate biological kin and then to work to reestablish relationships and to explore permanent family placements. 

Can either of you tell us how the implementation process for these 

two notice of relative provisions is going in your States? 

Ms. DONALD. Thank you for that question. 

We have a number of strategies to notify relatives, because that 

is also part of our Place Matters philosophy. We want to keep children with their families if we can safely do so or seek out relatives 

for their care if we cannot. And so, first, we have implemented our 

family center practice which requires family team meetings prior to 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
68 

our removal of a child if at all possible. And that is a process in 

which we identify from the birth parents any other known relatives. We have some outreach efforts to try and bring as many 

people to the table as possible. 

We also do the formal family finding program in a couple of our 

jurisdictions, and we have applied for one of the grants so that we 

can extend that statewide. And that would be very useful, both in 

terms of initial identification of relatives, but also in helping older 

youth to connect with family as they transition through the foster 

care system. 

And the other thing is I have the advantage of also overseeing 

our child support operations for the State. And through our child 

support we have parent locator services, so we are creating agreements with our child support folks. They are experts in doing that 

and have search engines and databases, so we will be linking with 

them to ensure that we fully utilize those resources. 

Mr. MCEWEN. In Illinois, we have historically taken the approach of placing children in relative foster care first. Right now, 

about 35 percent of our kids in care are currently placed with relatives; and so we do seek out those relatives and follow up with 

the legislation. 

The challenge that we find is getting paternal relatives involved 

earlier on in the process, as identifying those resources for the children. A lot of times the maternal relatives are readily available; 

and so that is one of the challenges we have taken on, is trying to 

identify those paternal relatives who represent another set of resources for the children. 

The biggest struggle around working with our relative care 

givers is that a lot of times they are treated like a perpetrator or 

they are treated like somebody who was involved in the abuse and 

neglect situation while going through the placement process, and 

they weren’t. So, as a result, a lot of them don’t want to go through 

the licensing process in advance, feeling like it is going to make 

them more advanced or more entrenched in the system. And so 

that creates a challenge for us, and that is why it is a real important issue that a lot of the kids who are candidates for 4-year eligibility because they are not placed in a licensed relative’s home we 

don’t receive the reimbursement for them. And that is the biggest 

challenge that we have. 

Right now, in Illinois, I think we have about 3,000 kids who we 

believe would be candidates who would be eligible but there are no 

licensed relative homes. So we are trying to take a big push in licensing those relatives. We have about 1,200 new applications to 

work with relatives to work around licensing. Because one of the 

things that it does is it creates a higher reimbursement rate for the 

board rate to those relatives. And a lot of these are poor families. 

And so that higher reimbursement really allows another additional 

set of resources to the relative care givers, and so we look at it as 

a great challenge to try to work with relatives. 

Ms. DONALD. I just wanted to add one quick thing to the issue 

of notification that has been raised by our Attorney General’s office, is that, again, we need guidance from our friends at HHS as 

to what constitutes due diligence and what we can use to document 

notification. We have our own ways of doing this, but clearly we 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
69 

want to do it in a way that meets the requirements of the Act, and 

so we need that guidance, and I wanted to put that on record. 

Mr. LINDER. Everyone is talking about the importance of education for the future of these kids and staying in school and familiar with, if possible. Do you have any recommendations for other 

Federal programs that would benefit from increased emphasis on 

improving educational outcomes? Welfare benefits, food stamps, 

housing, and other mean-tested benefits? Have you given any 

thought to that? 

Ms. MCNAUGHT. I have not. Our focus has been on the educational component. I would be happy to follow up with you on 

that. 

Mr. LINDER. Would you? 

Ms. MCNAUGHT. Yes. 

Mr. LINDER. In terms of requiring education for the recipients 

of the programs, we will send you a letter and ask you for follow 

up. 

Ms. MCNAUGHT. Absolutely. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Mr. Davis will inquire. 

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. McEwen, I am very interested in young children who are 

coming out of correctional facilities, teenagers who have been released, served whatever time they had to serve. I know that there 

is a program in Illinois to try and deal with this effort. How successful would you say that has been in recruiting foster parents 

homes for these young people? 

Mr. MCEWEN. That is our adolescent foster care program. We 

have a number of kids in care who were incarcerated or served 

time in juvenile detention facilities. We had a substantial number 

of them who were there beyond a release date, about 100. We have 

gotten that down to five. Through research, we identified that a lot 

of the recommendations were to send these kids back to residential 

treatment; and 80 percent of the kids who went into juvenile detention exited from residential treatment. So it was not really making 

a lot of sense to keep that cycle of residential treatment to juvenile 

detention back to residential treatment, and we started an adolescent foster care program. 

It is really being up front and honest with the foster parents to 

say, these are the challenges of these children, and this is the support that we are looking for. And we use the professional foster 

parent model to try to place no more than two kids in that home 

and have a full-time parent who doesn’t work outside the home but 

focuses on the children. 

Today, I think we have about 140 some kids in that program. We 

contract for 250 beds, so that will let you know how difficult it is 

to grow this program. But we have about 140 some kids in that adolescent foster care program, a number of whom have been incarcerated as youths; and we have got about a 98 percent stability 

rate in that program. The average age is 15.10 months—15 years, 

10 months. 

So we think it is a successful approach. A lot of recidivism is not 

occurring with the kids who are in this program. A lot are graduating from high school and moving on. I think the average length 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
70 

of stay right now is about 2 years in that program. And so kids are 

doing well, and these kids do adjust and do better in foster homes. 

And I think the important part is to have that conversation up 

front in the recruitment process, to say this is what we are recruiting you for; this is the resource and the job we are asking you to 

do. And you find people really committed to trying to work with 

that population. 

And then we have a special recruitment effort through the 

church, who were formerly One Church One Child. They are now 

One Family One Child, who are leading that recruitment effort of 

trying to find parents to take in these children. 

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Thank you very much. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Mr. Roskam will inquire. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Greta, thank you for telling your story. You are a very gifted and 

very able communicator. It was very, very clear; and I just want 

to let you know I really appreciate that. 

You said sort of in some of the closing comments in your testimony that we should focus on what it is that is helping students 

to succeed rather than kind of focusing in on the obstacles of failure. I am paraphrasing that. Could you give us a sense of perspective? In other words, if, Greta, you were going to have a conversation with an 8th grader or a 6th greater in the system, knowing 

what you know now, and you have been through this journey yourself, and you are where you are and you reflect back, what are the 

words of encouragement that you would be giving to them other 

than hang in there and persevere? But what did you mean when 

you put that in your testimony? I guess that is my real question. 

Ms. ANDERSON. Okay. Yeah, I actually had the opportunity to 

do that this summer through my internship. I got to meet youth, 

and I looked at them and I was like, you were me at 14. And the 

weight of that and the responsibility of that was definitely amazing. 

When I met those youth, the thing that I guess I was able to 

push most was just hang in there, get through this circumstance. 

Because if you do, what is waiting for you at the end, like, you 

wouldn’t even believe. 

And I think through opportunities such as the one that this Act 

is creating it gives them that hope that, okay, so my situation right 

now may not be perfect, but afterward there will be more waiting 

for me. And I wish someone had told me that at 14: Just hang in 

there. Just stick it out. It may stink for the next couple of years, 

but once you get through it is going to be worth it. So yeah. 

Mr. ROSKAM. So the confidence of knowing that there is something concrete at the other end—— 

Ms. ANDERSON. Exactly. 

Mr. ROSKAM [continuing]. Gives you sort of the buoyancy in a 

way to persevere in a real difficult season. 

Ms. ANDERSON. And your experience doesn’t have to be something that just happened to you, that you don’t go through things 

like this in vain. The fact that I get to speak before all of you today 

and actually make an impact with my story rather than wallow in 

it is pretty amazing. So letting them know that it can give a voice 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
71 

and change things for other youth coming after them is really important, I think. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Director and Madam Secretary, you both emphasized in your testimony the need to keep children within a school 

system; and I wholeheartedly agree with you. Can you give a sense 

of the depth and the capacity that we have on that? You alluded 

to it, Director, in terms of recruiting pretty quickly through households within a particular high-need area, but could you put that in 

a larger context for us to realize is this sort of a goal? Are we on 

the verge of achieving that or are we a long way off? 

Mr. MCEWEN. This is one of the biggest challenges for foster 

care systems. I have a youth advisory board, and I talk to them on 

a regular basis. Any number of these children will tell you that 

they have been to three and four elementary schools, four and five 

high schools. So that is a really big challenge facing the system. 

I do believe, though, that through technology we have the ability 

to try to collocate the resources near where the child is coming 

from. And so how do we get the resources to the communities that 

have more of the children exiting out of that particular community 

is what we have done in Illinois. And so we had a group of homes 

that we had recruited, and now it is going back in and doing that 

recruitment. 

A big help in doing recruitment is being able to tell a foster parent that the kid is going to come from the school down the street 

and the kid is going to come from the same school your kid comes 

from. So a lot of them may think I might know this kid, and that 

is a motivation for some people who may not have fostered at all, 

the notion of fostering within the community context. 

The other thing is to try to start it earlier. We have been using 

Strengthening Families programs in Illinois, and it starts with day 

care centers. And what you are really doing is working with day 

care providers to identify family stressors, something as simple as 

a kid’s change in eating habit, a kid’s change in hygiene, a parent’s 

change in hygiene when they are bringing the kid to school. Those 

are some oversimplified examples. But identifying those stressors 

and starting to work with families before they are coming into child 

welfare, and understanding early learning is the beginning of education with what we know about 0 to 3 and 3 to 5, and those sort 

of things. That is also a vehicle can be used to stabilize the educational outcomes from all kids but particularly stabilizing the education outcomes from foster kids. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Secretary. 

Ms. DONALD. Sure. I would echo the last comments of Director 

McEwen. What we want to do is try to invest as much on the front 

end and try to identify families who are struggling and children in 

need to keep them from coming out of the foster care system. Of 

course, as everybody knows, those are resources that are so hard 

to get; and we have to have a child in foster care before we can 

claim any Federal resources. 

The other part of your question I think went to—the biggest 

challenge is really having the right placement for children in the 

right place. In the State of Maryland, we are going through over 

the last 2 years what I call right-sizing our placement resources. 

We have in some jurisdictions 50 percent or more of our children 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
72 

outside of their home county, not just their school district but in 

a whole other jurisdiction. And that has been because that is where 

the placement resource have been. And we had hadn’t mapped 

them before, and we had not really looked at it strategically, and 

all of that is what we are doing now. 

We are now in an enviable position where we do have enough 

foster families, we have had aggressive recruitment efforts and retention efforts over the last 2 years, we are revamping our group 

homes and making it harder for children to go into group homes. 

But having more resources for them to stay in families and then 

the outreach and support now with the Fostering Connection Act 

for more assistance for kinship care all will help to stabilize children in their home communities. 

And just one more thing on the educational piece. We have a 

great deal of cooperation with our State Department of Education. 

But school districts are local; and it just all depends on the jurisdiction, quite frankly. It will be for us, we only have 24 jurisdictions but still really negotiating jurisdiction by jurisdiction to make 

sure we are meeting the requirements of the Act and that the 

records are being transferred, the kids are being enrolled and that 

we work out the transportation issues. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Pomeroy will inquire. 

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, thank you and thank you for letting me participate in this Committee hearing. I find it absolutely 

fascinating. There is extraordinary work being done. And, Greta, 

you are absolutely an amazing advocate by giving a very articulate 

voice to the hundreds of thousands that are very well served by the 

wonderful eloquence that you bring to this issue. 

Ms. ANDERSON. Thank you for having me here. 

Mr. POMEROY. It is a privilege to get to hear you. 

The issue, it is very interesting, because it has come up not in 

the context of Native American foster issues but in the context of 

you describing school-based, community based issues within an 

urban setting. Well, in a setting where you have a rural reservation in a remote region and no ability of the tribe to run their own 

program, you have State systems that may be taking not just away 

from school—and I really applaud the innovations you have 

brought to try to keep within the community. It would certainly 

have application also to the situation we are dealing with, that Native American community, pulling people out of their community, 

their school, indeed their culture. We believe we can do much better than this. 

One of the things that I so applaud the chairman on is the legislation that he cobbled together from many different specific pieces 

of legislation was including the legislation that corrected, of all 

things, a drafting error. We did the research on the legislative history, and it appeared to be a drafting error that prevented tribes 

from running under Title 4(e), the Social Security system, their 

own programs. 

Sometimes it would be like North Dakota, pretty constructive 

State tribal contracts and working arrangements, but not always. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
73 

And that meant this community placement was really thwarted, 

tribes trying to run this without resources. It was a mess. 

It has now been fixed, and we are bringing these programs online, but we are early in the process. 

I would just like to ask, Ms. Pata, your comments in terms of 

how you think this is going to work. In the end, this State tribal 

cooperation is extremely important. I would not want the tribes to 

run their own system to in any way erode that statement and tribal cooperation at dealing with this critical issue so important to our 

young people. What are your thoughts? 

Ms. PATA. Well, I think, first of all, what I like about the legislation is it gives the opportunity for tribes to get direct funding from 

the Federal Government or to continue to work through the States. 

And I think the one question for us is this good-faith effort of the 

States in the cooperation with their tribal agreements. I mean, 

what is good faith really going to mean? I think that really depends. 

One thing that HHS did before in the implementation of TANF 

where the tribes had the same kinds of options to collaborate with 

their States or to go work directly is that they encouraged the 

State tribal relationships. I think one of the things that we are seeing out of this opportunity of this Act is a greater ability of tribes 

to really make that assessment of do we have the resources, the 

financial resources, to meet all the demands, the data requirements 

and infrastructure or is it better for us right now to be working 

closely with our States in the implementation and have that 

mentorship, even though the goal may ultimately be for our tribe 

to take it on. So it is going to be the process that allows for us to 

flexibly to grow within the program. 

I think that is good, particularly given the fact that only five— 

maybe five tribes are going to be able to get those early dollars for 

development grants. And so I think that is going to be important 

to us. 

That is why I think the whole collaboration with trying to create 

incentives that allow for the collaboration of States and tribes together is going to be really, really important. Even if the tribe becomes—receives direct funding, they are still going to have to deal 

with the coordination of data, the transfer of information. Some of 

our schools, are tribal schools. Some are State schools. 

So we have a lot of collaboration that is going to happen, no matter what; and I think that will be real important for the implementation. But we do need to deal with the challenges that we have. 

I think some of the State requirements are different than the 

tribal requirements, particularly when we are shifting a child from 

a home off reservation or on reservation or whether child services 

will provide some of the standards, for tribal homes are not the 

same, whether or not we have their own bedroom and those kinds 

of requirements you know very much from your own reservations 

in your community. So we need to deal with those uniquenesses. 

Thank you for the question. 

Mr. POMEROY. Good luck. 

You mentioned David Camp. I also want to mention David 

Camp. He has been a real leader in the Ways and Means ComVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:16 Jan 27, 2010 Jkt 053733 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\53733.XXX GPO1 PsN: 53733

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
74 

mittee on these issues for a long time and was very helpful in the 

particular bill that we are talking about today. 

Ms. PATA. Yes, thanks. 

Mr. POMEROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. We have a second Member of the Full 

Committee that has showed up. It is an indicator of the interest 

of the Committee on what happens in this Subcommittee on this 

issue. 

Joe Crowley, you want to inquire? 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank the chairman and the Ranking Member for allowing myself and Mr. Pomeroy as well to participate, not being, 

as you said before, Members of the Subcommittee, but wanted to 

be here today because of the importance of this issue to me and I 

think, as the chairman mentioned, to not only the full committee 

but the House as well. 

I want to thank in particular the work of the chairman for his 

good work in effect being this legislation last year into effect. 

I want to thank also those of you here today to testify. I wasn’t 

here for your testimony, but just responding in the brief moments 

I heard you got to respond to the query of my colleague, the passion you bring to this and the community you represent, the foster 

community, was noted by me in the short time that I was here; and 

I want to thank you for that. All of you—my colleague and I were 

talking about you are all a bunch of heroes here at this table for 

the work that you do, unsung heroes in many respects for the work 

that you do with some of the most challenging lives in America 

today; and we want to thank you for that. 

One of the goals of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act was to increase the stability of children in 

foster care, and I applaud the provisions of the bill to achieve that 

goal. With foster children going through so many changes throughout their lifetime within the system, I believe we must do all we 

can to provide a stable, trustworthy environment for those children; and one way to do that is by encouraging something I have 

been very involved in, is long-term relationships through mentoring. A mentor can provide a constant presence in a foster child’s 

life as they go through different homes and schools and even 

through the time when the child ages out of the system and starts 

their own adult life. 

Particularly, I would like to ask Mr. McEwen and Dr. Donald, 

how many States increased mentoring for foster children as a result of the law or are States planning to do so that you know of? 

Mr. MCEWEN. We haven’t as of yet really developed new mentoring relationships and programs for our kids. And I applaud your 

support of mentoring. 

I also have a caution in my experience that you have got some 

really great mentoring programs and then you have some others 

where people just sign up and want to hold a child’s hand and 

babysit and not necessarily give that kind of stability. And so I 

would be more than willing to have further conversations with you 

about intent and experience in mentoring programs and how we 

can ensure that young people have what I believe is what I hear 

you saying and what those us of us in the field know: We want to 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
75 

be sure they that have a lifelong connection to someone, a caring 

adult. 

We are building that in. We have a ready by 21 initiative. It is 

not just for kids in foster care but all youth who are involved in 

State systems, including the juvenile justice system, our education 

system, but primarily youth and foster care; and that would be an 

important component. We really need to make sure that we are investing in the right kinds of mentoring programs and services. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. McEwen. 

Mr. MCEWEN. We are very interested in mentoring programs 

and trying to utilize mentoring programs. Unfortunately, the recruitment of mentors is a great challenge. Because the community 

at large, a lot of the communities that our kids come out of, they 

have a great need for mentors as well and kids that are still at 

home with their birth parent and their families. And so we find 

ourselves oftentimes with short resources to really work on developing the mentoring programs in that way. 

A lot of times when we have gone through the budget cycles and 

critical cycles, we focus on the mental health service and those 

what I would call hard-treatment-type services, and it doesn’t give 

mentoring the attention that it needs. Because to recruit mentoring 

specifically for child welfare is a challenge and because mentors are 

being recruited heavily in a lot of communities that are faced with 

challenges of educational outcomes and gang violence and youth 

problems, that sort of thing. So I think resources directed toward 

mentoring in foster care is important. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you. 

I would just bring to your attention the Los Angeles mentoring 

model which I think is one that has demonstrated success that 

ought to maybe be a model for other States outside of California 

to implement as well. 

I would just, maybe for my colleague’s sake, just mention that I 

have been working on legislation to provide for increasing the level 

of mentors throughout the United States by offering loan forgiveness in some way through college to get those folks of adult college 

years to mentor to younger individuals. I think that could be very 

successful, again providing it is not just a short-term hit for the 

student. They get a college loan reduction or forgiveness and then, 

when they are done, they don’t see that child through aging out or 

even beyond. So I don’t know how we can work through all those 

things, but thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you. 

We want to thank all of you. 

I have one last question that I realize has been nagging at me 

ever since you said it. Why is it that when you were taken out of 

your home the first time they put you in a lockup? What was the 

circumstance in the situation that made them do that—was it no 

foster home available? 

Ms. ANDERSON. I was taken as an emergency placement. So I 

think initially when I was taken they were unsure. Actually, my 

case is really complicated. I am still not 100 percent sure on everything that happened. But it was an emergency placement, and I 

think initially there was no emergency foster homes available for 

a teen, and I entered a juvenile facility. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
76 

1 Burns BJ, Phillips SD, Wagner RH, et al. Mental health need and access to mental health 

services by youths involved with child welfare: a national survey. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2004;43(8):960–970. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. And you wound up at the juvenile detention center? 

Ms. ANDERSON. Correct. 

Chairman MCDERMOTT. I want to thank all of you for coming 

and giving your testimony. We will be back on this issue. There are 

still some issues that are not resolved. 

Thank you. Meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:32 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the record follow:] 

Statement of American Academy of Pediatrics 

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), a non-profit professional organization 

of 60,000 primary care pediatricians, pediatric medical sub-specialists, and pediatric 

surgical specialists dedicated to the health, safety, and well-being of infants, children, adolescents, and young adults, appreciates this opportunity to offer testimony 

for the record of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Income Security and Family 

Support hearing on implementation of the Fostering Connections to Success and Improving Adoptions Act of 2009 (P.L. 110–351). 

The AAP was proud to work closely with this Subcommittee and Congress in 

crafting Section 205, Health Oversight and Coordination Plans, which is designed 

to bring new attention to the health needs of children in foster care. Despite the 

overwhelming evidence of need, studies consistently demonstrate that many health 

care needs for children in the foster care system go unmet. Stark evidence that children are not receiving timely services has come from a range of studies, from the 

1995 General Accounting Office (GAO) report demonstrating that 1/3 of children had 

health care needs that remained unaddressed while in out-of-home care, to the 2004 

analysis of the National Survey of Child & Adolescent Well-Being documenting that 

only a quarter of the children with behavioral problems in out-of-home care received 

mental health services within a one-year follow-up period.1

The new Fostering Connections law requires state child welfare and Medicaid 

agencies to examine the delivery of health care services to children in foster care 

in order to identify opportunities for improvement. On June 3, the Administration 

for Children and Families issued a Program Instruction (ACYF–CB-PI–09–06) that 

directed each state to include a health oversight and coordination plan as part of 

its Child and Family Services Plans for Fiscal Years 2010–2014. 

The Program Instruction provided little guidance to states beyond what was set 

out explicitly in the Fostering Connections statute. The AAP would therefore recommend that ACF consider the following issues when evaluating each state’s Health 

Oversight and Coordination Plan (HOCP) for completeness and sufficiency. 

Consultation 

Congress directed state child welfare and Medicaid agencies to develop the HOCP 

in consultation with ‘‘pediatricians, other experts in health care, and experts in and 

recipients of child welfare services . . .’’ Given the complexity of the health needs of 

children in foster care, a model consultation process should involve an interdisciplinary Foster Care Health Coordination Team, which would ideally include: 

• health care providers 

• pediatricians 

• other physicians 

• mental health care providers 

• dental care providers 

• developmental and behavioral health professionals 

• child welfare administrative professionals 

• child welfare caseworkers 

• judges and other judiciary branch officials 

• representatives of biological, kinship care, and foster families 

• foster care youth or alumni 

• education system officials 

• county, legal aid attorneys 

• guardians ad litem 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
77 

• any others the Secretary deems appropriate (e.g. CASA, child care providers, 

juvenile justice providers, parenting experts, etc.) 

In order to make the consultation process more manageable, the AAP suggests 

that states consider strategies that streamline the process. For example, plan development could be led by a Foster Care Health Leadership Team comprised of child 

welfare administrator with the authority to make decisions regarding financing and 

care, a pediatrician, and a mental health care provider. 

Plan Adequacy 

Section 205 directs that the HOCP should consist of ‘‘a coordinated strategy to 

identify and respond to the health care needs of children in foster care placements, 

including mental health and dental health needs.’’ At present, none of the states has 

a seamlessly coordinated health strategy for the children under its care. While a 

number of states may address some of the plan components required by Fostering 

Connections, no state has been able to achieve the goal of providing all the components to all children. As a result, the AAP urges ACF to engage in a thorough examination of each state’s submission under the Child and Family Services Plans to ensure that it meets both the letter and the spirit of the law, i.e. that it represents 

a fresh review of opportunities to improve the health and well-being of children in 

foster care, and an exploration of new approaches to these issues. 

Plan Components 

Fostering Connections requires that state plans address six discrete issues, which 

we would like to address in turn. 

Schedule of Screenings. The HOCP must contain a ‘‘schedule for initial and followup health screenings that meet reasonable standards of medical practice.’’ Standards for health screenings are issued by the AAP and the Child Welfare League of 

America, among other organizations. For children in foster care, the AAP recommends: 

1. A medical/developmental/mental health screening within 72 hours of entering the child welfare system. 

2. A comprehensive assessment, including review of physical, mental, developmental, and dental health, within approximately 30 days after entering the 

child welfare system. 

3. Additional visits as appropriate during the first 60–90 days of entering the 

child welfare system to assess the child in the process of transition, monitor 

the adjustment to care, identify evolving needs, and continue informationgathering. 

4. Preventive health care in accord with an enhanced schedule of well-child visits, immunizations, and related care developed by authoritative professional 

organizations to meet the special needs of children in child welfare system. 

While many states already have these standards on the books, the reality is that 

relatively few children in foster care receive medical care in accord with the standards. The Health Oversight and Coordination Plan should examine barriers to this 

standard of care and set out concrete steps for improving compliance. 

Monitoring and Treatment. The law requires the HOCP to address ‘‘how health 

needs identified through screenings will be monitored and treated.’’ The AAP recommends that health needs identified during the screening, comprehensive assessment, and other visits should be monitored, treated and addressed in accordance 

with Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) requirements 

by health care providers, caseworkers, and the judicial system in the setting of a 

medical home. The HOCP should specify steps for ensuring that the individuals involved in a child’s care each know exactly what their responsibilities are and how 

to fulfill them (e.g. a social worker is responsible for ensuring that appropriate medical exams or screenings are scheduled and appointments kept; a judge is responsible for ensuring that the child is receiving regular medical care). In too many 

cases, the lack of clear duties and lines of responsibilities results in situations where 

no one takes a leadership role in the child’s health care. Given the complex, longterm health needs of many children in foster care, concerted efforts must be made 

toward coordination. 

Medical records. Virtually every pediatrician has encountered a child in foster 

care who arrives in their practice with no medical records or history. Fostering Connections requires that the states develop a plan to address how ‘‘medical information 

for children in care will be updated and appropriately shared, which may include 

the development and implementation of an electronic health record.’’ The AAP is 

aware that some states, such as Texas, are already exploring electronic health 

records for children in foster care. Because the need for consistent, complete medical 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
78 

2 U.S. General Accounting Office. Foster care: health needs of many young children are unknown and unmet. Washington, DC: (GAO/HEHS–95–114); 1995. 3Takayama JI, Wolfe E, Coulter KP. Relationship between reason for placement and medical 

findings among children in foster care. Pediatrics. 1998;101(2):201–207. 4 Halfon N, Mendonca A, Berkowitz G. Health status of children in foster care. The experience 

of the Center for the Vulnerable Child. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. 

1995;149(4):386–392. 5Simms MD. The foster care clinic: a community program to identify treatment needs of children in foster care. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics. 1989;10(3):121–128. 6 Halfon N, Mendonca A, Berkowitz G. Health status of children in foster care. The experience 

of the Center for the Vulnerable Child. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. 

1995;149(4):386–392. 7Landsverk JA, Garland AF, Leslie LK. Mental health services for children reported to child 

protective services. Vol 2. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2002. 8Glisson C. The effects of services coordination teams on outcomes for children in state custody. Adminstration in Social Work. 1994;18:1–23. 9Trupin EW, Tarico VS, Low BP, Jemelka R, McClellan J. Children on child protective service 

caseloads: Prevalence and nature of serious emotional disturbance. Child Abuse & Neglect. 

1993;17(3):345–355. 10 Clausen JM, Landsverk J, Ganger W, Chadwick D, Litrownik A. Mental health problems 

of children in foster care. Journal of Child & Family Studies. 1998;7(3):283–296. 11 Urquiza AJ, Wirtz SJ, Peterson MS, Singer VA. Screening and evaluating abused and neglected children entering protective custody. Child Welfare. Mar–Apr 1994;73(2):155–171. 12Garland AF, Hough RL, Landsverk JA, et al. Racial and ethnic variations in mental health 

care utilization among children in foster care. Children’s Services: Social Policy, Research, & 

Practice. 2000;3(3):133–146. 13Pecora P, Kessler R, Williams J, et al. Improving family foster care: findings from the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study. Seattle, WA: Casey Family Programs, available at http:// 

www.casey.org; 2005. 14 U.S. Government Accountability Office. Child Welfare: Improving Social Service Program, 

Training, and Technical Assistance Information Would Help Address Long-standing ServiceLevel and Workforce Challenges. Washington, DC: U.S. GAO; 2006. 

records is so critical among children in foster care, every state should be 

incentivized to examine ways to improve the collection, maintenance and sharing of 

such information. In addition, a strong state-federal partnership on this issue will 

ensure interface among such records as a child may move across the country and 

is cared for by another pediatrician in a different state. 

In addition, there is a great need for better guidelines in states regarding who 

has access to a foster child’s health information and under what circumstances. 

Health information may be needed not only by physicians and other health care providers, but also by social workers, foster parents, judges, educators, and others. The 

inability to share such information appropriately can lead to potentially devastating 

gaps in care for children. State plans should address provision of appropriately detailed medical information to a foster family upon placement or placement change; 

to the biological family upon reunification; to a prospective adoptive family who is 

seriously considering adoption of a particular child; to the adoptive family upon 

adoption; and to the youth upon aging out of the system. 

Continuity of Care. The law directs state plans to include ‘‘steps to ensure continuity of health care services, which may include the establishment of a medical 

home for every child in care.’’ The ‘‘medical home’’ refers to a system of patient-centered care in which one physician is responsible for coordinating the entire universe 

of care for the child. This includes coordinating care plans that may be developed 

by other physicians, monitoring the number and potential interaction of prescriptions, and ensuring that the caregiver is equipped to care for the child appropriately. The medical home is a critically important concept for children in foster 

care, given that nearly half of all children in foster care have chronic medical problems,2, 3, 4, 5 and up to 80% have serious emotional problems.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

These health care challenges require concerted, coordinated efforts on the part of 

not only health care providers, but the entire child welfare system, to improve the 

health and well-being of the child. State plans should seek to establish a medical 

home for every child in foster care in order to maintain that continuity through 

placement changes. 

Oversight of Prescription Medication. A 2006 report prepared by the Government 

Accountability Office found that 15 states identified the overuse of psychotropic 

medications as one of the leading issues facing their child welfare systems in the 

next few years.14 Another key study demonstrated that in the Medicaid program, 

children in foster care were much more likely to use three or more psychotropic 

medications than children who qualified through the Supplemental Security Income 

program. Those data have shown alarming interstate variation in the prescription 

patterns of psychotropic medications for children across our nation. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
79 

Clearly, medication can be helpful to some children, but with the increasing use 

of these medications among children in general, there comes the added responsibility to ensure that children have access to an array of treatment strategies, from 

medication to community-based services that may augment or replace the need for 

medications in many circumstances. Furthermore, the failure to coordinate and provide continuity in services and the absence of clear guidelines and accountability to 

ensure that treatment decisions are in the child’s best interest, create a greater risk 

that medications will be prescribed to control children’s behaviors in the absence of 

individualized service plans that might offer the best chance for success. ACF’s Program Instruction ‘‘encourage[d] States to pay particular attention to oversight of the 

use of psychotropic medicines in treating the mental health care needs of children.’’ 

The AAP urges the agency to require every HOCP to include specific steps for monitoring the prescription of medication to children in foster care. 

Consultation Regarding Care. Lastly, the Fostering Connections law directs states 

to indicate in the HOCP ‘‘how the State actively consults with and involves physicians or other appropriate medical or non-medical professionals in assessing the 

health and well-being of children in foster care and in determining appropriate medical treatment for the children.’’ This provision is critical to improving systems of 

care for children in the child welfare system. Pediatricians and other health care 

professionals should be partners with child welfare workers in improving the health 

and wellbeing of their charges. States should provide a detailed explanation, algorithm, or flowchart of what systems are in place to ensure that medical decisions 

are made by the appropriate individuals and the coordination among all parties who 

are responsible, in whole or in part, for the child’s health and medical care. 

Utilization of Plans 

The AAP urges the agency to examine ways in which state Health Oversight and 

Coordination Plans can be used by both the agency and the individual states to 

track and improve care. On the federal level, it is our hope that ACF will share the 

AAP’s comments as potential guidelines for states embarking upon the development 

of plans. The agency should highlight particularly innovative plans as models for 

other states. We encourage ACF to make clear that these plans are not intended 

to be static documents but dynamic processes that help drive continuous quality improvement. States should consider using this planning process to help inform their 

Performance Improvement Plans under Child and Family Service Reviews as well 

as other periodic efforts to improve child welfare and foster care systems. 

In closing, the American Academy of Pediatrics stands ready to assist Congress 

and the Administration on Children and Families in improving the health and 

wellbeing of children in foster care. The Academy has substantial expertise and specific resources regarding health care for children in foster care, including books, 

checklists and guidelines. We hope the Subcommittee and ACF will call upon the 

AAP as a resource both on the federal level and in assisting individual states to improve the health of the children in their care. 

f 

Statement of Amy Lemley, John Burton Foundation 

On behalf of the John Burton Foundation for Children Without Homes, please accept this submission for the record to the Hearing on the Implementation of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act to be held in the Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support on September 15, 2009. 

The John Burton Foundation offers the following two recommendations regarding 

the implementation of PL 110–351: 

Guardianship Assistance Program (GAP) Reimbursement 

Program Instructions CB–PI-08–007 for the Guardianship Assistance Program (GAP), issued on December 24, 2008, state that states may only claim 

GAP reimbursement starting the first day of the first quarter in which their 

Title IV–E plan was approved and only for cases in which a child exits from 

IV–E foster care into a kinships arrangement. 

This has the effect of excluding the over 14,000 children in California’s Kinship Guardianship Assistance Program (Kin-GAP) from services provided by 

IV–E kinship care, including Medicaid eligibility, along with thousands of other 

children in established state-funded guardianship assistance programs. This 

was not the intent of the legislation and the John Burton Foundation joins with 

the National Governors Association, the National Conference on State Legislatures, the National Association of Counties and the American Public Human 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
80 

Services Association in calling for the Administration on Children and Families 

to rescind the Program Instructions and issue new instructions that allow states 

to claim current eligible cases retroactive to October 7, 2008, as intended by 

Congress. 

The Definition of ‘‘Supervised Setting’’ in FCSIAA Regulations 

The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act permits, 

for the first time, reimbursement for ‘‘a supervised setting in which the individual lives independently’’ for youth between the ages of 18 and 21, and requires that regulations be promulgated to define this setting. The John Burton 

Foundation recommends that these regulations reflect current best practices for 

semi-supervised living settings, including but not limited to: individual scattered-site apartments, clustered supervised apartments, shared homes, boarding 

homes and host homes. Similarly, the regulations should permit states the flexibility to individualize these settings and ensure they help youth move towards 

permanency and other well-being goals. 

California has tested this approach in its implementation of the Transitional 

Housing Placement Program (THP–Plus) a state-funded program that provides 

24 months of affordable housing and supportive services to former foster youth, 

ages 18 to 24. Of the 2,047 youth who participated in THP–Plus in Fiscal Year 

08–09, 48% lived in individual scattered-site apartments, 37% lived in clustered 

supervised apartments and 15% lived in host homes. Offering THP–Plus in a 

range of settings has allowed the diverse developmental needs of youth to be 

met. THP–Plus participants compare favorably to the general population of 

former foster youth in a series of measured criteria. THP–Plus has also provided older youth with the opportunity to live in age-appropriate settings where 

they can apply and develop their independent living skills. 

California currently has pending legislation to extend federal support for 

youth in foster care to age 21. This legislation, Assembly Bill 12, includes a 

range of living settings for young adults, age 18 to 21. The John Burton Foundation requests that federal regulations which define ‘‘supervised setting in 

which the individual lives independently’’ mirror the definitions included in AB 

12 (attached). 

Thank you very much for your consideration of these issues. If you have any questions, please contact me at 415–693–1322. 

Sincerely, 

Amy Lemley, Policy Director 

f 

Statement of Beverly Tran 

My name is Beverly Tran and I rise to this occasion to thank you for listening 

to the voice of the people, for it has been silenced for far too long. I share with you 

my sole concern with the implementation of the Fostering Connections to Success 

and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (P.L. 110–351), and that is a lack of checks 

and balances. 

Understanding the failure of implementation 

Since 2001, I have been seeking the explanation of parental rights. More than just 

a statutory definition, I sought to understand its epistemology beyond the general 

consensus of social theory. 

Why had there yet to be demonstrated a logically constructed, conceptual and 

operational formula for the determining factor of parental rights? My only recourse 

was to deconstruct the policies of child welfare. What I found was the existence of 

a well-founded methodology in determining parental rights, including its clear and 

concise evidentiary standard. The foundation of parental rights had been laid many 

centuries ago in property law, theorized through microeconomics. 

The reason child welfare, specifically child protective services, foster care and 

adoption, in its current state, will never meet its end goal of functioning in the best 

interest of the child with the current implementation of this Act, is because no one 

understands what it is that is being protected. It is not the child, per say, but the 

future of the child to mature to be a tax-paying contributor to society. 

No one understands that checks and balances of the child welfare system do not 

exist. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
81 

Child welfare as a frontier industry 

Child welfare must not be understood as an industry that was constructed to 

maximize the profits of society through the best interests of the child, but it must 

be understood as a profit-maximizing industry that has schemes to increase its inputs, throughputs and outputs to ensure the economic sustainability of the public 

and private contractual arms of the states. Inputs are children who enter child welfare; throughputs are foster children; and, outputs are those children that exit the 

system, whether through reunification, adoption, maturation or attrition. 

The Fostering Connections Act can be properly implemented, but only if this Congress understands that there needs to be a substantial change in its current operations by implementing checks and balances. 

A lack of market regulation 

Since foster care and adoption statutorily became a fully, publicly funded industry 

in 1974, it has operated strictly with federal funding and regulations, only in the 

form of financial penalties if the market shows signs of weakness, as states must 

meet and exceed the previous year’s federally mandated benchmark of the number 

of children under the auspices of the state to avoid financial penalties. The market 

is devoid of competition as the government is monopolistic with its statutory control 

and possesses sufficient authority to acquire the goods and procure the services, 

through the removal of the child by and through the removal of the legal rights to 

the grant of custody and guardianship. 

Upon further examination, it will be demonstrated that it is the right of the state 

to grant the custody and guardianship, for it is the state that is the possessor of 

parental rights to the acquisition of goods. 

Due to the lack of this understanding, federal and state policies have been improperly formatted and implemented. We, as a nation have witnessed the residual 

effects of a system devoid of oversight, and that is our financial system. Now, we 

are experiencing the second wave of fraud as our national leadership is fast asleep 

at the helm of the ship named health care. 

Child welfare operates in a risk aversive market, as it intentionally never included the oversight mechanism of accountability and transparency; there are no 

checks and balances, hence, no incurred liabilities from error. 

The mechanical error that I have identified is the systemic deficiency of checks 

and balances, embedded deep within the ethos of foster care and adoption. Checks 

and balances, essential elements in tripartite governments, must be readily recognized as accountability and transparency. 

No accountability 

If it has been determined that law and policy has been violated within the mechanical procedures of foster care and adoption, it is considered as an acceptable 

mistake, with a federally acceptable range of error of 0.10. This acceptable error is 

the destruction of a family. 

Nothing is publicly reported, not even for the purposes of ameliorating future material and provisional violations of law and policy, particularly those committed 

under the color of law. This phenomenon is largely due to an inherent conflict of 

interest breed within the philosophical edifice of the child welfare system. Under the 

doctrine of parens patriae, the states attorney general have been granted the powers 

of parental rights through statutory declarations of commerce. 

It thus becomes a contentious issue of intervention: ‘‘Do the states attorney general advocate to further a compelling governmental interest in the representation 

of the state and its contractual arms of child welfare, or do the states attorney general advocate for the citizen individuals who have been granted the gift of custody 

and guardianship? The child welfare system, in whole, incorporating all facets of the 

industry, functions on the fallacy of affirming the disjunct, that is, the government 

operates in good faith and there is no need to advocate for the citizen individuals 

who allegedly violated the granted gift of custody and guardianship. 

Simply put, it is in the best interests of the child for government to invest in the 

profitable return of a future tax-paying, productive citizen, and not to advocate for 

the non-productive individual citizen, for that individual has violated the social compact in failing to contribute to the society as a whole, whether it be morally, intellectually, financially, or economically. Because of the belief government functions in 

good faith, there is no need to construct and implement a congruent system of 

checks and balances in child welfare. The crime of poverty has been justified. 

Public disenfranchisement 

Where public access and voter participation into the mechanical process of this 

market are the checks, the general public is disenfranchised because child welfare 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
82 

law and policies are neither put up for public discussion nor full disclosure. Even 

more so, a targeted population is specifically disenfranchised because children are 

not allowed the right to vote. 

Child welfare protects and preserves itself by importing policies to obviate transparency and accountability, whereby, it has manufactured obfuscatory policies to 

terminate parental rights of the granted gift of custody and guardianship to ‘‘cloak’’ 

the industry of abuse and neglect. 

That ‘‘cloak’’, for which I reference, is laced with public policies to create the tapestry of public perceptions, to conceal the inner workings of the industry of child 

welfare. This cloak is impenetrable to empirical analysis, as it is hermetically sealed 

by the Freedom of Information Act, and the institutionalized belief that sealed information of child welfare policies furthers a compelling governmental interest. That 

compelling governmental interest is the general welfare of the public, now and in 

the future. 

When the 1974 Child Abuse Prevention Treatment Act[i] was designed, a fatal 

flaw was inculcated into 1997 Adoption Safe Families Act, and its subsequent legislative actions. I speak again of the lack of checks and balances. This philosophical 

tenet is embedded deep within core of public belief, woven into the historical fabric 

of society and engrained into the academic discipline of policy analysis, where nothing could be of the contrary. Initial funding streams from Social Security Title I, 

Title II, Title IV–A, B, D and E, Title V and Medicaid Targeted Case Management 

(TCM), as well as others, were created to flow down to the states to care for abused 

and neglected children who were qualified as impoverished under the means test 

of Title IV–A under the Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF). Simply put, poverty is codified as abuse and neglect and the discipline of Social Work has generated 

the only literature of analysis, which has been mostly qualitative. 

No transparency 

Under the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution, states possess 

sovereign immunity from prosecution of wrongdoing by the Federal Government. 

Immunity is then draped to circumvent accountability and transparency in non-reporting/non-disclosure through Freedom Of Information Act exceptions. Basically, 

anything dealing with errors in child welfare cases, more intuitively recognized as 

fraud, waste and abuse, is kept from the public for the protection of the child, justifying the lack of need for exclusionary databases and reporting protocol. 

Due to the lack of transparency, federal and state policies have been improperly 

formatted and implemented. We, as a nation have witnessed the residual effects of 

a system devoid of oversight, and that is our financial system. Now, we are experiencing the second wave of attack on our nation’s economic security as our national 

leadership have been fast asleep at the helm of the ship named health care. The 

monster named Medicaid fraud has victoriously raised its ugly head, with no one 

to battle, until now. 

Sunshine initiatives 

I take this time to honor a great man, former U.S. Attorney General Michael B. 

Mukasey, for personally inspiring me to continue my work to end Medicaid fraud 

in child welfare. He is the first leader to listen and speak out on the need for investigation on the levels of political corruption, fraud, waste and abuse in the U.S. Administration for Children and Families through the early initiatives of the Health 

Care Fraud Enforcement Task Force (H.E.A.T.) 

I take this time to thank the dedication of U.S. Attorney Eric H. Holder, Jr., U.S. 

DHHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. DHHS Inspector General Daniel R. 

Levinson for listening to the people and developing the Strike Forces to end Medicare fraud in child welfare. 

As it stands, there is no system of ‘‘checks and balances’’ to maintain the integrity 

of operations and best interests for all stakeholders involved in the implementation 

of this Act. The amount of power and money involved in child welfare is massive, 

involving multiple funding streams of Social Security and Medicaid, yet pails to the 

levels of fraud, waste and abuse of taxpayer dollars. Poverty is codified as the crime 

of abuse and neglect for eligibility of a child entering foster care is strictly based 

on being impoverished. Hence, as poverty increases so shall the number of child removals to foster care. Billions of dollars of federal fraud were found through only 

cursory audits conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

(DHHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) and U.S. Department of Justice, but this 

shall be no longer for the people have been heard. 

The OIG has identified a number of state financing arrangements and other revenue-maximization tactics that inappropriately increase Federal Medicaid payments 

to States. Children are being double-billed, provided for unnecessary medical servVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:16 Jan 27, 2010 Jkt 053733 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\53733.XXX GPO1 PsN: 53733

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
83 

ices and phantom programs are funded that bill fictitious children and services. This 

is what is called fraud, or more intuitively, federal false claims. Every year, lawyers 

across the nation are settling an increased number of lawsuits against states, child 

placing agencies and foster parents to the tune of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars, 

all because the nation has not had the opportunity to be exposed to the child welfare 

industry for what it is: a market. 

U.S. DHHS funded organization, Council On Accreditation, has nothing to do with 

children and families as they only lobby for their due-paying, state contracted, private agencies. An accreditation organization is not supposed to be established to advocate for transgressors of law, but it does. 

It is time to hold these privatized child placing agencies to the same standards 

they hold the guardians of children. If the agencies possess the empowering authority to remove children and advocate termination of parental rights, then, in the 

same wielding of justice, the state should possess the empowering authority to remove licenses and terminate contractual relationships, and effectuate contractual 

debarment with these child placing agencies. The regulatory mechanism of the OIG 

exclusion database is in place but is not utilized. 

Implementation recommendations 

Improve regulation 

As these child welfare programs function devoid of any accountability, the first 

instance of oversight would be to effectuate financial sanctions and contractual debarment with privatized agencies through the state licensing agencies. Privatized 

agencies operate as not-for-profit, therefore excluding them from external audits. 

Typically, child placing agencies self-report on an honor system because it is too 

costly for a state to retain the manpower and resources to properly ensure that each 

entity is in compliance with the requirements or receiving federal funds pursuant 

to the Office of Management and Budget Circular A–133. It becomes more cost-effective for a state to turn its head and allow fraudulent billing to occur than to enforce 

regulation. 

The largest federally funded component of child welfare is not the Social Security 

Title IV–E, as everyone would like to believe, it is Medicaid: Targeted Case Management and Optional Targeted Case Management. States need to decrease its percentage in the federal formula for Medicaid funding. Right now it is approximately 50%. 

It becomes more cost effective for a state to continue sinking money into a dysfunctional child welfare system than come into federal compliance with its operations, 

such as enforcing existing accountability statutes in dealing with fraud. Assumption 

may be formulated that some states use a portion of the Federal Funding Percentage to meet its State Funding Percentage. This can only be disproved with regulation. 

Encourage State Medicaid Fraud Units to prosecute and recover 

State Medicaid Fraud Units need to finally step up to the plate and start aggressively going after Medicaid fraud in child welfare. If the Attorney General is ever 

able to release himself from the statutory constraint of only advocating for transgressors of law, the recovery percentage of the federal portions of the fraud would 

be situated at 10%, bringing back in billions of lost funds from over the past few 

years and demonstrating exemplary standards to deter future fraudulent transgressions. 

These state units can be encouraged to work with its citizens, as they may be the 

eyes and ears of regulation through public awareness campaigns, whistleblower litigations, and state Medicaid False Claims statutes. As many abuse and neglect programs are riddled with fraudulent billing and poor or falsely generated performance 

reports, the only way of verifying this is to listen to the people. 

Promote the funding of public legal defense and grievance databases 

Unfortunately, one of the few ways a family can access medical, social, psychological services for children today is through a court classification of abuse and neglect. Social welfare assistance programs have been cut, but the only federal funding 

streams that has opened up to provide for those who need help has been foster care. 

It has come to the point where there are no other options. 

A blueprint for accountability and transparency was never conceived in child welfare. When a social system has a zero error rating in decisions to remove children 

and/or terminate parental rights, no databases of grievances, sanctions, fines, contractual debarment, including violations of material provisions of law and policy, a 

red flag should immediately be raised. There is a greater possibility of being not 

found of murder than it is being not found guilty of child abuse and neglect, as the 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
84 

jurisprudence of dependency courts are unparallel to traditional courts, the adjudication standard being guilty, until proven innocent. 

It is my hope that this Congress will direct a portion of this funding to legal defense and for the construction of a grievance database, similar to what is called for 

in the U.N. Intercountry Adoption Treaty to foster connections between the people, 

the U.S. DHHS OIG and U.S. DOJ AG to stop Medicaid fraud in child welfare. 

Reinstatement of parental rights 

If a system is to be viewed as balanced, there is always a counter-balance. This 

would be the reinstatement of parental rights. Currently, there are four states, 

which have some form of limited exceptions to reinstatements. Technology has removed the barrier of contact and time. In light of the crux of my position on Medicaid fraud, there does exist improper and unnecessary removals of children and termination of parental rights, by what is considered as being legally kidnapped. There 

are times where it may take an individual more than 12 months to obtain the help 

needed to succeed in life. We must understand the severance of a legacy has not 

proven to be the best means in dealing with the hardships of others. Let us take 

the time to reunite these children with the degrees of consanguinity and affinity so 

they may have a chance to connect to a profitable and successful future for their 

own best interests. 

With sincerity and serenity, 

Beverly Tran 

f 

Statement of Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement for the record regarding the 

September 15, 2009 Hearing on the Implementation of the Fostering Connections to 

Success and Increasing Adoptions Act. CLASP is a national nonprofit that works to 

improve the lives of low-income people. CLASP’s mission is to develop and advocate 

for policies at the federal, state and local levels that improve the lives of low income 

people. We focus on policies that strengthen families and create pathways to education and work. To carry out this mission, CLASP conducts research, provides policy analysis, advocates at the federal and state levels, and offers information and 

technical assistance on a range of family policy and equal justice issues for our audience of federal, state, and local policymakers; advocates; researchers; and the media. 

CLASP does not receive any federal funding and is funded primarily by major national foundations. 

The bipartisan Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act, signed into law last October, represents the most significant federal reforms for 

abused and neglected children in foster care in over a decade. CLASP applauds the 

work of this subcommittee that went into the developing and passing this critical 

piece of legislation. The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions 

Act would not have been possible without the tireless work of Chairman McDermott, 

key Members of this subcommittee including former Ranking Member Weller, the 

Senate Finance Committee and Congressional staff. As Chairman McDermott noted 

in his opening statement at the September 15, 2009 hearing on the implementation 

of Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act, this law ‘‘represents the best of Congress. It shows what can be achieved when both sides come 

together to work in good faith to address a problem.’’ 

The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act will help hundreds of thousands of children and youth by promoting permanent families for children in foster care; improving outcomes for children and youth involved with the 

child welfare system; increasing support for American Indian and Alaska Native 

children; and improving the quality of staff working with children in the child welfare system. Below, we will look at the provisions of the act in each of these areas, 

highlighting some examples of implementation efforts that are underway. 

Promoting Permanent Families for Children in Foster Care 

Identify and Provide Notice to Relatives 

The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act helps ensure 

that relatives are notified, allowing grandparents and other relatives to get involved 

early in the child’s case. The state child welfare agency must exercise due diligence 

to identify and provide notice to all adult grandparents and other relatives of each 

child within 30 days of the child’s removal from his or her parent(s)’ custody. SomeVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:16 Jan 27, 2010 Jkt 053733 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\53733.XXX GPO1 PsN: 53733

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
85 

times relatives can keep the child out of foster care. A relative who cannot provide 

a placement for a child may be able to participate in the child’s care in other important ways, such as by maintaining a relationship with the child or taking the child 

to doctor’s appointments, extracurricular activities or visits with birth parents. 

Prior to the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act, many 

states made, in practice, some attempt to locate and notify adult relatives of children being removed from their parent’s custody, these attempts were often only cursory. We learned that in addition to depriving the child of the stability and continuity that placement with a relative could provide, bypassing the notification of 

relatives could prove quite tragic should someone later seek to adopt the child. All 

too often, a diligent search for relatives occurred only at the time parental rights 

were terminated and adoption was underway when the child had likely bonded with 

non-relative foster parents. Additionally, the sad reality was that relatives sometimes did not learn of a child’s placement until after an adoption was finalized. 

Recognizing these concerns, a number of states had enacted laws prior to the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act requiring that adult relatives be notified when a child is removed from his or her parent’s custody. Since 

the enactment of the act, additional states have introduced or enacted similar legislation. 

Family Connection Grants 

Seven months after enactment, a Request for Proposals was issued allowing 

states, tribes and non-profit organizations to apply for Family Connection Grants. 

Family Connection Grants are competitive grants that will allow applicants to create or enhance programs that will connect children in or at risk of entering foster 

care to their families. State, local, and tribal child welfare agencies and non-profit 

agencies that have experience serving children in foster or kinship care can apply 

for the grants to establish or expand Kinship Navigators, Family Group Decision 

Making, Intensive Family Finding, or Residential Family-Based Substance Abuse 

Treatment programs. A portion of the funds are reserved each year for funding Kinship Navigator programs. 

A number of states and other entities have applied for grants for different activities, some to take action in more than one category. It is expected that the awards 

will be announced by the Department for Health and Human Services (HHS) by the 

end of the week. 

Kinship Guardianship Assistance 

Consistent with a considerable body of research that indicates when children can’t 

be raised by their parents they often do best with relatives, 37 states and the District of Columbia offer support to help children leave foster care to live permanently 

with relative guardians. The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act provides federal support to build on existing programs and to encourage 

additional states to implement similar programs. 

Under the new Kinship Guardianship Assistance Program, states have the option 

to use federal Title IV–E funds for kinship guardianship payments for children who 

have a strong attachment to and are cared for by prospective relative guardians who 

are committed to caring for these children permanently when they leave foster care. 

To be eligible for the kinship guardianship assistance payment, children must be eligible for federal foster care maintenance payments while living in the home of a relative for at least six consecutive months in foster care. There must also have been 

a determination by the state agency that return home and adoption are not appropriate permanency options for the child. Children 14 and older must be consulted 

about the kinship guardianship arrangement. Siblings may be placed in the same 

home and receive support even if they do not meet other eligibility requirements. 

Children eligible for these payments are also automatically eligible for Medicaid, as 

are children in foster care and those who receive adoption assistance payments. 

CLASP is happy to see that a number of states have introduced or enacted legislation that would allow them to operate a Kinship Guardianship Assistance Program. 

While fewer states have submitted the requisite state plan amendments that will 

allow them to draw down Title IV–E funds to operate such programs (and, as we 

understand it, only Rhode Island’s plan amendment has been approved as of the 

date of the hearing), we view the state legislative activity as a positive indicator of 

states’ interest in the option. 

CLASP and the Children’s Defense Fund in collaboration with 18 other national 

organizations developed a Question and Answer guide intended to assist with implementation of the provisions impacting children being raised by grandparents and 

other relatives. New Help for Children Raised by Grandparents and Other Relatives: 

Questions and Answers About the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
86 

Adoptions Act of 2008 is available on the CLASP website at: http://www.clasp.org/ 

issues/pages?type=child_welfare&id=0001. 

Licensing Standards for Relatives 

The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act codifies existing U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) guidance stating that 

agencies may, on a case-by-case basis, waive non-safety related licensing standards 

when licensing a relative’s home. For example, this may include waiving the requirement that each child have a separate bedroom if the relative is taking in siblings or waiving the requirement that a home have a certain amount of square footage per person. The new law also requires HHS to report to Congress within two 

years on how states are using the ability to waive non-safety standards and make 

recommendations as to how additional barriers to licensing relatives’ homes can be 

eliminated. Guidance issued on June 3, 2009 (ACYF–CB-PI–09–06) requires that 

states provide to HHS by December 15, 2009 information related to licensing, to the 

extent practicable, that will inform the report to Congress. 

Information from this report may suggest additional opportunities for allowing 

more children in foster care to be safely placed in foster family homes with relatives 

and be eligible for federal support. 

Adoption ‘‘De-link’’ 

As of October 1, 2009, states with federal adoption assistance programs will be 

able to claim federal funds for more children with special needs by ‘‘de-linking’’ a 

child’s eligibility for federal adoption assistance payments from outdated AFDC income requirements. Next month, states must begin phasing in an expansion of the 

program to reach more eligible children with special needs, beginning with older 

children and children who already have been in care for five years and their siblings, who often are the most difficult to place for adoption. Other children will be 

phased in by age over the next nine years so that all eligible children with special 

needs will be covered by October 1, 2017. Guidance issued on August 26, 2009 

(ACYF–CB-PI–09–10) provides states and tribes with information pertaining to the 

changes in the Title IV–E adoption assistance eligibility requirements resulting 

from the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act. 

Increased Incentives for Adoption 

The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act reauthorizes 

the Adoption Incentive Program for five years and enhances the incentives available 

to promote the adoption of children from foster care. The act updates to FY 2007 

the adoption baseline above which incentive payments are made, doubles the incentive payments for adoptions of children with special needs and older children adoptions, and gives states 24 months to use the adoption incentive payments. The act 

also permits states to receive an additional payment if the state’s adoption rate exceeds its highest recorded foster child adoption rate since 2002. On September 14, 

2009 HHS announced that it had awarded $35 million in adoption incentive payments to 38 states and Puerto Rico for the first year that the enhanced adoption 

incentives under the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act. 

Sibling Connections 

Vital to the advocacy efforts that helped move the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act through Congress were the voices of youth who 

were in or had been a part of the child welfare system. They shared their stories 

and poignantly made the case for reforms. The request for support in maintaining 

connections with their siblings was voiced by many of the youth. The act takes important steps in response. 

State agencies must make reasonable efforts to place siblings together, whether 

in foster, kinship guardianship, or adoptive placements, unless placing them together would be contrary to their safety or well-being. If the siblings are not placed 

together, the agency must make reasonable efforts to ensure that the siblings maintain their connections to each other through frequent visitation or other ongoing 

interaction. An exception to maintaining connections is permissible only if such contact would be contrary to the safety or well-being of one or more of the children. 

Sibling connections are significant to a child in foster care’s emotional and social 

development since siblings often provide the connection and stability that is no 

longer available from the child’s parents. 

We know that, prior to the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act, many states had policies in place to help facilitate sibling connections. In 

response to the act states may have to update some of these policies to ensure that 

reasonable efforts are made and to incorporate the documentation requirements. 

Since the enactment of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing AdopVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:16 Jan 27, 2010 Jkt 053733 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\53733.XXX GPO1 PsN: 53733

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
87 

tions Act, a number of states have also introduced or enacted legislation pertaining 

to sibling connections. 

Improving Outcomes for Children and Youth Involved with the Child Welfare System 

Extension of Care Beyond Age 18 

Few 18 year olds in the general population are prepared to support themselves. 

Approximately half of all young people between the ages of 18–24 still live with 

their parents. This is not an option for youth who are in foster care. A youth struggling with a history of maltreatment and who has no family to turn to for support 

is expected to make it on his own. Acknowledging this reality, the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act gives states the option to claim federal funds for Title IV–E eligible young adults in foster care, guardianship and 

adoptive homes beyond their 18th birthday to the age of 19, 20, or 21 beginning on 

October 1, 2010. With limited exceptions, states can currently only claim federal assistance for children and youth up to their 18th birthday. States will only be federally reimbursed for those young adults who are eligible for Title IV–E assistance 

payments and who are completing secondary education or in a program leading to 

an equivalent credential; enrolled in an institution that provides post-secondary or 

vocational education; participating in a program or activity designed to promote, or 

remove barriers to, employment; employed for at least 80 hours per month; or, if 

a child’s medical condition makes him or her incapable of engaging in these activities, updated information on their condition must be maintained in the child’s case 

plan. 

The National Foster Care Coalition along with a number of other organizations, 

including CLASP, developed a Frequently Asked Questions guide intended to aide 

states in implementing the extension of care beyond age 18 and other provisions 

that will most directly impact youth in foster care. The guide, Fostering Connections 

to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act: Frequently Asked Questions on the Provisions Designed to Impact Youth and Young Adults, can be accessed on the CLASP 

website at: http://www.clasp.org/issues/pages?type=child_welfare&id=0001 

A number of the groups that helped develop the FAQ continue to work together 

to develop additional resources to assist with implementation efforts. The regulations required by the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act 

to define ‘‘supervised setting in which the individual is living independently’’ have 

not yet been issued but will be important for moving implementation efforts forward. 

Helping Older Youth Successfully Transition from Care to Independence 

Like all young adults, those youth who have spent time in foster care, often need 

some assistance in preparing for adulthood. They may need help deciding between 

various educational and employment opportunities or setting up utilities in their 

first apartment. The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act 

helps ensure that youth in foster care have the assistance they need in planning 

for their futures. As part of the case review system, the act requires that, in the 

90-day period immediately prior to when a youth turns 18 (or 19, 20 or 21 as the 

state may elect), a caseworker and any other appropriate representatives work with 

the child to develop a personalized transition plan that is as detailed as the child 

chooses. The plan must include specifics on housing, health insurance, education, 

local opportunities for mentors and continuing support services, and workforce supports and employment services. This transition plan is required for all youth for 

whom foster care maintenance payments are being made. Youth who have returned 

home or for whom kinship guardianship assistance or adoption assistance payments 

are being made must also have a transition plan if they are also receiving Chafee 

Program benefits or services. 

The act also clarifies that children who leave foster care at age 16 or older for 

kinship guardianship are eligible under the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program independent living services for educational and training vouchers 

(ETVs). 

Educational Stability and Attendance 

The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act recognizes the 

importance of educational stability and continuity and takes important steps toward 

improving educational outcomes for children involved with the child welfare system. 

The law requires states to coordinate with local education agencies to ensure that 

children remain in the school they are enrolled in at the time of placement into foster care, unless that would not be in the child’s best interests. If such placement 

is not in the child’s best interests then the state must ensure that the child is immeVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:16 Jan 27, 2010 Jkt 053733 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\53733.XXX GPO1 PsN: 53733

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
88 

diately enrolled in a new school and that all of the child’s educational records are 

transferred promptly. 

The act also requires that states provide assurances in their Title IV–E state 

plans that every school—age child in foster care, and every school—age child receiving an adoption assistance or subsidized guardianship payment, is attending elementary or secondary school or has completed secondary school. The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act also gives states the option to include school-related transportation costs as a cost related to the maintenance of a 

child in foster care, rather than as an administrative cost. 

Joint guidance may be needed from the Department of Education and HHS addressing how schools and child welfare agencies can best work together to serve the 

children and youth involved with the child welfare system. 

Health Oversight and Coordination 

The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act requires each 

state work through its state child welfare agency and the state agency that administers Medicaid and in consultation with pediatricians, other health care experts, 

and experts in and recipients of child welfare services to create a plan to ensure 

oversight and coordination of health care for children in foster care. The plan must 

include a strategy to identify and respond to the health care needs of children in 

foster care, including mental and dental health needs. States were required to submit their state plans with the health oversight and coordination plan—unless they 

were permitted a delay for required state legislation—by June 30, 2009. 

Increasing Support for American Indian and Alaska Native Children 

Direct Access to Title IV–E for Indian Tribes 

As of October 1, 2009, Indian tribes and tribal consortia will be able, for the first 

time, to directly access Title IV–E funds to administer their own foster care, kinship 

guardianship and adoption assistance programs. Prior to the Fostering Connections 

to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act, Indian tribes could only access Title IV– 

E funds through an agreement with a state government but fewer than half of the 

federally recognized tribes had such an agreement. Direct access will help extend 

important Title IV–E services and protections—many of those provided by Fostering 

Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act—to more American Indian 

children. 

73 tribal entities have indicated that they intend to directly operate their own 

programs. 15 have already applied for development grants in preparation for operating Title IV–E programs. 

Improving the Quality of Staff Working with Children in the Child Welfare 

System 

Extending Federal Support for Training 

The child welfare workforce faces a number of challenges including excessive caseloads and high turnover. The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act took important steps toward enhancing the workforce by allowing states 

to claim, on a phased in basis, federal funding for short-term training of several 

groups who could not previously be trained with Title IV–E funds: relative guardians, staff of private agencies and courts, and attorneys for parents and children 

and guardians ad litem and court appointed special advocates working with children 

in the child welfare system. Providing federal support for the short-term training 

of these additional groups is more consistent with the realities of child welfare practice yet there is more that must be done to improve the child welfare workforce to 

ensure that staff working with all children in child welfare will have access to federally supported training. 

Implementation Challenges Exist but There is Much to Build On 

There is evidence that important strides have been made and are being taken in 

implementing the provisions of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing 

Adoptions Act to ensure that children truly benefit from the new law. While some 

of the improvements made by the act will take effect and become options over time, 

it is important to note that the majority of the requirements and options created 

by the act took effect immediately upon enactment. As highlighted above, states 

have demonstrated that they are working to implement these provisions. Advocates 

have also acted to help facilitate prompt, effective implementation. Since the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act became law a number 

of resources including guides, fact sheets and power points have been developed. 

Several of these resources can be accessed on the CLASP website at: http:// 

www.clasp.org/issues/pages?type=child_welfare&id=0001 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
89 

States have reported experiencing some challenges in implementing various aspects of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act. A number of these challenges are attributable to the economic crisis and others result from 

the need for guidance. In spite of these challenges, legislation to implement numerous provisions of the act has been introduced or enacted in many states. It is important to note that legislation may not be required in all states for all provisions. Instead some states may have already had in place, prior to enactment, laws that are 

in compliance with one or more of the requirements in or that would allow them 

to take the options available through the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act. Some states may have been able to modify existing policies 

that to ensure their full compliance with the act. It is hoped that HHS will actively 

consult with states, tribes, advocates and other stakeholders in order to continue 

moving implementation forward to help improve outcomes for children and families. 

There are important opportunities for Congress to help ensure that the promises 

of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act are realized 

by children and families. First, Congressional Members can provide leadership in 

their states and encourage that implementation move swiftly and that options—particularly the kinship guardianship assistance and extension of care beyond age 18 

options—are taken advantage of as Congress intended. 

Equally important, this subcommittee should take the opportunity to build on and 

complement the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act by 

addressing additional changes needed at the federal level to improve outcomes for 

children and families. As so many of those who provided leadership for this legislation said as it was being developed, the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act makes critical strides on behalf of children in foster care, but 

there is more to be done to ensure the safety, permanence and well-being of children. 

The provisions in the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions 

Act will help achieve better outcomes for children who have spent time in foster care 

by helping to mitigate the trauma of foster care and by helping children move safely 

into permanent families. However, the Federal Government must do more to prevent child abuse and neglect and to avoid placement in foster care in the first place. 

Currently federal fiscal structures are not well-aligned with prevention—most federal funding is focused on intervening only after a child has been removed from his 

or her home not on providing sufficient resources to develop the front-end of the continuum of services and supports children and families need. We must build on the 

Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act and create a child 

welfare system that offers a continuum of services that prevents abuse and neglect 

from occurring in the first place, as well as provide treatment and support for those, 

who despite our best efforts, experience maltreatment. 

Federal investment and leadership in child welfare must do the following: 

• Increase prevention and early intervention services that help keep children 

and families out of crisis; 

• Increase specialized treatment services for those children and families that do 

experience crisis; 

• Increase services to support families after a crisis has stabilized (including 

birth families, as well as kinship and adoptive families created when parents 

cannot care for their children); 

• Enhance the quality of the workforce providing services to children and families; and 

• Improve accountability both for dollars spent and outcomes achieved. 

The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act makes a down 

payment on our children’s future. CLASP thanks you for your leadership and looks 

forward to continuing to work with you. Together we can create a child welfare system that offers a continuum of services that prevent abuse and neglect from occurring in the first place, as well as provide treatment and support for those, who despite our best efforts, experience maltreatment. 

f 

Statement of Children’s Defense Fund 

The Children’s Defense Fund (CDF) appreciates the opportunity to submit this 

written statement on implementation of the Fostering Connections to Success and 

Increasing Adoptions Act of 2009. We ask that it be added to the record of the September 15, 2009 Hearing on the Implementation of the Fostering Connections to 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
90 

Success and Increasing Adoptions Act held by the Ways and Means Subcommittee 

on Income Security and Family Support. 

The Children’s Defense Fund’s Leave No Child Behind mission is to ensure 

every child a Healthy Start, a Head Start, a Fair Start, a Safe Start and a Moral 

Start in life and successful passage to adulthood with the help of caring families 

and communities. The Children’s Defense Fund provides a strong, effective and 

independent voice for all children of America who cannot vote, lobby or speak for 

themselves. CDF pays particular attention to the needs of poor and minority children and those with disabilities. CDF is a private non-profit organization and has 

never taken government funds. 

CDF’s advocacy for improved outcomes for children who are abused or neglected 

or at risk of maltreatment predates the passage of the Adoption Assistance and 

Child Welfare Act of 1980. Important steps have been taken since that time to improve outcomes for these children and their families, but enormous challenges remain. Therefore, it is particularly exciting to be able to thank you for the important 

improvements for children in foster care that you passed last fall in the Fostering 

Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act. They represent the most significant reforms for children who are abused and neglected and in foster care in 

more than a decade. These improvements, when fully implemented, will promote the 

safety, permanence and well-being of hundreds of thousands of children in foster 

care across the country. 

Improvements Made Through the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act 

When the Children’s Defense Fund testified before this Subcommittee in February 

2008 on improving the child welfare system, at the time the Invest in KIDS Act and 

other legislation was being considered, we emphasized that improvements for children and families were needed in five key areas: prevention, specialized treatment 

and attention to basic needs, enhanced permanency options and post-permanency 

services, improvements in the quality of the child welfare workforce, and increased 

accountability for improved child outcomes and system improvements. While the job 

is not done, the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act holds 

promise for children to truly benefit from improvements in most of these areas. 

States, with support and sometimes prodding from private agencies, advocates, relative caregivers and youths who have been in foster care, have begun to issue guidance and proposed legislation to implement new programs, practices and policies 

that will help to improve outcomes for children. 

Groups of advocates and others have come together to develop guides and pool resources in several areas to assist with implementation of the Act’s new provisions. 

See, for example, New Help for Children Raised by Grandparents and Other Relatives: Questions and Answers About the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, available at www.childrensdefense.org/FCSIAAguide 

and Frequently Asked Questions on the Provisions Designed to Impact Youth and 

Young Adults available at www.nationalfostercare.org/pdfs/NFCC–FAQ-olderyouth2009.pdf. 

As Ms. Jacqueline Johnson Pata, Executive Director of the National Congress of 

American Indians, testified at the Subcommittee’s hearing on September 15, there 

has also been close collaboration among organizations representing Indian tribes, 

tribal consortia and other national organizations that has helped to promote the opportunity Indian tribes and tribal organizations and consortia have, effective October 1, 2009, to obtain direct access to the federal support provided by the Title IV– 

E Foster Care, Guardianship Assistance and Adoption Assistance Programs. This is 

a long overdue reform. It is encouraging that about 73 tribal entities from seven out 

of the ten federal regions have expressed their intent to directly operate Title IV– 

E programs and 15 actually have applied for development grants provided under the 

act to help support their Title IV–E readiness activities for two years. Many American Indian and Alaska Native children stand to benefit from the protections, services and assistance provided under the new Act and many of the initiatives we describe below. 

There also have been collaborative implementation efforts in the states, encouraged and supported in some cases by national and local foundations. Some have focused broadly on the Act and others on specific provisions. For example, the Commissioner of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services convened 

‘‘A Statewide Roundtable on Subsidized Guardianship in New York State’’ earlier 

in the year, and similar forums have been held in other states. The new Act also 

has prompted new collaborative efforts among child welfare and other child-serving 

agencies that touch the lives of the children in the child welfare system, most notably the education and health care systems. In other states efforts are being made 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
91 

to get these conversations started. The Act has stimulated excitement about the opportunity for reform and helped to make the case, in these very tough economic 

times, that these new reforms to benefit children and youths cannot be ignored or 

postponed. These children and youths have waited long enough. As Subcommittee 

Chairman McDermott said in his opening statement at the hearing on September 

15, ‘‘Children in foster care cannot wait for a time when reform is convenient.’’ 

Below we highlight some of the changes in practice, program and policy that are 

being pursued as a result of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing 

Adoptions Act and that build on recommendations CDF has shared with you in the 

past, as well as references to some implementation activities that are underway. 

Enhancing Prevention, Specialized Treatment and Supportive Services for 

Children 

Although many of the provisions in the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act are focused on children and youth already in foster care, 

there are some that will help to keep children out of foster care and safely with 

their birth family or members of their extended families. 

Family Connection Grants 

The Family Connection Grants, authorized under the Fostering Connections to 

Success and Increasing Adoptions Act, should be awarded by the Children’s Bureau 

in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) by the end of September. 

They will give states, tribes and non-profit organizations the opportunity to engage 

in activities to prevent children from entering foster care and offer children and 

families some of the basic supports and specialized treatment they need. Even the 

prospect of applying for Family Connection grants has encouraged collaboration on 

behalf of this group of vulnerable children. We are familiar with several examples 

where university staff collaborated with agencies in the development of the grant 

applications and others where relative caregiver organizations joined with public 

agencies. 

Grants for Kinship Navigator Programs will help link relatives with support 

groups, respite care programs and other services. We have learned about a number 

of states and caregiver groups that have applied for such grants. Relative caregivers 

report that one of their greatest challenges in raising children and keeping them 

out of foster care is getting accurate information about the benefits and services 

that are available to the children. In some cases the caregivers have been away from 

parenting for a while and in others they have never had contact with some of the 

service systems they need to approach for the children, such as mental health and 

special education. The Kinship Navigator Programs will help them get their children what they need. 

Family Group Decision-Making meetings, which can also be supported under the 

Family Connection Grants, will bring family members and others familiar with the 

child and family together as decisions are being made and help them work together 

to prevent the need for children to enter foster care. These meetings also have been 

used effectively to help ensure that children return home more promptly from care 

and, when that is not possible, to help identify other permanency options for the 

child. 

Grants for comprehensive family-based substance abuse treatment will help families get the treatment they need without requiring young children to be separated 

from their families and can also be used effectively to facilitate reunification. There 

are examples already where these activities are being used to improve outcomes for 

children, and it is so important that we will have an opportunity to learn more 

about what works in these areas from the Family Connection Grants. 

New Attention to Health and Education 

The steps taken in the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions 

Act to improve the basic health and education of children in foster care will help 

ensure that special needs of children in these areas will be identified. Improvements 

in children’s health and education also will improve children’s opportunities for success when they leave care. 

Education Stability and Attendance. The Act requires state child welfare 

agencies to improve educational stability for children in foster care and ensure that 

they are attending school. It requires the agencies to coordinate with local education 

agencies to ensure children remain in the school in which they are enrolled at the 

time of placement into foster care, unless that would not be in the child’s best interests. If it is not, the state must ensure the child’s immediate enrollment in a new 

school with all of the educational records of the child provided to that new school 

in a timely fashion. The Act provides some help with transportation costs to assist 

children in remaining in their original schools. States also must provide assurances 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
92 

in their Title IV–E state plans that every school-age child in foster care or who is 

receiving an adoption assistance or subsidized guardianship payment, with help 

from Title IV–E, is enrolled as a full-time elementary or secondary school student 

or has completed secondary school. Greta Anderson, a former foster youth from Wisconsin, testified at the September 15 hearing that she attended nine different 

schools during her high school career, six of them in different treatment facilities, 

reminding us all of the importance of these provisions for youths in foster care. 

In Pennsylvania, education and child welfare advocacy organizations are working 

together on implementation of the new provisions, and in Connecticut, advocates 

and agency staff from both systems have come together to plan for implementation 

of these important improvements. Other states, including Iowa and Utah, have enacted implementing legislation. CDF and other advocates are working to explore 

ways that complementary federal obligations might be imposed on state and local 

education agencies so there would be increased receptivity to these improvements 

in the states. Just as children who are homeless have been afforded basic educational rights under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, attention also 

must be given in education law to the educational rights of children in foster care. 

Health Oversight and Coordination. The State Health Oversight and Coordination Plan required under the Act is intended to get child welfare and Medicaid 

agencies working together with pediatricians and other experts to look more carefully at the health and mental health challenges facing children in foster care. It 

must address how initial and follow-up health screenings will be provided, health 

needs identified will be monitored and treated, and medical information will be updated and appropriately shared with providers. The plan also must detail the steps 

that are or will be taken to ensure continuity of health care services, including the 

possibility of establishing a medical home for every child in care, and what will be 

done to ensure the oversight of prescription medications, including psychotropic 

drugs. This requirement has pushed action forward in states that had already begun 

such coordination work and has been used in other states to bring child welfare and 

health to the table together. For example, Florida child welfare, juvenile justice and 

health agencies have entered an interagency agreement to develop a coordination 

plan. The challenge in all the states will be to make this more than a plan that 

sits on the shelf but, instead, a game plan for changing practices, procedures and 

policies in states so that the health and mental health care needs of children in foster care will be addressed. Too often now children enter foster care after experiencing abuse and other trauma and, rather than getting help, face new problems 

that make them worse off instead of better off. Unfortunately, HHS has, to date, 

provided states little guidance as to either the process for developing or the contents 

of these plans. In late August, the President of the American Academy of Pediatrics 

made specific recommendations to the Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and 

Families for guidance in evaluating states’ Health Oversight and Coordination 

Plans. It would be helpful for the Subcommittee to recommend to the Children’s Bureau that it issue a letter jointly with the Center for Medicaid and State Operations 

in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services about the importance of meaningful collaboration among child welfare and Medicaid agencies in strengthening and 

implementing these plans. 

Promoting New Permanency Options and Post-Permanency Services for 

Children 

The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act pushed forward a renewed focus on the importance of permanence for children in foster care 

and attention to what can be done to place children safely in permanent homes with 

relatives and with adoptive parents. Many of these are reforms that have been encouraged for years and are now finally getting important attention in the states. 

New Attention to Permanence for Children in Care with Relatives 

The promoters of the Act took note of research that has found children often do 

better in placements with relatives when in care away from their parents and are 

often as safe, if not safer, than children placed in non-relative foster homes. Children and youths placed with relatives experience fewer placements than those in 

non-relative homes, giving them greater stability both at home and in school. They 

also are more likely to be placed with their siblings and more likely to say that they 

feel they are part of the family they are living with. Recent research also has found 

that children placed with relatives are less likely to exhibit behavior problems. New 

requirements and options for states in the Act can help support children being 

raised by grandparents and other relatives. 

Identification of and Notice to Relatives. The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act requires that states identify and give notice to 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
93 

all adult relatives within 30 days of a child being removed from his family and 

placed in foster care. CDF staff often hear that relatives didn’t know a grandchild 

or niece or nephew had been removed from his or her home and placed in foster 

care. Providing notice to relatives immediately will allow them early on to decide 

whether and to what extent they can be involved in caring for the child. They will 

be more aware of the options they have. If they cannot provide a home for the child, 

their involvement still can help to maintain an important family connection and 

ease the child’s sense of loss. These connections also can be helpful if it later turns 

out that reunification is not a possible permanency option for the child. Although 

a number of states already had notice requirements, many states have taken a second look to check the frequency and nature of the notice and who receives it. New 

York and Pennsylvania are two of the states that early on reissued guidance on 

their notice requirements with modifications. The National Conference of State Legislatures reports that at least eight states have enacted new relative notice requirements through legislation since the Act was passed (AR, CO, GA, IA, MN, MO, ND, 

OK). Other states are waiting until the Children’s Bureau provides further details 

on the nature of the notice and documentation required. We have heard questions 

from states such as: What steps must be taken to identify relatives to fulfill due 

diligence? Must the notice be in writing? What specific information must the state 

give the relative? 

Intensive Family Finding. Intensive Family Finding, another activity allowed 

under the Family Connection Grants mentioned above, can help identify relatives 

who may be a resource for children. It can be used early on as a strategy for exercising due diligence in identifying and notifying relatives, or it can be used to help 

children already in care connect permanently with family members. Intensive Family Finding uses search technology to find family members and, when they are identified, works to establish and build on relationships to promote permanency for the 

child. Encouraged by results in states that have used Intensive Family Finding and 

documented its impact on improved outcomes for children, Texas and Colorado have 

applied for a Family Connection Grant to use this strategy. 

Kinship Guardianship Assistance. The Fostering Connections to Success and 

Increasing Adoptions Act also provides federal support for the first time to states 

that opt to offer subsidized guardianship payments on behalf of children in federally-supported foster homes with relatives. These payments help enable children to 

leave foster care yet remain permanently with their relatives who become their legal 

guardians. In including the Kinship Guardianship Assistance Program in the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act, Congress recognized 

that 37 states and the District of Columbia already were offering such assistance 

and wanted to help these programs reach more children and encourage additional 

states to offer similar assistance. There is a lot of interest in the program, especially 

among states already supporting such assistance to children with only state dollars. 

To date, at least six of these states (CT, ME, MO, OR, PA, TN) and the District 

of Columbia have notified HHS of their plans to use the new federal dollars for Kinship Guardianship Assistance, and Director Erwin McEwen of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services testified on September 15 that Illinois will 

do so when its Subsidized Guardianship waiver ends in October. Eight of the 13 

states not previously offering such assistance already have passed new kinship 

guardianship assistance legislation (AR, CO, MI, TX, WA) or are working toward 

such legislation (NY, VT, VA). Although the enormous fiscal pressures on states 

make it challenging for them to make any new investments, increasing numbers of 

states have realized that if they don’t take advantage of the new funding opportunity, they will continue to pay for the care of many of these children in foster care 

anyway. Before a child can receive Kinship Guardianship Assistance, both reunification and adoption must be determined to be not appropriate permanency options for 

the child, suggesting he or she will remain in foster care. There also is evidence 

from research in Illinois and Tennessee, two of the states that have used federal 

child welfare demonstration waivers to implement statewide subsidized guardianship programs, that these programs are cost-effective and can actually save states 

money. The Act took another step as well to support kinship families by offering 

independent living services and education and training vouchers to youths who 

leave foster care at age 16 or older and move in permanently with relatives or are 

adopted. Greta Anderson, the young woman who testified before the Subcommittee, 

was placed with a relative guardian at 16 and is a living example of how this provision in the Act already has helped a youth who had been in a kinship guardianship 

placement get additional assistance for college. As she said, ‘‘The college experience 

is one every foster youth deserves.’’ 

Sibling Connections. The Act also gives special attention to the importance of 

sibling connections for children in foster care. Research has documented that the 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
94 

sibling bond is one of the most important and long-lasting bonds created in our 

lives, and it is especially important for children in foster care who often do not have 

connections to other family members. The Act requires agencies to make reasonable 

efforts to place siblings together in all placements unless it is contrary to the children’s safety or well-being. This will help to provide a sense of stability for the children who are removed from the rest of their family. If siblings cannot be placed together, the state must make reasonable efforts to provide frequent visitation or 

other ongoing interaction between the siblings, unless this interaction would also be 

contrary to a sibling’s safety or well-being. Although prior to the enactment of the 

new law, a survey by the National Resource Center for Family-Centered Practice 

and Permanency Planning found that more than half the states had policies in place 

requiring agencies to make efforts to ensure siblings are placed together and even 

more states promoted sibling visitation, there was also evidence from some of the 

larger states that more than half of the children with siblings in care were not 

placed together. The Act’s sibling provisions have required agencies to update some 

of their policies and take steps to document that they are making reasonable efforts 

to ensure their rules are being implemented and that staff, caregivers and youths 

themselves actually know about them. 

Promoting the Adoption of Children with Special Needs 

The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act takes specific 

steps to make adoption a permanency option for more children with special needs 

in foster care. Beginning this fall, on October 1, 2009, states will be eligible for federal reimbursement for more children with special needs who are adopted. The Children’s Bureau just issued new guidance for the Adoption Assistance changes on August 26, 2009 (ACYF–CB-PI–09–10). Over a nine-year period, children waiting for 

adoptive families will be eligible for federal support without regard to whether their 

birth family was eligible for Aid to Families with Dependent Children. This is a 

change that had been sought for decades. It makes no sense to tie a child’s eligibility 

for adoption assistance payments with a new family to the income of his or her birth 

family whose parental rights have been terminated. This fall states must extend the 

new adoption assistance payments to all eligible youths 16 and over with special 

needs who are waiting for adoption and to children with special needs who have 

been in care for 60 or more continuous months, as well as the siblings of both 

groups of children and youths if they are adopted by the same family. Again, this 

is another provision that will benefit individual children but has also already encouraged state agencies to take a careful look at the large number of children sitting 

in foster care waiting to be adopted. The North American Council on Adoptable 

Children has been doing commendable work with states to help them prepare for 

this new assistance and commit to redirecting state dollars currently used for adoption assistance payments to post-permanency and other services. The redirection of 

these services can help ensure that children get referred appropriately for adoption 

and, once placed with adoptive families, get the supports and services they need to 

remain there. 

Expanding the Adoption Incentive Program 

The Act reauthorized the Adoption Incentive Program and expanded the incentives available to states that increase the number of older children and other children with special needs being adopted. The additional incentive payments should 

help states reduce the number of children waiting for permanent families. On September 14, 2009, HHS announced incentive awards totaling $35 million for 38 states 

and Puerto Rico, including eight of the states represented on the Subcommittee (AL, 

CA, FL, GA, IL, MD, MI and NV). These were the first awards made under the new 

rules in the Act. The awards are to be used for child welfare services and activities, 

including post-adoption services, authorized under Titles IV–B and IV–E of the Social Security Act. 

Support for Youths Aging Out of Care 

The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act also promises 

new federal support to states to help older youths who are not adopted or returned 

home remain in care to age 19, 20 or 21 to finish their education, find work, and 

explore new permanent family connections. While federal support for youths in care 

beyond their 18th birthday will not go into effect for another year, states, as you 

heard from both Illinois and Maryland at the hearing, are working hard to determine how youths can benefit from this increased support. States like these that already are using state dollars to provide support may be able to free up some state 

dollars to reach more children. For those states that now end support for youths 

at age 18, there is strong evidence to show that continued time in care to help with 

education and work opportunities can improve outcomes for youths. Research by the 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
95 

Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago has documented increased benefits to young people who stay in care longer. They are more likely to 

graduate from high school, pursue higher education, graduate from college, have 

higher incomes and delay pregnancy. Recognizing these benefits, at least three 

states have already enacted legislation that would allow them to provide such support to youths (IL, TX and WA). Others have legislation pending (AL, CA, DE and 

MA). In order to assist older youths, states also are paying attention to the Act’s 

new requirement for transition plans for youths before they leave care and exploring 

how to ensure that youths play a major role in planning for the housing, health coverage, education, workforce support, employment services and other help they will 

need. 

Improving the Child Welfare Workforce 

The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act also took a 

first step to improve the child welfare workforce by extending federal Title IV–E 

training funds to reach more agency and court staff working with children in the 

system. Federal support for training is also extended to attorneys representing parents and children, guardians ad litem and other court appointed special advocates. 

While much more needs to be done, states and advocates are beginning to pay more 

attention to how Title IV–E training funds are being used and can be expanded for 

the benefit of children. The fact that the new funds are phased in over five years 

has been a disincentive so far for states to use the new funding. At the same time, 

however, states are eager to get Congress’s attention about other changes needed 

to improve the child welfare workforce. 

Taking the Next Step and Finishing the Job 

The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act has provided 

new attention to problems facing children and families and child welfare systems 

across the country, focused new energy on reforms to improve outcomes for children, 

and promoted important new collaborations that recognize children will only truly 

benefit if agencies serving children work together and with the broader community 

on their behalf. CDF looks forward to continuing to work with Members of the Subcommittee and others to ensure that children truly benefit from the new services 

and supports offered in the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act. At the same time, we are eager to build on the momentum that has been 

gained and ‘‘finish the job’’ as Chairman McDermott said on the House floor last 

year. As we work to improve outcomes for children in foster care, we must ratchet 

up efforts to improve outcomes for all children by implementing improvements in 

federal child welfare financing that will help: 

• Offer children and families the supports they need to prevent child abuse and 

neglect, prevent crises from intensifying, and prevent children from entering 

foster care unnecessarily; 

• Improve the child protection response in states, as it is often the child protection agency that controls the front door to the child welfare system; 

• Promote improvements to establish permanency, permanency incentives and 

post-permanency services for children in foster care, including Kinship Guardianship Assistance for all children in foster care with relatives, and special 

help to relatives who are preventing children from entering foster care; 

• Establish permanency for the tens of thousands of children, often older children, who remain in expensive group care settings and seem not to be helped 

by most efforts underway in states to safely reduce foster care caseloads; 

• Make continuing improvements in the child welfare workforce to help states 

address gaps in supports for the workforce and extend training for all staff 

assisting children in the child welfare system—not just those directly responsible for IV–E eligible children—to promote safety, permanence and wellbeing for children; and 

• Promote increased accountability in states for improved outcomes for children 

by encouraging more frequent tracking and reporting on child-specific outcomes and on the movement of children in and out of care and agencies’ performance over time, assisting in the development of evidence-based practices 

and programs and developing incentives for continuous improvement on behalf of children and families. 

There is growing consensus in the field about the need for improvements in these 

areas. The remaining challenges relate to the best ways to make progress in all of 

them. 

Thank you for the hope you have given to hundreds of thousands of children and 

youths across the country. The Children’s Defense Fund looks forward to continuing 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
96 

to work with the Subcommittee to ensure that this hope is realized for these children and to take the next steps so we can get the job done for children. 

f 

Statement of Donna M. Butts, Generations United 

Generations United is the only national membership organization focused solely 

on promoting intergenerational strategies, public policies, and programs. Founded in 

1986 by the National Council on the Aging, Child Welfare League of America, 

AARP, and Children’s Defense Fund, GU has grown tremendously over the last 

twenty years and now represents over 100 national, state, and local organizational 

members that represent more than 70 million Americans. GU serves as a resource 

for educating policymakers and the public about the economic, social, and personal 

imperatives of intergenerational cooperation. One of GU’s core initiatives is its National Center on Grandfamilies, which provides resources, materials, and information to groups serving children being raised by grandparents and other relatives. 

This testimony will focus on the implications of implementation of the Fostering 

Connections and Increasing Adoption Act of 2008 (The Fostering Connections Act) 

on ‘‘grandfamilies,’’ families in which grandparents or other relatives are primarily 

responsible for caring for children who live with them. These families are also referred to as kinship families and exist both in and outside the formal foster care 

system. Congress recognized the importance of relative caregivers in helping to raise 

our country’s children throughout the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008. 

The Numbers 

Children who enter the foster care system fare better when placed with relatives. 

They experience fewer placements and less disruption while staying connected to 

their familial roots and culture. They are also more likely to report that they feel 

loved. Currently about 530,000 children in the U.S. are in foster care. Of these, 

more than 125,000 live with relatives. All told almost six million children across the 

country are living in households headed by grandparents or other relatives, according to the 2000 U.S. Census. About 4.4 million of these children are in grandparentheaded households, and another 1.5 million live in households headed by other relatives, such as aunts, uncles, or siblings. Almost 2.5 million of these children have 

no parent present in the home. 

Making Subsidized Guardianship Available for All Children Who Need It 

For the first time, Congress guaranteed federal support for all states (at their option) to provide permanent relative guardians a subsidy. The Kinship Guardianship 

Assistance Program is an innovative approach to expand permanency to children 

languishing in foster care with relatives for whom adoption is not appropriate and 

return-to-home is not an option. The Guardianship Assistance Program provides the 

sense of ‘‘forever’’ that is so important to a child’s future. While providing the option 

for states to receive federal support for subsidized guardianship for children who are 

eligible for Title IV–E was a major step forward for children, however thousands 

of children who have been abused or neglected still do not qualify for federal support 

because they are not IV–E eligible. 

Eliminating the Title IV–E eligibility link to the July 1996 Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children income requirement would help make subsidized guardianship 

available to all children who need it. By making subsidized guardianships a reimbursable expense for IV–E eligible children, the Fostering Connections Act took a 

monumental step toward helping states move more children to permanent homes 

with relatives. However, because federal reimbursement is limited to children who 

are IV–E eligible, thousands of children for whom subsidized guardianship is the 

best option will continue to have it unavailable to them. A 2008 report from the 

Child Welfare League of America on the decline of federal support for children in 

foster care demonstrated a 23% decline from 1998 to 2006 in the number foster children who are eligible for Title IV–E. As a result of these eligibility rules, tens of 

thousands of children who have experienced abuse and neglect do not qualify for 

federal assistance and thousands of children are left without the full array of permanency options that may be best for them. 

Generations United urges Congress to address an additional eligibility limitation 

presented in a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Program Instruction 

(CB–PI—08–007) issued on December 24, 2008 which incorrectly interpreted the 

new Fostering Connections law and federal kinship guardianship assistance program reimbursement as applying only to those children entering a new kinship 

guardianship arrangements after exiting from a IV–E foster care placement. The inVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:16 Jan 27, 2010 Jkt 053733 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\53733.XXX GPO1 PsN: 53733

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
97 

1This figure was calculated based on the federal share of the 2000 average monthly foster 

care maintenance payment, which was estimated at $545 in the Green Book, Committee on 

Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives. Half the children are used for our calculation, 

due to a conservative estimate that the other half already received some type of governmental 

financial assistance, such as a Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) child-only 

grant. Consequently, the cost of one million children entering the system would represent all 

new financial outlays for taxpayers. 

terpretation penalizes states such as California that took the initiative to create 

their own programs. Generations United urges the Subcommittee to work with the 

Administration on Children and Families to urge them to rescind this provision in 

the December 24, 2008 Program Instruction. Families they serve should be denied 

federal support based solely on the timing of the guardianship placement. 

Providing Guidance to States 

States are taking steps to implement the required provisions of the law, however 

many questions remain. Many states are seeking federal guidance on certain provisions in order to most effectively serve the needs of families. We urge Congress to 

encourage the Administration to provide guidance to the states on a number of provisions that affect children being raised by grandparents or other relatives. For example several states have raised questions related to waiving non-safety licensing 

requirements for relative families and would benefit from guidance directing them 

to establish a written policy for the process by which a non-safety licensing waiver 

can be requested. While the law makes clear that such waivers may be granted on 

a case-by-case basis, without a clear process for initiating a request for a waiver, 

an overworked child welfare worker may opt not to pursue a waiver despite indications that the particular home may be the best placement for a child. 

As states implement the requirement to notify adult relatives of a child within 

30 days of removal from the custody of his/her parents, guidance could direct states 

to develop clear policies which would define what type of notice should be given, detail which state agency or department in the agency is responsible for providing notice, and consider what type of documentation should go into the case file. 

Investing in Prevention Supports for Children and Families at Risk 

By the time a child enters the formal foster care system, they have often already 

been the victim of abuse or neglect. Preventing child abuse and neglect is always 

preferable to emergency intervention and placement in foster care. However, the 

child welfare system focuses very few resources on preventing child abuse and neglect. High-quality home visiting has proven to be a cost-effective preventive program model. Research has shown that home visiting can produce greater school 

readiness, enhanced child health and development, improved parenting practices, 

and reduction in child maltreatment and later criminality. If Congress were to make 

a greater investment in preventative services, our country’s children will be more 

prepared to become productive and healthy adults. 

Children being raised by grandparents or other relatives are one of the primary 

groups that can benefit substantially from preventative resources. Grandparents 

and other relatives raising children save taxpayers more than $6.5 billion each year 

by stepping forward to take care of children and keep them out of the formal foster 

care system.1 Many take custody of children with little warning or planning. They 

often find that raising children a second time presents new challenges. 

The caregivers may be living on a fixed income and were not planning financially 

to raise another child. The relative children they are caring for who have been removed from the parents’ home are more likely to have behavioral and mental health 

issues than other children and often need therapeutic treatment. Yet, because these 

caregivers stepped forward to prevent the children from becoming involved with the 

child welfare system, they often do not qualify for supportive services that could 

help the children and family thrive. Helpful preventative and supportive services 

may include: support groups, therapeutic treatment, mental health services, housing 

supports, mobile health services, home visiting, and respite care. According to a recent report from Prevent Child Abuse America, preventatives services to address 

some of the challenges these families face are critical: ‘‘to minimize the long-term 

effects of abuse, age-appropriate treatment services should be available to all maltreated children.’’ Congress should support greater investment in preventative services including those that would support children being raised by grandparents and 

other relatives. 

Post Permanency Services 

The Fostering Connections Act includes a number of provisions that build on the 

goals of the Adoption and Safe Families Act to help children leave foster care for 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
98 

permanent homes. The meaning of permanency suggests that our responsibility does 

not end with providing a permanent plan for children. While the importance of post 

permanency services has been emphasized in the area of adoption, additional supports are needed especially for those families in other permanency arrangements. 

In particular the Fostering Connections Act expands access to the subsidized guardianship permanency option. Therefore, the availability of post permanency services 

should be expanded to address the needs of all families who take on permanent care 

for children leaving foster care including relatives who assume permanent responsibility for their relative children. 

While adoption and subsidized guardianship disruption rates are low, any disruption has devastating consequences for a child, particularly one who has already experienced multiple placements. Post permanency services promise greater stability 

for families guaranteeing improved outcomes for children. In addition to providing 

subsidies and health insurance through Medicaid which is now available to IV–E 

eligible children in states that elect to provide subsidized guardianship, examples 

of post-permanency services could include: support and treatment services for families caring for children with special needs, educational and information services, 

clinical and treatment services, supportive networks and other forms of informal 

and formal support for children and families. Furthermore, some families who secure subsidized guardianship of the children in their care may, at a later date, decide to seek adoption for the children and find that the child welfare agency no 

longer offers support through the adoption process. In addition to providing Adoption Assistance funds to qualifying families, post-permanency services could include 

services to help guide and assist relatives through the adoption process. 

Conclusion: 

We appreciate the work of this committee to review the implementation of the 

Fostering Connections and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 and your continued interest in providing permanent homes for all children. 

f 

Statement of Frank J. Mecca, 

County Welfare Directors Association of California 

The County Welfare Directors Association of California (CWDA) appreciates the 

opportunity to submit testimony for the record on the Implementation of the Fostering Connections and Increasing Adoptions Act (P.L. 110–351). CWDA and its 

members actively supported the adoption of the legislation. The new law contains 

important provisions to assist states and counties in serving at-risk children and 

youth. We welcome the Subcommittee’s continued interest in the subject through 

holding this oversight hearing and will work with you to continue to make other 

necessary child welfare financing reforms. 

Each of California’s 58 counties operates a child welfare program, under state 

oversight and in accordance with federal and state rules and regulations. Not only 

do those programs depend upon revenues generated by each county, but a large 

share of child welfare financing depends upon state and federal funding streams. 

Our statement addresses concerns in two key areas: the ability of states and counties to use their funds as match for the new federal resources under the kinship 

guardianship assistance payments program and implementation issues concerning 

youth between the ages of 18 and 21. 

Financial Support for Kinship Guardianship 

Our state’s child welfare system is the largest in the nation, with nearly 72,000 

children in out of home foster care. In addition to that group are approximately 

15,000 children in our state- and county-funded Kinship Guardianship Assistance 

Payment (Kin-GAP) program. California’s counties have partnered with the state to 

operate the program since 2000. This program enables children who would otherwise be in foster care to be cared for by relatives. Kin-GAP has furthered the shared 

federal and state goal of securing stable and permanent placements with relatives 

who have assumed legal guardianship of an at-risk child. In addition to providing 

permanent homes to children in foster care, the Kin-GAP program has avoided millions of dollars in federal foster care costs. 

Unfortunately, a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Program Instruction (CB–PI–08–007) issued on December 24, 2008 interpreted the new Fostering Connections law and accompanying federal kinship reimbursement as applying only to those children entering a new kinship arrangement after exiting from 

a IV–E foster care placement. The Instruction penalizes states such as California 

that took the initiative to create their own programs. The current interpretation 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
99 

that federal kinship guardian payments apply only prospectively places the state 

and its counties in the untenable position of having to disrupt stable guardianship 

families by converting them to federally funded cases by creating a ‘new’ kinship 

arrangement through the court system—a system these families thought they had 

left behind in entering Kin-GAP. Not only would such a process needlessly direct 

resources away from serving families and cause potential distress for guardians and 

the children in their care, retaining the current Program Instruction violates a key 

tenet of new law—that states be given incentives to establish subsidized 

guardianships for relatives so that they have the financial means to provide stable, 

loving homes for their relative children who would otherwise be placed in foster 

care. CWDA urges the Subcommittee to work with the Administration on Children and 

Families to convince them to rescind this provision in the December 24, 2008 Program Instruction. Governmental agencies and the families they serve should not be 

penalized based solely on the timing of the guardianship placement. 

The state legislature is considering a bill, AB 12, which would implement a number of the Fostering Connections Act provisions. CWDA has been very active in that 

legislative process. We support greater flexibility in the use of federal IV–E funding 

so that more of it could be used to maintain or reunify families when children are 

abused or at risk of abuse and neglect. Our staff and human services directors await 

further guidance from ACF and urge the Administration to provide ample flexibility 

in that guidance so that we may address appropriately the unique circumstances 

of the families we serve. 

Support for Young Adults Reaching the Age of 18 

CWDA supports the law’s provision to extend IV–E payments to youth up to the 

age to 21. California’s pending AB 12 contains such a provision. Given California’s 

unprecedented budget problems, however, it will not likely be able in the near future to provide the necessary financial match to take advantage of the extension. 

For youth who have attained the age of 18, CWDA believes that there needs to 

be federal recognition that by extending the definition of ‘foster child’ to include a 

foster young adult up to age 21, additional flexibility is needed in defining the purpose of the IV–E case plan for a legal adult. Legal permanency that applies to a 

child no longer applies to a person over age 18. The goals of the case plan may have 

to be modified to focus on the youth’s transitional plan, such as education and employment goals. 

Further, the new Act allows federal reimbursement for ‘a supervised setting in 

which the individual lives independently.’ CWDA would support guidance on how 

to define supervised independent living in a manner that allows a range of housing 

options for youth to ensure their progress toward stable and productive lives. Since 

they are legally adults, however, federal guidance and/or regulations on living situations and court oversight must account for and respect that fact. Consequently, a 

separate licensing standard for those over age 18 is necessary, including, but not 

limited to: shared homes, individual scatter-site apartments, collegiate housing and 

boarding homes. 

CWDA believes that California’s Transitional Housing Placement Program (THP– 

Plus) for youth over 18 years of age is a model that fits within the intent of the 

Fostering Connections Act. THP encourages private nonprofits to provide case management to youth who live in supervised independent living settings, either in 

apartments or with host families (often former foster parents or relative caregivers). 

Youth have an individualized case plan that requires participation in either employment or education while gradually assuming more responsibility for payment of living expenses. California and its county human services agencies are working to develop IV–E licensing standards that meet core health and safety concerns, while recognizing the youths’ status as legal adults. The program does not currently draw 

down IV–E funds, but CWDA believes it can be readily adapted to the ‘supervised 

independent living settings’ envisioned in the Act. 

Finally, establishing permanency (return to parent’s home, adoption or guardianship) for a legal adult over age 18 is different than compared to a minor. As such, 

the federal requirement that government agencies seek to terminate parental rights 

no longer applies to foster youth who are legal adults. Under California law, an 

adult can consent to be adopted, but it is not at all clear that such consent should 

fall under the jurisdiction of the state dependency court. In addition, legal guardianship over a minor terminates when the minor attains age 18, and parents no longer 

have custodial rights over children over age 18. Federal IV–E requirements for permanency need to be modified for these legal adults still in care. 

As Subcommittee Members have acknowledged, much more needs to be done to 

reform the child welfare system. CWDA supports efforts to provide greater flexibility 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
100 

i 42 U.S.C. § 671(a). 

ii Although the law allows states to set a lower rate for legal guardians, in practice, it does 

not work. Maryland and North Carolina each had a guardianship assistance demonstration 

project that set a lower rate for legal guardians. Experience in both states was that doing so 

made it difficult, if not impossible, to attract anyone into the program because of the attendant 

financial loss. Synthesis of Findings from State Assisted Guardianship Title IV–E Demonstration 

Projects (September 2005). Administration of Children and Families. (Available at: http:// 

www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/programs_fund/cwwaiver/agissue/evaluation.htm#process Accessed 

on September 28, 2009). iii 42 U.S.C. § 673(d)(3)(A)(ii). ivTesta MF. Subsidized Guardianship: Testing the Effectiveness of an Idea Whose Time Has 

Finally Come. Children and Family Research Center. May 2008. vTesta MF. Subsidized Guardianship: Testing the Effectiveness of an Idea Whose Time Has 

Finally Come. Children and Family Research Center. May 2008. In Illinois, an evaluation of the 

legal guardianship payment demonstration project found that two-thirds of completed 

guardianships might have been adoptions in the absence of the legal guardianship payment option. A similar substitution effect was found in Tennessee. There was no substitution effect 

in the use of federal funds to provide up-front investments in the lives of families 

and children at risk. And, as you prepare for the upcoming reauthorization of the 

Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program in 2010, we will work 

with the Subcommittee to identify ways in which child welfare and TANF may be 

better coordinated and leveraged when serving families who are clients of our agencies’ programs. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement for the record. If you have 

any questions, please contact Tom Joseph, Director of CWDA’s Washington Office 

at tj@wafed.com. 

f 

Statement of Jane Burstain, Ph.D. 

To be effective, any legislation must have consistent policies and incentives. Before the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act, for children 

who could not return home, federal law consistently preferred adoption. The Federal 

Government subsidized financial support the state provided to adoptive parents and 

also provided payments directly to the state for increasing adoptions over a baseline 

level. The Federal Government did not provide any support or incentive for other 

permanency options such as legal guardianship. 

With Fostering Connections, however, federal policies and incentives regarding 

permanency are no longer consistent. On the one hand, the new law still encourages 

adoption over legal guardianship. Federal law requires states to in essence rule out 

adoption before considering legal guardianship, and incentive payments to states remain solely based on increases in adoptions. On the other hand, as a practical matter, the new law puts both adoption and legal guardianship on an equal footing. It 

now subsidizes financial support for relatives who either adopt or who take legal 

guardianship. This policy conflict has practical consequences for states and more importantly for children. 

The Federal Government rewards states only when a relative chooses adoption. 

But states opting into the federal kinship guardianship assistance program effectively lose the ability to affect that choice. States must inform relatives of the kinship guardianship assistance program in the initial notice after the child has been 

removed.i All relatives are told upfront that there is a choice between adoption and 

guardianship. But states have no ‘‘carrot’’ to encourage relatives to pick adoption 

over guardianship because relatives will get paid no matter what choice they make.ii

States have no ‘‘stick’’ either. While Fostering Connections does require that the 

state find adoption not appropriate before a relative becomes eligible for a kinship 

guardianship payment,iii if a relative decides against adoption in favor of legal 

guardianship, the state’s only recourse is to remove the child from the relative’s otherwise appropriate home—hardly something child welfare professionals would do or 

that would be in the child’s best interest. As a result, as a practical matter, whether 

relatives adopt or become guardians is solely a matter of relative preference. 

Research shows that providing relatives with legal guardianship as a financially 

viable alternative can increase overall exits to permanency.iv Relatives who are opposed to adoption now can become a child’s legal guardian, taking the child out of 

foster care. But research also shows that with subsidized legal guardianship, adoptions will decline. At least some and perhaps many relatives who would have exited 

to adoption because it was the only financially viable alternative will now choose 

to exit through legal guardianship instead.v


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
101 

found in a similar program adopted in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. But researchers attributed the 

lack of an effect to Milwaukee’s decision not to offer the guardianship program to families who 

were already on the track to adoption, a strategy that is not available under Fostering Connections. vi A relative legal guardian can later decide to adopt. But there is no incentive to do so and 

there is no evidence of this happening in the assisted guardianship demonstration projects in 

other states. vii Allen T, DeVooght K, Geen R. State Kinship Care Policies for Children that Come to the 

Attention of Child Welfare Agencies; Finding from the 2007 Casey Kinship Foster Care Policy 

Survey. Child Trends. December 2008. 

Fewer adoptions mean reduced adoption incentive payments for states.vi As a result, the sixteen states such as Texas, New York and Ohio vii who do not currently 

provide financial support to relative legal guardians face a conundrum. Opting into 

the federal kinship guardianship assistance program may increase the number children exiting foster care into a permanent home with a relative. But in doing so, 

states may be sacrificing federal adoption incentive funds, leaving less money overall for states to invest in improving their child welfare system. 

In practice, Fostering Connections seems to evidence an intent to promote a policy 

of permanency for relatives, regardless of its legal form. If so, the Federal Government should change its incentive payment structure to reflect this policy choice and 

reward states for an increase in permanency not just adoption. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Jane Burstain, Ph.D. 

Senior Policy Analyst 

f 

Statement of Jodie Lee Klaassen 

Changing the foster care system to increase adoptions is wrong. The chaos and 

abuses in the current foster care system are well documented in the state of Michigan. Having been involved in a terrible divorce in the 44th Circuit court in Howell, 

Michigan, I have often said that my minor sons’ could be the poster children for 

what a court system and the ignorance of attorneys can do to children. Those types 

of statements do not win me must empathy in a system hell bent on making this 

woman pay for any illegal activity that a family or system has created. Often I have 

heard from the father of my sons’ that if I don’t take medications, comply with some 

outrageous court order, pay him child support, and work full time that our sons will 

just go into foster care. That court has allowed case workers in the Friend of the 

court to investigate me and the family history, allowed people related only through 

marriage to provide information to the courts, favored attorneys who clean up the 

paperwork or provide testimony about me and my sons to create further legal 

issues, and report alleged ‘‘delusional’’ behavior from me or my sons which leads to 

further monitoring and money paid to them for their inconveniences. 

Before the divorce was initiated, by the father of my children in 2001, I was the 

primary caregiver of our sons, often being informed by this man that they were my 

kids and I had to take care of them. I participated in their day care and school activities, was an employee at my son’s parochial school, balanced a work schedule as 

an emergency room nurse, and provided for our sons activities of daily living without incident. 

Then we moved to Howell and a divorce. In Howell there was more immediate 

family and extended family present and my home was frequented by neighbors’ children and nephews with care giving/parenting responsibilities extended to me by 

these people. When it was discovered that the sister-in-law was using Tabasco sauce 

on her sons’ tongues, one of which has special needs, it was discussed at length, although court documents and the guardian ad litem heavily relied on this woman 

for her input on diagnosing my parenting abilities and responsibilities. This woman’s relation with my spouse is documented in court records along with other issues 

which she participated in to hinder my time with my sons. 

It has been 2 years since I have spent any amount of time with my sons. Lawsuits 

have been initiated by me, in pro per, against the state of Michigan and the people 

who continue to provide the false and misleading information about me and my sons 

without relief. If I was the only ‘‘Klaassen’’ that the 44th Circuit court and the state 

of Michigan had inflicted such outrageous demands on due to an alleged ‘‘mental 

illness’’ or ‘‘substance abuse’’ problem due to a divorce, brought forth by an attorney 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
102 

or abusive spouse, then I would continue to endure the pain and torment of not seeing or speaking to my sons in silence, but I am not the only one. 

I would hope that Mr. McDermott would afford us parents the opportunity to defend ourselves and our children against the abuses that even our own family members have and will continue to inflict upon us and our children either to obtain 

money or to justify the abuses which they were never held accountable for when we 

were children. Breaking the cycle of abuse is difficult and when the courts are being 

used by our abusers to further exploit those family issues which have never been 

appropriately handled then our children get put into a system which could possibly 

cause them more harm then being raised by a biological parent with an alleged 

‘‘mental illness’’ or ‘‘substance abuse’’ history. 

Please examine the abuses that already exist in the system and don’t allow our 

children to suffer needlessly. Thank you for your consideration in matters which affect many families and children. 

Jodie Lee Klaassen, PN, RN, BGS 

f 

Statement of John R. Vaughn, National Council on Disability (NCD) 

I am pleased to write to you on behalf of the National Council on Disability 

(NCD), an independent federal agency, to provide policy recommendations regarding 

youth with disabilities who are involved in the foster care system in order to be considered part of the record for the September 15, 2009 hearing of the Subcommittee 

on Income Security and Family Support regarding the implementation of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act. Our comments are 

based upon NCD’s 2008 report entitled Youth with Disabilities in the Foster Care 

System: Barriers to Success and Proposed Policy Solutions. The findings in that report lend support to the goals of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act—that additional supports will assist youth with disabilities in the 

foster care system in reaching a healthy adulthood. 

The purpose of NCD is to promote policies, programs, practices, and procedures 

that guarantee equal opportunity for all individuals with disabilities, and that empower individuals with disabilities to achieve economic self-sufficiency, independent 

living, and integration into all aspects of society. To accomplish this, we gather 

stakeholder input, review federal programs and legislation, and provide advice to 

the President, Congress and government agencies. Much of this advice comes in the 

form of timely reports and papers NCD releases throughout each year. NCD is composed of 15 members, appointed by the President with the consent of the U.S. Senate. 

NCD undertook its ‘‘Youth with Disabilities in the Foster Care System’’ report because foster care is clearly both a child welfare issue as well as a disability issue, 

given the alarmingly high numbers of foster youth with mental, developmental, 

emotional, learning, and physical disabilities. NCD reported statistics that illustrate 

the disproportional numbers of youth in foster care who have disabilities. More than 

50 percent of foster youth alumni had mental health issues compared to 22 percent 

of the general population. Across educational systems, an estimated 10 to 12 percent 

of the general population is eligible for special education and related services compared to a 30 to 40 percent estimate for foster care youth. 

Data also indicate that far too many children and youth with disabilities in foster 

care are not transitioning into healthy adulthood as productive members of society. 

These findings reflect the insufficiencies of the temporal systems, programs, and in 

some cases unprepared people tasked to provide the necessary, cross-cutting, and 

interdependent health, education, and family services. 

After supporting the Fostering Connections Act as legislation, NCD was heartened to see the bill signed into law last year, and we believe this law will provide 

additional assistance that will help many young people with disabilities become contributing members of society. In light of the focus of Tuesday’s hearing, we respectfully submit the following germane Congressional recommendations from our Youth 

with Disabilities in the Foster Care System report for your ongoing consideration: 

• Provide increased flexibility to states and communities so programs 

and services can be most effectively structured to meet the needs of 

youth with disabilities in foster care. More flexibility awarded to state 

child welfare agencies can lead to more help where it is needed for preventative services, alternative care models, transition services, and school-based 

mental health programs, among many other appropriate services for youth 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
103 

with disabilities in foster care. Allowing a percentage of funds from one program to be shifted to meet the purposes of another is one possible approach; 

allowing waivers and block granting of funds is another. 

• Increase federal support in the departments of Health and Human 

Services, Education, Justice, and Labor for research and demonstrations to identify effective policies and practices that lead to positive 

outcomes for youth with disabilities in foster care. High-quality research and program evaluations should be supported at the federal level to 

demonstrate which programs and policies are truly effective for youth with 

disabilities in foster care. 

• Fund the Federal Youth Development Council, authorized by the Federal Youth Coordination Act (FYCA), as well as similar federal coordinating efforts. This council is charged with developing an interagency plan 

to implement federal youth policy more strategically for disadvantaged youth, 

such as youth with disabilities in foster care. Federal support of FYCA and 

its council would greatly facilitate a stronger federal role in serving these 

youth, as well as more cross-systems collaboration efforts involving the many 

systems that interact with these youth. 

• Strategically increase collaboration among the education, juvenile 

justice, child welfare, labor, dependency court, health, and mental 

health systems. Efforts should be made to increase collaboration among all 

of these systems so that youth with disabilities in foster care can achieve 

greater well-being in their adolescence and into adulthood. State dependency 

court systems can serve as leaders in many of these collaboration efforts, and 

cross-system accountability measures should be developed. 

If you have any questions about this submission or any matter related to disability policy, please contact NCD Executive Director Michael Collins by email at 

mcollins@ncd.gov. On behalf of NCD, thank you for your leadership in focusing attention on this important topic. I also thank you for the opportunity to submit this 

statement for the record. 

Æ 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING