Statement of Hon. Kathleen A. Kearney, Secretary,
Florida Department of Children and Families

Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Human Resources
of the House Committee on Ways and Means

Hearing on the Promoting Safe and Stables Families Program

May 10, 2001

 Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and members of the Human Resources Subcommittee. My name is Judge Kathleen A. Kearney. In January 1999 I elected senior judge status to serve as the Secretary of the Florida Department of Children and Families for Governor Jeb Bush. Prior to serving in this capacity, I served as a juvenile dependency court judge for ten and one-half (10 ½) years for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. I have served as a member of the Florida Dependency Court Improvement Program Committee for six (6) years and chaired the program from 1996 until 1999. It is a pleasure to be asked to testify before this Subcommittee about the achievements of Florida's Court Improvement Program, and the continuing need of the State judiciary for the valuable services provided by this initiative. I would also like to speak in strong support of reauthorization and increased funding for child welfare services under the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program, Title IV-B, Subpart 2, of the Social Security Act.

First of all, I want to state unequivocally that the success and momentum of Florida's Dependency Court Improvement Project could not have been realized without the commitment of federal grant funding in the amount of $370,000 annually. Funding has been critical to Florida's success in developing and implementing performance standards for child welfare staff and dependency judges. This funding has aided Florida in designing secure permanent and safe outcomes for children in out-of-home care.

Overview of Florida's Dependency Court Improvement Program (DCIP)

The congressional charge, One Year to Permanency calls upon judicial leadership to collaborate with child protection professionals and construct meaningful court reform practices. This project has been deliberately crafted to challenge assumptions about Florida's child protection system by analyzing hard data and using the facts to engage all stakeholders in the need for change.

The Legal Affairs and Education Division of the Office of the State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of Florida, staffs and manages the Court Improvement Program grant. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court implemented the Dependency Court Improvement Committee, comprised of judges and representative stakeholders, in 1995 with the appointment of its members. The Committee was charged with oversight of the Dependency Court Improvement Program (hereinafter DCIP) and tasked to collect data on the existing juvenile dependency system, analyze the findings, and suggest necessary improvements to Florida statutes and court rules.

In 1995-1996, DCIP staff observed and documented court proceedings; reviewed case files of 1,800 children in out of home care; and interviewed over 500 stakeholders. The data from these observations and interviews was collated and analyzed by workgroups under the auspices of the DCIP oversight committee. The findings were presented at the first annual Dependency Court Summit in 1997 to three hundred (300) invited participants. As a result of this collaborative Summit, the DCIP Committee developed a reform plan for improvement of Florida's child protection system. Proposed statutory changes were presented to the Florida Legislature by DCIP leadership for consideration and passage during the 1998 legislative session. The DCIP Committee recommendations were adopted in total by the Florida Legislature wherein Florida's two main child protection statutes were combined into a single chapter that, in turn, included the federally required mandates of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.

Subsequent DCIP Summits were convened annually to train all stakeholders on the implementation of ASFA and the DCIP reform plan. Over 1200 judges and child welfare professionals attended the fourth annual Summit, held in August 2000, which was co-sponsored by the Florida Department of Children and Families. DCIP court liaisons have been established in each of the 20 judicial circuits of Florida to monitor court improvement activities throughout the state and share best practices. Each judicial circuit developed an inter-disciplinary plan for implementation of these best practices at the annual Summit. Local DCIP meetings are held monthly in each judicial circuit to track progress made on the local plans and provide a forum for problem-solving and open communication between all stakeholders at the local level.

The 2001 DCIP Summit is scheduled for August 29-31, 2001 in Orlando with anticipated attendance of 1,600 participants. Over thirty workshops are planned covering a plethora of legal, medical, psychosocial, and clinical issues inherent in the field of child protection. The challenges dependency court judges face are unparalleled in other divisions of the court system. These formidable challenges include: the complexity of the underlying psychosocial dynamics present in all cases appearing before the court; major limitations on the availability of resources to solve these societal problems; the unique needs of parents and their children; and the sorely needed coordination of many professionals who share responsibilities in the outcome of any single case. It is imperative that Congress continue to assist the Courts in bringing all child protection professionals together to develop and implement strategies to carry out the requirements of state and federal law in the protection of children.

Additional Accomplishments of Florida's Dependency Court Improvement Initiative:

2001-2002 Court Improvement Initiatives

In Florida, the Dependency Court Improvement Project has facilitated or is currently engaged in the following projects in collaboration with the Supreme Court of Florida's Family Courts Steering Committee, the Guardian Ad Litem Management Subcommittee, the Department of Children and Families, and the Judicial Management Council of the Supreme Court:

With sweeping changes to our child protection statutes, resulting in increased review of cases by judges, the production of a guidebook is essential. DCIP has already provided checklists for judges to use at each stage of a dependency case. These checklists will serve as the framework for the bench book. A compliment of relevant case law and tips from experienced juvenile judges will be included. This project will be ready for distribution by the end of this year.

The initial DCIP assessment, which concluded in 1997, provided a comprehensive data-based analysis of dependency cases from the initial stage of a proceeding when the child and family is first involved with the Court to the final permanency outcome at the trial court level. Anecdotal evidence received from DCIP stakeholders suggested the need for in-depth study of the appellate court process and its impact on children when permanency decisions depend on the response time of the appellate court either affirming or overruling the trial court's decision.

DCIP staff undertook a comprehensive evaluation of the role and function of Foster Care Review Board Programs (FCRB) in 1999 at the request of the Florida House of Representatives. Although volunteer review panels, in lieu of judicial review, operate in only ten (10) of Florida's sixty-seven (67) counties, their reported variations in administration and operation prompted the study. Evaluation findings revealed the need for the development of performance standards to establish consistency in volunteer training for this quasi-judicial function. Standards have been developed and will be implemented later this year.

The 2000 Florida Legislature authorized the state court system to use Family Court Trust funds to conduct an assessment of Florida's delinquency court system. The study is to be modeled after the dependency court improvement assessment because of that program's recognized success. The Florida Supreme Court has renamed the Dependency Court Improvement Program the "Children's Court Improvement Program" and has appointed an oversight Committee. The Committee is charged with guiding this study which includes detailed analysis of court files, structured court observation, surveys and interviews of key stakeholders. The assessment is expected to conclude by fall of 2001.

Additional Court Improvement Activities

1. Convening court improvement liaisons from every judicial circuit to monitor the statewide implementation of local initiatives; and providing a forum for information sharing.

2. Providing staff support to the Supreme Court Children's Court Improvement Committee, charged with the court-related oversight of children involved with the dependency, delinquency, and children-in-need-of-services systems.

3. Publishing a quarterly bulletin for distribution statewide to all dependency court stakeholders featuring court improvement innovations.

4. Managing a Web site and a Web Conferencing System for various groups to encourage information sharing and collaboration among child protection professionals.

5. Providing on-going technical assistance to the Guardian Ad Litem Program volunteers with an automated case and volunteer management system, revisions to the volunteer training manual, and development of an accompanying instructor' guide.

6. Distributing bi-monthly packets for chief judges and dependency court judges to keep the courts updated on current child protection issues.

Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program

With the time I have left, I would like to briefly touch on Florida's utilization of Title IV-B, Part 2, child welfare services funding. In Florida, Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program funding is currently used to provide a wide array of services designed to:

Major services currently funded under IV-B include an array of in-home counseling, case management, and support services. As a result of this funding, success rates in several major IV-B programs, (defined as meaning no abuse, neglect or threatened harm at case closure) climbed to 98 percent in the year 2000. Through March 2000, several major providers improved their performance for no re-abuse during the one-year follow-up by 85 to 90 percent of their caseloads.

We are very proud to report that the Neighborhood Partnership for Child Protection Program is currently being expanded through the use of IV-B funds. This program is a community partnership located in Jacksonville, Florida and funded with the help of the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, which has demonstrated the effectiveness of neighborhood and family involvement in keeping children safe. The premise of the Neighborhood Partnership is that protecting children is the collective responsibility of the community - including neighbors, area businesses, churches, schools, other agencies and "grass roots" groups. This project, with support from the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, and a State investment of $3 million from the federal Safe and Stable Families Grant, is in the process of replication in eleven (11) sites, as the first phase of statewide implementation.

The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 is the most important federal child welfare legislation since the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980. The importance of Title IV-B support for the goals and requirements of ASFA cannot be overemphasized. A recent study conducted by the Department of Children and Families, in partnership with the Child Welfare Institute, established a direct correlation between compliance with critical ASFA requirements and the amount of time a child remains in an out-of-home placement.

During the summer of 2000, Governor Jeb Bush and the Department identified the need to address the prolonged length of stay of Florida's children in foster care. Dependent children remain in care too long, exceeding the 12-month timeframe set forth in Florida law. A quality improvement team was deployed to analyze the root causes of this problem and recommend countermeasures for improvement. Team representatives were selected from the Family Safety Program Office staff and from experienced frontline workers from Tampa, Orlando, Ft. Lauderdale and Miami. These geographic areas were chosen because combined they contain more than 50% of the state's dependent children in care. We charged the team with completing a Quality Improvement and Control (QIC) Story® to address this critical problem. As a point of comparison, the team requested the help of four districts with the best statewide performance in length of stay. Critical ASFA items were detailed along state data reports. The data analysis clearly indicates that there is a strong relationship between length of stay in care and compliance with critical items in the ASFA review: the better a district performed on the ASFA requirements, the shorter the length of stay.

The only funds made available for States to implement the intent of ASFA are the Title IV-B, Part 2, funds under this Program, which were designated for time-limited reunification and adoption promotion and support services. Florida uses this funding source and can only report that more funds are needed to fully implement the intent of ASFA. Without adequate funds to fully implement the intent of ASFA permanency goals, hard-to-place children will languish in the system.

The intent of ASFA is to place each child in a permanent, safe, and stable home within sixty days of termination of parental rights. While Florida is meeting the federal adoption placement outcome, we still have too many children awaiting placement post-termination of parental rights. Additional funding is needed to support recruitment efforts and other services essential to maintain placements once they are made.

Current federal regulations establish inflexible grant reporting requirements for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Grant. Although the federal law does not require it, the regulations require that States spend a minimum of twenty percent (20 %) in each of four (4) service categories: Family Preservation, Community Based Family Support, Time-Limited Family Reunification, and Adoption Promotion and Support Services. This does not allow States any discretion to commit IV-B services funding to state-specific problems. States need funding flexibility in order to serve children and families in the best possible ways. When Title IV-E is taken into consideration, the vast majority of federal funding is dedicated to removal and out-of-home care. States need the ability to transfer IV-E funds to IV-B in order to increase the range of services for families in crisis, for expediting reunification, and for substance abuse, mental health and domestic violence services found in so many of the families which come into contact with the child welfare system.

Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments to you on these very important initiatives. All of Florida commends you for your continued efforts to protect the most vulnerable among us - our nation's children.

EXHIBIT 1

A Child's Journey Through the Child Protection System

An Analysis of Multiple Funding Streams

Child Protection Action Taken Revenue Source
1. Neighbor calls hotline with concerns about Jason, a newborn. Mother has different men coming and going from apartment. There is loud music at night. Mom is young and immature. Hotline refers caller to Healthy Families.
  •  State Tobacco Settlement

  • Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act

  • Community Based Family Resource Grants

  • Promoting Safe and Stable Families (Family Support)

2.  Hotline receives another call, months later, from relative who is concerned that Jason's mom is using drugs and neglecting Jason. Investigation is initiated.
  • Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)

  • Funded and allocated to all sources by Random Moment Sampling or time study methodology (IV-E Admin. Claim).

3.  Some neglect is found, and intensive in-home services are put in place.
  • Social Services Block Grant

  • General Revenue-Maintenance of Effort (TANF)

  • General Revenue, Tobacco Settlement

  • Promoting Safe and Stable Families (Family Preservation)

4.  Substance abuse assessment and treatment are arranged.
  • TANF funding through Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health

  • General Revenue

  • Substance Abuse Block Grant

  •  Medicaid

5.  Mom stops treatment and home situation deteriorates. Jason is removed and placed in emergency shelter
  • Board Payments
  • Protective investigator and services counselor working the case.
  • Child Welfare Legal Services.
  • Title IV-E, Title IV-B, subpart 1, Social Services Block Grant and Title IV-A/Emergency Assistance (the fund source driven by child's eligibility).
  • Funded and allocated to all sources by Random Moment Sampling or time study methodology
  • Title IV-E General Revenue, Tobacco Settlement and Social Services Block Grant
 6.  Jason and family receive special Comprehensive Assessment.
  • Medicaid
7.  Parent referred for substance abuse treatment and mental health services
  • TANF funding through Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health
  • General Revenue
  • Substance Abuse Block Grant
  • Medicaid

 

8.  Jason placed in foster care, and receives ongoing counseling services.
  • Foster care counselor
  • Licensure activities
  • Board and care payments to the foster parent
  • Child Welfare Legal Services
  • Funded and allocated to all sources by Random Moment Sampling or time study methodology
  • Funded and allocated to all sources by Random Moment Sampling or time study methodology
  • Title IV-E, IV-B, subpart 1, General Revenue, Tobacco Settlement, Social Services Block Grant, Title IV-A/Emergency Assistance
  • Title IV-E, General Revenue and Social Services Block Grant
9.  Mom again quits treatment, fails to meet terms of case plan. Termination of parental rights proceeds.
  • Adoption counselor
  • Child Welfare Legal Services
  • Funded and allocated to all sources by Random Moment Sampling or time study methodology.
  • Title IV-E, General Revenue, Tobacco Settlement and Social Services Block Grant.
10.  Placement and supervision of Jason in an adoptive home. Adoption finalized.
  • Adoption Counselor
  • Supportive services to the adoptive parent
  • Maintenance Adoption Subsidy

 

  • Funded and allocated to all sources by Random Moment Sampling or time study methodology.
  • Promoting Safe and Stable Families (Adoption Support)
  • Title IV-E, General Revenue

Pie Chart of Child Protection Sources of Funding