Statement of The Honorable Cari DeSantis, Secretary, Delaware Department of Services for Children, Youth and Their Families, Wilmington, Delaware, on behalf of the American Public Human Services Association

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

May 23, 2006

INTRODUCTION

Chairman Herger, Congressman McDermott, and members of the subcommittee, I am Cari DeSantis, cabinet secretary of the Delaware Department of Services for Children, Youth, and Their Families. In this position, I am responsible for a variety of programs, including all statewide children’s services, including mental and behavioral health; substance abuse; youth corrections; rehabilitation; home, community, and school-based programs; and residential treatment in addition to child welfare, which includes child abuse, neglect, dependency, foster care, adoption, and post-adoption services. I am also here today in my role as chair of the National Council of State Human Service Administrators, the policymaking body of the American Public Human Services Association (APHSA).

APHSA is a nonprofit, bipartisan organization that has represented state and local human service professionals for more than 75 years. APHSA also houses the National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators (NAPCWA), which was created as an APHSA affiliate in 1983. NAPCWA works to enhance and improve public policy and administration of services for children, youth, and families, and is the only organization devoted solely to representing administrators of state and local public child welfare agencies.

On behalf of APHSA and the state of Delaware, I want to take a moment to commend this subcommittee for recognizing the importance of the Title IV-B programs, including the Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) program, and for holding this hearing. We congratulate the members and staff of this subcommittee for their good-faith efforts in working in a bi-partisan manner to get these critical programs reauthorized. Child welfare has always been a bi-partisan issue and it must remain so to meet the challenges ahead. We look forward to working with you on these issues and on child welfare funding during this Congressional session and in the future.

My testimony will primarily cover the position of the states on the reauthorization of the PSSF program.

BACKGROUND

The child welfare system serves some of America’s most fragile and troubled citizens—families in crisis and children who have been abused and neglected. It is estimated that child protective services (CPS) agencies received 60,000 referrals alleging child maltreatment each week. In 2004, state CPS agencies received an estimated 3 million referrals alleging child maltreatment involving approximately 5.5 million children, with an estimated 872,000 found to be victims. As of September 2003, 523,000 children were in foster care, with 297,000 entering in that year, and 119,000 children were awaiting adoption. Public child welfare agencies provide a broad array of services to these children and families, including prevention and family support services; early intervention and family preservation services; child protective services; foster care; and permanency and post-permanency services. Public child welfare agencies also work closely with other public agencies that often deal with the same population, including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Medicaid agencies; domestic violence programs; substance abuse treatment agencies; housing agencies; and mental health programs.

FEDERAL FUNDING FOR CHILD WELFARE

States have continually raised concerns that the current structure of federal child welfare funding does not adequately support the goals of safety, permanence, and well-being for children and families. While federal funding has remained flat, states have increasingly had to find sources of state and local funding to fill the gaps. The bulk of federal funding dedicated to child welfare is disproportionately directed toward funding out-of-home care—the very part of the system that agencies are seeking to minimize to achieve greater permanence for children. At the same time, even with the creation of Title IV-B subpart 2 in 1993 and its reauthorization in 2001, services that protect child safety and promote reunification and post-permanency supports remain under-funded by the federal government. When the Title IV-E financing structure was created, the assumption was that the flexible Title IV-B service funding would grow significantly—an assumption that remains unfulfilled.

With the recent changes in the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005 (DRA), Title IV-E has become even more restrictive. States are now explicitly limited in their access to Title IV-E costs for children placed in the care of a relative and in Title IV-E administrative costs for children who are at risk of entering foster care or who are placed in certain facilities. These limitations to Title IV-E funds, which are in addition to the eligibility criteria tied to family income and appropriate language in court documents, make the broad accessibility and flexibility in Title IV-B all the more important for states as they look to continue providing critical services to vulnerable children and families.

PSSF FUNDING

Title IV-B was established in 1935 to provide a wide array of services for children who come to the attention of the child welfare system. In 1993, Congress established subpart 2 of Title IV-B, the Family Preservation and Family Support Services Program, as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (P.L. 103-66). This program provided flexible funding for services to prevent child abuse and neglect and to help families whose children were at risk of being removed. As part of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997 (P.L. 105-89), Congress reauthorized the program. It was renamed the PSSF program and was expanded to include funding for time-limited family reunification services and adoption promotion and support activities.

In 2001, Congress passed a five-year reauthorization and made amendments to PSSF (P.L. 107-133). The authorization level was increased from $305 million to $505 million. However, the increased amount was added as a discretionary component to the program. The mandatory funding level is $305 million, while the remaining $200 million is subject to the annual appropriations process. The amendments also emphasized the importance of providing post-adoption services and substance abuse treatment. Congress has appropriated less than half of the $200 million in discretionary funding since the reauthorization allowed for these funds as of 2002. Discretionary funds have been appropriated at $70 million in FY 2002, $99 million in FY 2003, $99 million in FY 2004, $98.5 million in 2005 and $89 million in 2006. The President’s FY 2007 budget requested funding at the FY 2006 level, which included a one-percent across-the-board cut for all discretionary funding.

Several set-asides are made before the PSSF funds are allocated to states. From the mandatory portion, $6 million is reserved for HHS to fund training, technical assistance, research and evaluation; $10 million is reserved for state courts grants; and $3.05 million (one-percent) is reserved for Tribes. From the discretionary portion, 3.3 percent is reserved for HHS to fund training, technical assistance, research and evaluation; 3.3 percent is reserved for state courts grants; and two percent is reserved for Tribes. The remaining funds are then allocated to states based on a proxy measure of child poverty, the percentage of children in that state who receive food stamps. No federal eligibility criteria apply to children and families receiving services under either subpart of Title IV-B. The federal government provides a 75 percent match and states are required to provide 25 percent. Any appropriated funds that are certified as unused by a state are reallocated to other states.

In order to receive PSSF funds, states must submit a five year plan which outlines the goals to be achieved, specifies objectives that will be undertaken to achieve the goals, and describes how annual progress will be measured. States develop this plan in consultation with public and community-based organizations. This process has allowed states to engage and increase outreach to stakeholders which has led to more public input on the goals within a particular community.

An additional $40 million in mandatory funds for PSSF was authorized in the DRA. The Congressional Research Service estimated that the additional funds, when allocated to states, would range anywhere from an additional $40,000 for Wyoming to $3.7 million for Texas. My state, Delaware, will receive an additional $80,000 if those funds are appropriated. I must note that to date, those dollars have not reached the states. However, the provision would appropriate the funds beginning in fiscal year 2007. Given that the DRA authorized the funds for FY 2006, we would like to see those funds appropriated as soon as the legislation is passed. Additionally, states should be given the full two years to spend the additional dollars as they would have had if they had received them at the beginning of FY 2006.

MANDATORY FUNDS

The stability of the mandatory portion under PSSF over time has allowed states to rely on these funds to ensure on-going services and to allow local jurisdictions more flexibility in developing programs. We urge full funding of the program and see the additional $40 million as a step forward. The decrease in the discretionary portion of the funds over the last several years due to across-the-board cuts in all discretionary programs has not allowed for the same level of reliability and innovation with the funds.

FLEXIBILITY

States realize that reducing the need for foster care by providing an array of supports and services for both biological and adoptive families will lead to improved outcomes for children. Title IV-B is a key funding source that has provided states with flexible funding to provide prevention, reunification, and adoption services. When APHSA recently spoke with our members about the reauthorization of PSSF, they overwhelmingly indicated that Title IV-B is their most flexible source of dedicated federal dollars to provide child welfare services. States indicated that they would like to see the funds remain as flexible as possible while continuing to be directed at meeting the goals of the four categories of PSSF – family preservation, family support, time-limited reunification, and adoption promotion and support. Within the parameters of the four categories, states have seized the opportunity to structure and create programs to respond to the different needs in different communities. This funding has allowed states to implement innovative and effective practices such as family group decision making, post-adoption support networks, respite care, safe haven programs, and improved collaboration with counties and tribes.

In Delaware, our PSSF programs are offered through a network of local community providers that help to support our system of care approach to child welfare services. The community-based interventions address the four life stressors that may cause child maltreatment. These are (1) parental personality characteristics related to risk; (2) child developmental and behavioral characteristics; (3) stress and crisis in the family; and (4) the absence of and inability to access resources and support.

One unique service we’ve begun is to use IV-B funds to provide intense services to youth in our juvenile justice system and their families. Many of these youth present with multiple, complex family issues and personal needs as well as parental/child conflict. PSSF providers assist families of youth exiting our residential rehabilitation programs to establish formal and informal support systems to help implement a plan that addresses their concerns and assures the safety and well-being of the youth upon return home.

We have also recently begun collaborating with faith-based organizations in Delaware to provide family consultation and support for those families at risk of child maltreatment. These families are often isolated and experiencing parent/child conflict and may be in need of basic sustenance supports, like food, shelter, rent and utilities assistance, etc. Again, in true system-of-care fashion, this program has the faith-based organization work with the family to build on existing strengths; provide consultation, guidance, and community support as needed; and help the family resolve their needs before a crisis lands the child in care.

INCREASED SAFE AND STABLE FAMILIES PROGRAM RESOURCES

First, I must say that we appreciate that Congress provided an increase in the mandatory portion of PSSF funds in the DRA by $40 million. However, these funds have not yet been appropriated. We urge the subcommittee to include these additional funds in the reauthorization of this program. Since we’ve seen that the discretionary portion of this program has not been fully funded and has diminished over time, the addition of these dollars in the mandatory portion is a step in the right direction. As has been discussed throughout my testimony, states, including Delaware, have been able to structure and provide unique and needed services due to the flexibility of the Title IV-B funds. We encourage that the funds, including any additional funds, remain as flexible as possible to help states continue to meet the diverse needs of individual communities. 

We realize that this subcommittee has expressed interest during hearings over the last several years in the Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs). States have worked in concert with the federal government during the first round of the CFSRs and will continue to do so as the second round begins. The Program Improvement Plans (PIPs) have taken and continue to take a significant amount of staff and other resources to achieve the agreed-upon outcomes for each state. Title IV-B funds have been the most flexible source of federal funds that states have accessed to meet goals in their PIPs.

ADMINISTRATIVE COST REIMBURSEMENT

As we’ve testified before, child welfare professionals courageously work in one of the most challenging professions in this country. The jobs performed by caseworkers have become more complicated as the challenges faced by families in the child welfare system have become increasingly complex. An enormous responsibility is placed in the hands of caseworkers as they are expected to perform multiple interventions and make judgments that have the power to change a child’s life. Their findings can determine whether a child is kept safe and protected or put at risk.

Child welfare systems throughout the country struggle to recruit, retain, and reward these dedicated professionals. In a survey of public agency administrators, APHSA found that the number-one issue in preventable turnover was that “workloads are too high, demanding, or both.” Systems, workers, and families face many barriers and constraints as they work to achieve safety, success, and positive outcomes. Economic and budgetary challenges, changes in the political landscape, complex social factors, and complicated demands can impact a child welfare system’s ability to contain workloads. Systems are struggling, workers are struggling, and families are struggling.

A supported, skilled, and stable workforce is crucial in child welfare practice given the tremendous impact caseworkers can have on the chances that vulnerable children and families have to overcome difficult life circumstances. Training, workload, risk of violence, supervision, and turnover present great challenges to providing the needed workforce supports in this field. According to the 2003 Government Accountability Office report on Title IV-B, in FY 2002 subpart 1 dollars were most frequently used to fund staff salaries, with almost half of those funds designated for the salaries of CPS social workers. The remaining funds went to support the work of social workers who provide ongoing case management, social work supervisors, and clerical support staff. Each of these individuals plays a key role in supporting the work that must be done to help children and their families. This is a critical allowable expenditure of these dollars, and states should be using these funds to support the very people that provide the services to protect children and support families.

To our knowledge, inappropriate use or irregularities in the expenditure of Title IV-B funds for administration has not been found. Therefore, we don’t see the need to limit the amount states can use to administer child welfare services. We can appreciate Congress’ desire to ensure that the majority of Title IV-B funds are used for services to children and families. However, it is important to sustain that work by ensuring that a strong infrastructure, supported by administrative dollars, is in place. If Congress does intend to restrict the use of funds related to administration costs, we urge the subcommittee to ensure that caseworkers who provide the actual services to children and families are not restricted.   

REAUTHORIZATION OF PROGRAM FOR MENTORING CHILDREN OF PRISONERS

Although the child welfare agencies do not directly administer this program, states do appreciate the support provided by these funds to children who are often served under child welfare. Any efforts to better distribute and track the funds to ensure the provision of effective services would be supported by states.

CONCLUSION

When children are at risk and come to the attention of the child welfare agency, the agency can provide services and supports to them and their families to mitigate their problems and prevent them from being removed from their families and communities. When children must come into care, the agency can address children and family needs expeditiously and enable a safe reunification or, where that is not possible, find an alternative permanent placement expeditiously, while assuring their well-being in the interim. When children are adopted or placed in the custody of a legal guardian, the agency can provide support services to avoid disruption or dissolution of the adoption or guardianship. Title IV-B allows states to use federal funds for many of these types of services.

States appreciate that Title IV-B is the most flexible source of dedicated federal child welfare funding. APHSA supports the reauthorization of the current $545 million in Title IV-B funding. We would like to see the entire amount reauthorized as mandatory, not discretionary, funding. Additionally, we urge the subcommittee to reject the proposed $500 million cut to the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) program as it is a key source of funding for child welfare services. A reduction of $500 million in that program would mitigate the $40 million in additional mandatory funds and would hinder the ability of states to fund child welfare services.

Over the past few years, federal funding for child welfare has remained flat while state and local governments have infused additional dollars to support this work. We believe that a strong federal/state partnership is essential to improving outcomes for children and families in the child welfare system. To that end, we urge the subcommittee to consider fundamental reform of child welfare funding – including reform of Title IV-E. We look forward to continuing to work with the subcommittee to ensure a federal financing construct that can help states meet the needs of the most vulnerable children and families we serve.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I’m happy to answer any questions you may have.