Statement of Terry Cross, Director, National Indian Child Welfare Association, Portland, Oregon

Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support
of the House Committee on Ways and Means

May 23, 2006

Thank you for the opportunity to again appear before this Subcommittee on behalf of the National Indian Child Welfare Association.  Our testimony will focus on reauthorization of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Act.  The recommendations that we are making are supported by the National Congress of American Indians, Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians and the Association of American Indian Affairs with whom we collaborate on this and other child welfare matters.

Thanks also to the Subcommittee staff– both Majority and Minority – who have met with us many times, giving us an opportunity to talk about tribal child welfare needs and about the federal child welfare statutes which have left out tribal governments and the children under their jurisdiction.   The meetings have also informed us about big picture child welfare developments.

Our primary recommendations on reauthorization of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Act are:

• Increase tribal reserved amounts to 3% in both the mandatory and discretionary program, including the new $40 million if those funds are to be distributed on an allotment or formula basis.

• Allow tribal consortia to be eligible to apply for all program components.

• Authorize a tribal court improvement program ($2 million annually – competitive grant program) to ensure that tribal courts have access to funds to support court improvement work.

Current law.  Under the current Promoting Safe and Stable Families law, tribal governments receive a 1 percent allocation of mandatory and a 2 percent allocation of discretionary funds for a total of $5.2 million in fiscal year 2006.  About two-thirds of these tribes receive less than $40,000 from the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program and just over one-third receive less than $20,000.

The current program requires tribal applicants to meet a population-based $10,000 threshold in order to be eligible for funding.  In addition, tribes in the lower 48 states are not allowed to apply as consortia.  Thus only 80 tribes – or about one third of all tribes in the lower 48 -- are able to meet the criteria to access this program.  Tribes in Alaska, many of them small villages, are able to apply as consortia under an Alaskan Native non-profit corporation; there are ten Alaska Native grantees for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program.  Tribal courts, which have exclusive jurisdiction over tribal member children on their lands in most cases, are not eligible for any of the court improvement funding under this law.  The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 has a new requirement for state court improvement projects to consult with tribal governments on the state projects, but this does not mandate sharing of any resources or funding.

Mentoring Children of Prisoners.  We support reauthorization of the Mentoring Children of Prisoners program, and note that a number of tribes have been awarded grants under this program.  According to the Justice Department, 870 per 100,000 Indian adults were in a state or federal prison in 1997 compared to 629 persons per 100,000 adults nationally (Bureau of Justice Statistics, "American Indians and Crime", 1999). The DOJ reports that the American Indian proportion of all violent offenders entering Federal prison is 15 percent (A BJS Statistical Profile, 1992-2002 American Indians and Crime, December 2004).  Assisting these children is a crucial step in helping reduce their further involvement in the child welfare system and future involvement in the criminal justice system.

The need.  Tribal governments, just as state governments, are very concerned about the increasing number of children under their jurisdiction who are reported as abused and neglected.  Child abuse and neglect carries a toll on not just the immediate children and families, but the entire community.  Child abuse and neglect has been connected with risk for juvenile delinquency, poor school performance and mental illness.  Small communities in rural areas, characteristic of many tribal communities, are especially hard hit, based on the lack of infrastructure and public services that assist governments to address this serious problem.  Many of these children that are abused and neglected end up in some form of substitute care, either temporarily or permanently.  Foster care services, while critically important, are one of the most expensive child welfare services and the incentives to reduce children entering into the foster care system are many.  Tribal governments, such as the Three Affiliated Tribes in North Dakota, understand these incentives and used their Promoting Safe and Stable funding to promote systems reform that resulted in an almost 40% reduction in foster care placements.  This kind of innovation is in the minds of many tribal governments, but the funding to implement these ideas is not always there. 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs 2003 Labor Force report shows a national average of 49% unemployment for Indian people living on or near reservations.  Of those who are employed, 32% are still living below the poverty guideline.  We know that poverty and unemployment are circumstances that pose risk for child abuse and neglect.   Alcohol and substance abuse rates are also very high in tribal communities with estimates that up to 85% of tribal families that become involved in the child welfare system have some history of alcohol and/or substance abuse.  Methamphetamine use is especially high in many parts of Indian Country as evidenced by available data and recent testimony by tribal witnesses at two Senate hearings.  The great strain on tribal child welfare systems is also evident.   We point out the testimony of Arlene Templer of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes at the April 25, 2006 hearing before the Senate Finance Committee.  Templer states:

"In the last four years we have placed over 30 meth affected children in the foster care system and the agency is experiencing tired, worn out caregivers who are now turning children back to us, before we can even achieve permanency for these needy children.  The children are being turned back due to the high needs they have and the few supports we can offer.  There are not funds for respite for caregivers; our departmental budget cannot afford it.  There are no funds for specialized therapy, other than Medicaid.  Caregivers are not trained to deal with the physical and mental health complications that the children present.  In addition, caregivers are not trained to deal with the birth parents, when addictions and addictive behaviors are still present.” 

"Children with meth effects have the following behaviors:  head banging, constant crying, increased aggression towards siblings and caregivers, sensory integration dysfunction which result in slow and delayed gross and fine motor functions.  The impact these children will have on our Nation's public schools will be devastating.  They, like us, are not equipped nor funded to deal with these issues."

We also refer you to the testimony of Kathleen Kitcheyan, Chairwoman of the San Carlos Apache Tribe before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on April 5, 2006:  "Last year, there were about 500 reports of child neglect and/or abuse reported to the Tribe's child protective services.  About 80% of these cases involved alcohol or drug use, such as meth, by the parent.  About 36% of reported cases of child neglect and/or abuse are repeat occurrences."  She told the Committee that in 2004, 64 babies out of 256 born to San Carlos Apache tribal members were addicted to methamphetamine, and 24% of pregnant women at San Carlos tested positive for methamphetamine.  The numbers were even higher in 2005.  Kitcheyan testified that the Tribe's child protection caseworkers "are responsible for more children than any person could possibly handle.”

As a testament to Chairwoman Kitcheyan’s statement, the Office of Tribal Services of the Bureau of Indian Affairs reported to us that they estimate each BIA or tribal social worker has a workload of at least 200 cases – involving child protection services (investigations of suspected child abuse and neglect), child welfare (out-of-home placements) and General Assistance (welfare assistance). 

Allowing tribes to apply as consortia is common in federal programs.  Most tribal consortia are in states where there is preponderance of many small tribes, such as California and Washington.  Among the programs administered by tribal consortia are the Child Care and Development Block Grant and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.  Consortia arrangements for very small tribes can maximize the use of funds by, for example, having a single accounting system, by jointly training social workers, using a common data system and offering services at a shared site.  Pooling resources can expand services to tribal children who otherwise would not receive certain services and bring together diverse ideas and methods for delivering more effective services.

Funding for tribal child welfare services are also in short supply.  Tribal governments, unlike states or territories, are not eligible for direct funding from the federal government’s two largest child welfare funding sources – Title IV-E and Title XX.  While a small number of tribes have been able to develop mechanism for passing through these funds (70 tribal-state agreements under Title IV-E and four states that pass through Title XX funds) this is not a mandated activity.  The Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services in 1994 indicated that these pass-through arrangements are fraught with difficulty, and the surest method for ensuring that tribes benefit from these programs is direct funding.  Tribal governments also receive very littlefrom three other program – Title IV-B Child Welfare Services, Title IV-B Promoting Safe and Stable Families, and Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act.  The funding that tribes receive under Title IV-B Child Welfare Services, while increased since 1993, still results in most tribes receiving grants of less than $10,000 per year.  The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act funds are competitive and only a handful of tribes ever receive any of these funds.  Other sources of child welfare funding for tribal child welfare services come from the Bureau of Indian Affairs programs, such as Indian Child Welfare Act grant program and BIA Social Services.  These programs are also discretionary and provide funding in very small amounts.  The BIA Social Services funding is not even available to all tribal governments.  Because of the small number of programs and amounts of funding that are available, spikes in need can easily overwhelm a tribal child welfare program.  This can seriously compromise the ability to respond effectively and can eliminate the ability to seek reforms that can divert children and families from entering the system in the first place.

James Bell and Associates published in 2004 two studies regarding the implementation of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program by tribal governments, both of which are available on the Administration for Children and Families web site. One study focused on tribal child welfare resources.  The other focused on the coordination and collaboration by and among tribes in the provision of social services and included case studies of twelve tribal programs.  The study found that there was no single story of tribal Promoting Safe and Stable Families implementation.  Tribal programs reflected unique tribal circumstances, including the presence of lack of other resources with which to combine with the PSSF funds.  The studies found a significant amount of tribal collaboration on the provision of child welfare services – among a tribe's various agencies, between tribes, and between tribes and states. Among the common challenges among the tribal grantees were turnover of social services directors as tribal governments changed, lack of services for at-risk youth, and reliance on inconsistent, discretionary funding. 

As mentioned above, tribal courts do not receive funds from the IV-B state court improvement project.  These courts receive very limited federal funding from the BIA and DOJ, and no tribal court improvement funds specifically target child welfare proceedings.  Tribal courts are the judicial bodies that provide governmental oversight over child welfare proceedings involving tribal children and families.  These courts have similar functions as state juvenile courts, but are the only courts with jurisdiction over tribal children and families who reside or are domiciled on tribal lands in most cases.  Tribal codes routinely provide for emergency removals, preliminary hearings, adjudicatory disposition and./or permanency hearings  We request an authorization for a $2 million grant program for tribal courts under the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Act.

Draft House Bill.  This Subcommittee specifically asked for comments on the portion of the draft reauthorization bill that concerns the use of the $40 million in annual mandatory funding for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Act enacted as part of the Deficit Reduction Act (PL 109-171).  We appreciate that both the House and Senate are working to make the expenditure of these new monies as meaningful and effective as possible.  The goal of achievingpermanencyfor children through, in part, increasing caseworker visitations with children in foster care is one we support.  We also support and need use of funds fortribal caseworker retention, recruitment, training, and making appropriate use of technology.

It appears that under the House draft tribal governments would receive only a one percent allocation of the new $40 million, or $400,000.  While that could help some current tribal grantees expand additional services, it will do little reach the other goals of the program and likely will do little to enhance workforce issues for tribal child welfare programs.  As mentioned earlier in out statement, a more effective approach would be to improve the base funding by increasing the mandatory and discretionary reserved amounts for tribes to three percent, which would bring in new tribes, provide services to children who currently don’t have access to these service, and significantly enhance tribal efforts to address issues like workforce improvements. 

Conclusion.  As we stated earlier, the goals of tribal governments with regard to their children are not much different than those of state governments.  Improved well-being and less involvement in child welfare services describe some of the highest goals.  The ideas for achieving these goals are out there, but the resources are not.  Providing tribal governments with adequate, secure and flexible funding, such as the funding under the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program, is the key to success as tribes like Three Affiliated have found.  We are also hopeful that this Subcommittee will again take up more comprehensive child welfare finance reform in the future and consider the needs of tribes as they have done in the past.  We appreciate that Representative Camp has in the past introduced legislation that would, for the first time, allow tribes to administer the Title l IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Act programs, and that Senator Smith is the sponsor of such legislation in the 109^th Congress.  We also commend to you the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care recommendations as a framework for child welfare finance reform and appreciate their attention to the long-neglected needs of Indian tribes.   

Thank you for inviting us to testify before the Subcommittee on these vitally important issues.  Reauthorization of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Act and is a unique opportunity for us to work together to safeguard and improve the lives of Indian and Alaska Native children and families.  We look forward to working with you on this legislation and on broader child welfare reform legislation in the future.