Statement of William Tower, President and Chief Executive Officer, American Family Rights Association, Fair Oaks, California

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

May 23, 2006

Honorable Lawmakers, Guardians of the United States Constitution,

The overwhelming majority of children and families needing the services of the child welfare system enter through child protection services (CPS).

The current system of child protection services is seriously flawed:

• An army of individuals, primarily from the psychiatric professions.
• Two out of three reports are “unfounded” raising the possibility that it might be inappropriate to investigate them in the first place.
• Forty percent of the indicated reports are closed the same day they are indicated, without families receiving services to resolve their problems beyond the investigation itself.

A comprehensive, integrated system of child welfare services that emphasizes prevention and early Intervention requires a different approach to child protection. As presently constructed, The Child protection system cannot support the values and principles described in the administration of child and family services Framework. This is due in part that they are not family- centered.

Fortunately, the Congress has rightfully gone on record in favor of reform and is currently examining the option of receiving information about the system which gives CPS agencies the flexibility to respond to less serious cases of child neglect with

“The Waiver program” that Los Angeles, California and several other states have begun to request and have been granted in order to make an assessment of family needs and the provision of services, while continuing to respond to cases of child abuse, and with this it provides in home services to the family, services that were not available under the guidelines and federal funding as set forth in title 4-E of the Social Security Act.

Family Support Services:

The existing system has the same services that the Department has recommended typically every parent. They are all sent for psychiatric evaluations, counseling, Parenting classes and anger management classes; this is the routine set of services that the parents and children receive.  Frequently, one adult family member, designated as a potential abuser, is forced out of the home as part of the service plan.

What needs to be done is that appropriate and meaningful services need to be put in place. Not the same standard can be used in all cases due to differing issues with each family. I.e.: (if the children were removed due to unstable housing than counseling, psychiatric evaluations, parenting classes and anger management classes are not appropriate.) Help with the rent would be a more appropriate approach and maybe funding for some education. In this manner, the parents would be able to make a better living and get back on their feet again. However there is no funding in the budgets for this. There is funding for counseling, psychiatric evaluations, parenting classes and anger management classes after removal of the children, nothing in the budget exists for family preservation. Even with this there is no real funding for family services, the funding is earmarked for children services not family services. Once again there is a fault in the funding scheme. 

The solution to Family Support Services is the Waiver program:

• With the waiver the funds can be used prior to removal and hence preservation of the family unit.
• As demonstrated by other states this will require close Congressional oversight. This would prevent the funding from being abused and funding streams have a check and balance system 

Brief history of Reasonable Efforts

In 1980, Congress passed the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act.  The Adoption Assistance Act requires, in part, that states receiving federal monies under the Act make "reasonable efforts" to prevent the removal of children from their homes and, whenever possible, to reunify children placed in foster care with their families. 

In 1997, Congress passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), which modifies the reasonable efforts requirement by allowing exceptions to the requirement in certain situations and by using the same term - reasonable effort. "Reasonable efforts" has been one of the most hotly debated and confusing issues in the field of child welfare over the past three decades.

When Reasonable Efforts Are Required

Federal law requires State agencies to demonstrate that reasonable efforts have been made to provide assistance and services to prevent the unnecessary removal of a child from his or her home, and make it possible for a child who has been placed in out-of-home care to be reunified with his or her family.

Under the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA), while reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify families are still required, the child's health, safety and the Childs best interest, constitute the paramount concern in determining reasonable efforts to be made.

However, Reasonable Efforts has been reduced to a boilerplate statement on the court orders that are typed by the very agency required to perform these services. This was the check and balance that Congress intended the Court to use in certifying that the agency had performed there duties. However this has failed in that there are no protections to the families and no consequences’ or minimal consequences’, for the agency’s failure to fulfill this requirement

Part of the problem is that, The Adoption Assistance Act contains no detailed definition of "reasonable efforts." The Act makes clear, however, that reasonable efforts to prevent placement or to reunify a family must be made in each case, for every child receiving federally funded foster care maintenance payments under Title IV-E of the Social Security act.

The question for this Committee

The question that needs to be asked – and answered, is what are the incentive issues and focus that drives the foster care system and best serves our Nation’s children.

The Federal Government gives incentives for the states to get children out of foster care by adoption to others ($6000 each) without any penalty or setoff for the number of new children entering the system.

"What incentive does the Federal Government give the states to reunify the families?”Or for that matter prevent them from coming into the foster care system in the first place?

If the Federal Government gave incentives to the states for every child that went home more children would go home instead of to adoption wouldn't they??

The states consistently say "we don't get money for services from the Federal Government unless the children are in custody” so little effort to prevent removal is made -unless it's free, or inexpensive.  Also I've noticed an incredible number of parents are "cured" as soon as the Federal Money runs out.

If the states had X number of dollars per child or "unlimited cash" for 12 months but then the states had to foot the bill (or a large part of the bill) for the time after 12 months until adoption is completed, the states would be less eager to let children "hang out"/”languish” in long term foster care.

The Federal Government does not pay money for children (families) receiving services until a court establishes “jeopardy/jurisdiction”.  What incentive do the states have to offer (pay for) services prior to jeopardy?

 And because adoption and reunification can occur at the same time the states tend to use the "before jeopardy" time to locate an adoptive placement (they get paid for this).  In cases where a child is placed in a pre-adoptive foster care home, lauded as concurrent placement, it creates an environment where foster homes have a very specific interest in doing everything they can to make sure the child stays with them as opposed to reunifying with their biological families.  Another result is that it allows the foster home to “try out” the family situation to see if the child “fits in” as though a child is some kind of pet to be adopted or rejected. 

If the States put as much effort into families the first 120 days as they do adoption assistance, there would likely be many families that would be "cured" within 120 days and jeopardy findings would not be necessary.   

If the Federal Government gave "incentives" for family placements equal or similar to adoptive placements perhaps the states would be more inclined to place with relatives.  States will argue they do just that but the numbers just don’t bear it out. 

In short the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS RESPONSIBLE, the "incentives" are all directed toward "jeopardy" and adoption. 

What we need are "incentives" for reunification efforts. 

If the Federal Government paid, as example, 100% (or even 110%) of family service costs prior to a jeopardy finding, and only 80% after the finding the states would be a little slower about bringing petitions to the court before working with the families to resolve the state's concerns.

It is paramount that the Office of Inspector General conducts its own independent investigation, as child protection issues are too complex and politically sensitive to be done locally.  Even our Washington delegation has been ineffective over the years in realistically addressing numerous child protective and foster care agency complaints received from their constituents, leaving the public vulnerable to civil rights abuses by the State.

Congress had mandated a new pilot review program to be developed as a result of the Administration for Children and Families flagrant failure to prevent the states from ignoring their responsibilities.  Their lack of properly policing child protective and foster care agencies has resulted in an unnecessary increase in the number of children in foster care while placing only a small number in relative care.  This is also contrary to Congressional mandates to decrease the number of children in foster care by 10%/annum. 

An independent investigation of the states child protective and foster care agencies should uncover the bureaucratic failures and violations of law that has led up to the large volume of complaints by families.  For example, caseworkers break laws, rules and regulations because their supervisors wrongfully guide their actions.  Program Administrators take orders from the Director of child protection services, who in turn answers to a Commissioner appointed by our Governor’s.  Often Judges grant almost anything social services and child protective workers may request of the court.  Especially at the initial hearing. This unfortunately all takes place under the laws of Confidentiality.   

This bureaucracy is forever in a high state of flux.  Caseworkers, Assistant Attorney Generals, District Attorneys, Commissioners, Governors and all employees in between, are forever flowing through the system faster than they can adequately move up an effective learning curve.  This learning curve, which has proven to be longer than the average turnover time of most positions, results in incompetence that leads to violations of well-founded law. The organizational culture takes on a course of its own, contrary to the intent of our Federal and State lawmakers.  The majority of human and financial resources are eaten up with actives that have nothing to do with reasonable efforts or Family perseveration, but more to do with the daily task of managing chaos and cover-ups within a highly dysfunctional organization.

Among the recommendations:

• Require a Citizen Commission be set up to investigate the issues and hear the complaints of the families and citizens of the States.
• Require that said committee be comprised of knowledgeable citizens and not staffed with members of the agencies who are perpetuating the wrongs being brought to congress’ attention.
• Pass along the findings of this commission to Congress as to inform Congress members of the findings and problems found within the system.
• Increase the use the waiver program with strict Congressional oversight. 
• Enact enforcement of the Reasonable Efforts requirement of Pl 96-272.
• Separate the Ombudsman’s position from the Health and Human Services control and give it the autonomy and teeth necessary to properly investigate and rectify abuses from the child protective system, including lifting the confidentiality blanket that allows the system to run rampant over the rights of the very families the system is supposed to be helping.

I would like to challenge this Congress to set aside the time required to hear from the parents that would be able to make it to Washington, and hear from your constituent’s , what the system is really like and how it performs. To see how this system impacts the families it touches and how the funding, under this bill works,  from the families point of view in order to get a true measure of what is going on here.