[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IMPROVED MONITORING OF VULNERABLE CHILDREN
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 19, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-29
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
92-985 WASHINGTON : 2004
_____________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
BILL THOMAS, California, Chairman
PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut ROBERT T. MATSUI, California
AMO HOUGHTON, New York SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
WALLY HERGER, California BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington
DAVE CAMP, Michigan GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin
JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota JOHN LEWIS, Georgia
JIM NUSSLE, Iowa RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
SAM JOHNSON, Texas MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York
JENNIFER DUNN, Washington WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
MAC COLLINS, Georgia JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio XAVIER BECERRA, California
PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
JERRY WELLER, Illinois MAX SANDLIN, Texas
KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio
SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado
RON LEWIS, Kentucky
MARK FOLEY, Florida
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin
ERIC CANTOR, Virginia
Allison H. Giles, Chief of Staff
Janice Mays, Minority Chief Counsel
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
WALLY HERGER, California, Chairman
NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
DAVE CAMP, Michigan JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington
PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
RON LEWIS, Kentucky
ERIC CANTOR, Virginia
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.
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Advisories announcing the hearing................................ 2
WITNESSES
U.S. General Accounting Office, Cornelia M. Ashby, Director,
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues............... 10
______
Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago, Fred H.
Wulczyn........................................................ 61
Child Welfare League of America, Robert McKeagney................ 37
Community College Foundation, David R. Springett................. 49
DeLay, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas, and House Majority Leader............................... 58
Florida Department of Children and Families, Michael A. Watkins.. 44
Norfolk Department of Human Services, Jill Baker................. 30
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Acevedo-Vila, Hon. Anibal, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, statement......................... 83
Advocates for Children in Therapy, Loveland, CO, Larry W. Sarner
and Jean Mercer, statement..................................... 84
Baff, Mark C., Sandata Technologies, Inc., Port Washington, NY,
letter......................................................... 86
Cardoza, Hon. Dennis A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, statement................................. 87
Covenant House of New Jersey, Newark, NJ, statement.............. 88
Family Alliance to Stop Abuse and Neglect, Teaneck, NJ, statement 90
Gladwell, Lisa E., River Edge, NJ, letter........................ 92
Hanson, Greg S., and Lisa R. Watkins, Hiawatha, IA, statement.... 93
Harris, Barbara, Rocky Ridge, MD, statement...................... 98
Helson, Kandy, Racine, WI, statement............................. 99
Indiana Civil Rights Council, Whitestown, IN, Torm L. Howse,
letter......................................................... 100
Jones, E. Pamela, In the Spirit of the Children, Inc., New York,
NY, statement.................................................. 101
Kroll, Joe, North American Council on Adoptable Children, Saint
Paul, MN, statement............................................ 102
Mercer, Jean, Advocates for Children in Therapy, Loveland, CO,
statement...................................................... 84
North American Council on Adoptable Children, Saint Paul, MN, Joe
Kroll, statement............................................... 102
Sandata Technologies, Inc., Port Washington, NY, Stephen A.
Silverstein and Mark C. Baff, letter........................... 86
Sarner, Larry W., Advocates for Children in Therapy, Loveland,
CO, statement.................................................. 84
Silverstein, Stephen A., Sandata Technologies, Inc., Port
Washington, NY, letter......................................... 86
Sowles, Darlene G., Pueblo, CO, statement........................ 106
In the Spirit of the Children, Inc., New York, NY, E. Pamela
Jones, statement............................................... 101
Wardell, Jody, Enon, OH, statement............................... 107
Watkins, Lisa R., and Greg S. Hanson, Hiawatha, IA, statement.... 93
IMPROVED MONITORING OF VULNERABLE CHILDREN
----------
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2003
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Subcommittee on Human Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m., in
room B-318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Wally Herger
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
[The advisory and the revised advisory announcing the
hearing follow:]
ADVISORY
FROM THE
COMMITTEE
ON WAYS
AND
MEANS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
CONTACT: (202) 225-1025
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 06, 2003
HR-6
Herger Announces Hearing on Improved Monitoring of Vulnerable Children
Congressman Wally Herger (R-CA), Chairman, Subcommittee on Human
Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the
Subcommittee will hold a hearing in an effort to improve the monitoring
of vulnerable children. The hearing will take place on Thursday,
November 13, 2003, in room B-318 Rayburn House Office Building,
beginning at 10:00 a.m.
In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, oral
testimony at this hearing will be from invited witnesses only.
Witnesses will include Federal, State, and local officials and outside
experts familiar with ongoing efforts to monitor and collect
information on children in foster care and adoptive settings. However,
any individual or organization not scheduled for an oral appearance may
submit a written statement for consideration by the Committee and for
inclusion in the printed record of the hearing.
BACKGROUND:
The Federal Government provides approximately $7 billion to the
States to operate foster care and adoption assistance programs. As a
condition of receiving these funds, States must collect and report data
on children in their care. The Subcommittee held a hearing on November
6, 2003, to receive testimony about a recent New Jersey caseinvolving
four boys who were apparently starved while in the care of their
adoptive parents--even as caseworkers made numerous visits to the
home--and has raised questions about the effectiveness ofcurrent
monitoring. This case has highlighted gaps in current monitoring and
data reporting, including for children whose foster and adoptive
parents received Federal funds or other services and supports.
``We have learned that, absent basic information on the well being
of children, horrific situations--like the neglect of the four Jackson
boys--can occur. It is critical that child welfare agencies are capable
of gathering and using the necessary information in order to ensure the
safety of children,'' said Herger. ``This hearing is another step
towards making sure other children do not suffer similar fates.''
FOCUS OF THE HEARING:
The hearing will focus on: (1) what data States collect to monitor
the care and supervision of children in foster care and children for
whom adoption subsidies are paid; (2) how that data is used today; and
(3) what additional data or applications of these data might better
ensure the safety, permanency, and well-being of children.
DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:
Please Note: Due to the change in House mail policy, any person or
organization wishing to submit a written statement for the printed
record of the hearing should send it electronically to
[email protected], along with a fax copy to
(202) 225-2610, by the close of business, Friday, November 28, 2003.
Those filing written statements who wish to have their statements
distributed to the press and interested public at the hearing should
deliver their 200 copies to the new Congressional Courier Acceptance
Site at the location of 2nd and D Streets, N.E., at least 48 hours
prior to the hearing date. Please ensure that you have the address of
the Subcommittee on Human Resources, room B-317 Rayburn House Office
Building, on your package, and contact the staff of the Subcommittee at
(202) 225-1025 of its impending arrival. Due to new House mailing
procedures, please avoid using mail couriers such as the U.S. Postal
Service, UPS, and FedEx. When a couriered item arrives at this
facility, it will be opened, screened and then delivered to the
Subcommittee office, within one of the following time frames: (1)
expected or confirmed deliveries will be delivered in approximately 2
to 3 hours, or (2) unexpected items, or items not approved by the
Subcommittee office, will be delivered the morning of the next business
day. The U.S. Capitol Police will refuse all non-governmental courier
deliveries to all House Office Buildings.
FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS:
Each statement presented for printing to the Committee by a
witness, any written statement or exhibit submitted for the printed
record or any written comments in response to a request for written
comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any statement or
exhibit 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. Due to the change in House mail policy, all statements and any
accompanying exhibits for printing must be submitted electronically to
[email protected], along with a fax copy to
(202) 225-2610, in WordPerfect or MS Word format and MUST NOT exceed a
total of 10 pages including attachments. Witnesses are advised that the
Committee will rely 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. Any statements must include a list of all clients, persons, or
organizations on whose behalf the witness appears. A supplemental sheet
must accompany each statement listing the name, company, address,
telephone and fax numbers of each witness.
Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on
the World Wide Web at http://waysandmeans.house.gov.
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.
* * * CHANGE IN DATE AND TIME * * *
ADVISORY
FROM THE
COMMITTEE
ON WAYS
AND
MEANS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
CONTACT: (202) 225-1025
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 10, 2003
HR-6-Revised
Change in Date and Time for Hearing on Improved Monitoring of
Vulnerable Children
Congressman Wally Herger (R-CA), Chairman, Subcommittee on Human
Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the
Subcommittee hearing to examine efforts to improve monitoring of
vulnerable children, previously scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on Thursday,
November 13, 2003, in room B-318 Rayburn House Office Building, will
now take place on Wednesday, November 19, 2003, at 2:00 p.m.
Witnesses who are scheduled to appear before the Committee are
required to deliver their testimony to the to the new Congressional
Courier Acceptance Site, at the location of 2nd and D Streets, N.E., no
later than 5:00 p.m., Monday, November 17, 2003. Please ensure the
address of the Subcommittee office, room B-317 Rayburn House Office
Building, is included. Refer to the Human Resources Advisory No. HR-6
for more details.
WRITTEN STATEMENTS IN LIEU OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE:
Please Note: Due to the change in House mail policy, any person or
organization that is not scheduled to appear before the Committee and
wishes to submit a written statement for the printed record of the
hearing should send it electronically to
[email protected], along with a fax copy to
(202) 225-2610, by the close of business, Wednesday, December 3, 2003.
All other details for the hearing remain the same. (See Human
Resources Advisory No. HR-6, dated November 6, 2003.)
FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS:
Each statement presented for printing to the Committee by a
witness, any written statement or exhibit submitted for the printed
record or any written comments in response to a request for written
comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any statement or
exhibit 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. Due to the change in House mail policy, all statements and any
accompanying exhibits for printing must be submitted electronically to
[email protected], along with a fax copy to
(202) 225-2610, in WordPerfect or MS Word format and MUST NOT exceed a
total of 10 pages including attachments. Witnesses are advised that the
Committee will rely 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. Any statements must include a list of all clients, persons, or
organizations on whose behalf the witness appears. A supplemental sheet
must accompany each statement listing the name, company, address,
telephone and fax numbers of each witness.
Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on
the World Wide Web at http://waysandmeans.house.gov.
Chairman HERGER. Good afternoon. I would like to welcome
our guests here with us today. Today's hearing follows our
hearing on November 6th that reviewed the New Jersey child
welfare tragedy, in which four boys suffered from apparent
starvation while under the care of their adoptive parents.
Thankfully, we have received some good news about the health of
these boys. I am very pleased to report that all four children
are gaining weight and improving in health due to the care they
have received since being removed from their adoptive home.
Aside from this silver lining, the hearing allowed us to
gain greater insight into the circumstances of that horrific
situation. We continue to be troubled by the fact that the
child welfare system failed to notice the boys' conditions for
so long, despite repeated visits to the home. Our next step is
to make a more informed assessment of how the system failed to
protect the four Jackson boys. As we will discuss today, we
will use this case and others as background when considering
whether changes are needed to prevent the reoccurrence of such
awful events.
Today's hearing will review seemingly routine but critical
questions about the information available to States regarding
children in their care. Our questions will be simple but
critical. What do we know about the safety and well-being of
children in foster care? What do caseworkers and their
supervisors do with that information? Should more information
be collected and used to ensure that children are being
protected? There are too many cases of children who are lost,
abused, or sometimes killed while in States' care, and this has
prompted our review. In too many places, and in too many
States, we continue to see evidence that these systems,
designed to monitor the well-being of children, fail to ensure
that children are in a safe environment. In the case of the
Jackson boys, thousands of taxpayer dollars were provided for
the care of youngsters who needed medical attention. Yet, for
years, such medical attention was not provided; why?
In other cases, such as in the Rilya Wilson case in
Florida, a child disappeared--she was more or less lost without
a trace. Today, sadly, she is now presumed dead. It is
unfortunate that the post office does a better job tracking
packages than some States have done monitoring children. As I
have stated before, our goal is to ask what happened in the New
Jersey case and to use the answers we get to better protect
children in the future. Today's hearing marks a continuation of
that pursuit, which will require more work in the weeks ahead.
We have received many comments from concerned parents and
individuals involved in the child welfare system around the
country--including my district in California. I want to
encourage people to be in touch with us as we conduct our
review. The best way is to follow the guidelines for the
submission of testimony for the record, as outlined in our
hearing advisory. That way, people's stories will be included
in the files. These files are kept by the Committee, and also
will be available to policymakers in the future. We greatly
appreciate all the interest and feedback that we have gotten
from so many people. I would also like to thank my Democratic
colleague, Mr. Cardin, for his outstanding and continued
support of our efforts. Once again, we come here today with no
Republican or Democrat witnesses before us. Rather, we are here
today to review efforts in all States to monitor foster and
adoptive children.
Joining us today are representatives of the U.S. General
Accounting Office (GAO), the State of Florida, national child
welfare advocates, and experts in child welfare data
management, the lifeblood of any effective child welfare
program. We are pleased to have a caseworker with us to provide
a first-hand perspective on these issues, as well as a witness
who has piloted technology to help workers better monitor, and
thus better protect, children's well-being. We are also pleased
to welcome the distinguished Majority Leader, Mr. DeLay, who
has a longstanding interest in these issues. Without objection,
each Member will have the opportunity to submit a written
statement and have it included in the record at this point. Mr.
Cardin, would you like to make an opening statement?
[The opening statement of Chairman Herger follows:]
Opening Statement of the Honorable Wally Herger, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Human Resources, and a Representative in Congress from the State of
California
Today's hearing follows our hearing on November 6 that reviewed the
New Jersey child welfare tragedy in which four boys suffered from
apparent starvation while under the care of their adoptive parents.
Thankfully, we've received some good news about the health of these
boys. I'm very pleased to report all four children are gaining weight
and improving in health due to the care they have received since being
removed from their adoptive home.
Aside from this silver living, the hearing allowed us to gain
greater insights into the circumstances of that horrific situation. We
continue to be troubled by the fact that the child welfare system
failed to notice the boys' conditions for so long despite repeated
visits to the home. Our next step is to make a more informed assessment
of how the system failed to protect the four Jackson boys. And as we
will discuss today, we will use this case and others as background when
considering whether changes are needed to prevent a recurrence of such
awful events.
Today's hearing will review seemingly routine but critical
questions about the information available to States regarding children
in their care. Our questions will be simple, but critical. What do we
know about the safety and well being of children in foster care? What
do caseworkers and their supervisors do with that information? And
should more information be collected and used to ensure that children
are being protected?
There are too many cases of children who are lost, abused, or
sometimes killed while in States' care and this has prompted our
review. In too many places, and in too many States, we continue to see
evidence that these systems--designed to monitor the well being of
children--fail to ensure that children are in a safe environment. In
the case of the Jackson boys, thousands of taxpayer dollars were
provided for the care of youngsters who needed medical attention. Yet
for years, such medical attention was not provided. Why?
In other cases, such as in the Rilya Wilson case in Florida, a
child disappeared--was more or less lost without a trace. Today, sadly,
she is now presumed dead. It is unfortunate that the Post Office does a
better job tracking packages than some States have done monitoring
children.
As I have stated before, our goal is to ask what happened in the
New Jersey case, and to use the answers we get to better protect
children in the future. Today's hearing marks a continuation of that
pursuit, which will require more work in the weeks ahead. We have
received many comments from concerned parents and individuals involved
in the child welfare system around the country, including my district
in California. I want to encourage people to be in touch with us as we
conduct our review. The best way is to follow the guidelines for
submission of testimony for the record as outlined in our hearing
advisory. That way, people's stories will be included in the files.
These files are kept by the committee and also will be available to
policymakers in the future. We greatly appreciate all the interest and
feedback that we have gotten from so many people.
I also would like to thank my Democrat colleague, Mr. Cardin for
his outstanding and continued support of our efforts. Once again, we
come here today with no Republican or Democrat witnesses before us.
Rather, we are here today to review efforts in all States to monitor
foster and adoptive children.
Joining us today are representatives of the U.S. General Accounting
Office, the State of Florida, national child welfare advocates, and
experts in child welfare data management--the lifeblood of any
effective child welfare program. We are pleased to have a caseworker
with us to provide a first-hand perspective on these issues, as well as
a witness who has piloted technology to help workers better monitor and
thus protect child well being.
We also are pleased to welcome the distinguished Majority Leader,
Mr. DeLay who has a longstanding interest in these issues.
Mr. CARDIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of
the Democratic Members, we accept your leadership here to work
together as Democrats and Republicans, as Members of Congress,
to deal with America's most vulnerable children. We agree with
you that the current monitoring system needs to be improved. We
look forward to the witnesses' testimony, so that we can
develop a common strategy to better monitor the children that
are in our system.
Let me just make a few observations, if I may. About 10
years ago, we developed a plan where we gave enhanced Federal
matching funds to our States to develop a statewide automated
child welfare information system. In addition to that, whether
the States had a uniform system or not, they were required to
make information available to the national Adoption and Foster
Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS). So, we had a
system in place, but it has not worked as well as I think most
of us expected it to work. There are too many examples of
children literally being lost in the system. There is the
reported case in Florida where officials are unable to locate a
Miami girl under the supervision of the State and who was
missing for 15 months before officials even discovered she was
missing. It may well be that the caseworker filed false
reports, but the truth is that there is, somewhere, around 463
children in Florida's child welfare system that cannot be
located. That number needs to be explored, and I expect it will
be challenged. So, let's challenge it and find out why we are
unable to give the most accurate information about the children
within the system. I do look forward to listening to the
recommendations.
As the Chairman indicated, the GAO has highlighted some
specific areas of concern, such as insufficient caseworker
training, accurately recorded data, and the need for more
technical guidance from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. I must tell you, though, if we are to effectively
monitor children in our foster care system, there are still
problems, and I think we need to take a look at the total
picture. We must make sure that the children are provided the
necessary services and assistance to ensure that they find safe
and permanent homes. Mr. Chairman, you have heard me mention
many times my concern as to whether we are adequately providing
the resources necessary to train caseworkers--so we have less
turnover among caseworkers. That still is a major problem. With
caseloads three times larger than the recommended number, that
makes it difficult, even with the best tracking system, to do
the work to take care of America's children. So, I look forward
to working with you to develop a strategy that can deal with
the monitoring issues, and the other issues, so that we can
have the best possible services for these vulnerable children.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The opening statements of Mr. Cardin and Mr. Foley
follow:]
Opening Statement of the Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Maryland
Mr. Chairman, I agree with you that we should explore ways to
improve the monitoring and supervision of children in our foster care
system. These very vulnerable children need and deserve our constant
vigilance.
Congress has taken steps in the past to help States track the
progress of children in the child welfare system. For example, about
ten years ago, we provided enhanced Federal matching funds for the
development of Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information Systems
(SACWIS).
These case management systems provide an electronic case file for
every child served by a State child welfare agency. Even if a State
does not establish this specific type of monitoring system, they are
still required to provide information on children under their care to
the national Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System
(AFCARS).
Nevertheless, continued reports of children getting lost in the
system suggest that additional steps are necessary to better protect
children.
One recent case raising concern occurred in Florida where officials
are unable to locate a Miami girl who was under the supervision of the
State and who has been missing for 15 months. While the caseworker
apparently filed false reports in this specific case, a recent follow-
up review discovered that 463 children in Florida's child welfare
system could not be located.
I look forward to hearing recommendations from our witnesses on how
to improve our monitoring of children in the child welfare system. I
understand the GAO has highlighted some specific areas of concern, such
as insufficient caseworker training on accurately recording data and
the need for more technical guidance from HHS.
Mr. Chairman, improving the monitoring of vulnerable children is
vitally important, but it is only part of a solution that will lead to
safer outcomes. If we effectively monitor children in foster care, but
do not provide the necessary services and assistance to ensure they
find safe and permanent homes, we will not make much progress.
If we track kids on a computer, but caseworkers on the scene do not
have the necessary experience or training to make the right judgment
call, we will have failed to adequately protect children.
And if we ask caseworkers to spend more time entering data, but
still leave them grappling with caseloads three times larger than
recommended, the end result will not improve much for children.
Therefore, I hope we will look at the whole picture to find a way to
better way to ensure the safety and well being of our most vulnerable
children. Thank you.
Opening Statement of the Honorable Mark Foley, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Florida
Good Morning Mr. Chairman:
I want to once again thank you for your efforts to bring the
troubling issue of examining our nation's child welfare system to
light. As you know, I have been working on child protection issues
throughout my career and the story we heard about the four boys in New
Jersey two weeks ago at your last hearing was the most shocking I have
ever heard.
The complete catastrophic failure of New Jersey's system is endemic
of a nation-wide child protection system in disarray. As you know, the
Federal Government provides over $7 billion a year to operate foster
care and adoption assistance programs. However, we heard two weeks ago
that it wasn't enough. Well, I certainly don't think more money is the
answer. I will not support a bill giving one more dollar that will go
to a system putting our children at risk. It is clear that new
direction, ideas, management, and oversight is what will move us toward
a program not working against children--but for them.
Over a year ago in Florida, we were rocked by the horrible news
that our Department of Children and Families (DCF) could not locate
several hundred children in its custody. Immediately after this story
came to light, Governor Bush ordered a Blue Ribbon commission to
investigate DCF's failures and to recommend ways to improve the system.
Soon after the report was released DCF, under its new Secretary Jerry
Regier, made acclaimed changes to his agency--now making it the model
for all other states to follow.
After our terrible time a last year, you would think that other
states would have ``woken up to smell the coffee.'' That states would
have done a thorough review of their own systems to prevent this
tragedy from ever happening again. However, we still find ourselves
with states asleep at the wheel--and children as their passengers.
Mr. Chairman, the time to act is now before we hear another horror
story of a child starved to death or found to be missing by state
authorities. To that end, I intend to introduce shortly a bill that
will give state social service agencies access to the NCIC criminal
data base so they can review out-of-state criminal records and
outstanding warrant information. As those who have worked in this area
know, this resource will give field staff the ability to quickly get a
full picture of the possible risks at a certain home.
Though this is a first step towards strengthening our states
ability to further protect our children, there is much more work we
need to do. In 1996, when others criticized us, we had the courage to
change the Welfare system from one of providing government dependence
to one that gave people independence.
Mr. Chairman, the challenge ahead of us is no less daunting, but in
my opinion even more necessary. These at-risk children, with the
challenges of facing new environments and new family lives do not need
the added fear of being placed in a home where their lives are in
jeopardy. I believe that Congress can wait no longer to change this
broken system.
I am very grateful that this issue is being placed on the front-
burner and I look forward to working with you, Chairman Thomas and
Leader DeLay to ensure--once and for all--that our nation's children
are safe and sound.
Thank you.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you. Before we move on to our
testimony, I want to remind our witnesses to limit their oral
statements to 5 minutes. However, without objection, all of the
written testimony will be made a part of the permanent hearing
record. As you will note from the witness list, we were
expecting Majority Leader DeLay to testify today.
Unfortunately, it appears he is tied up right now, so we will
proceed with our second panel at this time.
Mr. CARDIN. I hope he is not trying to lobby people on the
Medicare bill (P.L. 108-173). I would rather have Majority
Leader Tom DeLay here.
Chairman HERGER. The Majority Leader may very well get here
at a slightly later point, at which time we will allow him to
proceed with his testimony. Right now, if our second panel
would step forward, please. Cornelia Ashby, Director of
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues with the GAO;
Jill Baker, Program Manager of Child Protective Services for
the Norfolk Department of Human Services, who I would note is
accompanied by a former staff member of the Subcommittee, Katie
Kitchen; Robert McKeagney, Vice President for Program
Operations, Child Welfare League of America; Mike Watkins,
Deputy District Administrator for District 2, Florida
Department of Children and Families; David Springett, President
of the Community College Foundation; and Fred Wulczyn, Research
Fellow with the Chapin Hall Center for Children. With that, Ms.
Ashby, please.
STATEMENT OF CORNELIA M. ASHBY, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, WORKFORCE,
AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Ms. ASHBY. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the development
of the statewide Automated Child Welfare Information Systems
(SACWIS). Since 1994, Federal matching funds have been
available to States to develop and implement SACWIS, manage
their child welfare cases, and report child abuse and neglect,
foster care, and adoption information to the Federal
Government. As you know, States have the option to implement a
SACWIS, or develop different information systems without SACWIS
funds to support their child welfare agencies and collect
information on their child welfare cases. My testimony today
will focus on States' experiences in developing SACWIS, the
Department of Health and Human Services' role in assisting in
their development, factors affecting the reliability of States'
welfare data, the Department of Health and Human Services' role
in assuring their reliability, and the practices of child
welfare agencies to overcome SACWIS development and reliability
challenges. My comments are based on our July 2003 report on
State child welfare information systems. For that report, we
surveyed all 50 States and the District of Columbia, and
visited 5 States.
Forty-seven States are developing or operating a SACWIS.
Although State officials recognize the benefits of having a
uniform system that enhances the State's ability to monitor the
services provided and the outcomes for children in their care,
many States continue to face challenges developing their
systems. Thirty-one State agencies lag behind the timeframes
they set for completion, with 26 States reporting delays
ranging from 2 months to 8 years, and a median delay of 2.5
years. Challenges include developing a system that meets the
child welfare agency's needs statewide, receiving State funding
approval, reaching internal agreement on system development,
creating a system that reflects child welfare processes and is
user friendly, and securing contractors with the knowledge of
child welfare policies. Forty-four States report in our survey
that they used approximately $1.3 billion in Federal funds, and
approximately $1.1 billion in State and local funds for their
SACWIS. To assist States in developing SACWIS, the Department
of Health and Human Services monitors States' development
plans, conducts formal on-site SACWIS assessment reviews--which
include technical assistance--maintains an automated system
users' group and electronic mailing list, and holds a monthly
conference call with State information technology directors
that allows State and Federal officials to exchange
information. The Department of Health and Human Services also
provides technical assistance for SACWIS development through
the National Resource Center for Information Technology in
Child Welfare.
Several factors affect the reliability of States' child
welfare data. These include insufficient caseworker training,
inaccurate and incomplete data entry, and technical challenges,
such as matching State data element definitions to the
Department of Health and Human Services' data categories, and
balancing State policy with Federal data reporting
requirements. Inaccurate and incomplete data entry can result
from insufficient training as well as other factors, such as
caseworkers' hesitation to ask families for sensitive
information, difficulty balancing timely data entry, time spent
with families and children, and caseworker turnover. The
Department of Health and Human Services tests State data
quality and provides the results, as well as the data testing
software, to States to help them identify and correct
inaccurate and incomplete data. In addition, the Department of
Health and Human Services provides technical assistance to
States through its central office, contractor, and resource
center staff to help States address abuse and neglect, foster
care, adoption, and other reporting problems. Despite the
Department of Health and Human Services' assistance, States
report ongoing challenges in receiving clear and documented
guidance, and obtaining timely technical assistance. Further,
although States were mandated to begin reporting data on foster
care placements and adoption to the Federal Government in 1995,
few comprehensive reviews of State information systems' ability
to collect and report foster care and adoption data have been
conducted to assist States in resolving some of their reporting
challenges.
States are using a variety of practices to address the
challenges associated with developing SACWIS and improving data
reliability. For example, States are reviewing their data to
identify data entry errors; including input from caseworkers,
supervisors, external public agency users, and representatives
from other State agencies that serve children; including
training contractors in child welfare practices; and including
Federal data reporting requirements and caseworker training. In
conclusion, challenges in data reliability remain. Without
better-documented, clearer guidance, and the completion of more
comprehensive reviews of States' foster care and adoption
reporting capabilities, States are limited in overcoming the
challenges that affect data reliability. Since these challenges
remain, the Department of Health and Human Services may be
using some questionable data as the foundation for national
reports, and may not have a clear picture of how States meet
the needs of children in their care. We recommended in our July
2003 report that the Secretary of the Department of Health and
Human Services consider ways to enhance the guidance and
assistance offered to States. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my
statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ashby follows:]
Statement of Cornelia M. Ashby, Director, Education, Workforce, and
Income Security Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss states' development
of automated child welfare information systems. As you are aware, the
Congress required that the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) compile information on the children served by state agencies and
authorized federal funds to match those of states for use in the
development of state child welfare information systems. Since 1994,
designated federal matching funds have been available to states to
develop and implement comprehensive case management systems--statewide
automated child welfare information systems (SACWIS)--to manage their
child welfare cases as well as to report child abuse and neglect,
foster care, and adoption information to the Federal Government. States
have the option to implement a SACWIS or develop different information
systems without using SACWIS funds to support their child welfare
agencies and collect information on their child welfare cases.
Regardless of the type of system a state develops, child welfare
caseworkers at the county or local level are the key personnel who
collect and document information on children and families served by
child welfare agencies, in addition to performing a wide range of
services to protect children--such as investigating child abuse or
neglect reports or providing support services to maintain the children
in their homes.
Currently, HHS compiles state-reported child welfare data in two
databases: the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System
(AFCARS) and the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS).
HHS relies on the information available in its databases to analyze and
track children's experiences in the child welfare system, to determine
states' performance on federal child welfare outcome measures, and to
report to Congress on children's well being and child welfare
experiences.
My testimony today will focus on three key issues: (1) states'
experiences in developing child welfare information systems and HHS's
role in assisting in their development; (2) factors that affect the
reliability of data that states collect and report on children served
by their child welfare agencies, and HHS's role in ensuring the
reliability of those data; and (3) practices that child welfare
agencies use to overcome challenges associated with SACWIS development
and data reliability. My comments are based on the findings from our
July 2003 report, Child Welfare: Most States Are Developing Statewide
Information Systems, but the Reliability of Child Welfare Data Could Be
Improved (GAO-03-809, July 31, 2003). Those findings were based on our
survey of all 50 states and the District of Columbia regarding their
experiences in developing and using information systems and their
ability to report data to HHS. We received responses from 49 states and
the District of Columbia,[1] although some states did not
respond to every question. We also reviewed a variety of HHS documents,
including the protocol and reports for its reviews of SACWIS systems
and states' AFCARS reporting capabilities and visited five states--
Colorado, Iowa, New York, North Carolina, and Oklahoma--to obtain
firsthand information on their experiences developing SACWIS and
reporting data to HHS. We selected these states to represent geographic
diversity and different stages of SACWIS implementation. Finally, we
interviewed HHS officials and child welfare and data experts and
reviewed relevant literature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[1]\ Throughout this testimony, references to state survey
responses include the District of Columbia. Forty-six of these states
reported that they are developing or operating a SACWIS. Nevada, which
HHS reported has an operational SACWIS, did not respond to our survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, HHS reported that 47 states were developing or
operating a SACWIS, but many states continue to face challenges
developing their systems. Most state officials said they recognize the
benefit their state will achieve by developing SACWIS, but added that
they have encountered difficulties in receiving state funding and in
creating a system that reflected their work processes. Despite the
availability of federal funds since 1994, states reported a median
delay of 2\1/2\ years beyond the time frames they set for completion.
Several factors affect the states' ability to collect and report
reliable adoption, foster care, and child abuse and neglect data. For
example, insufficient caseworker training and inaccurate and incomplete
data entry affect the quality of data reported to HHS. States also
reported technical challenges reporting data. Despite HHS's assistance,
many states reported ongoing challenges, such as the lack of clear and
documented guidance from HHS on how to report child welfare data. In
addition, although states were mandated to begin reporting data to
AFCARS in 1995, few reviews of states' AFCARS reporting capabilities
have been conducted. Some states are using a variety of practices to
address the challenges they face in developing SACWIS and improving
data reliability. For example, 28 states reported using approaches to
help caseworkers identify and better understand the data elements that
are required for federal reporting. To improve the reliability of
state-reported child welfare data, we recommended in our July 2003
report that the Secretary of HHS consider ways to enhance the guidance
and assistance offered to states to help them overcome the key
challenges in collecting and reporting child welfare data.
Background
ACF's Children's Bureau is responsible for the administration and
oversight of federal funding to states for child welfare services under
Titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act. However, the
monitoring of children served by state child welfare agencies is the
responsibility of the state agencies that provide the services to these
children and their families. Child welfare caseworkers at the county or
local level are the key personnel responsible for documenting the wide
range of services offered to children and families, such as
investigations of abuse and neglect, treatment services offered to keep
families intact and prevent the need for foster care, and arrangements
made for permanent or adoptive placements when children must be removed
from their homes. Caseworkers are supported by supervisors, who
typically assign new cases to workers and monitor caseworkers' progress
in achieving desired outcomes, analyzing and addressing problems and
making decisions about cases.
To qualify for federal funding for SACWIS, states must prepare and
submit an advance planning document (APD) to the Children's Bureau, in
which they describe the state's plan for managing the design,
development, implementation, and operation of a SACWIS that meets
federal requirements and state needs in an efficient, comprehensive,
and cost-effective manner. In addition, the state must establish SACWIS
and program performance goals in terms of projected costs and benefits
in the APD. States are required to submit separate APDs for the
planning and development phases, in addition to periodic updates.
Since the administration and structure of state child welfare
agencies vary across the nation, states can design their SACWIS to meet
their state needs, as long as states meet certain federal requirements.
Federal funding is available to states for SACWIS that
meet the requirements for reporting AFCARS data to HHS;
to the extent practicable, are capable of linking with
the state data collection system that collects information on child
abuse and neglect;
to the extent practicable, are capable of linking with,
and retrieving information from, the state data collection system that
collects information on the eligibility of individuals under Title IV-
A--Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; and
provides for more efficient, economical, and effective
administration of the programs carried out under a state's plans
approved under Titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act.
A SACWIS must operate uniformly as a single system in each state
and must encompass all entities that administer programs provided under
Titles IV-B and IV-E. In some cases, HHS will allow the statewide
system to link to another state system to perform required functions,
such as linking to financial systems to issue and reconcile payments to
child welfare service providers. The state's APD must describe how its
SACWIS will link to other systems to meet the requirements in the
SACWIS regulations.
In addition to monitoring the APDs of the states that are
developing SACWIS, HHS reviews state information systems through formal
SACWIS assessment reviews and the Child and Family Services Reviews
(CFSR)--a federal review process to monitor states' compliance with
child welfare laws and federal outcome measures. The formal SACWIS
reviews are conducted by the Children's Bureau to determine if a state
has developed and implemented all components detailed in the state's
APD and if the system adheres to federal requirements. The CFSR
assesses statewide information systems, along with other systemic
factors, to determine if the state is operating a system that can
readily identify the status, demographic characteristics, location, and
goals for placement of every child who is in foster care. This systemic
factor is reviewed in all states, regardless of whether the state is
developing a SACWIS or the stage of system development. For the 40 CFSR
reports that are available, HHS found that four states were not in
substantial conformity on the statewide information system
indicator.[2] These four states must address how they will
come into conformity with this factor in a program improvement plan.
HHS has also conducted SACWIS reviews in two of these states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[2]\ We are currently conducting an engagement on states' and
HHS's experiences in conducting the CFSRs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most States Are Developing SACWIS, But Challenges Remain Despite HHS's
Oversight and Technical Assistance
While 47 states are developing or operating a SACWIS, many
challenges remain despite HHS's oversight and technical assistance.
Since 1994, states reported that they have spent approximately $2.4
billion in federal, state, and local funding on SACWIS. While most
state officials we interviewed and those responding to our survey said
that they recognize the benefits their state will achieve by developing
a statewide system, many states reported that the development of their
SACWIS is delayed between 2 months and 8 years beyond the time frames
the states set for completion, with a median delay of 2\1/2\ years.
Most states responding to our survey faced challenges, such as
obtaining state funding and developing a system that met the child
welfare agency's needs statewide. In response to some of these
challenges, HHS has provided technical assistance to help states
develop their systems and conducted on-site SACWIS reviews to verify
that the systems meet all federal requirements.
States Are Using Federal and State Funds and Various Participants to
Develop Multicomponent SACWIS
Currently, 47 states are developing or operating a SACWIS and are
in various stages of development--ranging from planning to complete.
The states responding to our survey reported using approximately $1.3
billion in federal funds [3] and approximately $1.1 billion
in state and local funds [4] for their SACWIS. However, HHS
estimated that it allocated approximately $821 million between fiscal
years 1994 and 2001 in SACWIS developmental funds [5] and
$173 million between fiscal years 1999 and 2001 in SACWIS operational
funds.[6] The total amount of federal funding provided to
states for SACWIS is unknown because states claimed operational costs
as a part of their Title IV-E administrative expenses prior to
1999.[7] Although the Federal Government matched state
funding at an enhanced rate of 75 percent beginning in 1994, many
states did not apply for federal funding or begin SACWIS development
until 1996 or 1997, when more than $467 million--the bulk of federal
funds--were allocated. Most states were still developing their SACWIS
by the time enhanced funding expired in 1997, after which states could
receive a 50 percent federal financial participation for SACWIS
development and operation. Although 47 states are currently developing
or operating a SACWIS, all states except Hawaii received some federal
SACWIS funds. For example, according to figures provided by HHS, North
Carolina and North Dakota received some developmental funds but
encountered difficulties that prevented them from completing their
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[3]\ Forty-four states provided information on the total amount of
federal funds they received to develop and operate SACWIS. Alaska,
Hawaii, Missouri, North Carolina, Texas, and Vermont did not report
federal funding information. Nevada did not respond to our survey.
State-reported figures may include some funding allocated in fiscal
year 2003, since the survey was issued in October 2002 and completed as
late as December 2002.
\[4]\ Forty-four states provided information on the total amount of
state funds used to develop and operate SACWIS. Arkansas, Hawaii,
Missouri, North Carolina, Texas, and Vermont did not report state
funding information. Nevada did not respond to our survey. State-
reported figures may include some funding allocated in fiscal year 2003
since the survey was issued in October 2002 and completed as late as
December 2002.
\[5]\ This figure includes developmental funds allocated by HHS to
49 states and the District of Columbia. Hawaii did not take any federal
money for SACWIS development.
\[6]\ This figure includes operational funds allocated to 35
states. States begin claiming operational costs when some or all
components of their SACWIS are operating in local offices. Operational
activities include routine maintenance, minor enhancements, and other
changes that do not significantly increase or modify the functionality
of the system.
\[7]\ According to HHS officials, prior to fiscal year 2000, states
reported SACWIS operational expenses as part of their Title IV-E
administrative expenses because the claims sheet states used for
reporting did not have a separate column for SACWIS operational
expenditures. In fiscal year 2000, states were required to use a claims
sheet that was reformatted to provide space for SACWIS operational
expenditures. In addition, an HHS official explained that the
difference between the state-reported figures and the federal figures
may be due to states claiming some SACWIS expenses under different
programs, such as Title IV-E administrative funds, rather than
separately as SACWIS expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to track states' SACWIS development, HHS places them in
six categories that identify their stage of development (see table 1).
HHS sometimes recategorizes states into a lower stage of development
when problems are encountered. In addition, while HHS may classify a
state system as complete following an assessment of the state's SACWIS,
a state may make additional changes to the system since SACWIS, like
other computer systems, continually evolve as technology and child
welfare practices change. States can claim federal funding for these
changes as operational expenses. An HHS official reported that such
changes do not need prior approval unless they are in excess of $5
million.
Table 1: Number of States in Various Stages of SACWIS Development
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stage Number of states
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete a 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational b 24
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partially operational c 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implementation d 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning e 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No SACWIS f 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: HHS.
Note: Status is as of October 13, 2003.
a The SACWIS assessment process is completed, and all functional
requirements and specifications set forth in the APD are either
included in the system or in an accepted corrective action plan.
b All functional requirements and specifications in the APD are included
in the system, and the system is functional statewide, but state has
not completed a SACWIS assessment or is working on other issues.
c The state is still rolling out a system to field sites or still adding
functions to systems that are operational statewide.
d In active design and development, even if delayed while waiting to
resolve problems such as funding.
e Working through options for a SACWIS.
f Have never pursued SACWIS funding or have abandoned plans to develop a
system.
States have considerable flexibility in the design of their SACWIS.
According to HHS officials, a state should be using its SACWIS as a
case management tool that uses automation to support the various
aspects of state child welfare programs, such as recording child
protection, out-of-home care, and foster care and adoption services. To
further assist child welfare practice, states have designed their
systems to follow the natural flow of child welfare practice in their
state and have added design features to help track key events during a
case. For example, in Iowa child welfare work is divided between child
abuse and neglect investigations and ongoing case management for
children brought into the care of the child welfare agency. As a
result, Iowa designed a SACWIS to reflect this work process by linking
two databases--one to record child abuse and neglect information and
one to record ongoing case records--that share information with each
other.[8]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[8]\ Although the Iowa state officials described their SACWIS as
including the child abuse and neglect system, HHS commented on a draft
of the July 2003 report that it does not view the child abuse and
neglect system as part of the state's SACWIS. However, HHS said that
the state has met the SACWIS requirement in this area by building an
interface between the two systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since many states are in different phases of SACWIS development,
their systems currently support to varying degrees a variety of child
welfare and administrative components (see table 2). According to HHS,
while the components listed in table 2 are required for a state's
SACWIS to be considered compliant with federal guidance--either through
an interface or built within the system--some of the subcomponents,
such as a function that helps caseworkers manage their caseloads, are
optional. HHS has encouraged states to automate as many functions as
possible in the SACWIS in an effort to cut down on the additional
paperwork or duplicative steps inherent in manual data collection.
Table 2: Selected SACWIS Child Welfare and Administrative Services
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fully or partially
Service operational in SACWIS Planned for SACWIS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child welfare services
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child protection a 38 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Out-of-home care b 35 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adoption 34 9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Independent living 27 14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intensive home-based services c 27 13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative services
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Workload management 32 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV-E eligibility d 29 14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foster care maintenance payments 28 14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adoption assistance payments 25 17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contract provider payment 24 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO survey.
Note: This table is based on responses from 46 states developing or operating a SACWIS. The rows for the columns
``fully or partially operational'' and ``planned'' do not add to 46 because the respondents may have answered
``not supported,'' ``don't know,'' or ``no answer.''
a Child protection includes services such as intake and screening, investigation, and disposition.
b Out-of-home care includes things such as foster care, group homes, and residential placement.
c Intensive home-based services include efforts to avoid placing a child in foster care.
d IV-E funding is available for foster care, adoption, and independent living services.
To assist with the design of their SACWIS, states relied on a
number of different participants, including internal users, such as
caseworkers and managers, information technology (IT) staff, and
contractors. In Oklahoma, for example, 150 child welfare staff from the
field worked closely with the contractor in intensive work group
sessions to design and test the system. To complement the caseworkers'
knowledge of child welfare practice, 43 states relied on IT staff.
Finally, 42 states reported that they hired private contractors to
conduct a large part of SACWIS design and development.
At the time of our review, HHS reported that four states were not
pursuing SACWIS development, and most of these states reported various
reasons in our survey for not developing a system. In Hawaii, for
example, the child welfare agency chose not to pursue SACWIS because it
already had a statewide system in place that it believed was adequately
meeting its needs and which was collecting and reporting federal child
welfare data.
States Accrue Benefits from Using SACWIS, but Several Issues Create
Delays in Completing States' Systems
While most state child welfare agency officials said they recognize
the benefits the state will achieve by developing SACWIS, such as
enhancing their ability to track the whereabouts of foster children, 31
state agencies lag behind the time frames they set for completion, with
26 states reporting delays ranging from 2 months to 8 years. According
to survey results, automated systems provided easier access to data and
allowed caseworkers to better monitor children in their care, a fact
that may contribute to additional child welfare and administrative
benefits, such as decreased incidences of child abuse and neglect,
shortened length of time to achieve adoption, timeliness of payments to
foster families, and timeliness of payments to foster facilities. New
Jersey, which is in the planning stage, reported in our survey that its
goal in developing a SACWIS is to integrate the more than 40 stand-
alone systems that currently capture information on the children served
by their child welfare agency.[9] By pulling all of these
systems together into a uniform SACWIS, the state hopes to improve the
recording of casework activities in a timely manner and to develop a
tool to better target resources and services. Effectively integrating
these systems will require the state to use a disciplined IT management
approach that includes (1) detailed analyses of users' needs and
requirements, (2) a clearly defined strategy for addressing information
needs, and (3) sufficient technical expertise and resources to support
the effort.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[9]\ New Jersey reported in our survey that it had spent
approximately $9 million in federal funds and $4 million in state and
local funds on system development. According to HHS, New Jersey first
received federal funds in 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the benefits that many states have accrued with SACWIS, 31
states reported in our survey that they have been delayed in system
completion beyond their initial deadline and identified a number of
challenges that have led to the delay (see table 3).[10]
Some of the common difficulties states reported in developing SACWIS
included receiving state funding approval, reaching internal agreement
on system development, and creating a system that reflects child
welfare work processes and is user-friendly. Vermont officials, for
example, reported that the state legislature declined to provide the
matching state funds needed to secure federal funding for SACWIS. As a
result, the state could not pursue development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[10]\ Twelve of the 46 states reporting that they are developing
or operating a SACWIS reported that they have not experienced delays in
developing their systems. In response to the length of the delays
reported by 26 states in our survey, ACF commented on a draft of the
July 2003 report that these states may be using different definitions
in defining their delays. However, ACF did not provide further
information on how the delays represented in that report differ from
its perception of states' experiences. In our survey, we asked states
to report on the delays that exceeded the time line outlined in their
initial APD.
Table 3: Number of Months States Delayed in SACWIS Development
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Length of delay in months a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama 36
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California 36
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado 26
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut 96
------------------------------------------------------------------------
District of Columbia 36
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia 25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho 21
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois 79
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indiana 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kansas 72
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana 12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland 12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan 26
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota 12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mississippi 12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey 42
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio 36
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon 70
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rhode Island 14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina 47
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee 36
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utah 48
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington 36
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO survey.
Note: While 31 states reported in the survey that theyhave experienced a
delay in SACWIS development, only 26 states reported thelength of
their delay. The survey was issued in October 2002 and completed
bystates as late as December 2002.
a States were asked to report the number ofmonths the delays exceeded
the time line outlined in their APD.
Despite user involvement in system design, some states still faced
challenges trying to reach internal agreement among agency officials
and caseworkers on the design of a system, resulting in a delay in
development. In New York--a state where the counties are responsible
for administering child welfare services--the development of SACWIS was
stalled when significant frustration with the system's design led
commissioners from five large counties and New York City to request
that the state stop SACWIS development until a reassessment of the
design of and plans for the implementation of the system was completed.
Similarly, despite states' heavy reliance on contractors, many
reported that securing contractors with knowledge of child welfare
practice was a challenge for timely SACWIS development. Contractors are
hired by the state for their system development knowledge but often are
unfamiliar with child welfare policies and practices, especially since
they vary from state to state. A contractor who has worked with seven
states to develop their SACWIS reported that contractors are asked to
learn the child welfare business practices of a state in a short amount
of time and that states cannot devote many resources, such as
caseworkers, to help in the design process because caseworkers need to
devote their time to providing services to children and families.
Many states reported that creating a system that reflects child
welfare work processes and is user-friendly was a challenge in
developing SACWIS. These issues were also identified in the federal
reviews of states' SACWIS. For example, one state explained in the
SACWIS review that it had designed a system to meet the caseworkers'
needs and reflect the nature of the child welfare work processes by
developing a system that required events to be documented as they
occurred. However, this design limited the SACWIS's functionality
because it did not allow the caseworkers to go back and enter
information after an event happened. The state explained that
caseworkers do not use the system in real time, but provide services to
the children and families and then record the information in the
system. The state had to redesign the system to correct for this design
flaw.
HHS Provides Some Assistance to Help States Meet SACWIS Requirements
HHS has assisted states in a variety of ways in developing and
completing their SACWIS.[11] As a part of its regulatory
responsibilities, HHS must review, assess, and inspect the planning,
design, development, installation, and operation of SACWIS. In addition
to reviewing and monitoring states' APDs, HHS conducts on-site SACWIS
reviews to comply with these responsibilities. HHS officials told us
that these reviews are a detailed and thorough assessment of state
systems to ensure the systems' compliance with SACWIS requirements. In
addition, officials reported that they provide technical assistance
during the on-site review to help states that do not fully conform with
the applicable regulations and policies. As of October 2003, HHS had
reviewed 27 SACWIS--5 of which were determined as meeting all the
requirements and classified as complete. HHS officials told us that
since states have the flexibility to build a SACWIS that meets their
needs, a large portion of the formal reviews concentrate on ensuring
that the systems conform to state business practices. For example,
while SACWIS regulations require that a state report all AFCARS data
from their SACWIS, one state HHS reviewed relied on a separate state
system to report data on the children served by the juvenile justice
agency who are eligible for IV-E foster care funds. The state proved it
had developed an automated process to merge data from both systems to
compile a single AFCARS report that included children captured in both
their SACWIS and juvenile justice systems. Therefore, HHS recognized
that this process best met the state's needs and determined the SACWIS
to be complete and meeting all requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[11]\ With regard to the budget difficulties that states reported
facing, since 1994 the Federal Government has made a commitment to help
states develop and maintain their SACWIS by matching 75 percent of
states' development funds through 1997 and providing an ongoing match
of 50 percent of state funding for the development and maintenance of
their systems. However, since the states' legislatures must make the
initial commitment to fund SACWIS, the Federal Government cannot assist
state child welfare agencies with this challenge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Few systems have been determined complete after an on-site review
because of unresolved issues, such as not being able to build links to
other state information systems or not implementing certain eligibility
determination functions. To help states address some of these
development challenges, the SACWIS review team provides the state with
recommendations for complying with SACWIS requirements. In addition,
HHS officials reported that once the draft report with the results of
the SACWIS review is completed, federal staff schedule a conference
call with the state officials to walk through the system's deficiencies
and offer guidance on how the state can move forward.
HHS facilitates the sharing of information between states
developing SACWIS through an automated system users' group that allows
state and federal officials to exchange information, ideas, and
concerns. In addition to the users' group, HHS officials also sponsor a
Listserv--an electronic mailing list--that allows state officials to
exchange information and a monthly conference call with state
information technology directors.[12] Technical assistance
for SACWIS development is also available to states through the National
Resource Center for Information Technology in Child Welfare (Resource
Center), which opened in 1999. According to survey results, 9 states
said they used the Resource Center for assistance in developing SACWIS
and 14 states reported using it for help with SACWIS maintenance and
improvements. According to Resource Center officials, they assist
states with SACWIS development by helping states understand the
technology that is available for use, providing information on the
automation of child welfare work and converting data, and reviewing the
APD documentation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[12]\ In commenting on a draft of the July 2003 report, HHS
indicated that a Web resource is available to states interested in
learning about other states' efforts to develop human services--child
welfare, food stamps, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, child
care, and child support enforcement--information systems at http://
www.acf.hhs.gov/nhsitrc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several Factors Affect the States' Ability to Ensure Reliable Data on
Children's Experiences, and Some of HHS's Oversight and
Assistance Is Problematic
Several factors affect states' ability to collect and report
reliable [13] data on children served by state child welfare
agencies, and some problems exist, such as a lack of clear and
documented guidance, with HHS's oversight and technical assistance.
Almost all of the states responding to our survey reported that
insufficient caseworker training and inaccurate and incomplete data
entry affect the quality of the data reported to HHS.[14] In
addition, 36 of the 50 [15] states that responded to our
survey reported that technical challenges, such as matching their state
data element definitions to HHS's data categories, affected the quality
of the data that they report to the Federal Government. Despite the
assistance that HHS offers to states, such as testing state data
quality and providing the results to states to aid them in resubmitting
data, states report ongoing challenges receiving clear and documented
guidance and obtaining technical assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[13]\ Data are reliable when they are complete and accurate. A
subcategory of accuracy is consistency. Consistency refers to the need
to obtain and use data that are clear and well defined enough to yield
similar results in similar analysis. See U.S. General Accounting
Office, Assessing the Reliability of Computer-Processed Data, GAO-02-
15G (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2002).
\[14]\ States were asked the extent to which certain problems may
decrease the quality of the data submitted to AFCARS and NCANDS using
the following scale: very great, great, moderate, some, and no affect.
\[15]\ The analysis of survey responses about reporting data to HHS
is based on responses from 49 states and the District of Columbia. All
states, regardless of SACWIS development, were asked to complete these
questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insufficient Caseworker Training and Inaccurate and Incomplete Data
Entry Are the Most Common Factors That Affect Data Reliability
Almost every state responding to our survey and all the states we
visited reported that insufficient training for caseworkers and
inaccurate and incomplete data entry affect the quality of the data
reported to AFCARS and NCANDS (see fig. 1). Although most states
reported these as separate factors, HHS and the states we visited found
that insufficient training and inaccurate and incomplete data entry are
often linked. In official reviews of states' information systems'
capability to capture data and report them to AFCARS, HHS advised
states to offer additional training to caseworkers on several AFCARS
data elements, such as recording the reasons for a child leaving foster
care, to improve the accuracy of the data submitted. However, state
officials told us that training is typically one of the first programs
cut when states face tight budget restrictions. For example, Iowa
officials told us that training has been significantly reduced in
recent years because of budget cuts and new workers may wait 2 to 3
months before being trained how to enter data appropriately into their
SACWIS.
Figure 1: Most Common Caseworker Issues That Affect Data Quality
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 92985A.002
Notes: Based on responses from 50 states.
The results reported in the figure are a sum of the states that
reported the issue had a very great affect, great affect,
moderate affect, or some affect on the quality of state data
submitted to HHS. Very great and great affect responses are
represented in the top section of each bar. Moderate and some
affect responses are represented in the bottom section of each
bar. States not included answered ``no affect,'' ``don't
know,'' or ``no answer.''
Inaccurate and incomplete data entry can also result from a number
of other factors, such as caseworkers' hesitation to ask families for
sensitive information. For example, caseworkers in Oklahoma reported
that they did not feel comfortable asking if a child's mother was
married at the time of birth or if a child is of Hispanic origin--both
of which are required AFCARS data elements. In commenting on a draft of
this report, Oklahoma added that caseworkers did not understand why the
data elements were required and how the Federal Government used the
information. HHS noted similar issues in five states that have had an
AFCARS review.[16] Caseworkers were inaccurately recording a
child's race as ``unable to determine'' even though this option should
be selected only if the child's parents or relatives cannot provide the
information, such as when a child is abandoned.[17]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[16]\ For the July 2003 report, we reviewed AFCARS reports from
six of the eight states that had been assessed by HHS--Arkansas,
Connecticut, New Mexico, Texas, Vermont, and Wyoming. HHS conducted
reviews in Delaware and West Virginia after we completed our analysis.
As of October 2003, HHS had completed three additional reviews for
North Dakota, Rhode Island, and Washington.
\[17]\ In commenting on a draft of the July 2003 report, ACF said
that the finding from the AFCARS reviews indicates that information is
often defaulted to the response ``unable to determine'' in order for
the element not to fail the missing data standard, not that workers are
recording ``unknown''; however, the report findings we used in this
analysis instruct states to fix the defaults and address caseworker
practice by enhancing training on the correct use of ``unable to
determine'' when noting a child's race.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caseworkers, supervisors, and managers in the 5 states we visited
reported that additional factors, such as difficulties balancing data
entry with the time that they spend with the families and children,
contributed to inaccurate or incomplete data entry. Supervisors in Iowa
explained that since caseworkers are responsible for ensuring that
children and their families receive the services they need, the
caseworkers tend to initially limit data entry to the information that
is necessary to ensure timely payment to foster care providers and
complete all other data elements when they have time. In addition,
caseworkers in Colorado said that they are between 30 and 60 days
behind in their data entry, so the information in the automated system
may not accurately reflect the current circumstances of children in
care. HHS's Inspector General recently issued a report in which more
than two-thirds of the states reported that caseworkers' workloads,
turnover, a lack of training, and untimely and incomplete data entry
affected the reporting of AFCARS data.[18]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[18]\ Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector
General, Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System
(AFCARS): Challenges and Limitations, OEI-07-01-00660 (Washington,
D.C.: Mar. 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technical Challenges, such as Matching State Definitions to Federal
Definitions, Affect Data Reliability
In addition to data quality being affected by caseworker issues,
many states experienced technical challenges reporting their data to
HHS. The problems reported by states are typically a result of
challenges associated with data ``mapping''--matching state data
elements to the federal data elements. For example, 36 states reported
in our survey that matching their state-defined data to HHS's
definitions affected the quality of the data reported to NCANDS and
AFCARS. Similarly, 24 states reported that matching the more detailed
data options available in their states' information systems to the
federal data elements affected the quality of the data reported to
NCANDS. Twenty-nine states reported that this issue created challenges
in reporting data to AFCARS. For example, following an AFCARS
assessment, HHS instructed a state that collects detailed information
on children's disabilities, such as attention deficit disorder and
eating disorders, to map the information to the more limited options in
AFCARS, such as mental retardation and emotionally disturbed.
In many cases, states have to balance state policy with federal
requirements to ensure that they are reporting accurate data to AFCARS
and NCANDS, but are not contradicting their state policies. For
example, Texas officials reported that although the findings of their
AFCARS review instructed them to modify their SACWIS to collect, map,
and extract data on guardianship placements, the state does not support
guardianship arrangements.[19] In addition, a recent report
from the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) found that when
reporting the number of times children move from one foster care
placement to another, states varied in the type of placements included
in that count.[20] For example, 29 percent of the states
responding to CWLA's survey included respite,[21] 25 percent
included runaways, and 16 percent included trial home visits when
reporting the number of placements a child had during the AFCARS report
period. According to federal guidance, the ``number of placements''
element is meant to gather information on the number of times the child
welfare agency found it necessary to move a child while in foster care
and that by including runaways or trial home visits, a state is
inflating the number of moves a child experienced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[19]\ Guardianship arrangements occur when permanent legal custody
of a child is awarded to an individual, such as a relative, but the
child is not legally adopted.
\[20]\ Child Welfare League of America. National Working Group
Highlights, ``Placement Stability Measure and Diverse Out-of-Home Care
Populations'' (Washington, D.C., Apr. 2002).
\[21]\ Respite care provides temporary child care for children away
from their caretakers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although HHS Has Taken Steps to Help States Improve Their Data, Some
Problems with Its Efforts Exist
HHS provides technical assistance for AFCARS and NCANDS reporting
through a number of resources. HHS officials in the central office and
NCANDS contractor staff serve as the points of contact for states to
ask questions and seek guidance on reporting child welfare data. The
officials in three of the five states that we visited said that the
one-on-one focused technical assistance was useful when provided in a
timely fashion. Most state officials found the NCANDS data easier to
report, in part because more people were available for consultation and
they were more accessible and responsive. For example, states have
access to four NCANDS specialists and staff in the contractor's central
office when they need assistance reporting child abuse and neglect
information. However, some of the states we visited reported that only
one or two staff in HHS's central office are available to assist with
AFCARS reporting.
In addition, the Resource Center offers states assistance with
improving data quality. However, Resource Center staff reported that
the assistance is geared more toward improving the limited data used in
the federal review process to monitor states' compliance with child
welfare laws and federal outcome measures--CFSR--rather than all the
data reported to HHS. The Resource Center also sponsors an annual
information technology conference during which sessions covering all
data-related issues are held, including practices for ensuring data
quality and outcome evaluation in child welfare. In conjunction with
this conference, the HHS officials and the contractors that operate
NCANDS hold an annual technical assistance meeting for states to share
ideas with one another, discuss data elements that pose difficulties,
and explore ways to address these problems. In addition, an NCANDS
state advisory group meets annually to talk with HHS officials about
NCANDS data and their experiences reporting data. From these meetings,
the state advisory group proposes changes or improvements to NCANDS.
HHS and state officials reported that this partnership has helped ease
some of the challenges in reporting child abuse and neglect data.
HHS has also made available to states the software it uses to
examine states' AFCARS and NCANDS submissions for inconsistencies and
invalid data. Officials in all the states we visited said that they
regularly use this software, and an HHS official said that nearly every
state has used the software at least once. When the data are submitted
to HHS, they are run through the same software, and HHS notifies the
states of areas where data are missing or inconsistent and allows the
states to resubmit the data after errors are corrected. HHS officials
reported that these tests help them to identify some data quality
errors, such as missing data, and said that they believe that, in
general, data have improved in recent years. However, they indicated
that the tests cannot pinpoint the underlying problems contributing to
these errors. Furthermore, one official reported that no specific
efforts have been conducted to track the individual data elements, and
therefore HHS cannot report on how data quality has changed over time.
In an attempt to help states comply with the reporting standards
and address some of the factors that contribute to data quality
problems, HHS performs comprehensive reviews of state information
systems' ability to capture AFCARS data to identify problems associated
with data collection and reporting and to ensure that the information
in the automated system correctly reflects children's experiences in
care. The assessments include a technical review of the states'
computer code, a comparison of the data from selected cases available
in the information system to the case files, and an improvement plan to
resolve any errors. In addition, HHS officials offer guidance to the
states on improvements that can be made to the information system and
changes to program code used to report the AFCARS data. HHS conducted
pilot reviews in eight states between 1996 and 2000. By October 2003,
HHS had conducted 11 official reviews--even though states began
reporting to AFCARS in 1995. According to results from 6 of the 11
official AFCARS assessments we reviewed, no state met the reporting
requirements for all AFCARS data elements. The problems noted in the
reviews are similar to those of states responding to our survey and
those we visited. For example, most states received ratings of 2 or 3,
indicating technical and/or data entry errors that affect the AFCARS
data quality.[22] For the current placement setting data
element,[23] for instance, 4 states received a rating of 2,
1 state received a rating of 3, and 1 state received a rating of 4. In
Connecticut, which received a rating of 2, HHS found that, among other
things, workers were not consistently entering placement information in
a timely way. It also found that workers entered placement data only
into a narrative field, which resulted in placement history gaps and
incomplete AFCARS reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[22]\ HHS rates each data element using a four-point scale: (1)
the AFCARS requirement(s) has not been implemented in the information
system; (2) the technical system requirements for AFCARS reporting do
not fully meet the standards; (3) the technical system requirements for
AFCARS reporting are in place, but there are data entry problems
affecting the quality of the data; (4) all of the AFCARS requirements
have been met. According to an HHS official, data elements that have a
combination of technical and data entry problems are rated as 2 until
the technical issues are resolved. HHS will then rate the element as a
3 until the data entry practices are changed.
\[23]\ Current placement setting refers to a pre-adoptive home,
foster family home-relative, foster family home-nonrelative, group
home, institution, supervised independent living, runaway, or trial
home visit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State officials in the six states for which we reviewed the HHS
AFCARS assessments reported that they found the reviews useful for
improving their AFCARS data submissions. In particular, they valued the
thorough review by HHS officials of the computer code states use to
report the data. Some of these officials reported that if all states
were reviewed, the quality of data available in AFCARS would improve
tremendously. However, HHS officials reported that they are not
mandated to conduct the AFCARS reviews and that priority is placed on
other reviews, such as the CFSR and SACWIS reviews. In addition,
officials explained that the AFCARS reviews are not conducted in states
developing SACWIS until the systems are operational. HHS expects to
complete approximately four reviews each year, depending on available
resources, and has scheduled states through 2006. Similar to the SACWIS
reviews, HHS officials offer recommendations and technical assistance
to states during the review on how they can improve the quality of the
data reported to AFCARS.
Although the states we visited appreciated some of HHS's efforts to
assist with improving state data quality, they and most states
responding to our survey agreed that the assistance is not always
consistent or easily accessible (see fig. 2). States reported similar
information to the Inspector General--AFCARS data elements were not
clearly and consistently defined and technical assistance is effective
but difficult to access.
Figure 2: Federal Practices That Affect Data Quality
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 92985B.002
Notes: Based on responses from 50 states.
The results reported in the figure are a sum of the states that
reported the issue had a very great affect, great affect,
moderate affect, or some affect on the quality of state data
submitted to HHS. Very great and great affect responses are
represented in the top section of each bar. Moderate and some
affect responses are represented in the bottom section of each
bar. States not included answered ``no affect,'' ``don't
know,'' or ``no answer.''
The primary concerns reported by the states we visited were delays
in receiving clear written guidance on defining and reporting certain
data elements and the lack of state input in suggesting changes to
AFCARS. Despite the written guidance available to states in the form of
regulations and an online policy manual, states reported that the
variation in state policies and practices makes it difficult to
interpret how to apply the general guidance. As a result, states
consult with HHS to ensure they are applying the regulations
appropriately. However, in commenting on a draft of this report,
officials in Oklahoma told us that a common concern among the states is
the lack of timely response from HHS when seeking guidance on how to
report data. In addition, officials in New York explained they have
made it a practice to check the HHS Web site on a regular basis for
current guidance but have not found it a useful tool, and may turn to
other states for guidance on AFCARS reporting. In commenting on a draft
of this report, HHS explained that it first refers states to its Web
site for information and believes that the available guidance addresses
states' concerns in most instances. In addition, the states that have
had an AFCARS review experienced delays in obtaining guidance on how to
proceed following the on-site review. For example, Texas officials
reported that the state sought clarification on its improvement plan
and submitted additional questions to HHS following the review.
However, when we spoke with the state officials, they said that they
had been waiting 3 months for a response on how to proceed. An HHS
official told us that since the review process is relatively new, the
agency is still developing a process to respond to the states and
recognizes that it has not been responsive to the states already
reviewed. In addition, HHS is taking steps to gather feedback from
states and other users of AFCARS data to determine how to improve the
system to make the data more accurate and usable. As a part of these
efforts, HHS has published a Federal Register notice soliciting
comments and held focus group meetings at national conferences. The
difficulties states face in receiving federal guidance and assistance,
as well as the other challenges they face in reporting data, may
negatively affect the reliability of the data available in AFCARS and
NCANDS.
States Are Using Various Practices to Overcome System Development
Challenges and Improve Data on Children's Experiences
Some states are using a variety of practices to address the
challenges associated with developing SACWIS and improving data
reliability, although no formal evaluations of their effectiveness are
available. To address the challenge of developing a system to meet
statewide needs, states relied on caseworkers and supervisors from
local offices to assist in the design and testing of the system. Few
states reported in our survey strategies to overcome the other key
challenges, such as limited funding and the difficulty of securing
knowledgeable contractors, but some states we visited have devised some
useful approaches. To improve data reliability, the five states we
visited routinely review their data to identify data entry errors so
that managers can ensure that the missing data are entered
appropriately.
States Are Primarily Relying on SACWIS Users to Overcome Some of the
Challenges to Completing Their Systems
To overcome development challenges, survey respondents emphasized
the importance of including system users in the various phases of
completing SACWIS--planning, design, development, testing, and
implementation. Past GAO work and other research efforts have
determined similar approaches as best practices in building information
systems.[24] Forty-four of the 46 states responding to our
survey that they are developing or operating a SACWIS indicated that
they relied on internal users, such as caseworkers and supervisors, in
the development of their systems and 34 of these states said that they
were extremely helpful participants. The extent to which the users were
involved in development differed across the states. For example, in
Texas, caseworkers from all of their child welfare regions were
recruited to provide input on design and development, as well as during
initial testing, pilot testing, and implementation of the system.
Arkansas reported establishing a committee made up of users to review
the work plan and sign off on recommended changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[24]\ See U.S. General Accounting Office, Executive Guide:
Improving Mission Performance Through Strategic Information Management
and Technology, GAO/AIMD-94-115 (Washington, D.C.: May 1, 1994); Center
for Technology in Government, University of Albany, SUNY. Tying a
Sensible Knot: A Practical Guide to State-Local Information Systems.
Albany, N.Y., June 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ten states noted that user input should not be limited to frontline
workers, such as caseworkers, but should include representatives from
other areas of the agency, such as the financial staff, and other
agencies that serve children, such as child support
enforcement.[25] While not one of the most common challenges
reported in our survey, New Hampshire reported that one of its
challenges with meeting its SACWIS timeframe was not working
collaboratively with other agencies, such as Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) [26] and child support enforcement, to
develop the payment component of SACWIS. To attempt to overcome this
challenge, 26 of the 46 states responding to our survey that they are
developing or operating a SACWIS indicated that they included external
public agency users, and 23 reported using representatives from other
state agencies that serve children in developing their SACWIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[25]\ The Child Support Enforcement Program is a joint federal,
state, and local partnership that was established in 1975 under Title
IV-D of the Social Security Act. Each state runs a child support
program, which provides four major services: locating noncustodial
parents, establishing paternity, establishing child support
obligations, and collecting child support for families.
\[25]\ In 1996, the Congress created the block grant Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families program replacing the Aid to Families
with Dependent Children (AFDC) and related welfare programs. States
were given increased flexibility in designing the eligibility criteria
and benefit rules, which require work in exchange for time-limited
benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to seeking input from caseworkers and other system
users while developing SACWIS, many states continue to include users as
a part of the implementation teams, to serve as contacts in the field
and provide ongoing assistance, and to provide input on system
enhancements. Alabama responded in our survey that the state had
``mentors'' in each county to help caseworkers adjust to the new
system. These mentors continue to provide ongoing support now that the
system is implemented. Oklahoma recruits experienced child welfare
field staff for its SACWIS help desk because of their knowledge of the
system and child welfare policy and practice.
Although states faced other challenges in completing their SACWIS,
few reported implementing approaches to overcome the barriers.
According to survey results, a common problem states faced in
developing SACWIS was receiving insufficient state funding for
development. States did not report in our survey, however, approaches
for obtaining more funding for developing SACWIS, and few states
reported developing strategies in an attempt to overcome the challenges
associated with tight budgets for maintaining their systems. For
example, Iowa officials engaged in careful planning with system users
to ensure that they addressed the highest priorities when enhancing the
system. In particular, the officials reported that maintaining tight
control over the development and maintenance processes helps them avoid
investing inordinate amounts of resources to make corrections to the
system. Similarly, few states reported on approaches to overcome the
challenge of finding contractors with knowledge of child welfare
practice. However, Iowa officials explained that once the contract
staff are hired, they are required to attend the same training as new
caseworkers to ensure that they are familiar with the state's child
welfare policies and to familiarize themselves with casework practices.
States Use Strategies, such as Producing Reports That Identify Missing
Data, in an Attempt to Improve the Reliability of the Data
Reported to HHS
Twenty-eight states reported using approaches to help caseworkers
identify the data elements that are required for federal reporting and
to help them better understand the importance of entering timely and
accurate data. Ten states responding to our survey reported reviewing
the federal reporting requirements in training sessions as a way to
improve data quality. For example, Tennessee reported that the state
added a component about AFCARS to the initial and ongoing training
workers receive about using SACWIS. The curriculum addresses the AFCARS
report in general and the individual data elements to help the
caseworkers better understand the purpose of collecting the
information. In Nebraska, a ``desk aid'' that explains the data
elements and where and why to enter them in the system is available on
the caseworkers' computer desktops. In addition, New York has developed
a step-by-step guide explaining to workers how NCANDS data should be
entered, with references to the policy or statute requiring the
information.
To improve data reliability, some states have designed their
information systems with special features to encourage caseworkers to
enter the information. Four states responding to our survey and three
states we visited designed their SACWIS with color-coded fields to draw
attention to the data elements that caseworkers are required to enter.
Colorado, Iowa, New York, and Oklahoma have built into their systems
alerts--also known as ``ticklers''--to remind caseworkers and
supervisors of tasks that they need to complete. For example, in
Oklahoma, a stoplight icon on the caseworker's computer desktop reminds
the worker when tasks are due. A green light indicates that nothing is
due within 5 days; a yellow light means that something is due within 5
days; and a red light means that something is overdue. Caseworkers and
supervisors in the states we visited had mixed responses about the
usefulness and effectiveness of the alerts. Some caseworkers found them
to be a nuisance, while other caseworkers and supervisors found them to
be useful tools in managing workloads and prioritizing daily tasks.
Six states reported that the best way to improve data quality was
to use the data in published reports and hold the caseworkers and
supervisors accountable for the outcomes of the children in their care.
In addition, six states responding to our survey reported using the
data available in their information systems to measure state outcomes
similar to the CFSR. State officials reported that this approach is an
effective way to get local offices invested in the quality of the data.
For example, North Carolina publishes monthly reports for each county
comparing their performance on state data indicators, such as the
length of time children spend in care, to counties of similar size and
the state as a whole. County officials reported that these reports
encourage workers to improve the quality of the data collected and
entered into the state system since their performance is being widely
published and compared with that of other counties.
In addition, all the states we visited reported that frequent
review of their data, such as using software from HHS to test their
AFCARS and NCANDS data to pinpoint data entry errors prior to
submitting them to HHS, has helped improve data quality. When the
states identify poor data, they alert the caseworkers and supervisors
of needed corrections and data entry improvements. For example,
Colorado runs these reports about four to five times a year, with one
run occurring approximately 6 weeks before each AFCARS submission. When
the data specialists find errors, they notify the caseworker to clean
up the data.
Concluding Observations
While most states are developing statewide information systems,
challenges with data reliability remain. Although SACWIS development is
delayed in many states, state officials recognize the benefits of
having a uniform system that enhances the states' ability to monitor
the services provided and the outcomes for children in their care.
Although states began reporting to NCANDS in 1990 and were mandated to
begin reporting to AFCARS in 1995, most states continue to face
challenges providing complete, accurate, and consistent data to HHS. In
addition, the results of more recent HHS efforts, such as conducting
AFCARS-related focus groups, are unknown. Reliable data are essential
to the Federal Government's development of policies that address the
needs of the children served by state child welfare agencies and its
ability to assist states in improving child welfare system
deficiencies. Without well-documented, clearer guidance and the
completion of more comprehensive reviews of states' AFCARS reporting
capabilities, states are limited in overcoming challenges that affect
data reliability. Because these challenges still remain, HHS may be
using some questionable data as the foundation for national reports and
may not have a clear picture of how states meet the needs of children
in their care.
To improve the reliability of state-reported child welfare data, we
recommended in our July 2003 report that the Secretary of HHS consider,
in addition to HHS's recent efforts to improve AFCARS data, ways to
enhance the guidance and assistance offered to states to help them
overcome the key challenges in collecting and reporting child welfare
data. These efforts could include a stronger emphasis placed on
conducting AFCARS reviews and more timely follow-up to help states
implement their improvement plans or identifying a useful method to
provide clear and consistent guidance on AFCARS and NCANDS reporting.
ACF generally agreed with our findings and commented that the report
provides a useful perspective of the problems states face in collecting
data and of ACF's effort to provide ongoing technical assistance to
improve the quality of child welfare data. In response to our
recommendation, ACF said that we categorized its efforts as ``recent''
and did not recognize the long-term efforts to provide AFCARS- and
NCANDS- related guidance to the states. Although we did not discuss
each effort in depth, we did mention the agency's ongoing efforts in
our report. ACF also noted in its comments that the data definitions
need to be updated and revised and said it is currently in the process
of revising the AFCARS regulations to further standardize the
information states are to report--which we acknowledged in our report.
ACF also commented that it is firmly committed to continue to support
the states and to provide technical assistance and other guidance as
its resources will permit. ACF commented that it provided increased
funding to the National Resource Centers in fiscal year 2003, and it
believed that this increase will improve ACF's ability to provide
assistance to the states. After receiving the draft report for comment,
HHS separately provided information on an additional service the
National Resource Center for Information Technology in Child Welfare
provides to states. More recently, HHS said that it would be creating
policy guidance that will delineate what will happen if a state fails
to complete its SACWIS within a reasonable time frame.
For example, funding may become contingent on successful completion
of specific milestones.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be
pleased to respond to any questions that you or other members of the
Subcommittee may have.
GAO Contact and Acknowledgments
For further contacts regarding this testimony, please call Cornelia
M. Ashby at (202) 512-8403. Individuals making key contributions to
this testimony include Diana Pietrowiak and Sara Schibanoff.
Related GAO Products
Child Welfare: Enhanced Federal Oversight of Title IV-B Could Provide
States Additional Information to Improve Services. GAO-03-
956. Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2003.
Child Welfare: Most States Are Developing Statewide Information
Systems, but the Reliability of Child Welfare Data Could Be
Improved. GAO-03-809. Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2003.
Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice: Several Factors Influence the
Placement of Children Solely to Obtain Mental Health
Services. GAO-03-865T. Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2003.
Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice: Federal Agencies Could Play a
Stronger Role in Helping States Reduce the Number of
Children Placed Solely to Obtain Mental Health Services.
GAO-03-397. Washington, D.C.: April 21, 2003.
Child Welfare: HHS Could Play a Greater Role in Helping Child Welfare
Agencies Recruit and Retain Staff. GAO-03-357. Washington,
D.C.: March 31, 2003.
Human Services: Federal Approval and Funding Processes for States'
Information Systems. GAO-02-347T. Washington, D.C.: July 9,
2002.
Foster Care: Recent Legislation Helps States Focus on Finding Permanent
Homes for Children, but Long-Standing Barriers Remain. GAO-
02-585. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2002.
Human Services Integration: Results of a GAO Cosponsored Conference on
Modernizing Information Systems. GAO-02-121. Washington,
D.C.: January 31, 2002.
District of Columbia Child Welfare: Long-Term Challenges to Ensuring
Children's Well-Being. GAO-01-191. Washington, D.C.:
December 29, 2000.
Child Welfare: New Financing and Service Strategies Hold Promise, but
Effects Unknown. GAO/T-HEHS-00-158. Washington, D.C.: July
20, 2000.
Welfare Reform: Improving State Automated Systems Requires Coordinated
Federal Effort. GAO/HEHS-00-48. Washington, D.C.: April 27,
2000.
Foster Care: States' Early Experiences Implementing the Adoption and
Safe Families Act. GAO/HEHS-00-1. Washington, D.C.:
December 22, 1999.
Foster Care: HHS Could Better Facilitate the Interjurisdictional
Adoption Process. GAO/HEHS-00-12. Washington, D.C.:
November 19, 1999.
Foster Care: Effectiveness of Independent Living Services Unknown. GAO/
HEHS-00-13. Washington, D.C.: November 5, 1999.
Foster Care: Kinship Care Quality and Permanency Issues. GAO/HEHS-99-
32. Washington, D.C.: May 6, 1999.
Juvenile Courts: Reforms Aim to Better Serve Maltreated Children. GAO/
HEHS-99-13. Washington, D.C.: January 11, 1999.
Child Welfare: Early Experiences Implementing a Managed Care Approach.
GAO/HEHS-99-8. Washington, D.C.: October 21, 1998.
Foster Care: Agencies Face
Challenges Securing Stable Homes for Children of Substance Abusers.
GAO/HEHS-98-182. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 1998.
Managing Technology: Best Practices Can Improve Performance and Produce
Results. GAO/T-AIMD-97-38. January 31, 1997.
Child Welfare: HHS Begins to Assume Leadership to Implement National
and State Systems. GAO/AIMD-94-37. Washington, D.C.: June
8, 1994.
Executive Guide: Improving Mission Performance Through Strategic
Information Management and Technology. GAO/AIMD-94-115.
Washington, D.C.: May 1, 1994.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to
copyright protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and
distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO.
However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other
material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you
wish to reproduce this material separately.
GAO's Mission
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the Federal Government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony,
and correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ``Today's Reports,''
on its Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text
document files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go
to www.gao.gov and select ``Subscribe to e-mail alerts'' under the
``Order GAO Products'' heading.
Order by Mail or Phone
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies
are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the
Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted
25 percent. Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000
TDD: (202) 512-2537
Fax: (202) 512-6061
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: [email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Public Affairs
Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800
U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
Chairman HERGER. Thank you. We will now hear from Ms. Jill
Baker, Program Manager of Child Protective Services for the
Norfolk Department of Human Services.
STATEMENT OF JILL BAKER, PROGRAM MANAGER, CHILD PROTECTIVE
SERVICES, NORFOLK DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, NORFOLK,
VIRGINIA
Ms. BAKER. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member Cardin, Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Jill
Baker. I manage the Child Protection and Family Preservation
programs for the Department of Human Services in the City of
Norfolk, Virginia. I have been involved in the investigation of
child abuse and neglect since 1978, first as a worker, then as
a supervisor, and now as program manager.
My testimony today will focus on three key areas. First,
the improvements SACWIS has brought to social work practices;
second, how SACWIS can sometimes hinder innovation; and, third,
how vast improvements can be achieved if SACWIS rules were more
flexible. The use of information technology has been a welcome
additional resource to our toolbox in protecting children from
abuse and neglect. These systems have moved us from a
requirement that social workers complete their paperwork within
90 days, to an expectation that information will be within the
system within 24 hours. We still have great distances to go.
In Virginia, the State operates a program known as Online
Automated Services Information System (OASIS). I would like to
share an example of how OASIS has helped us protect children.
Recently, we received a call from a local hospital about a
child who was born exposed to cocaine. The mother also tested
positive. Through OASIS, we were able to immediately identify
that this mother had four other children who had been removed
from her care by Virginia Beach child protective workers, and
placed with relatives due to the mother's substance abuse and
subsequent neglect of her children.
Prior to OASIS, we would have had to make a call to
Richmond to identify whether there were any records of past
child welfare involvement in the State. Richmond would provide
us with responses to some of our questions, and we would then
have to call another locality, asking them to pull the old case
file and send us the information. This process usually took
weeks. With OASIS, we had access to the information instantly;
and the child was placed in our custody before the infant left
the hospital. Unfortunately, OASIS is limited, and what it does
provide requires intensive data entry time. A worker will enter
information into an average of 53 screens for a child
protective services investigation, and more than 65 screens for
a placement in foster care.
Please take a look at the graphics attached to my prepared
testimony, developed by the City of Arlington. The first
graphic shows a typical family that we encounter--a mother with
three children and five grandchildren. The next few charts show
all the different systems that collect information about these
family members. In this case, the family had to give the same
basic information to at least 14 different people operating in
different programs, sometimes within the same agency. Although
the information should be shared, it is not consistently
provided between programs, and requires substantial, redundant
efforts on behalf of service providers.
Other issues that prevent us from fully benefiting from the
intent of the SACWIS programs are a lack of interaction with
local payment systems, the inability to produce management
reports, prevention of system improvements, information that is
not accessible in real time, and information that is
unavailable to other relevant systems. The system only allows
social workers involved in child protective services and foster
care to enter information. It excludes family prevention
services, benefits programs, daycare services, court-ordered
services, juvenile justice services, adult protective services,
and the schools. These partners need the ability to report
their involvement in a single, shared database to more
effectively serve our families.
The City of Norfolk is working on mechanisms to provide
patches to a troubled system, so we can improve our ability to
planning the child welfare program. To address the real time
and access reporting issues, we have adopted the KIDSLINE,
which tells us within 2 hours of accuracy the precise location
of all children in our custody as well as generates a variety
of reports. The KIDSLINE and its staff will automatically
update the benefits, payment, and OASIS systems to ensure
accurate payments and appropriate support to children's
families.
We are also seeking a unified case management system that
would allow workers from various programs and partner agencies
to enter demographic information just one time--and the system
would automatically populate additional systems as required. It
would work with OASIS to report the exact same data elements to
the State and Federal Government, but without having to enter
information into separate systems. We respectfully request that
this Committee work with the Department of Health and Human
Services, States, and localities to make certain changes to
SACWIS rules that will enable local governments to develop a
holistic system for serving families without harming statewide
reporting needs. These recommendations are described in detail
in the second attachment to my prepared statement.
As has been made clear by recent tragic events in New
Jersey and Florida, we know that you have to be asking the
question: how come nobody knew this was going on? The answer in
too many cases is, the true picture was like a jigsaw puzzle.
There were many different people holding separate pieces of the
puzzle, without knowing how to put the whole picture together.
Our information systems are the solution to this problem, and
we need your help to implement them. Thank you for your time
and attention to this important issue. I am happy to answer any
questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Baker follows:]
Statement of Jill Baker, Program Manager, Child Protective Services,
Norfolk Department of Human Services, Norfolk, Virginia
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Cardin, Members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Jill Baker. I manage the Child Protection and
Family Preservation programs for the Department of Human Services in
the City of Norfolk, Virginia. I have been involved in the
investigation of child abuse and neglect since 1978; first as a worker,
later as a supervisor, and now as Program Manager.
My testimony today will focus on three key areas: 1) The
improvements SACWIS (Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information
System) has brought to social work practice; 2) how SACWIS can
sometimes hinder innovation; and 3) how vast improvements can be
achieved if SACWIS rules were made more flexible.
1) SACWIS Has Brought Positive Changes to Social Work Practice
By way of background, Virginia operates a locally-administered,
state-supervised human services system. The City of Norfolk is a medium
sized urban city of 230,000 with a poverty rate of 19%. We are closely
connected to several other localities in the Southeast corner of
Virginia known as Hampton Roads with a population of 1.5 million.
The use of information technology has been a welcome additional
resource to our toolbox in protecting children from abuse and neglect.
These systems have moved us from a requirement that social workers
complete their paperwork within 90 days to an expectation that
information will be ``in the system'' within 24 hours of the social
worker taking any action on behalf of a child or family. But, we still
have great distances to go.
In Virginia, the State operates a system known as ``OASIS,'' or
Online Automated Services Information System. This system came to us in
1998, taken from Oklahoma's SACWIS system, called KIDS.
I'd like to share an example of how OASIS has helped us in
protecting children. Recently, we received a call from the local
hospital about a child who was born exposed to cocaine. The mother also
tested positive. Through OASIS we were able to immediately identify
that this mother had four other children who had been removed from her
care by Virginia Beach child protective workers and placed with
relatives due to the mother's substance abuse and subsequent neglect of
her children. Prior to OASIS, we would have to make a call to Richmond
to identify whether there were any records of past child welfare
involvement in the State. Richmond would provide us responses to
certain questions, and we would then have to call the other locality,
ask them to pull the old case files (usually in closed case storage)
and mail or fax us the information. This process usually took weeks.
With OASIS, we had access to the information instantly and the child
was placed in our custody before the infant left the hospital. We were
able to develop a treatment plan immediately and used OASIS to document
and review all actions taken to protect this child.
2) Some Systems Hinder Innovation
Unfortunately, OASIS is very limited and what it does provide
requires intensive data entry time. A worker will enter information
into an average of 53 screens in a child protective services
investigation and more than 65 screens for a placement in foster care.
If this mother had not been referred to child protective services,
but had been provided treatment for substance abuse, referred to
truancy programs for her older child, or been involved in other non-CPS
programs, we would not have had a way to access this information.
Please take a look at the attached graphic developed by the City of
Arlington. The first graphic shows a typical family that we encounter--
a mother with three children and five grandchildren. The next graphic
shows all the different systems that collect information about these
family members that would be important for our social workers to know.
On the following page, you see the different information systems that
we largely do not have access to that would have to be queried in order
for us to understand the whole picture of the family. This is also a
burden on the family members and on children who may have to revisit
painful events multiple times. In this case, the family had to give the
same basic information to at least 14 different people operating in
different programs, sometimes even within the same agency. Although the
information should be shared, it is not consistently provided between
programs and requires substantial redundant efforts on behalf of
service providers.
Other issues that prevent us from fully benefiting from the intent
of the SACWIS program are:
Lack of interaction with local payment systems: As
children move between foster homes or back to their biological parents,
information has to be separately entered to make sure that the right
caretakers receive payments. Unfortunately, this doesn't always happen
promptly leading to payment errors and fraud.
Inability to produce management reports: For a locality
to run searches about trends in child abuse and neglect and foster
care, we have to request a report from the State. Basically, what we
put in, we can't get out without asking nicely.
Prevention of system improvements: The State of Virginia
is currently seeking to adopt the Structured Decision Making model
(SDM) in our child welfare programs. This is a research-based tool to
uniformly identify risk levels by caseworkers in the field. We have
been notified that SACWIS rules prevent us from implementing this
proven best practice as it cannot be entered into OASIS and would
require us to operate a separate ``stand alone'' system.
Information is not ``real time'': We have to wait for two
months past the most recent quarter to receive generic reports. The
most recent data available to us is from June. This prevents us from
quickly identifying and responding to any changing trends.
Information is unavailable from other relevant systems:
OASIS does not link to our local TANF, Food Stamps, and Medicaid
systems, or provide us with information on IV-E eligibility. These
systems must be searched separately in order to ensure that the child
has or maintains access to important benefits. These systems can also
provide important information about family history, potential relatives
that might care for a child, and basic information such as most recent
address.
Limited program inclusion: The system only allows social
workers involved in child protective services and foster care to enter
information. It excludes family prevention services, benefits programs,
day care, court-ordered services, juvenile justice services, adult
protective services, and the schools. All of these partners need the
ability to report their involvement in a single, shared database in
order to more effectively serve families.
3) Local and State Governments Can Develop Solutions If Empowered to Do
So
The City of Norfolk is working on mechanisms to provide ``patches''
to a troubled system so that we can improve our ability to manage the
child welfare program. In order to address the ``real time'' and access
to reporting issues, we've adopted the KIDSLINE--which tells us within
two hours of accuracy, the precise location of all children in our
custody, as well as generates a variety of reports. The KIDSLINE and
its staff will automatically update the benefits, payment and OASIS
systems to ensure accurate payments and appropriate support to children
and families.
We are also actively seeking a unified case management system that
would allow workers from various programs and partner agencies to enter
demographic information just one time and the system would
automatically ``populate'' additional systems as required. It would
work in concert with OASIS to report the exact same data elements to
the State and Federal Government but without having to enter
information into separate systems.
This case management system would improve caseworker efficiency,
save administrative costs, and vastly improve service delivery to
families. The technology is currently available, and we are prepared to
fund its development and implementation, alone if necessary. However,
we have been instructed by the State and HHS regional officials that
again, this would constitute a violation of SACWIS rules and would
result in the State having to repay the entire Federal investment in
OASIS. The State routinely invests millions in making incremental
adjustments to OASIS but will readily admit that it is years away from
reaching basic SACWIS requirements such as connectivity to TANF,
Medicaid, and Food Stamps programs, not to mention the local payment
systems.
We believe that both the State and HHS would like to see this type
of approach adopted as it is obviously beneficial to all parties.
However, both the State and HHS have indicated they believe their hands
are tied by the SACWIS rules. We respectfully request that this
Committee work with HHS, the States and localities to make certain
changes to SACWIS rules that will enable local governments to develop a
holistic system for serving families without harming statewide
reporting needs. These recommendations are described in detail in
Attachment 2. As has been made clear by recent tragic events in New
Jersey and Florida, we know that you have asked the question ``how come
nobody knew this was going on?'' The answer in too many cases is that
the true picture was like a jigsaw puzzle--there were many different
people holding separate pieces of the puzzle without knowing how to put
the whole picture together. Our information systems are the solution to
this problem and we need your help to make them the answer.
Thank you for your time and attention to this important issue. I am
happy to answer any questions that you may have.
______
ATTACHMENT 1
Courtesy of the City of Arlington, Department of Human Services
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 92985C.002
______
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 92985D.001
______
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 92985E.002
______
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 92985F.001
______
ATTACHMENT 2
DETAILED RECOMMENDATIONS
Norfolk Department of Human Services
1) Congress or HHS should clarify under SACWIS that a ``single
statewide system'' refers only to the infrastructure for reporting by
localities to the State and Federal Government. ``Statewideness'' is
not impaired if a locality adopts differing user interfaces, so long as
the reporting continues to operate through the single statewide system.
2) AFCARS and other data captured through the SACWIS system must
allow localities (those entering the data) to access and generate
reports using technical tools available to the locality.
3) Financial penalties should not be levied against a State if it
elects to allow local governments to pilot modifications to its system
before developing statewide approaches.
4) Congress should provide HHS with regulatory flexibility to waive
certain SACWIS requirements in order to promote demonstration projects
that integrate reporting/data systems while protecting the basic
infrastructure of the statewide system.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Ms. Baker. Now, Mr. Robert
McKeagney, Vice President for Program Operations for the Child
Welfare League of America.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT MCKEAGNEY, VICE PRESIDENT, PROGRAM
OPERATIONS, CHILD WELFARE LEAGUE OF AMERICA
Mr. MCKEAGNEY. Thank you, Chairman Herger, Mr. Cardin,
Members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to be here today to
talk with you about this important issue. I bring four distinct
perspectives to my comments this afternoon. Over the last
decade, I have had the privilege to work as a national
consultant in one way or another, and have worked with
virtually all of the 50 States on the meshing of information
systems and direct practice. Prior to that, I worked for 20
years in the Main Department of Human Services--in the State of
Main--for many of those years as the Deputy Commissioner for
Programs. Prior to that, I was a regional program manager,
beginning my career as a caseworker investigating abuse and
neglect cases, and placing children in foster care.
To understand these systems and how they work, I think you
need to blend all of those perspectives. Unlike a number of
other human service information systems we have built over the
years, the SACWIS and its predecessor systems are really
intended not only to support Federal reporting--which they have
done, if not perfectly, then substantially well, and
increasingly better over the years--but also, to drive internal
accountability systems that are used by program managers within
systems. Most importantly, and I think most confoundingly to
most of us, they also support the basic case management process
within States.
We have 50 different information systems in this country,
because we have 50 different sets of laws. We have 50 different
organizational configurations, and 50 different work processes
in place. The reason it takes so long to design a SACWIS is
because the people who are operating that system need to
understand in detail what it takes to protect children. The
Child Welfare League is deeply engaged every day with people in
States. Under a contract with the Children's Bureau, we operate
the National Resource Center for Information Technology, where
we provide technical assistance to the States in terms of their
use of SACWIS information, including how they report out their
performance in regard to the Child and Family Service Reviews.
Our National Data Analysis System engages all 50 States in
ongoing discussions of data quality. You would not want to sit
around the table while those discussions are being conducted by
some of those folks, but it is important work they are doing.
Most recently, we have also initiated a project, which you have
funded through the Children's Bureau, to review the causes
behind this problem of children missing from foster care. Early
next year, we will be bringing together a group of
representatives of the States to begin that discussion. The
State of Florida is a partner with us in that process, as is
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
We expect to hear problems about the technology, and the
types of things that are being reported. We expect to hear a
lot about definitions of terms--as to what actually is a
``missing child.'' Is it a child who has run away; is it a
child whose identification number is lost, for whatever reason,
and is confused with another identification number; or is it,
in some cases, a child who has actually dropped off the radar
screen or been abducted by a relative? Depending on what the
answers to some of those questions are, there are very
different solutions that need to be worked out. This brings me
ultimately to what I think is a fundamental point from the
perspective of the Child Welfare League of America. No matter
what kind of system we put in place, it is not going to be any
stronger than the skills and the resources of the people who
are driving that system.
The most important part of our national child welfare
system is the people who are out there actually seeing
children. Children who are missing within our information
systems often are simply miscoded within our system--or there
is delayed data entry because the folks who are doing most of
this work do not have enough time to do it. Training, of
course, is needed. Yet, more than anything else, we need to
give them enough time to make the basic observations that need
to be made. They need an opportunity to put those observations
in the electronic systems, so their managers can indeed verify
that they are out there doing the work that needs to be done.
Ultimately, they need to be able to hold them accountable. We
can't do that unless we give them enough time, tools, and the
resources they need to do that job.
We think there is a lot of improvement that is needed in
the current national information system. However, each of the
50 States is heavily invested in working within that system. We
would like to encourage the Children's Bureau to continue its
efforts to improve the quality of that data, and to continue to
provide additional assistance to the States as they move
forward. I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you
very much for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McKeagney follows:]
Statement of Robert McKeagney, Vice President, Program Operations,
Child Welfare League of America
My name is Robert McKeagney, I am the Vice President for Program
Operations for the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA). CWLA
welcomes this opportunity to testify on behalf of our 1,000 public and
private nonprofit child-serving member agencies nationwide for the
hearing on ``Improved Monitoring of Vulnerable Children.'' We
appreciate the interest this Subcommittee and other members of Congress
have demonstrated to better ensure the safety of children. As
underscored by the recent case in New Jersey, as well as other
instances of abuse and deprivation that have come to public attention,
we have not yet implemented a national child welfare system that offers
sufficient assurance that all children will be protected.
The focus of today's hearing is on the capacity of state child
welfare agencies to effectively monitor the status of children in their
care through the use of data within automated information systems, and
to consider necessary improvements.
I am going to speak to you today from the combined perspectives of
four vantage points. I have been fortunate during my career to have
worked as a:
National consultant during which time I have had in-depth
working relationships with a substantial number of state child welfare
programs and have been engaged in numerous reviews of national data
quality;
State administrator with responsibility for a broad range
of federally funded programs;
Child welfare program manager and supervisor at a local
level; and
Caseworker who investigated abuse and neglect complaints
and managed foster care cases.
Within the context of each of these roles, I have had the
opportunity to be involved with the design and use of child welfare
information systems. These experiences have led me to believe that the
most useful and accurate understanding of the challenges we face in
this area must be based on these multiple perspectives.
CWLA is engaged on a daily basis with states in efforts to improve
data management in support of a standard of direct service practice
that will lead us to a consistently high level of safety and care for
all children. Under contract to the Children's Bureau, CWLA hosts the
National Resource Center for Information Technology in Child Welfare
(NRCITCW). This national resource center works with states around the
implementation of SACWIS systems and their preparation for the federal
Child and Family Service Reviews (CFSR). CWLA's National Data Analysis
System (NDAS) works with states in cooperation with the U.S. Children's
Bureau to create better understanding of the information that is
already being reported on an annual basis. All fifty states (plus the
District of Columbia) have been involved in an NDAS National Working
Group that has conducted intensive reviews of federal reporting
requirements and the comparability of information being reported by the
states.
Most recently, CWLA has begun work on a federal grant to examine
questions that have been generated by cases of children reported
missing from foster care. In cooperation with the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children, the state of Florida, and
representatives of other states, we will examine policies and practices
to develop models that will aid states in maintaining more effective
tracking systems. This will include strategies to ensure adequate
tracking of the location of children and youth in care and that regular
visits occur. We will examine the use of SACWIS systems, the
effectiveness of state reporting procedures, and the roles of casework
staff and foster parents in overseeing the well-being of children.
Our work in this area will attempt to address a number of issues.
As part of this project, we are examining definitions such as when a
child is considered ``missing'' or ``runaway''; looking at cases of
children missing from foster care; parental abductions; and situations
where a child's location may be unknown to the child welfare agency but
may be known by the local law enforcement agency. Prevention issues
will also be examined, including a child's risk for abduction, the
stresses that may cause a child in foster care to leave, and the
supports that may help these children at risk. Workforce issues will
also be reviewed to ensure that caseworkers can monitor children and
are properly trained so that incidents of runaways can be prevented.
Influences on the Information Systems
State child welfare information systems are largely defined by two
major factors.
Federal reporting requirements that include the broad
framework within which specific data elements are defined and the
overall functional capacity of an acceptable system. In relationship to
these requirements, the implementation of the Child and Family Services
Reviews (CFSR) as part of a heightened national effort at measurement
and accountability, has reinforced the already powerful influence of
this mandate.
The unique needs of individual states, particularly as
they apply to the demands of case management and individual financial
record keeping.
This results in a national child welfare information system that is
actually a collection of fifty-one different systems bound together
principally by the need to report a core set of data elements to the
Federal Government. Otherwise, the systems have evolved to be
responsive to such things as unique state case practice standards;
differing levels of authority between state and local jurisdictions;
varying roles among state agencies; and the demands of well-established
state finance and management systems. This has certainly reflected a
sound strategy, given the differences among states. However, it has
increased the overall complexity associated with the design and
implementation of improved systems.
This degree of difficulty is reflected by the current status of
state implementation of federally mandated SACWIS systems. Only five
states have completed their SACWIS systems, despite the availability of
federal funding at 75% of costs in 1993-1997, and the ongoing
availability of 50% cost sharing. Another twenty-one states have
achieved operational status but are at various stages within the
assessment process. An additional twenty-one states are in planning,
implementation, or pre-assessment status. Four states have not
initiated any SACWIS activity.
Current Requirements of a State Information System
A quick review of the specific requirements that states must meet
highlight the inherent complexities they face. Each system must
incorporate at least eight different categories or ``modules''. Within
each of these categories or modules there is additional information
that is gathered or recorded.
The eight areas of data include: intake such as the initial
screening, investigation and assessment; eligibility, which also
includes future re-determination of eligibility; case management,
including a service plan, a review and on-going monitoring of the case;
resource management which includes support for facilities, foster
homes, and adoptive homes; court processing requirements which includes
court documents notifications, tracking in the courts, and interaction
with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA); financial management of funds
being spent; administration of the program; and interfaces with other
systems and programs such as TANF, child support, Medicaid, and the
child abuse and neglect data system. There are also optional features
or systems that may be linked, such as state licensing, the state
education system, and juvenile justice systems.
When all of this is put into practice, a system must have an
effective operational capacity to do three principal things. It must
support:
1. State compliance with federal reporting requirements, including
documentation of the states ability to meet federal outcome standards
under Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA).
2. Program management and decisionmaking, including provision of
data necessary to track and analyze both short and long term indicators
of individual and system performance.
3. Case management on an ongoing daily basis.
The requirement to perform case management functions is perhaps the
most important thing to appreciate about state information systems,
particularly those designed to comply with SACWIS requirements. These
systems are not simply for reporting purposes. They also must be fully
integrated into the daily work of thousands of direct service staff as
tracking and decisionmaking tools. Complete, accurate, and timely
information about the status of individual children is essential to the
process of providing supervision and care to children. The need to
bring this capacity to life places a much higher demand on states at
both the design and maintenance levels than would be the case if their
information systems were simply reporting tools.
This level of information is exactly what an effective system of
care demands, whether it is provided electronically or otherwise. A
principal benefit of automated information systems, however, is to make
it far more difficult to overlook a missing data element or step in a
process. Consequently, the real cost of securing and maintaining this
information becomes much clearer as the systems begin to generate long
lists of missing information. This has heightened our awareness of the
need to get beyond the admittedly complex technological aspects of the
systems and to meet the even greater challenge of integrating these
mandated information components into the ongoing casework process.
Each system is ultimately dependent on the skill and sophistication
of the thousands of front-line caseworkers and supervisors, who are
their principal users. This essential fact is at the root of both the
effective use and the misuse of state information systems as tools in
ensuring the safety and well-being of children. Individual children are
protected through the actions of responsible adults, including child
welfare caseworkers. Therefore, responsible and competent use of the
data is the critical element in all information systems.
State tracking and case management systems are only as good as the
information entered by caseworkers. The quality of this information is,
in turn, a product of two key variables:
capability of the caseworker, with support from a
supervisor, to observe, gather, and evaluate pertinent information.
investment of sufficient time, with complementary skill,
to enter accurate and complete information into the automated system.
An information system becomes an effective tool when high quality
information is produced and applied to future decision-making, both in
terms of children's needs and system accountability. Through a lens of
child safety, this means that caseworkers must refer to prior records
and place their current observations in the informed context of past
patterns. Supervisors must do the same, but apply the same principles
to the conduct of their staff as well as to children in their care.
Finally, state administrators need to review timely reports of key
system activities and events. They need to supplement this with solid
longitudinal outcomes information in order to assure themselves that
ongoing performance is consistent with both state and federal policy
standards. Most importantly, everyone from caseworker to department
head should be seeing comparable information and be fully aware that
they are all managing to the same outcomes. This requires considerable
skill at all levels, investments of time in analysis and communication,
and a reasonably sophisticated institutional ability to package and
present information. However, it also serves to transform data to
increased knowledge and accountability.
I would like to share just a few examples of all too common SACWIS
issues that negatively impact the ability of the case manager to make
well informed decisions about the safety of children in out of home
care and their needs for services and supports.
In many states (because definitions are state-specific), relatives
are not licensed foster care providers and as such do not receive
provider payments for the care of a child. Placements needing provider
payments are entered into the computer in a more timely fashion that
those placements not receiving payments. When caseloads are high,
workers are forced to triage their time and children placed with
relatives can, frequently, receive less attention from the case manager
than is given to the paid providers resulting in service needs not
being met and, possibly, unaddressed safety issues.
Data entry also occurs to support the generation of a payment to
doctors and psychologists who provide services to a child. Again, when
a worker prioritizes his/her time, a note about a visitation with a
child may be delayed, as it does not directly affect a payment. Delayed
entry could endanger the safety of a child if patterns of caretaker
behavior are not promptly recorded and viewed in conjunction with prior
notations.
All systems, regardless how well planned, developed and
implemented, rely on the input provided by the human case manager.
``Garbage in, garbage out'' is an issue in the use of any automation
system, but is proportionally increased when a system is not completely
and fully utilized to its designed capabilities. When a child death,
for example, is reported for a Child Protective Services investigation
there are detailed procedures for the steps to take in the
investigation of the death. Most procedures, however, do not include
specific direction to make certain data entry notations in the
automated computer system. Data entry can easily be neglected entirely
or entered days, weeks, or even months later which calls into question
the quality of the information. Incorrect, delayed or non-entry of
information could endanger the life of other children in a family if an
alleged perpetrator is not properly identified with the computer.
Due to the high level of case manager turnover, more reliance is
put on the ``memory'' capacity of the computer system. When a child who
is removed from home re-enters care the decision-making about placement
options, services, and treatment is enhanced by the information about
the prior experience in care. A properly trained case manager with a
well designed computer system and time can find the prior record on a
child and link the information, thus creating an accurate historical
record to use in decision-making. A case manager with a poorly designed
system, with little or no training and time, may not properly search
within the computer records Or not search at all and create a new
record, making it appear as this is the first time the child has
entered care. The history trail of a child is lost when a duplicate
record is created, and needed medical, social, psychological, and
educational records are not available to support the case manager's
worker efforts.
The practical challenges facing state child welfare systems are
well represented by the dynamics behind the well-publicized issue of
children missing from foster care.[1] In the spring of 2002,
the issue of children missing from care received national attention as
a result of a case in Florida. After that, additional states began to
survey their systems and also concluded that not all their children in
care were accounted for. Michigan determined that 302 children were
missing. In California over 700 children were unaccounted for. In the
fall of 2002, the 393 children under the supervision of the Florida
Department of Children and Families who were unaccounted for and
classified as missing were separated into two major categories: 86%
were identified as runaway (voluntary) and 14% were identified as
endangered/parental abductions/involuntary. These represent two very
different types of practice challenges. However, the information
management needs are similar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[1]\ According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(2003), of the 542,000 children in foster care on September 30, 2001,
9,112 children in care or 2% were identified as runaway. Of the 263,000
children who exited foster care during FY 2001, 5,219 children (2%)
exited the system as runaways, and 437 of the 126,000 children
classified as waiting to be adopted on September 30, 2001 were
runaways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, current administrative data on foster care does not
answer many questions about children missing from care. First, is the
issue of definitional clarity. Different definitions result in
different conclusions about the scope of the problem. These definitions
vary by type of absence, type of out-of-home care, duration of the
absence from care, and avenues of exiting care. With attainment of
greater definitional clarity, agencies could develop the capacity and
methodology to capture, analyze and share the individual,
environmental, and systemic factors that increase and diminish the
risks of children missing from care. This would lead to greater clarity
about the practice responses that would be effective.
Research highlights the need for detailed recording and monitoring
of all unauthorized absences and for improved coordination between
child welfare and law enforcement to develop more effective reporting,
response, and tracking procedures. The development of formal protocols
at the local level may help to establish clear procedures, including
explicit criteria for risk assessment; assist the development of an
integrated practice framework consistent with child protection
principles; and provide a basis for monitoring and reviewing patterns
of absences. This is a significant challenge, not only in regard to
design of information systems, but also in terms of interagency and
inter-jurisdictional coordination, development of effective
intervention strategies, and in staff training.
States, even those with currently approved SACWIS systems, have a
great deal more to accomplish in fully implementing information systems
that meet all of the demands of federal reporting, agency management
and accountability, and case management. There are still significant
technological challenges, both for those states still designing systems
and others who are in need of upgrades for existing systems. The most
daunting challenges, however, remain with the ``human factor.''
Caseworkers are the most important ingredient in achieving success with
these systems. Additional investments in reducing workloads and
improving the capacity of frontline staff to integrate information
management methods into sound case practice are necessary.
Given the complexity of these systems, it will be necessary to
maintain strong federal leadership for years to come. States will
continue to require support in the form of funding, technical
assistance, training, and development of clear standards for both
practice and data management.
Recommendations for Improving the Monitoring of the Safety and Well-
Being of Children in the Child Welfare System
The many efforts in which CWLA engages with the states and the
private child welfare agencies have led us to draw several primary
conclusions about actions that can be taken to strengthen the national
approach to monitoring the safety and well-being of children in foster
care.
1. The U.S. Children's Bureau should be encouraged in its
continuing efforts to improve the quality and consistency of federal
child welfare reporting. It should continue its consultation with
CWLA's National Working Group and other groups representing the states.
2. The U.S. Children's Bureau should continue its work with states
through the CFSR and Program Improvement Plan process to improve the
quality of child welfare services. It should continue to examine
current outcome indicators and standards to further strengthen the
connection between the CFSRs and child outcomes.
3. States should be provided with additional support in their
development of practical management reports and integration of SACWIS
data into their operational management and quality assurance systems.
Enhanced resources should be provided to support training in the use of
various data analysis methods and the application of data-driven
decisionmaking techniques.
4. Front-line staff should have access to ongoing training and
enhanced resources to support the integration of case reporting into
the casework process. This should include:
basic and advanced use of automated systems;
caseworker and supervisor case and caseload management
reporting functions;
development of policies and skills to support
integration of data-driven techniques into casework process; and
access to new technology (PDAs; voice recognition
recording equipment, etc.)
5. Caseloads should be reduced to acceptable standards.
Caseworkers and their supervisors must have sufficient time to do
rigorous, high quality work. Data quality and the effective application
of information to case management and decisionmaking depend on
thoughtful, thorough work. Too many caseworkers are still forced to cut
too many corners. In general, the quality of case data is the first
victim of an overburdened staff. The U.S. Children's Bureau should work
with the states to develop a clear set of standards to serve as
reference points for quality work and acceptable caseloads.
Additional Systems Improvements Needed
The child welfare system, as currently constructed, cannot protect
all children adequately. Failures occur. They are not limited to any
single state. These failures to protect children will continue to occur
until we put into place a comprehensive child protection system.
In addition to improving the ability of child welfare agencies to
keep reliable data on the children they serve, the national child
welfare system continues to be in need of:
A reliable, responsive, and predictable method of
guaranteed funding, for a full range of essential services, as well as
placement and treatment services.
A means of maintaining consistent focus on safety,
permanency, and well-being as outcomes for children.
Rigorous standards combined with strong federal and state
accountability mechanisms.
Recruitment and support of adequately trained child
welfare professionals, foster and adoptive parents, mentors, and
community volunteers.
Resources that enable parents to provide adequate
protection and care for their own children.
New Resources are Needed for an Array of Services
Child welfare agencies need to be able to provide a broad range of
services to children who have been abused or neglected and to help
ensure stability for them while they are in foster care and after they
leave foster care.
Increased support for primary prevention services can
prevent many families from ever reaching the point where is child is
removed from the home.
Support for reunification services is needed. Forty-three
percent (239,552) of children in care on September 30, 2000 had a case
plan goal of reunification with their parents or other principal
caretaker while 57% (157,712) of the children who exited care during FY
2000 returned to their parent's or caretaker's home.
A federally funded guardianship permanency option should
be available to allow states to provide assistance payments on behalf
of children to grandparents and other relatives who have assumed legal
guardianship of the children for whom they have committed to care for
on a permanent basis.
Post permanency services are needed to support permanency
when children have been reunified with their families, adopted, or when
relatives have assumed legal guardianship and permanent care. To
accomplish this for all children and families requires a system of
service delivery which will ensure that sufficient funding is available
to ensure that services will be available as the needs of the families
and children change; and that an appropriate range of services are
developed to meet the varying needs of adoptive families, birth
families, and adopted children. The provision of these services would
support reunification, prevent recidivism of children reentering foster
care, and maintain permanency for adopted children and those in
guardianship arrangements.
Families in the child welfare system need access to
appropriate substance abuse treatment. A common thread in child
protection and foster care cases is the high percentage of children,
their parents, or both who have a substance abuse problem. Up to 80% of
the children in the child welfare system have families with substance
abuse problems.
Children in the in the child welfare system need better
access to mental health services. It is estimated that 20%, or 13.7
million American children have a diagnosable mental or emotional
disorder. Nearly half of these children have severe disorders, but only
one-fifth receive appropriate services. For children living in foster
care today, the problem is even more serious. Eighty-five percent of
the 547,000 children living in foster care have a developmental,
emotional, or behavioral problem. Most of these children have
experienced abuse and/or neglect and are at high risk of emotional,
behavioral, and psychiatric problems. Upon entering foster care some
children already have a diagnosed serious emotional disturbance and
require significant services.
Native American children need better access to services.
Allowing Native American tribes and tribal consortia to apply to the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to directly administer the
Title IV-E foster care and adoption assistance program would increase
opportunities for Native American children to find permanent families
and receive the supports they need.
Workforce Supports are a Fundamental Building Block to an Improved
Child Welfare System
Supports to improve the child welfare workforce are greatly needed.
Successful outcomes for children and families in child welfare depend
heavily on the quality of services received, and in turn, on the
ability of the workforce delivering them. Yet, child welfare agencies
across the country are facing a workforce crisis on many fronts.
Attracting, training, and retaining qualified staff at all levels has
become increasingly challenging.
Conclusion
CWLA believes that important and necessary reforms must be enacted
to ensure a consistent level of safety and care for all of America's
children. We look forward to working with this subcommittee to develop
a comprehensive child welfare reform proposal that meets all the needs
of America's the most vulnerable children and families and ensures that
every child is protected. A part of that reform must include
improvements to systems designed to monitor the status of children.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. McKeagney. Now,
to testify, Mr. Mike Watkins, Deputy District Administrator for
District 2 of the Florida Department of Children and Families.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL A. WATKINS, DEPUTY DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR,
DISTRICT 2, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA
Mr. WATKINS. Chairman Herger, Congressman Cardin, and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
appear in order to discuss improvements in the monitoring of
vulnerable children. Monitoring is an important and critical
component of protecting children, and I commend the
Subcommittee for this review. As the Deputy District
Administrator for the Florida Department of Children and
Families, I have the responsibility for child welfare in 14 of
Florida's 67 counties. As you know, Florida is a large and
diverse State, with a census of more than 16 million people,
and almost 4 million children ages 0 to 17. Over the past 10
years, I have enjoyed a rich experience, employed first as a
protective services counselor, a child abuse investigator, a
supervisor, a multi-county administrator, and ultimately, as
statewide policy director. It has been my privilege to hold
those positions within the State of Florida.
On April 25, 2002, the Florida Department of Children and
Families revealed that a child, 5-year-old Rilya Wilson, had
disappeared 15 months earlier from her custodial home in Miami,
and had not been seen since. Governor Jeb Bush immediately
called for a full accounting of all children in our custody and
under our supervision. The task, seemingly simple, was not. The
complexity of aggregating the records of 48,000 children
regarding their respective placement and visitation information
was immense. We had children across 67 counties--Florida is one
of the largest States in this country.
We had recently converted all of our child records to
SACWIS, known as HomeSafenet in Florida--our local solution. As
a new system, the utilization of HomeSafenet varied across the
State, and therefore could not be relied upon to accurately
depict the performance of our current system. This would be a
major turning point in the history of our department. Faced
with a growing public expectation, we would struggle to answer
demands on the status of the children under our care, and the
status of Rilya Wilson. This would be the last time the
department relied on manual tallies to report on the status of
more than 40,000 children in our care. Again, the task was
immense.
Today, little more than 1 year later, every case manager,
supervisor, and manager can determine with the touch of a
button which children have been seen, by whom, and the outcome
of that contact. More important may be the children who have
not been seen during that period. Tragically, this
functionality was made available just weeks before the
realization that the assigned case manager failed, for more
than a year, to visit Rilya Wilson. Had this type of data
collection and management been available and utilized, perhaps
the tragedy of Rilya Wilson could have been avoided.
Historically, data routinely collected in child protection
was collected primarily to satisfy required submissions to
AFCARS and the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System,
our Federal reporting data systems. This data largely includes
aggregate demographic information and outputs. It does little
to characterize the experience of children in our care and the
quality of our work. It does nothing to facilitate the
management of a caseload, or the supervision of multiple
workers in a unit. On May 6, 2002, Governor Bush appointed a
blue ribbon panel on child protection to examine Florida's
child protection system. Many hearings were held, and on May
28, 2002, the panel presented its final report to the Governor.
This same report, which was submitted by Representative Mark
Foley, was presented to this Subcommittee on November 6, 2003.
The panel found that the case manager and supervisor
responsible for the case management of Rilya Wilson were
derelict in their duties, and that a system to assure that case
managers are visiting their charges was absent. On November 6,
2003, Representative Robert Andrews asked in this very
Committee, ``Who is watching the watcher?'' The blue ribbon
panel in Florida asked, ``How do you know what is really
happening in the field?'' The questions are the same, and the
answer for almost our entire history has rested on the
diligence of case managers, supervisory oversight of hard copy
files and workers, and quality assurance reviews on a minuscule
number of cases.
I have likened that very scenario to--given our quality
assurance assets--taking Polaroids in the Grand Canyon. You
just cannot know exactly what is going on. It was apparent to
me in my own experience as a frontline supervisor that under
the best conditions, fully staffed, with manageable caseloads,
I would not be able to follow hundreds of hard copy files and
workers, or the thousands of decisions that they make every
day. Our solution is multi-pronged. We are raising the
visibility of key casework activities via information systems
to all levels of the organization, while engaging community
partners to serve as a system of checks and balances.
The Children and Family Services Review is an important
opportunity and first step to evaluating quality in child
protection. Imagine if qualitative elements of child protection
were gathered in SACWIS projects across all States. Program
improvement plans would become manageable in real time, and
analysis of performance would be based on 100 percent of
children's experience, not on the sampling of a few files.
However, this matters little if case managers and supervisors
are not provided the tools to guide them through structured
decisionmaking, facilitate supervisory review and feedback,
increase accountability, increase access to other data sources,
increase mobility of the workforce, and manage their own
destiny by preventing mistakes in the first place.
Now, more than ever, we will rely on tools to monitor
outcomes, identify high performance, and protect Florida's
children. In the past year, 95 percent of the children in our
custody or under supervision were visited monthly. The number
of investigations open for more than 60 days have been reduced
from 32,000 to less than 500. It is my opinion that child
protection work ranks among the most difficult in this country.
It is not dissimilar to the work environments faced by fire,
police, and military personnel--men and women forged by their
experiences, and driven by their commitment to the mission.
This is true enough in my own experience. Yet child protection
generally faces incredibly high turnover rates, a lack of
fraternity, and a lack of the necessary tools widely enjoyed by
other responders. We recognize that parents have to be
responsible for their children. However, we believe that
through increased community ownership we have an opportunity to
prevent children from removal, stabilize families without
lowering the bar for safety, and improve both the delivery and
accountability of services. I thank you for the opportunity to
comment on this most important subject.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Watkins follows:]
Statement of Michael A. Watkins, Deputy District Administrator,
District 2, Florida Department of Children and Families, Tallahassee,
Florida
Chairman Herger, Congressman Cardin and members, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before this subcommittee of the Ways and Means
Committee in order to discuss improvements on the monitoring of
vulnerable children. Monitoring is an important and critical component
of protecting children, and I commend the committee for this review. I
submit the following written testimony for your consideration.
As the Deputy District Administrator for the Florida Department of
Children and Families, I have responsibility for the administration and
supervision of multiple programs, including child welfare, for fourteen
of Florida's sixty-seven counties. As you know, Florida is a large and
diverse state with a census of more than 16 million people of which 3.8
million are age 0-17 years. Over the past ten years, I have enjoyed a
rich experience employed as a protective services counselor, child
abuse investigator, front-line supervisor, multi-county administrator
and statewide policy director. It has been my privilege to hold each of
these positions within the State of Florida and I believe this
experience provides me a unique perspective of the children and
families of Florida that are most needy and the people that serve them.
On April 25, 2002 the Florida Department of Children and Families
revealed that a child, 5 year old Rilya Wilson, had disappeared 15
months earlier from her custodial home in Miami and had not been seen
since.
Governor Jeb Bush immediately called for a full accounting of all
children in our custody or under our supervision as well as the means
to positively identify each and every child under state supervision.
The task, seemingly simple, was not. The complexity of aggregating
the records of 48,000 children regarding their respective placement and
visitation information was immense. We had recently converted all child
records to a statewide-automated child welfare information system
(SACWIS) known as HomeSafenet in Florida. As a new system, the
utilization of HomeSafenet varied across the state and therefore could
not be relied upon to accurately depict performance. This would be a
major turning point in the history of our Department. Faced with a
growing public expectation, we would struggle to answer demands on the
status of the children under our care and the status of Rilya Wilson.
We were dependent on hard copy documentation and the diligence of more
than three thousand case managers and their respective supervisors.
This would be the last time the Department relied on manual tallies to
report on the status of more than 40,000 children in our care.
Today, little more than one year later, every case manager,
supervisor and manager can determine with a touch of a button when
children have been visited, by whom and the outcome of that contact.
Supervisors and managers can determine effortlessly caseload
distribution, how long each child has been in care, the number of
placements the child has experienced, pending court dates, and more.
Tragically this functionality was made available just weeks before
the realization that the assigned case manager failed, for more than a
year, to visit Rilya Wilson. Had this type of data collection and
management been available and utilized, perhaps the tragedy of Rilya
Wilson could have been avoided.
Historically, the only data routinely collected was done so to
satisfy required submissions to the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis
and Reporting System (AFCARS) and the National Child Abuse and Neglect
Data System (NCANDS). This data largely includes aggregate demographic
data and outputs. For example, the number of children served by race,
age, gender, etc. and did not characterize the experience of children
in our care or the quality of our work.
The Governor knew that the details of Rilya's case and the
``system'' needed more scrutiny. On May 6, 2002, Governor Bush
appointed a Blue Ribbon Panel on Child Protection to examine Florida's
child protection system. Many hearings were held and on May 28, 2002
the panel presented its final report to the Governor. The same report
Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) presented to this subcommittee on November 6,
2003.
The panel found that the case manager and supervisor responsible
for the case management of Rilya Wilson were derelict in their duties
and that a system to assure that case managers were visiting their
charges was absent.
On November 6, 2003, Rep. Robert E. Andrews (D-NJ) asked the
question, ``Who's watching the watcher?'' The Blue Ribbon Panel asked,
``How do you know what is really happening in the field?'' The
questions are the same and the answer for almost our entire history has
solely rested on supervisory oversight of hard copy files and quality
assurance reviews on a miniscule number of cases.
It was apparent to me as a front line supervisor that under the
best conditions, fully staffed with manageable caseloads, I would not
be able to follow behind hundreds of hard copy files on a daily basis
and was less likely to recognize or detect any trends of performance.
This scenario has been and remains the status quo in social service
agencies across the nation. Almost all data collected are for federal
reporting purposes with little to no return on effort for case managers
and supervisors.
Child protection supervisors and managers generally have not been
given the necessary tools to manage cases and unfortunately, the
consequences are grave. Those unacceptable consequences are why
Governor Bush and the Florida Legislature have invested time and
resources toward developing the quality and integrity of the systems we
use in ensuring that the children in our care are tracked.
Our solution is multi-prong. We are raising the visibility of key
casework activities via information systems to all levels of the
organization while engaging community partners such as service
providers, education, Guardians ad Litem, foster care review boards,
and other organizations. to serve as a system of checks and balances.
The Department of Health and Human Services' Children and Family
Services Review (CFSR) is an important opportunity and first step to
evaluating quality in child protection. In Florida, our progress in
development of information systems was recognized as a strength during
this review process. We agree and have identified every performance
element that can be measured via HomeSafenet in order to achieve
continuous improvement in child safety, permanency and well being.
Imagine if qualitative elements of child protection were gathered
in SACWIS projects across all states. Program Improvement Plans would
become manageable in ``real-time'' and analysis of performance would be
based on 100% percent of the children served versus a sampling of as
few as 50 file reviews every 2-5 years.
Today we continue to develop HomeSafenet in order to guide
casemanagers through structured decision-making processes, facilitate
supervisory review and feedback, increase accountability, increase
access to other data sources and mobilize the workforce.
In August 2002, Jerry Regier was appointed Secretary of the
Department of Children and Families and he began his duties on
September 3. His first progress report to the Blue Ribbon Panel was
made on September 23, 2002. There would be no honeymoon period.
Secretary Regier immediately focused the department on identifying
systemic changes that would advance four principles:
Ensuring Safety of the Most Vulnerable
Stabilizing the Department's Workforce
Increasing Accountability
Prevention of Crises Before They Happen
These changes--important overall and also necessary for the
transition to Community Based Care--rely on the development of local
service delivery systems built on natural community supports, a
holistic approach to child welfare, and major emphasis on Substance
Abuse and Mental Health. This fundamental change, directed by the
Governor and the Florida Legislature, rejects the premise that
government alone can meet the needs of children and their families.
This change requires a strong community ownership. This statewide
transition is scheduled to be complete in 2004. Now more than ever we
will rely on tools to monitor outcomes, identify high performance and
protect Florida's children.
In the past year,
95% of the children in our custody or under supervision
were visited monthly with improvement in the quality and interaction
between the counselor and child. For those children not seen each
month, we identify and prioritize them for verification of safety and
well being.
90% of fingerprints and birth verifications have been
obtained for children.
Runaway episodes and recovery of runaways has improved
significantly, largely attributable to the improved relationships with
law enforcement agencies. The partnership forged during the past year
between the DCF and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement continues
to produce results which benefit not only current runaways, but
troubled children on the brink of leaving.
Investigations open longer than the state legislated 60
days were reduced from 32,000 to less than 500, dramatically reducing
caseloads for child abuse investigators.
HomeSafenet was improved to better support the needs of
front line workers and supervisors.
HomeSafenet functionality was supplemented by the
statewide deployment of the Child Safety Assessment decision support
tool. (This on-line safety assessment is a structured decision support
tool that guides investigators in gathering and documenting all
information needed for key decisions. It also facilitates the
supervisory review of investigator activities and management of key
performance standards.)
A Program Improvement Plan (PIP) was developed and
accepted by the Department of Health and Human Services as a result of
our Child and Family Services Review (CFSR). (Workgroups throughout the
state are implementing the PIP locally with a great deal of statewide
oversight and support.)
The Department remains committed to its approach to reform child
protection in Florida. We are actively pursuing these goals.
Prevention of Child Maltreatment
Reduction in the Number of Children in Out of Home Care
Increase Number of Adoptions
Successful Implementation of the Program Improvement Plan
Successful Transition of Services to Community Based Care
Successful Completion of SACWIS
It is my opinion that child protection work ranks amongst the most
difficult in our country. It is not dissimilar to work environments
faced by fire, police and military personnel--men and women, forged by
their experiences and driven by their commitment to the mission. This
is true enough in my own experience. Yet, child protection generally
faces incredibly high turnover rates, a lack of fraternity and
necessary tools widely enjoyed by other first responders. Our more
recent experiences with smaller community working groups are creating a
shared commitment for these difficult jobs.
However, we recognize that all of our tools will never replace the
individual responsibility of parents to act within the guidelines of
law, within the laws of morality, and within the morals of human
relationships.
We believe that Florida is well on the road to true reform of the
child welfare system. Through this increased community ownership we
have a unique window of opportunity to prevent children from removal
from their families without lowering the bar of safety, and to improve
both the delivery of services and the accountability for those
services.
It is important to remember that the improvements Florida has
made--and continues to make--are elements with but one purpose in mind:
to ensure the future of Florida's vulnerable children.
I thank you for the opportunity to comment on this most important
subject.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Watkins. We will now hear
from Mr. David Springett, President of the Community College
Foundation.
STATEMENT OF DAVID R. SPRINGETT, PH.D., PRESIDENT, THE
COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
Mr. SPRINGETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Herger, Mr. Cardin,
and Members. The Community College Foundation is a nonprofit
foundation with its headquarters in Sacramento, California. The
Foundation has served education and the community for more than
20 years. We provide a wide variety of education and public
service programs distinguished by the effective and innovative
use of technology and program management. I will discuss
solutions to a problem that impacts thousands of foster youth,
and costs the government an estimated $1.5 billion per year. I
would like to set the scene by quoting from an article that was
recently posted on the Connect for Kids website.
``Nickie, a 15-year-old in Silver Spring, Maryland, didn't
start her new school on time this year. Administrators wouldn't
let her enroll because her health and academic records were not
up to date. When she started a few days after her peers, she
had already missed out on introductions and assignments. She
didn't have her textbooks and her name had not been added to
the free lunch program. Hungry and too embarrassed to bring
attention to herself, she skipped a meal, and spent her first
schoolday feeling sad and alienated. Like many of the estimated
500,000 children in foster care in the United States, Nickie
has moved from home to home, and school to school, all her
life. Her academics and her health have suffered; she runs the
risk of dropping out of school, which kids in foster care do at
twice the rate of other children.''
On average, foster youth move three times per year, and
their critical health and education records do not follow. The
ePassport links foster youth to their critical life data as
they move through the foster care system. We have created a
youth-centered system, as opposed to an organization-centered
system. The ePassport system empowers the foster youth and
their care givers by providing them with a secure, portable
link into their personal records. We have done this through a
blending of three technologies: smart cards, computer
databases, and the Internet. The ePassport contains critical
contact information, school course records, and immunization
and summary medical history--including medication and allergy
information. Also included is a record of the readiness of the
youth to leave care and start a useful and productive life.
Examples of the records are seen on pages 6, 7, and 8 of my
written testimony.
While we wish to empower the foster youth and their care
givers, precautions must be taken to ensure the confidentiality
and security of their critical life data. The ePassport is a
secure system based on the smart card technology. The data on
the smart card and the data on the local computer are
automatically synchronized over the Internet to a main server,
so you never lose the data. Smart cards have a unique
identifier and are password protected. There are added security
elements, including a photograph in the cards, and biometric
capabilities. All of the data files are encrypted. The smart
card system is superior to Internet-only systems because the
card stays with the youth at all points of care, regardless of
the Internet connection being available or not. Since a smart
card is in the form of a credit card, it can act as a monetary
instrument, as well as a data storage and security device.
To avoid duplicative efforts, ePassport has the capability
to import and export data between existing systems, such as
SACWIS. The ePassport is complimentary and additive to the
SACWIS system. Some additional benefits of ePassport are that
the youth do not have to stay out of school for lack of
immunization data or school records; there are no unnecessary
re-immunizations, and no accidental allergic reactions because
of unknown preexisting conditions or medication interactions.
It also aids the adoption process by timely provision of key
life data. After leaving care, the records could be maintained
indefinitely for emancipated youth, so that they can use those
records for job seeking and other requirements.
We plan to provide a 24/7, 1-800 number, call-in access for
emergencies. We currently have deployed the ePassport system in
several locations in California, and we are seeking support to
extend its use to other localities. In summary, ePassport is a
secure, portable, Internet-based health and education data
system based upon the smart card. It provides foster youth and
their care givers a secure, portable link to the critical data
that they need to better their chances of becoming productive
citizens. The smart card system empowers the youth for life,
with their own data in and out of care. Currently, because of
the lack of timely and complete data, duplicative services cost
governments an estimated $1.5 billion annually. Thank you very
much; I appreciate the opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Springett follows:]
Statement of David R. Springett, Ph.D., President, The Community
College Foundation, Sacramento, California
The Community College Foundation's
Foster Youth ePassport
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Improving the chances of success for America's foster youth.
The Problem
Foster youth records are incomplete, lost or disbursed among the
various agencies that serve our nation's foster children
Estimated $1.5 billion is spent annually on duplicative
services
Foster youth move an average of three times annually,
records do not follow at the same pace
Incomplete records result in over immunization, poor
follow-up for health conditions, delayed enrollment in school and
missed opportunities to address educational needs
The Solution
Foster Youth ePassport is a secure, portable Internet-based health
and education data tracking system delivered via Smart Card. ePassport
simultaneously updates and manages records in real-time format through
our secure patented synchronization technology. Youth data from other
database systems is securely exchanged through a Data Exchange Server.
Compatible and complimentary to Statewide Automated Child
Welfare Information Systems (SACWIS)
Maintain critical youth information
Information is accessible 24/7
Prevents over immunization, medication interactions and
misdiagnosis
Allows educational testing, placement & achievement data
to accompany student from school to school
Data from existing systems can be securely exchanged
through a Data Exchange Server
Allows database updates at any time
Current Activities
Amador County: Successfully operating since October 2002
with support from Child Protective Services, Foster Youth Services and
the Probation Department.
TCCF Los Angeles: Operating since May 1998. Foster youth
are enrolled in ePassport, tracking their participation in ESTEP and
ILP programs.
Antelope Valley: Operating since November 2002 with
support from Murrell's Community Service Agency, UCAN, Inc and Macro
Group Home, Inc.
Benefits
Foster Youth--Reduce delays in school enrollment,
complete accessible documentation for enrolling in school or applying
for work, improved medical care; no over immunization; provides smooth
transition to emancipation. Plus, improved outcome tracking.
Government (Federal, State, County)--Records available to
appropriate entities; reduction in duplicated efforts; consistent
information across organizational boundaries; allows incentive
disbursements via ePurse.
Medical Community--Provides summarized medical records to
medical care providers to improve health care for foster children.
Educational System--Allows immediate, accurate placement.
Service Agencies--Provides multiple agencies accurate
information on eligibility and services provided.
Supporters
The Child Welfare League of America, National Foster Care
Coalition, Amador County Child Protective Services, Amador County
Probation Department, San Joaquin County Foster Youth Services, Amador
County Independent Living Program
The Community College Foundation is the nation's leader in foster
youth training and education. The Foundation has over 15 years of
experience in foster youth programs.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Purpose: Implement ePassportTM, The Community College
Foundation's foster youth record tracking system. ePassport is a
secure, portable Internet based health and education data tracking
system delivered via Smart Card. It will significantly increase the
quality of life for foster youth and save millions of dollars in
duplicative services and manual processes, meanwhile collecting
meaningful outcome data to evaluate the plight of these youth.
Vision: The Community College Foundation envisions ePassport
complementing Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information Systems
(SACWIS) and other existing databases to become the national repository
for foster youth records. We currently have several successful pilots
in counties throughout California. Each year an estimated $1.5 billion
is spent on duplicative services for foster youth including over-
immunization, redundant medical treatment, manual record retrieval by
health care practitioners, judiciary officials, school administrators,
and other foster youth caregivers. ePassport eliminates these
unnecessary expenditures by empowering the youth with the key to his or
her complete, confidential and current information that employs a Smart
Card. Currently, statistical information regarding foster youth is
outdated and incomplete. The Community College Foundation would be the
national databank of this information using ePassport.
Key Points
ePassport will save millions of Federal and State dollars
in duplicative services, over-immunization, manual record retrievals.
ePassport will complement existing databases and SACWIS
to become the most complete and up to date national databank for foster
youth statistics.
The Community College Foundation has worked to improve
the quality of life for foster children since 1983. We have served more
than 100,000 foster youth in California.
Caregivers, advisors, school administrators, government
officials, and health care providers will have necessary and current
information available immediately.
Foster youth will no longer have incomplete records
resulting in over immunization, poor follow-up for health conditions,
delayed enrollment in school and missed opportunities to address
educational needs.
FACT SHEET
Scope: The Community College Foundation uses ePassport to track
medical, education and contact information for foster youth, thus
empowering government officials, caseworkers, and foster youth with the
ability to manage records instantaneously in a portable, secure format
via Smart Card. The types of foster youth data that is collected
includes:
Contact Information
Immunization history
Emergency medical information
Basic medical history
Allergies & medication
Educational records
Outcome Measurements
Insurance information
Services provided
Demographic detail
Care providers
Current photo of the youth
ePassport assigns levels of access rights to individuals that would
only allow them to access or update relevant information. For instance,
medical providers would add and update medical information, but they
would not have access to update or view education records. The database
administrator controls access to the specific information tabs.
Present Initiative: The Community College Foundation has invested
over $750,000 to develop and implement ePassport. New pilots will be
chosen to participate in this initiative will provide the most
comprehensive testing of the system in the varied and dense
populations. Each of the projects will take two to three years to
implement and evaluate.
Implementation: Our efforts began in California where The Community
College Foundation is the leader in providing foster youth services. We
have relied upon our thorough knowledge of the foster youth community
to develop ePassport. With additional funding we would be able to
expand our efforts. Future pilots would focus on three to five urban
areas with dense foster youth populations in order to take advantage of
existing infrastructure and economies of scale. In the first year of
the program, we would lay the groundwork for future large scale pilots
by conducting smaller pilots, training, developing a relationship with
the foster care communities, and presenting ePassport to relevant
parties.
Outcomes: A primary goal of ePassport is to provide meaningful
outcome data on foster youth as directed by the Chafee Foster Care
Independence Act of 1999. The type of outcomes we collect are: Self-
sufficiency, Knowledge and Skills, Social supports, High risk
behaviors, Physical and Mental Health, Self Perceptions.
Partnerships: To provide a holistic approach to foster care, the
Community College Foundation must partner with the entities that are
important in the lives of foster youth. These entities hold crucial
information for the foster youth such as education and medical records,
the status of their benefits and what services they receive, who their
care provider is, court records, and basic personal information (i.e.,
birth date, social security number).
Partners include: schools, hospitals, physicians, and government
agencies (i.e., courts and social services), and foster youth and their
caregivers.
Listed below is the data that each group records and tracks:
Schools--course work, Individual Educational Plan (IEP),
grades, GPA and contact information, and school/teacher notes.
Hospitals/Physicians--emergency medical, type of medical
coverage (insurance), basic medical history (i.e., prescribed
drugs, medical treatment, physician notes, and allergies).
Dentist--medical coverage (insurance), medication,
allergies, and dental notes/history.
Government Agencies--case worker, care provider, court
information, general information (i.e., birth date, Social
Security number, and photo), caseworker's notes, courses
completed, case number, medical doctor, allergies, medications,
disabilities, type of medical coverage, and services offered
and/or provided.
Current projects in California:
Amador County: Successfully operating ePassport since October 2002
with support from Child Protective Services, Foster Youth Services and
the Probation Department.
The Community College Foundation, Los Angeles: Operating since June
1998, Foster youth are enrolled in ePassport, tracking their
participation in ESTEP and ILP programs.
Antelope Valley: Operating since November 2002 with participation
from Murrell's Community Service Agency, UCAN, Inc and Macro Group
Home, Inc.
COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS
This document outlines the facts and basic assumptions used in
order to extrapolate an estimated cost benefit of $1.5 billion of
implementing ePassport This estimate covers savings on duplicative
services and labor, and lost state and federal funding sources.
Cost Impact
The numbers listed below (conservative estimates) illustrate the
magnitude of the educational, medical and social impact as a result of
the problems encountered by public service agencies due to incomplete
and missing records.
Cost Benefit Analysis Table
Annual Cost of Lost/Incomplete Foster Youth Data
Statistical Justification Data
ANNUAL COST SAVINGS OF ePASSPORTTM IMPLEMENTATION IS AN ESTIMATED $1.5
BILLION EACH YEAR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of Cost Annual Cost Estimated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Educational System $118,564,300
Facts Lost ADA
Total estimated U.S. foster youth
population is 545,097.\1\
12% of foster youth population may have
delays in enrollment of 2 or more
weeks.\2\
33% of foster youth experience 3 or more
placements with a 5.9 mean average.3, 4
Average Daily Attendance is $20 per day
per student.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical System $42,692,748
Facts Repetitive Immunization
Foster youth population 545,097.\1\
Average doctor visit is $48.\5\
Immunization shot is $9.\6\ (youth needs
20 shots by the time they enroll in
school & 24-26 by age 18) \7\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welfare System $682,680,576
Fact Cost of Public Assistance
33% of emancipated foster youth receive
public assistance.\8\
TANF/Cal WORKS pays $521.00 (adult plus
child) per month.\9\
TANF/Cal WORKS issues an average of $205
in food stamps per family.\10\
TANF/Cal WORKS subsidizes housing at an
estimated average $400.00 per month.\11\
TANF/Cal WORKS participants receive $60
per month for transportation.\12\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correctional System $683,599,606
Facts Cost of Incarceration
25% of emancipated foster youth are
incarcerated within 12 months of
emancipation.\14\
$28,502 per year to incarcerate in the
correctional system.\15\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lost Productivity $11,512,320
Facts Cost of Lost Productivity
50% of emancipated youth are unemployed
because of dead-end low paying jobs.\16\
The annual earnings for a foster youth
are $6,000.00 per year/$1,500 per
quarter.\17\
The national poverty level is $7,890 per
year.\17\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL Annual Cost $1,539,049,550
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a complete analysis with footnotes contact The Community College
Foundation (916) 418-5100.
The following are selected screen shots from ePassport:
Figure 1. General information screen
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 92985G.001
Figure 2. Immunization Records
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 92985H.001
Figure 3. Educational Records
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 92985I.001
Figure 4. Contact Information
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 92985J.001
Figure 5. Outcomes Measurement Form
OUTCOMES MEASUREMENT
Youth State ID Age Name Date Form Filed
Christopher Phillip 835903859082 15 Yrs. 3 Mos. Barbara Walters 6/2/2003 2:50:00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
YES NO
1. I have demonstrated that X
I know how to open a
personal bank checking and
savings account & am able
to write a check.
2. I have identified a X
caring adult in my life who
can be a trusted advisor.
3. I have submitted the X
name & contact information
of at least 1 adult who has
agreed to assist & advise
me regarding educational
opportunities, employment,
and/or vocational/career
decisions.
4. I have completed and X
received results from my:
Vocational Assessment/
Personality Inventory and
Ansell Casey Prescription
for Emancipation Readiness.
5. I (a senior in high X
school or equivalent) have
attended a workshop on
Financial Aid; completed a
FAFSA form, and heard about
available college resources
from an EOPS staff person.
6. I have completed an ILP X
Housing Plan and have
identified an adult to
assist me with housing
options.
7. I have provided evidence X
of having the following
documents:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YES NO ..........................
X Social Security Card........
X Certified Birth Certificate.
X DMV Identification Card
(with picture).............
X Educational Records
(transcripts)..............
X Green Card/Proof of
Citizenship or Residence
(if appropriate)...........
X Death Certificate of
Parent(s) (if appropriate).
X Medical Insurance...........
X I have received Vital
Document Resource
Information & I know where
and how to obtain missing
documents..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. I have completed a tour X
of a community college
campus and am able to name
and describe two new
resources from the
following list:............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
X Recreational and Social
Activities.................
X Vocational Education
Services and Career
Development................
X Student Services and Special
Programs...................
X Health and Counseling.......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. I have shown proof of my X
registration at the local
One Stop Center............
10. I have submitted the X
contact information for an
adult advisor who has
assisted me in accessing
the following computer/
Internet sites: vocational
training/career
opportunities, available
housing, college costs, and
job/employment.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 92985K.002
Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Springett. I see
that the Majority Leader, the Honorable Tom DeLay, has now
joined us. Mr. DeLay, we want to thank you for your longtime
work in this area. I would like to recognize you for your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TOM DELAY, HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER,
AND A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. DELAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cardin, Mr.
McCrery--and Mr. Foley is way down there at the end. I am
sorry--I am a little bit winded. I thank you, Mr. Chairman and
other Members. It is a privilege to come before you today and
discuss improved monitoring of vulnerable children. In the wake
of the recent revelations about starving and abused children in
New Jersey, the Nation's attention has once again focused on
our child protective system. It is a shame that it takes
something like that to get us focused again--but it should get
us focused. Since, for all of our Nation's unparalleled wealth,
strength, freedom, and compassion, hundreds of thousands of
America's foster children live their lives today in the cold
shadows of neglect--without support, without stability, and, in
many cases, without even love.
Mr. Chairman, this is not an intractable problem. There are
things we can do on the Federal level that make sense and have
worked before, if only we have the will, on every level of
government, to do them. In 1993, as you know, Congress started
to have an effect. The Federal Government made a significant
investment to encourage States to develop standardized
electronic systems to track the whereabouts and well-being of
foster children. This included the following: the reasons each
child first came into foster care; the child's case plan; the
State services to be provided to the children and their
families; the length of time the child is to stay in foster
care; and the number of placements and incidents of re-abuse.
The Congress felt that integrated data collection systems
would help child welfare workers to better monitor foster
children and to address problems as they emerge rather than
after we hear about them in the media. Between 1993 and 1997,
the Congress spent at least $1.3 billion to encourage States to
develop these systems; and now States receive open-ended
matching funds from the Federal Government at 50 percent. In
other words, whatever States have needed to spend over the last
decade to bring integrated data collection systems online and
up-to-date, the Federal Government has helped defray those
costs, and continues to do so. With only anecdotal evidence
about the success of these information collection systems, last
year Senator Grassley and I suggested to GAO that they
empirically examine the systems' reliability in the 50 States
and the District of Columbia.
The results, Mr. Chairman, were encouraging--but also,
frustrating. Encouraging, because, as we had hoped, Congress'
idea was a good one. According to the GAO report, State child
welfare officials admit that operational information systems
can help protect abused children, shorten the time to adoption
or reunification, and prevent and investigate child
maltreatment. Yet, unfortunately, the report also showed that
only 29 States--29 States--were found to have operational data
collections, with 22 only partially operational or not
operational at all. Four States are not even pursuing a system,
31 States are behind schedule, and 26 States report delays
ranging from 2 months to 8 years.
Further, it is worth bringing to the Subcommittee's
attention the situation in New Jersey, where a recent abuse
tragedy has been made public. There, the data collection system
is 4 years behind schedule--4 years--and child welfare services
maintain a preposterous 40 stand-alone, independent data
collection systems. To state the frustratingly obvious, Mr.
Chairman, our Nation's foster children are simply not being
served by the States obligated to care for them. Therefore, I
want to thank the entire Committee on Ways and Means, and
Congressman Camp, along with you, Chairman Herger, and Mr.
Cardin, for including in the recently passed Adoption Promotion
Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-145) a provision to penalize States that
do not report timely and accurate data to the Federal
Government.
No one can doubt the commitment of the American people and
their government to the welfare of our Nation's foster
children, but that commitment must be backed up by continued
vigilance here in Congress. So, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr.
Cardin, and the Subcommittee, for holding this hearing today.
It is vitally important that you do so. I thank you for your
continued commitment to America's most vulnerable children.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DeLay follows:]
Statement of the Honorable Tom DeLay, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Texas, and House Majority Leader
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee.
It's a privilege to come before you today and discuss ``Improved
Monitoring of Vulnerable Children.''
In the wake of recent revelations about starving and abused
children in New Jersey's, the nation's attention has once again focused
on our nation's child protection system.
And so it should.
For all our nation's unparalleled wealth, strength, freedom, and
compassion, hundreds of thousands of America's foster children live
their lives today in the cold shadows of neglect--without support,
without stability, and in many cases, without even love.
But Mr. Chairman, this is not an intractable problem.
There are things we can do that make sense and have worked before,
if only we have the will at every level of government to do them.
In 1993, Congress started to.
We created financial incentives for states to develop standardized,
electronic systems to track the whereabouts and well-being of foster
children, including the following:
Reasons each child first came into foster care;
The state's plan for them;
The state services to be provided the children and their
families;
How long the child is to stay in foster care; and,
The number of placements and incidents of re-abuse.
The idea behind this action was that integrated data collection
systems would help child-welfare-workers better monitor foster children
and address problems as they emerge rather than after the damage had
been done.
Between 1993 and 1997, Congress spent at least $1.3 billion to
encourage states to develop these systems, and now states receive open-
ended matching funds from the Federal Government at 50 percent.
In other words, whatever states have needed to spend over the last
decade to bring integrated data collection systems on-line and up-to-
date, the Federal Government has helped defray those costs.
With only anecdotal evidence about the project's success, last year
Senator Grassley and I requested the GAO to empirically examine the
reliability of the child welfare data collection system in the 50
states and the District of Columbia.
The results, Mr. Chairman, were both encouraging and frustrating.
Encouraging because, as we hoped, Congress's idea was a good one.
According to the GAO report, state child welfare officials admit
that operational information systems could help prevent abuse, shorten
the time to adoption or reunification, and prevent and investigate
child maltreatment.
But unfortunately, the report also showed that only 29 states were
found to have operational data collection systems, with 22 only
partially operational or not operational at all.
Four states are not even pursuing such a system.
Thirty-one states are behind schedule, and 26 states report delays
ranging from 2 months to 8 years.
Further, it's worth bringing to the Subcommittee's attention the
situation in New Jersey, where a recent abuse tragedy has been made
public.
There, the data collection system is four years behind schedule,
and child welfare services maintain a preposterous forty stand-alone,
independent data-collection systems.
To state the frustrating obvious, Mr. Chairman, our nation's foster
children are simply not being served by the states sworn to care for
them.
Therefore I want to thank the entire Ways and Means Committee--and
Congressman Camp and Chairman Herger especially - for including in the
recently passed Adoption and Promotion Act of 2003 a provision to
penalize states that do not keep their child welfare records up to
date.
No one can doubt the commitment the American people and their
government have to the welfare of our nation's foster children, but
that commitment must be backed up by further action.
I thank the Chairman and the Subcommittee for holding this hearing
today, and for their continued commitment to America's foster children.
Chairman HERGER. I thank the Majority Leader for taking the
time to appear before our Subcommittee this afternoon. I
understand that time constraints limit your ability to remain
for questions. However, Members are advised that they may
submit written questions for the record.
Mr. CARDIN. If I might, let me just take a moment to thank
the Majority Leader. He has been one of the real leaders in
this country on keeping us focused on helping our most
vulnerable children. If it were not for Tom DeLay, I don't
think we would have been successful in the foster care
legislation, and on the adoption legislation. I thank you very
much for using your office to help foster children, and
children being brought up for adoption. Now on this issue we
are going to need your help again in order to move the system
along.
Mr. DELAY. I will be there for you, Mr. Cardin. Thank you
for your comments.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. DeLay. Now to continue with
our other witnesses, Mr. Fred Wulczyn, Research Fellow with the
Chapin Hall Center for Children.
STATEMENT OF FRED H. WULCZYN, RESEARCH FELLOW, CHAPIN HALL
CENTER FOR CHILDREN, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
Mr. WULCZYN. Thank you, Chairman Herger, Congressman
Cardin, and Members of the Committee. Thank you very much for
inviting me to speak with you today. My name is Fred Wulczyn. I
am a Research Fellow at the Chapin Hall Center for Children at
the University of Chicago, where I direct the Multistate Foster
Care Data Archive, the Nation's oldest source of multi-state
data that tracks the placement experiences of children in
foster care. All told, the Archive houses data from 15 States,
covering in excess of 60 percent of the Nation's foster care
population. We have been tracking for the last 10 years, 1.4
million children who have experienced foster care placement in
States as diverse as California, New Jersey, New York,
Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Alabama, Wisconsin, Iowa, and
Maryland, among others.
Due to our work with the Archive, we have developed a
rather thorough understanding of the information systems that
States have at their disposal. To give you an idea of the
process, we actually get copies of the data set, rather than
extracts, which are the usual form of transmitting data to
third parties. I think that gives us a firsthand view of the
nuts and bolts of how these data systems actually work. I
mentioned New Jersey because, following the testimony you heard
2 weeks ago, you may be surprised to hear that New Jersey
actually has information assets. One panelist described the
information system in New Jersey as something out of the stone
age. I reference New Jersey for obvious reasons, but also to
tell you that our experience in working with the New Jersey
data system is somewhat different, and I would like to use that
experience as background for my remarks today.
There are really two points that I think have to be made.
First of all, it is very difficult to generalize and say that
States do, or do not, collect certain pieces of information
without exception. Child welfare programs differ from State to
State, and their information systems have to reflect that
diversity. If there was one best way to serve vulnerable
children, then we could minimize program diversity and simplify
information gathering, but, unfortunately, that is not the
case. Second, the real issue facing child welfare
administrators and practitioners has less to do with data than
with information and knowledge. To be sure, the foundation of
information and knowledge is data. However, in my estimation,
progress today is limited by our ability to transform data into
information and knowledge. In the States with the most
sophisticated information systems, it can be said that they are
awash in data with a limited ability to use it. That seems to
me to be the problem.
With regard to what data States might collect in the
future, one area that has been mentioned has to do with the
issue of child well-being. The Federal system of outcome
measures adopted for the Child and Family Service Review does
not include any direct measures of child well-being; and it is
fair to conclude that this reflects the state of affairs in
most, if not all, States. It is not because States don't care,
or their stakeholders don't care. It is that the issue of well-
being is a very complicated one, and it has to be approached
with some circumspection. Another area of uneven data
collection is in the area of case process. Caseworker visits,
court process, service delivery, and administrative function
such as case plan reviews, are recorded in some States and not
in others; that is an area where improvement could start soon.
How do States use the data? As I have mentioned, the big
issue has to do with transforming data into information and
knowledge. If you think about what happened with the Jackson
family, the issue had less to do with not having any data--in
fact, they had quite a bit of data. There were 38 visits by 5
different workers. Not all of that was recorded, but it was
direct observation of what was going on in the family. The
failure there was a failure of interpretation, not a failure of
data collection. What does this tell us? Transforming data into
information that guides action is a human activity, and the
skills needed to do that are a seriously neglected part of the
repertory. The modern SACWIS system is a model of technology
for capturing and storing data with extraordinary potential for
producing information, but that potential is realized too
infrequently.
As I said, the second part of the problem is with the human
capital issue. Before the utility of any data system can be
realized, whether it is a legacy system or a SACWIS system, the
human capital needed to use those systems has to be developed;
and, as I said, it has been neglected. There are States with an
enlightened leadership. They serve as models, and their
activities should be replicated, but there is considerable work
that needs to be done. In terms of new data collection,
appropriate safeguards and existing sources of information
should be linked to the fullest extent possible. That would
lift some of the data collection burden. Although well-being is
on everyone's mind, the scope of State responsibility regarding
well-being from a developmental perspective is yet to be
defined, and it is important that we be very deliberative about
that.
Fourth, for every new dollar invested by the Federal
Government in support of data collection, we ought to invest
one more dollar in the training of the workforce. Finally, what
else can the government do? The focus in these hearings has
been on State efforts to collect and use data. I think there
are some steps that the Federal Government could take right
away. With regard to the Child and Family Service Review, you
may find it interesting to know that, although permanency is
the principal outcome for children placed in foster care, there
is no outcome in the Child and Family Service Review that
measures the likelihood of leaving foster care for a permanent
home. More can be said about these issues. The Child and Family
Service Review is a good process, but there are some serious
problems that need to be addressed. Thank you very much for the
opportunity to speak with you today. I am available for
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wulczyn follows:]
Statement of Fred H. Wulczyn, Research Fellow, Chapin Hall Center for
Children, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
Chairman Herger, members of the Subcommittee, thank you very much
for inviting me to speak with you today. My name is Fred Wulczyn. I am
a Research Fellow at the Chapin Hall Center for Children at the
University of Chicago, an independent research and development center
devoted to bringing sound information, rigorous analysis, and an
independent perspective to the public debate about the needs of
children and the ways those needs are being met. I want to thank you
for the opportunity to address the issues that are the focus of this
hearing.
For more than 20 years, I have been conducting research using state
data systems that monitor children who are abused and neglected and
those children who are placed in foster care. Today, I direct the
Multistate Foster Care Data Archive, the nation's oldest source of
multistate data that tracks the placement experiences of children in
foster care. The Archive houses data from 15 states, covering more than
a decade of information. In some states, we are able to follow
admissions to foster care as far back as 1983. All told, the Archive
contains the placement histories of 1.4 million children. The states
included in the Archive include California, New Jersey, New York,
Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Alabama, Wisconsin, Iowa, among others.
Because of our work with the Archive, we have developed a rather
thorough understanding of the information systems states have at their
disposal. We have nuts and bolts knowledge of what are called legacy
systems as well as the more modern SACWIS systems developed within the
past decade. We are able to compare the strengths and weaknesses of
state data systems. Our research in recent years has focused on the
following: 1) the development of appropriate outcome measures that
state and localities can use to monitor performance over time; 2) the
development of appropriate statistical methods for understanding the
impact of policy changes; 3) the development of projection techniques
that permit near real-time performance monitoring; and 4) the
development of techniques for integrating information from various
sources into a comprehensive record of service involvement.
When our work leads us to direct involvement with states, we work
closely with state leaders such as William Bell in New York City,
Sylvia Pizzini from California, and Larry Brown from New York State. In
California and New York, we have supported the states in efforts to
develop the capacity to monitor the performance of county child welfare
systems using their existing data systems. In New York City, our work
includes the design of information delivery systems that significantly
expand access to information across child welfare organizations.
Finally, in New Jersey, we are working with the Division of Youth and
Family Services, the Settlement Panel, and the Rutgers University
School of Social Work to maximize the utility of the information
resources that exist in that state.
Following the testimony you heard two weeks ago, you may be
surprised to hear that New Jersey has information assets. Newspaper
accounts have described the lack of information; the state has only
recently moved to develop a SACWIS system and one witness two weeks ago
characterized the computer system in New Jersey as something out of the
``stone ages.'' I reference New Jersey for obvious reasons, but also
because our experience working with the state's data system is somewhat
different and I would like to use our experience in New Jersey as a
backdrop for my remarks today.
Before I address the questions that are the subject of today's
hearing, I would like to point out the following. First, it is very
difficult to generalize and say that states do or do not without
exception collect certain pieces of data. Child welfare programs differ
from state to state, and their information systems reflect that
diversity. Even when states collect what appears to be the same
information, detailed analysis often reveals important differences in
the meaning of what is actually recorded. Moreover, to the extent these
differences reflect state and local choices regarding the best way to
address the needs of abused and neglected children, the Federal
Government should assume a somewhat cautious position as it weighs
whether to impose data collection requirements because doing so might
reduce program diversity. If there were one best way to serve
vulnerable children, then minimizing program diversity would be less
worrisome. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
Second, the real issue facing child welfare administrators and
practitioners has less to do with data than with information and
knowledge. To be sure, the foundation of information and knowledge is
tied to data. However, in my estimation, progress today is limited by
our ability to transform data into information and knowledge. In the
states with the most sophisticated information systems, it can be said
that they are awash in data with a limited ability to make sense of it
all. In the past 10 years, I have met with hundreds of administrators
and caseworkers who trying to comprehend the data that is already
available. This is difficult work and adding data to the pile will not
hasten the day when we can be sure the child welfare system has
squeezed every bit of information and knowledge out of the data it
already collects.
What data are states collecting to monitor care and supervision?
With regard to the data states collect to monitor the care and
supervision of children in foster care and adoption, it is easiest to
organize a response using the federal outcomes to profile the current
state of affairs. The National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System
(NCANDS) is the source of federal data about safety (maltreated
children). As of 2002, 42 states provided data for the ``child file,''
the most detailed record available. According to the latest report,
those states represent nearly 85 percent of the population of
maltreated children reported to state officials. States that provide
NCANDS data do so by extracting information from their own information
systems. Because the file submitted by states is an extract, it would
be reasonable to conclude that the NCANDS data represents some fraction
of the information available from their information systems. The NCANDS
extracts include child- and report-level data regarding specific
allegations, demographic attributes of the victim, information about
the perpetrators, data that describes report-to-investigation response
times, and the disposition. The detailed child record also includes
historical information so that it is possible to identify children with
a history of maltreatment. Most recently, the data submitted by the
states includes information about services provided to maltreated
children, but these data are available only from a subset of the states
already providing NCANDS data.
States monitor the permanency outcomes of greatest concern to the
Federal Government--reunification, adoption, placement stability, and
reentry--using a variety of data systems including SACWIS systems.
Again, to understand the information states track in order to monitor
permanency, it is useful to consider what states report to the Federal
Government. The federal data source is the Adoption and Foster Care
Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS). As with NCANDS, the AFCARS data
submitted by states are extracted from a larger database maintained by
each state. The AFCARS data can be used to follow entries to and exits
from care. To a more limited extent, the AFCARS data can be used to
track placement stability and reentry. However, this particular problem
is unique to the design of AFCARS and does not necessarily reflect what
a state can do to track placement stability and reentry. I will return
to this point later. Information about the child includes demographic
data, administrative actions such as TPR, and reason for exit. Given
that virtually all of the states provide at least some AFCARS data, and
that the quality ofAFCARS data has improved over the years, it is fair
to conclude that the underlying state capacity to track the experiences
of children placed in foster care has improved.
The one area that requires additional development is well-being.
The federal system of outcome measures adopted for the Child and Family
Service Reviews does not include any direct measures of child well-
being and it is fair to conclude that this reflects the state of
affairs in most if not all states. This is not because states and other
stakeholders are uninterested. Rather, the issue of well-being is a
complex one, and deciding which data should be gathered and by whom are
questions that remain largely unanswered. Right now, in the states with
advanced data systems, tracking whether children attend school or see a
physician represents the leading edge of practice in this area. These
are not, however, measures of how a given child is doing in a
developmental sense. Again, I want to return to this point a bit later,
when I address what additional data might be collected in the future.
Another area of uneven data collection is in the area of case
process. Caseworker visits, court processes, service delivery, and
administrative functions such as case plan reviews are recorded in some
states. Of the improvements in data collection prompted by the SACWIS
systems, the case process components are typically superior to those
found in the older legacy systems. As a result, practice in this area
is improving.
With regard to the question about children in foster care and
children who have been adopted, practice differs significantly and for
good reason. Most if not all of what I have so far described pertains
to children generally or foster children specifically. That is, the
data collected about maltreatment pertains to all children. A child's
status as an adopted child does not alter the information collected.
Once a child has been adopted, how the child is tracked in their
information system changes. From an information systems perspective,
the historical record of an adopted child is retained. At the time of
the adoption, a new record is started, but usually only if there is
some type of post-adoption contact with the service system. States do
track subsidy payments, but I have little familiarity with how states
carry out that function. My impression is that payments are tracked as
part of a state's fiscal system. If there is no future involvement with
the child protection system, the recorded data will indicate as much.
That is to say, there is no record for the child following the
adoption, which is as it should be. The presumption when a child is
adopted is that the child is in a family similar to other families. The
state does not track the whereabouts of my children; adoptive families
should have the same expectation. To do otherwise might have a chilling
effect on the willingness of families to adopt.
How do states use data?
Of the questions posed by the Committee for this hearing, this one
is, I believe, the most important. Return for a moment to the testimony
offered two weeks ago. According to witnesses, the Jackson family was
visited 38 times by at least 5 different workers over a 4-year period.
Although much of the data that was gathered during those visits was not
recorded electronically, it would be off-point to conclude that there
was a lack of data. On the contrary, there was a great deal of data
available to at least a few people. That data was in the form of direct
observation of the children, their surroundings, and the interaction of
family members. In other words, the caseworkers had access to the
sights and sounds of family life and for whatever reason did not use
the data to formulate an appropriate plan of action. This is a failure
of interpretation, not a failure of data collection.
What does this tell us? The primary challenge at this moment in
time has to with an issue I raised at the outset. In most if not all
states with data systems, the challenge facing the child welfare system
concerns the use of that data for decision support. Transforming data
into information that then guides action is a human activity and the
skills needed to do that are a seriously neglected part of the
repertoire. We typically refer to SACWIS systems as information
systems, but in truth data system is a more accurate description. The
modern SACWIS system is model of technology for capturing and storing
data, with extraordinary potential for producing information. Sadly,
that potential is realized too infrequently.
The problem is two-fold. First, there is the problem of structuring
data so that information about children served can be distributed
throughout the organization. The SACWIS systems are useful for
capturing information about individual children, but a given child's
history of service has to be understood in a context that relates their
particular experience to the experiences of other children. Shaping the
information in data systems so that it serves caseworkers is an
engineering problem that requires greater attention.
The second part of the problem has to do with human capital. In
historical perspective, the child welfare system operated for a long
time with little or no systematically collected information. Ten years
ago there were relatively few states with information systems. The
Foster Care Data Archive that I direct started in 1993 with 3 states.
AFCARS data were first compiled less than a decade ago. State data
systems are ahead of that curve but not by too much in most cases.
The point is this. The first step is collecting the data; using
data is the second step. For the most part, the skills needed to use
information have to be acquired. In almost every state, a handful of
individuals understand that data well enough to convert it into
information. But on the frontlines, those skills are not yet widespread
because the demand for those skills has only recently evolved. Before
the utility of any data system can be realized--whether it is a legacy
systems or SACWIS systems--the human capital needed to use those
systems has to be developed. Technology companies that provide the
hardware and software for businesses of all types will tell you that
once the computers have been installed, ongoing support focuses on end
user training, an investment that often approaches the initial capital
investment.
States are making progress. In California, the Department of Social
Services working in conjunction with UC Berkeley and Barbara Needell
have made significant strides producing information that stakeholders
can use. In North Carolina, a group at UNC led by Lynn Usher with the
support of the Casey Foundation, has worked closely with a group of
states to build local capacity. In Illinois, Mark Testa has used the
state's data systems to promote policy reform. Our own work (Chapin
Hall) in New York City, New York State, California, Maine, New Jersey,
and Tennessee is yet another indicator of the progress the states are
making. Other states leading the way include Oklahoma, Kentucky,
Kansas, and Washington. Finally, the American Public Human Services
Association and the National Association of Public Child Welfare
Administrators are working to establish a Center for State Foster Care
and Adoption Data. Among other functions, the Center will house the
research and development work needed to facilitate the use of
information, bringing the latest technology to bear on the problem.
In each of these places, the effort to expand the use of
information is shaped by enlightened state leadership. Let me stress,
however, that despite the considerable progress that has been made,
there is considerable work that needs to be done before the use of
information becomes an integral part of the skill set that is applied
to decision making, at either the case level or the system level.
What additional data can states collect?
I am somewhat ambivalent about my answer to this question. On the
one hand, the long-term interest rests with expanding access to data
that is systematically gathered, recorded, and applied to the decision-
making process. When data that describe basic casework processes
(family visitation, caseworker visits, timeliness of investigations)
are not available, steps have to be taken to correct the problem sooner
rather than later. On the other hand, states are collecting data today
that they do not use, so it is difficult for me to see how collecting
more information solves one of the most basic problems. In some of the
states where I have worked, the lag between when outcome data were
first collected and when the data were used to understand what happens
to children in foster case was more than 10 years.
In light of what was known and not known about the Jackson
children, I understand the need to evaluate whether additional data
would have avoided what transpired. Understandably, attention has
turned to whether access to data about the well-being of children would
have improved decision making. As I suggested earlier, the question has
several parts. The first has to do with the individual pieces of data
that might be used to describe the well-being of children served by the
child welfare system. The second part of the question has to do with
assigning responsibility for collecting the data. When well-being is
measured as height and weight, it is easy to imagine any number of
people who might be able to accurately collect and record that data.
Most other indicators of well-being, however, are much more nuanced,
and require the involvement of trained professionals. Doctors and
nurses, for example, are the professionals who should be evaluating
child health and recording the data. The third question has to do with
whether the data already exists in a dataset maintained by another
public agency. In the interest of efficiency, too much redundancy
(collecting the same piece of information more than once) is often
counterproductive in the eyes of those individuals who have to gather
the data. It may not be a question of gathering more data. The solution
may be tied to better linkage between existing sources of data.
What then about new data collection? I would advise the following.
For children in foster care, data that capture whether a child is
receiving health care and attending school is a useful place to start.
Physician visits expand the circle of adults looking out for children.
For children who are adopted, the situation is more difficult, as I
mentioned. Without the active participation of the community, public
officials may find it hard to know what is taking place in the privacy
of a home. Even then, there is no guarantee that the community members
will interpret what they see in the same way a professional would.
Second, with appropriate safeguards, existing sources of
information should be adapted to the fullest extent possible. Linked
data provide a way to extend the data in one system with the data from
another. The obvious sources of linked records are health care data and
school data because the data in those systems represent health and
educational outcomes. Other data sources including TANF and behavioral
health can substantially improve our understanding of program
utilization and well-being without adding new data collection
responsibilities on the child welfare system.
Third, although well-being is on everyone's mind, the scope of
state responsibility has yet to be articulated. As I pointed out
previously, there are no federal outcomes that directly measure well-
being. Before new data collection requirements are imposed on states,
some time should be spent identifying the outcomes, defining the child
welfare system's responsibility vis a vis those outcomes, and then
deciding what data should be collected. To reverse these steps will
only lead to frustration.
Fourth, for every new dollar invested by the Federal Government in
support of new data collection, one more dollar has to be spent helping
states train their workforce on the use of that information as a
decision support because the failure to invest in human capital
diminishes the return on the original capital investment. This is
especially important as well-being becomes a focus. Compared to safety
and permanency related data, data that describe the well-being of
children is much more difficult to comprehend in a practice context.
Let me be more specific, it is easy to understand that a child lags
behind on some measure of development. It is much harder to understand
and document how child welfare interventions influence developmental
trajectories.
In this context, I would be remiss if I did not mention the need to
support research and development. If the Federal Government provides $7
billion to states for their foster care programs, an allocation of 1
percent for research and development would yield $70 million. HHS
recently announced discretionary grant awards totaling about $21
million, some of which goes for purposes other than research. These are
much needed funds, but the simple truth is that underinvestment in
research and development is one impediment to progress.
What else can the Federal Government do?
The focus of these hearings has been state efforts to collect and
use data. In closing, I would like to shift the focus and consider
whether the Federal Government is doing all that it can to promote the
use of data. For the most part, the answer to that question is yes. The
Child and Family Service Reviews (CFSR) represent real progress. The
emphasis on both outcomes and process is a substantial improvement over
the older system that relied almost exclusively on process measures of
state compliance with federal mandates. In short, the basic structure
of CFSRs has to be preserved.
Having said that, some aspects of the reviews require attention. In
the interest of brevity, I will point out a few of those issues. I have
already provided a paper to the committee that provides more
background.
First, although permanency is the principle outcome for children
placed in foster care, there is no outcome in the CFSR that measures
the likelihood of leaving foster care for a permanent home.
Second, the permanency measures that are being used cannot be used
to measure performance changes over time. The problem has to do with
the fact that the measures focus only on the children who leave foster
care; the experience of those children still in care is not included in
the measures.
Third, the reentry measure does not evaluate the risk of reentry at
the individual level.
Fourth, the 50 case sample is too small to draw inferences about
the quality of child welfare services, especially in large states.
More can be said about the issues I have raised regarding the
national outcomes. I have mentioned them in this context because the
underlying issues typify the larger problem. Broad system improvements
that benefit individual children depend on data. Having data is,
however, one piece of a complex puzzle that includes using the data
appropriately. The process of the CFSR is a good and important piece of
that puzzle. The outcome domains that are defined by the process are a
good and important piece of the puzzle, too. The devil in the details
has to do with exactly how the outcomes are measured. If the outcomes
as measured do not produce information managers can use to run their
system, then the entire process is undermined. The CFSR really is only
as good as its weakest link.
My experience over the past 20 or so years tells me that
considerable progress has been made on all fronts. There is, however,
plenty of room for improvement. The story of the Jackson children is
but the latest reminder. As you deliberate, I would ask you to remember
that critical task facing the child welfare system has to do with
converting data into useful information. Caseworkers, their
supervisors, and the administrators who manage these complex systems
will not make better decisions if the data in front of them cannot be
transformed into information.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you today. I
am encouraged by the interest in and commitment to child welfare the
Committee has shown over the years. Judicious investments in data,
information, and knowledge will improve child welfare services to the
benefit of vulnerable children and their families, the individuals who
need our best thinking most.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much. I would like at this
time to recognize a Member of the full Committee who, without
objection, will sit with us--the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Foley. With that, Mr. McCrery to inquire.
Mr. MCCRERY. Ms. Ashby, we know that some States have not
accessed any Federal funds so far for setting up a SACWIS
system. Do you have any data or information regarding where
those States are in terms of setting up a system that we think
would be adequate? Are they behind--what is their situation?
Ms. ASHBY. There are currently four States that are not
developing or operating SACWIS. They are Hawaii, North
Carolina, North Dakota, and Vermont. Three of those States have
had difficulties unconnected with having a system in place that
would not require them to need a SACWIS. Hawaii has a system in
place that they have determined to be satisfactory for its
needs--a system it does use to report to the Federal
Government. Of the other three States, two have had trouble
getting the funding to allow them to participate in SACWIS. Of
course, SACWIS is a matching program, currently 50 percent
Federal funds, and 50 percent State and local funds. The third
State had difficulty getting an agreement within its borders as
to what system would be best for the State--what system would
best automate statewide processes. So, that is why that State
does not participate in the SACWIS program. Of the four, only
one apparently has a system that is adequate.
Mr. MCCRERY. Mr. Watkins, you talked about the many
improvements that have been made in Florida since the Wilson
case. Looking at the systems you have in place today, and
thinking about the New Jersey case, the Jackson boys, do you
think that your system today would detect a case like the one
which occurred in New Jersey? If so, which parts of your system
would do that?
Mr. WATKINS. One of the foundations of SACWIS is that it is
statewide. When you have a community that is as diverse as
ours--with 67 counties, with so many different providers of
services, including law enforcement, who we contract for child
abuse investigations in 5 counties--it is absolutely imperative
that we have communication systems where every child is in the
same database. I do think in this particular scenario, where
you had what appears to be--in my limited knowledge of New
Jersey's case--different workers at different times working on
adoptions in a single home, information would have been more
consistent in Florida today if that were to occur, and we would
be able to avoid that.
Mr. MCCRERY. Why would information be more consistent?
Mr. WATKINS. For example, we have a very aggressive
adoption program in Florida. We have children that have special
needs that are adopted throughout the country, not just within
Florida--and, of course, all across our 67 counties. Due to
that, you may have different agencies working with a single set
of parents adopting one child versus another, and, of course,
you can see where it becomes very important to look at the
whole picture of what the family dynamics are.
Mr. MCCRERY. So, your new system does that? It links up?
Mr. WATKINS. What I am suggesting is that in the past we
would have had that same kind of liability because different
counties wouldn't know what the others were doing. In a SACWIS
environment, we would have a full picture of what the family
constellation looks like.
Mr. MCCRERY. Mr. Wulczyn, you have talked a little bit in
your testimony about the difficulty that States have in
collecting data that helps them to monitor kids in their care,
while at the same time meeting Federal reporting requirements.
Is this a big obstacle for States, or is it something that they
should be able to accommodate?
Mr. WULCZYN. Well, I can't speak for States directly. I
think it is an obstacle. It can be overcome, but there has to
be a focused effort to do so. Gathering data is the first part
of the problem. The second part of the problem is engineering
the data so it fairly represents what is taking place in the
State; that it meets a variety of user requirements, such as
reporting, local child welfare administration, supervisory
caseworker, and decision support. That is an engineering
problem that, just as with the data collection, requires focus
and emphasis. That is also part of the equation; and thus far,
it has been the neglected part of the equation.
Mr. MCCRERY. So, you are in favor of both? You are in favor
of the States doing both?
Mr. WULCZYN. I think it is good and appropriate for the
Federal Government to have an understanding of what is going on
in State child welfare programs. I think to a very large
extent, since the States are actually running the programs,
their knowledge of what is going on should be supported to the
full extent that it can be--but it requires commitment and
focus.
Mr. MCCRERY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HERGER. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cardin to
inquire.
Mr. CARDIN. I want to address Mr. McCrery's question,
because, Mr. Wulczyn, you have raised a very good point. You
can have the best collection monitoring system, but is it
useful in providing the tools necessary to assist a family that
may be in crisis? Does it give you timely information? Are you
able to respond? Does it give you the tools you need in order
to properly manage your caseload? I am getting from your
testimony that that may not be the case.
Mr. WULCZYN. Well, it is very difficult to understand.
Those are judgments and data. Electronic data removes much of
the context that is important to those kinds of judgments. That
is why I focused very much on the fact that there was data
collection taking place in New Jersey--what had happened was a
failure to interpret the data properly. The question is, having
made that data electronic, would that have facilitated a better
outcome? In some instances it will, and in some instances that
is expecting an awful lot--and it removes the worker's
judgment. I don't think any information strategy that removes
or minimizes worker judgment is, in the long run, going to be
productive for the system.
Mr. CARDIN. There was a suggestion made at the last hearing
that for those families who are getting assistance in adoption,
there is a right of Congress to put certain monitoring or
expectation requirements on how the States are handling those
families. I think this also goes with the general issue. We
provided technical assistance to developing and monitoring
systems, but we really haven't done much to see how that
information is utilized, other than making it available to us.
Shouldn't we be looking at additional expectations here in both
of those regards? I open it up to anyone who would like to
respond to that.
Mr. MCKEAGNEY. I will comment on that. The question about
whether or not there should be additional monitoring of
adoptive parents, I think, is one that is sensitive to most of
us--the idea being that once parents have made a full----
Mr. CARDIN. They are receiving special assistance from the
Federal Government.
Mr. MCKEAGNEY. I recognize that. We have always done
eligibility reviews for those continuing subsidies of the
Federal Government. Eligibility has been broadly interpreted in
many programs in the past. I personally believe that it is
appropriate to ask some broader questions about the continuing
appropriateness of that subsidy. Eligibility should not be
strictly a product of financial condition. I do think this is
an area that would be extremely difficult to move into. I don't
see a reason, however, why there shouldn't be face-to-face
contact with adoptive families on a continuing basis. There is
no substitute for human interaction in these relationships; and
no information system in the world is going to solve that
problem.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Watkins, the fact that you have almost 500
children that are listed officially as missing--I understand
most of these children have been classified as runaways. My
question is a follow-up on the last response: how did you make
that determination? Has there been a direct interface between
the department and the family to verify that these children are
runaways, the circumstances in which they have run away, how
long they have been missing, and what efforts have been made to
locate them, and so forth. Is this an easy way for you to
classify children where you don't know where they are?
Mr. WATKINS. No. We have made those face-to-face contacts;
and I would agree with the comment that there is no other thing
that we can do greater than the actual event that occurs
between the frontline worker and the child or parent. As of
October 31st, there are 468 children that the State of Florida
considers out of their placement. We break that down. Some 425
are on runaway status, where we have information that suggests
they have elected to leave their placement. There are 43
additional children who are either endangered or have been
abducted by someone.
Mr. CARDIN. I guess my point is, in making that
determination, do you have a process in place that requires--
was it a year later that you discovered a child was missing,
and therefore classified the child as a runaway, or is there a
process through which there is consistent responsibility of the
caseworker to determine whether a child is at home or not?
Mr. WATKINS. Yes, sir. We have one of the most aggressive
contact levels, in terms of the frequency with which we have to
contact the children. It is a monthly requirement. Every
calendar month, the 48,000 children are to be contacted. Since
the Wilson case, where we have been able to aggregate
literally, and know exactly on a statewide level which children
have been contacted and which have not, we have exceeded a 95
percent contact rate each calendar month. For the other 5
percent who have not been contacted, we have very stringent
protocols in which we follow up with those children.
Mr. CARDIN. What do you mean by contact?
Mr. WATKINS. Face-to-face contact between the assigned
caseworker and the child that is in the foster care system.
Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and I would like to
thank the witnesses for their testimony.
Chairman HERGER. Now the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Foley
to inquire.
Mr. FOLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I welcome all
those presenting today. This issue troubles me. It is more
difficult to get a Blockbuster card than it is to gain access
to a child in some States. Regrettably, we have heard a lot
about technology today, but one of the underlying concerns that
I have had since the New Jersey case appeared was the fact that
in that State there were 38 visits by an agent of the State to
the home of the Jacksons. Now, they claim that while they
weren't looking at the Jackson boys, they were supposed to
observe a girl in that family in the adoptive setting. That
belies the problem. If you are there to observe the conditions
in which a child is living, and you fail to observe four
children starving, then are we inadequately training the people
going into these homes?
Some of the homes we asked these caseworkers to go into,
you would have a difficulty convincing somebody with a
bulletproof vest and two sidearms to enter. So, we have to
recognize the stress we put these people under. What are we
doing on the human element? We are not talking about training.
Money doesn't seem to be a problem. I always hate when we have
these problems. All of a sudden, everybody comes, we need more
money--we need more this, we need more that. Yet $30,000 went
to the Jackson family to watch children starve. The minister
last week proclaimed the children were the guilty parties and
the family provided a God-fearing, lovely home in which to
raise children; and yet 38 visits occurred where no one sounded
an alarm bell. Can someone identify what we are doing to
improve the human training element, getting these people to
observe these cases and provide a more positive response to law
enforcement? Michael, if you would like to bat on behalf of the
State of Florida.
Mr. WATKINS. I would be glad to. In Florida, we are
reexamining our training curriculum. We are going toward a
community-based system of care, which means we are going more
toward smaller working groups. I mentioned in my testimony
about the lack of fraternity amongst the ranks of child
protection. We believe that smaller working groups will bring
an organizational identity that brings more commitment to their
job. We will have a localized training system with a minimum
core curriculum that is provided by the State. We absolutely
have to focus people on those very things--the family
constellation. You cannot do child protection, child welfare
work--whatever name you want to call it--without considering
all the elements of a family. If you are in a system that only
focuses on child decisions, and does not have a family focus,
then you are going to continue to fail.
Mr. FOLEY. You mentioned aggressive placement of children.
Does that aggressive placement of children lead to a rush to
place rather than securely placing?
Mr. WATKINS. In Florida, I hope that is not the case.
Certainly we have been asked, and we have been incentivized by
the State, to increase our number of adoptions by the Federal
Government. That is something we believe in--something our
State legislature has charged us to do. We have protocols, an
assessment process to make sure that we are making the proper
decision up front, so that in a post-adoption environment, we
don't have to worry about the decision going bad. One of the
things I would offer, however, is that an adoptive family is no
different than any other family that lives next door to you and
doesn't involve adoption. We have child protection systems and
investigative processes to go out and ensure their safety. We
believe that therein lies the assessment process.
Mr. FOLEY. Well, I visited with our agency in Tallahassee,
and I must commend the Governor and the agency for recognizing
a serious flaw in the program. So, I commend Florida for its
aggressive pursuit of getting to the bottom of the problem. Can
anybody else comment on the human element involved here--how we
can help expedite successful placement?
Ms. BAKER. I would like to say something about that. In
Norfolk we have two things: we have a contract with our local
university's Master of Social Work (MSW) program, and we are
implementing a training academy that focuses on those very core
subjects of investigation, child development, and things that
we need to be aware of. We want, across the board, all of our
workers--from new to our more experienced workers--receiving
the same types of training. In addition, we have also recently
implemented structured decisionmaking, which is a research-
based risk assessment tool. This helps us have consistency
across the board in what workers are seeing in homes, and how
they are assessing the risk level these children remain at when
they are left in the homes. That has just recently been
implemented, but across--there are 19 other States who have
also implemented this, and there has been some excellent
outcomes with structured decisionmaking as well.
Mr. FOLEY. What is the pay level for someone who is willing
to risk their life to go into these homes?
Ms. BAKER. Not enough. For an entry-level social worker,
$27,000.
Mr. WATKINS. Florida is $30,000 to $34,000.
Mr. FOLEY. Is there an increase if they receive higher
degrees of learning, such as an MSW?
Ms. BAKER. Not necessarily with an educational increase,
but if they are promoted to social worker two or three level, a
lot of that is connected to education.
Mr. WATKINS. The same is true in Florida. We have a
competency-based system where you are able to progress.
Mr. FOLEY. I am proposing a bill to allow social agencies
to use the National Crime Information Center computer system to
determine the fitness of adoptive parents. Would it be helpful
to be able to access criminal records of those who would seek
to adopt?
Ms. BAKER. We currently do that.
Mr. FOLEY. I understand some States aren't doing that.
Mr. WATKINS. We use it for placement purposes only. We
don't use it as an investigative tool. We think that that has
some application.
Mr. FOLEY. You will use it in determining the fitness of an
applicant to become a foster parent?
Mr. WATKINS. Yes, sir.
Chairman HERGER. I thank the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Foley. Our purpose today is to better understand if States are
doing all they can to ensure safety for children in their care.
The main point that I have taken from all of your testimony is
that while States have come a long way in developing these
systems, they still have a considerable way to go. However, it
also seems that the problem may not be a lack of data; rather
the problem may be that the States are not using the data they
currently collect. So, my question here is intended to help us
understand what more needs to be done to encourage both the
collection of, and the proper use of, these data to monitor
kids. Ms. Ashby, can you summarize the core data elements
States and local agencies collect, and how is that data related
to what they report to the Federal Government?
Ms. ASHBY. Yes, sir. State systems, such as SACWIS, are
supposed to be case management systems as well as systems to
collect data for the Federal Government. There are certain core
data elements, as you alluded to. They concern foster care and
adoption characteristics. There are 66 foster care elements,
and 37 adoption elements. Now, the other part of the
information that goes to the Federal Government has to do with
abuse and neglect, and SACWIS should ideally include that
information in its system. If it does not, there should be
another State system with that information, and the SACWIS
system should link to that system so that there can be a common
basis of reporting.
Of the required elements, some have to do with the
demographic characteristics of the children and their families,
such as the race of the child and parent, date of birth, sex,
and special needs. Other information has to do with the child's
experiences--how long has the child been in care, what type of
services have been provided, what type of placements have there
been, and that sort of thing. The idea is for States to be able
to track, for each child, what has happened to that child since
coming into care, and under what circumstances the child came
into care. Certainly social worker visits and findings during
those visits should be recorded, and any special needs.
Basically, it should include demographic data about the child,
the parents, and the experiences of the child while in care.
Chairman HERGER. Since it would appear that that data did
not help the Jackson children in New Jersey, what should we be
doing differently?
Ms. ASHBY. Well, the New Jersey system is in its planning
phase, which is the very early phase. So, the SACWIS could not
have been used to record information for that family in New
Jersey. As several people have said, no matter what system you
have, no matter how good your automated system, it is no better
than the data that is put into the system; that is where worker
training and some of the other things we mentioned here are
very important. So, I can't specifically answer your question
with regard to that. Had they had a SACWIS system that was
fully developed, it sounds like that may not have resolved the
problem here, because the social workers would not have seen a
situation with four children starving because that is not what
they saw. In this particular situation, it is very difficult.
Further investigation perhaps will point out some more lessons
to be learned here.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much. Now a question for
Mr. Springett. Good management of information systems in child
welfare would not only provide timely information, but also
accountability and safeguards to ensure that kids are being
provided with necessary services. Can your technology be used
to notify a program administrator in cases where there was no
activity reported for a child in, say, 90 days? Could you
notify the administrator when 12 months had passed with no
doctor visits, for example?
Mr. SPRINGETT. Mr. Chairman, yes, indeed. You could set a
flag on whatever period you desired, whether it is 30 days or
60 days, whatever the characteristics, and the system would go
through, do a search, and send up a flag to the system
administrator if there had been no contact within the 30 days.
It would then flag them to do something. By then, the same
could happen with the doctor's visit; you could flag that there
has been no activity or no record of any medical information
passing through the system within that time period. Yes, sir.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you. I would like to thank each
member of our panel for taking the time to travel here as we
review our efforts to ensure safety and well-being for children
in foster care. We will continue to explore these issues to
ensure that we are doing all we can to prevent any more
horrific cases of abuse or neglect from occurring. I thank our
witnesses today for providing us with important information to
consider as we seek answers to these critical questions. This
legislative session appears to be coming to a close, but these
hearings have highlighted that there are still additional
issues that we must explore.
A number of our witnesses today have discussed the role of
the Department of Health and Human Services in helping States
develop their data systems. I intend to follow up on some of
these issues with the Department of Health and Human Services,
and have these comments submitted for the record. It also is
apparent that we must examine Federal and State oversight of
child welfare programs. This will be the topic of future
hearings. Again, I thank our witnesses, as well as the many
parents and program experts who have taken time over the past
few weeks to provide comments to assist us in our work. Many
questions remain unanswered, but it is my hope that our efforts
will result in more permanent, safe, and loving homes for these
children who we strive to protect. With that, the hearing
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Questions submitted from Chairman Herger to Ms. Ashby, Ms.
Baker, and Mr. Watkins, and their responses follow:]
Questions from Chairman Wally Herger to Ms. Cornelia M. Ashby
Question: You discuss in your testimony that the Child and Family
Service Reviews currently underway by the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) look at statewide information systems. For a State
to pass this review on this factor, HHS must determine that the State
is operating a system that can readily identify the status, demographic
characteristics, location, and goals for placement of every child who
is in foster care. To date, we know that none of the States has
completely passed these reviews by HHS, but most of the States have
managed to be in compliance with their statewide information system.
What does this tell us? Does ``compliance'' simply amount to the State
having a system, without ensuring that it actually works to achieve its
purpose of protecting kids? Do these reviews examine how the States are
using these data to monitor kids in their care?
Answer: Regarding your first question on HHS's Child and Family
Service Reviews (CFSR), the CFSR takes a narrow approach to determining
the ``substantial conformity'' [1] of a state's information
system. As we mentioned in our July 2003 report [2] and our
November 2003 testimony, the CFSR requirement is that a state's
information system can readily identify the status, demographic
characteristics, location, and goals for placement of every child who
is in foster care. The review looks at the state's current information
systems, regardless of whether the state is developing a SACWIS or the
stage of development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[1]\ HHS uses information from the statewide self assessment and
stakeholder interviews to determine substantial conformity on this
measure.
\[2]\ See U.S. General Accounting Office, Child Welfare: Most
States Are Developing Statewide Information System, but the Reliability
of Child Welfare Data Could Be Improved, GAO-03-809 (Washington, D.C.:
July 31, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although a state may be in ``substantial conformity'' with the
information systems measure in the CFSR, the state may continue to face
challenges obtaining accurate and reliable data on the children in
their care. For example, HHS noted in one review that a state met the
basic standard, but added that although the system is data rich, it is
fragmented and local area offices and private partners with whom the
department contracts have developed their own individual data systems
to meet their needs. As a result, data exchange is difficult and the
data available in the state's information system may not accurately
reflect case activity and status.
Although HHS does not review additional components of a state's
information system during the CFSR, it conducts more thorough reviews
of states' information systems through the SACWIS and Adoption and
Foster Care Analysis Reporting System (AFCARS) reviews. For those
states developing SACWIS, the review covers a wide range of topics to
determine the functionality of the SACWIS as a statewide case
management tool to monitor the children in the state's care. However,
HHS does not conduct these reviews until the SACWIS is operational. As
we noted in our report and testimony, 29 of the 47 SACWIS are
operational or complete.
All states, regardless of SACWIS development, will have an AFCARS
assessment, which reviews the computer system's ability to capture
accurate data that reflect children's experiences in care. As we
reported, HHS has conducted 11 official reviews--even though states
began reporting AFCARS data in 1995.
Question: According to your testimony, in New Jersey there are more
than 40 stand-alone systems that capture information on children served
by their child welfare agency that they want to integrate. However, New
Jersey is still in the planning stage even though they first received
Federal funds in 1996. Do we know why it is taking this State so long
to develop a child welfare information system? Are there other States
facing similar problems and/or delays in implementing child welfare
information systems?
Answer: Regarding your question on the challenges New Jersey and
other states may be facing in completing their SACWIS, we reported in
our report and testimony that most states developing SACWIS encountered
challenges during the process. New Jersey reported in our survey, like
many other states, significant delays--42 months--beyond the timeline
it proposed to HHS for completion. New Jersey was not one of our site
visits for our report and, therefore, our knowledge of New Jersey is
limited to its survey responses. New Jersey reported that receiving
state funding approval was a ``very great challenge'' and that
receiving Federal funding approval, securing contractors with child
welfare knowledge, and establishing an internal task force to provide
recommendations on system design presented ``some challenge.'' Some of
these challenges are similar to those other states reported
experiencing. The common challenge reported by the states responding to
our survey was receiving state funding approval, which is required for
the state to draw down Federal SACWIS funds. Additional challenges
included reaching internal agreement on system development, creating a
system that reflects child welfare work processes, and creating a
system that is user friendly.
Questions from Chairman Wally Herger to Ms. Jill Baker
Question: The Human Resources Subcommittee held a hearing on November 6
that highlighted a number of areas where the child welfare system in
New Jersey failed to protect four Jackson boys who were apparently
starved by their adoptive parents. For example, we learned that this
family had been visited over 38 times by social workers who failed to
notice and/or document any problems. From your experience working with
child welfare data, do you feel that the data currently collected by
States is sufficient to help caseworkers assist children in care?
Answer: There is ample data collected by the State and local
Departments of Social Services, the State Medicaid office, the school
systems, and juvenile justice agencies, among others, to assist case
managers in providing optimal care and oversight to children in foster
care or adoptive placements. However, this information is not made
available to case managers, or shared across agencies. The information
collected by the State and local child welfare agency alone would be a
helpful management tool if the workers and supervisors had ready access
to the data. As I mentioned in my testimony, in Virginia, we do not
have the ability to run reports or queries against the system on our
own.
In State-supervised, locally administered settings, there are
issues over ``ownership'' of child welfare and other Human Services
data. We maintain that the data we enter in the system, for which we
are accountable to the Federal and State government and our community,
should always be available for us to access. When our workers,
supervisors, and program managers cannot access this data, they feel no
ownership for it and we'll always be in an uphill battle to improve its
integrity and our own performance.
Question: Are there steps that we need to consider to make sure that
States collect and use the child welfare data they collect?
Answer: Congress can and should expect that the appropriations it
makes generate high performance from State and local governments. The
Child and Family Services Reviews, which Virginia recently completed,
are a very helpful process in reinforcing the importance of data
management and measuring the overall quality of service provision to
children and families involved in the child welfare system. It is our
hope that these reviews and oversight by Congress will help propel HHS
and States to support efforts to develop data management tools rather
than just systems for satisfying the state and Federal reporting
requirements.
Question: Would your child welfare information systems know if a child
suffered from fetal alcohol syndrome or was a ``crack baby,'' as has
been alleged in the New Jersey child welfare case? Is there any special
guidance or monitoring you would provide to or require in the case of
families that care for such children?
Answer: In Virginia, hospital physicians are mandated reporters and
are required to report to Child Protective Services any infants born
substance exposed. However, not all hospitals or physicians comply with
this requirement.
Question: In the New Jersey case, the 4 boys needed medical attention
but failed to get it for years. Would your child welfare information
systems know whether children who have special medical needs and live
in families that receive taxpayer support for their care have visited a
doctor in recent years?
Answer: If the child is in foster care or has been referred for
child protection services, workers are required to maintain the child's
medical records and ensure that all special medical and/or educational
needs are met. For other children, the Virginia system would not
provide us this information because there is no electronic interface
between the State's SACWIS and Medicaid systems.
We have been informed by State officials that they are in the
process of seeking an interface with the Medicaid system to provide
some of this information. We do not know when this will be
accomplished.
Question: How hard would it be for States, for example, to compare
their lists of children who have visited a doctor paid by Medicaid and
their list of children in families receiving foster care or adoption
payments, to determine whether such medical care is being provided?
Answer: Running such a match would not be difficult if there is a
common individual identifier such as a Social Security Number in both
systems. However, no such match system currently exists in Virginia.
The City of Norfolk attempted to develop such a match program more than
a year ago. To do the match we requested a monthly electronic report of
all Medicaid payments made on behalf of Norfolk residents from the
Virginia Department of Medical Assistance. Our request was denied due
to confidentiality concerns.
Question: Do you engage in other data comparisons--for example focusing
on children who have bounced from school to school, suggesting behavior
or other problems--to prioritize your work?
Answer: We have not run data matches against the school data to
identify children who bounce from school to school. There is no ability
to do this on a statewide basis in Virginia. We have also monitored
school attendance for TANF recipients through data matches with the
school system for compliance with Learnfare requirements in
P.R.W.O.R.A. We have ``read only'' access to the Norfolk School Board
records that can tell us where the child is currently in school but it
would not provide a history of the child's attendance.
Questions from Chairman Wally Herger to Mr. Michael A. Watkins
Question: What resources--in terms of time, effort, and money-- did
Florida have to invest to go from the ``hard copy documentation''
system you describe in your testimony prior to this year to the current
automated system?
Answer: The cost of Florida's statewide Automated Child Welfare
Information System (SACWIS), known as HomeSafenet, through December 31,
2003, is $144,256,410. Actual expenditures by state fiscal year are:
1994-1995 $4,248,570
1995-1996 $7,744,187
1996-1997 $8,523,070
1997-1998 $10,622,360
1998-1999 $9,650,851
1999-2000 $20,604,763
2000-2001 $23,074,752
2001-2002 $26,805,682
2002-2003 $26,652,744
2003-2004 $6,329,701 (as of 12/31/03)
HomeSafenet is expected to cost $180-$200 million when complete.
Question: Your testimony states that the caseworker involved in the
Rilya Wilson case lied about visiting that family. What steps have you
taken to ensure that this can't happen again?
Answer: While we recognize that no safeguard can prevent humans
from misrepresenting facts involving the care of children, the State of
Florida has actively put into place a broad number of strategies aimed
at preventing and reducing the potential for such an occurrence.
The Florida Legislature enacted law to act as a deterrent for any
falsification of records involving the care of children. Additionally,
childcare providers were called upon to report the absence of any at-
risk child from childcare.
The Department of Children and Families has required all care
givers of foster children to report (toll free number) any child not
seen monthly by their caseworker. HomeSafenet was designated the system
of record for documenting all contacts between children and their
respective counselors. Thus facilitating oversight and accountability
by making key case management activities visible to multiple layers of
supervision including frontline supervisors, managers and
administrators. Also, caseworkers were required to date and time stamp
photographs of all children under supervision on a routine basis.
Question: Your testimony (page 4) discusses how 95 percent of children
in care were visited monthly last year. For the rest, you mention that
``we identify and prioritize them for verification of safety and well-
being.'' How do you prioritize? What factors do you consider?
Answer: Each child not visited within the previous calendar month
is identified by name at the caseworker, unit and district level. The
assigned caseworker accounts for the circumstances that prohibited
face-to-face contact with the child. The caseworker then prioritizes
any child not seen as the highest priority for contact within the
current calendar month. Specific factors for prioritization include:
child's age, child's location, perpetrator's access, type of care
giver, stability of placement, reason not seen and duration since last
contact.
[Additional questions submitted from Chairman Herger and Mr. Cardin
to the Honorable Wade F. Horn, Assistant Secretary for Children and
Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, to supplement
the hearing, and his responses follow:]
Question: According to the U.S. General Accounting Office, as of
October 2003, HHS had reviewed SACWIS systems in 27 States. What do
these SACWIS reviews entail?
Answer: The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) SACWIS
reviews entail determining whether a State's child welfare information
system meets criteria laid out in an OMB approved review instrument.
The review instrument includes an assessment of State documentation of
the system components and interviews with a representative group of
State users. The review instrument addresses up to 88 functional areas
of a State's child welfare information system, 51 of which are
mandatory. A State identifies those optional functionalities that have
been included in its system in its request for funding to build a
SACWIS. All functionalities included in the State SACWIS plan are
reviewed. Therefore, ACF will evaluate all mandatory functional
components (e.g., Intake, Screening, Assessment, and Investigations)
and all the optional components the State elected to include in the
system design (e.g., Court Processing, Contract Monitoring, and
optional interfaces).
Question: Approximately how long do these reviews take to complete?
Answer: In preparation for a SACWIS review, the State provides
documentation on the system. This documentation includes a prescribed
list of 11 items as well as supplemental information provided by the
State. ACF reviews the documentation prior to an on site visit. The on-
site SACWIS review is a week long activity. The review includes a
systems demonstration at a central State location, followed by site
visits to multiple offices within the State.
Question: How do you determine which States to review and when?
Answer: A State informs ACF when its SACWIS system has become fully
operational through annual status reports. A SACWIS review is scheduled
with the State after this determination has been made. The on-site
review is conducted at a time that is mutually agreeable to the State
and ACF. Usually the reviews take place in the fiscal year following
the year that the State informs ACF that its system is operational. The
review is scheduled after a discussion with the State project staff.
Question: Do you review all States, or only those States who have
received Federal funds for SACWIS?
Answer: Only States that have elected to implement a child welfare
information system qualifying for Federal funding are subject to the
SACWIS review activity. ACF may conduct other types of monitoring
reviews in States that have not elected to build a SACWIS.
Question: How do you categorize States based on these reviews, and what
do these categorizations mean? For example, what does it mean that a
State's SACWIS is operational? Partially operational?
Answer: ACF employs seven categories to identify the status of a
State's SACWIS:
``Operational & Assessment Process Completed'' means that
the State has a child welfare information system implemented throughout
the State, a SACWIS review has been conducted, and a final report for
the review has been completed. In some cases, the State has included in
the final report its plans to reach full compliance with SACWIS
functional requirements.
``Operational--Ongoing Assessment Process'' means that
the State has a SACWIS implemented throughout the State and a SACWIS
review has been conducted but the final report has not been completed.
``Operational--No Assessment'' means the State has
indicated there is a SACWIS implemented throughout the State and ACF
and the State are working to identify a timeframe for conducting the
SACWIS review.
``Partially Operational'' means the State has implemented
part of the SACWIS in the State but has not completed the
implementation yet and is not ready for a SACWIS review. A State is
placed in partial operation status when the SACWIS has not been
implemented in all jurisdictions within a State, because all functional
areas have not been implemented, or a combination of both.
``Implementation'' means that the State is developing its
SACWIS.
``Planning'' means the State has not begun the
development for a SACWIS, but has indicated its intent to build such a
system.
``No SACWIS Activity'' means the State has not opted to
implement a SACWIS. The State may have some level of automation
supporting their child welfare information needs but not a SACWIS.
Question: In addition to SACWIS reviews, HHS is completing the first
round of the Child and Family Service Reviews (CFSR) in all of the
States. Thus far, none of the States reviewed have passed on all
outcomes examined by the CFSRs. However, the majority of States
reviewed have been found in substantial compliance with the factor that
examines their State child welfare information systems. What do we know
about States that, according to their CFSR, do not have a compliant
State child welfare information system? Do these States do worse than
other States on child outcomes, particularly those that relate to
safety, permanency, and well-being?
Answer: We have completed Child and Family Service Reviews (CFSR)
of 47 States to date. Thus far, we have issued final reports for 40 of
those States. The final report specifies whether or not the State was
found to be in substantial conformity on each of the seven outcomes and
seven systemic factors covered under the review. Of the 40 States for
which we have issued findings, four States were found not in
substantial conformity on the systemic factor statewide Information
System. We have not made statistical comparisons of how those four
States fared on the outcomes evaluated in the CFSR relative to States
that were in substantial conformity on statewide Information System. It
is very important to note that the CFSR does not evaluate whether or
not States have a compliant SACWIS system. Additionally, the outcomes
measures are so interconnected that to pull out one item for comparison
would not yield meaningful results. With regard to statewide
Information System, the CFSR only evaluates one State plan requirement,
that is whether or not the State is operating a statewide information
system that, at a minimum, can readily identify the status, demographic
characteristics, location, and goals for the placement of every child
who is (or within the immediately preceding twelve months, has been) in
foster care. Thus, some States without operating SACWIS systems are
able to meet this requirement, based on information from their legacy
systems, and other States with operating SACWIS systems may not meet
the requirement if there are problems with the quality and use of the
system.
Question: States found out of compliance are required to submit Program
Improvements Plans (PIPs) to outline how they intend to improve their
programs. What do the PIPs in States that are not in compliance with
the factor that measures their State child welfare information system
include as steps to come into compliance with their information
systems?
Answer: The information below describes the reasons that the four
States were not in substantial conformity on the systemic factor,
statewide Information System, and how the four States plan to address
the issue in their Program Improvement Plans.
Connecticut: Connecticut has an operational SACWIS
system, but was determined to be out of substantial conformity on the
systemic factor, Statewide Information System, due to the lack of
accuracy of the data generated by the system and the lack of use of the
system by staff. In its Program Improvement Plan, Connecticut has
proposed to implement functional improvements to ensure that the system
accurately reports information on children in foster care, including
training staff on required data entry, linking the system's data
elements to Federal reporting requirements, making reports more
accessible to staff, expanding remote data entry capability, and
developing reports of missing data in the system to be used as a
management tool.
District of Columbia: The District has a statewide
information system that has the capability of generating the
information required by the CFSR on children in foster care. However,
we determined the District to be out of substantial conformity on this
systemic factor due to concerns about the accuracy and completeness of
the data and the use of the system by staff. In its Program Improvement
Plan, the District plans to convene key program and information system
staff to generate accurate caseload information by social workers, to
reconcile data in the automated listing of cases and in the manual
records, to ameliorate data entry backlogs, and to map and upload
historical data such as family demographics, family goals,
administrative review and legal notations, and reasons for exiting
foster care for all open and recently closed cases in the system.
New York: New York has a partially completed SACWIS
system which, together with other information systems in the State,
provides most, but not all, of the required information to track
status, demographics, location, Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and
Reporting System (AFCARS) data elements and goals for children in care.
In its Program Improvement Plan, the State has agreed to enhance
existing reporting and processing of data to meet the Federal statewide
information system requirements through the development of its SACWIS
system. At best, this system may be partially implemented by the end of
the PIP. The existing legacy systems will remain in place pending
SACWIS completion.
Georgia: Georgia does not have a SACWIS system, but has
legacy systems that are capable of producing information on children in
foster care. The State was determined to be out of substantial
conformity on this factor due to the inaccuracy and unreliability of
data produced by the State's systems. In its Program Improvement Plan,
Georgia plans to train staff in order to increase data accuracy in the
existing systems, and to improve data accuracy by making corrections to
the collection of data, e.g. how they define placement changes. The
State plans to take steps toward implementation of a SACWIS system, but
does not project the completion of the SACWIS system during the current
PIP.
Question: For Federal funds to be allowable for SACWIS, States must
have a child welfare information system in place that is administered
statewide. However, a number of States including California give their
counties authority to operate their child welfare programs. What do we
know about SACWIS in place in States that have county-administered
child welfare programs? Are they more or less likely to be in
compliance with SACWIS rules?
Answer: States with State supervised and county administered child
welfare programs face more obstacles to implementing a SACWIS child
welfare information system, but these obstacles have been addressed in
a number of States. Minnesota has an operational SACWIS and has
recently completed the assessment process. Other States such as
California, Colorado, and Wisconsin have been implementing or operating
a SACWIS while addressing county needs. Implementing SACWIS for a State
supervised, county administered child welfare services program requires
a greater level of effort to implement the fiscal services component of
the system, as the State system needs to interface with numerous county
payment systems. For other areas of functionality, SACWIS
implementation shares many of the same systems design concerns as those
involved in implementing a large statewide information system serving
both metropolitan and rural localities.
Question: Once a State begins implementing a SACWIS, if individual
counties were to propose changes to the systems in their county but the
State does not implement these changes statewide, would this affect the
State's ability to draw down Federal funds for their SACWIS?
Answer: It cannot be categorically stated that county system
changes will or will not jeopardize a State's SACWIS funding. To the
extent that a separate system change supports or provides functionality
that is not included in the SACWIS functional requirements, SACWIS
funding is generally not jeopardized. If the change is not in the
SACWIS, SACWIS funds cannot be used to pay for this function. If the
change replaces or usurps functionality built into the SACWIS child
welfare information system, SACWIS funds may be in jeopardy depending
on a number of factors including whether the change is available to
only one jurisdiction, if the change reduces the availability of data
to other child welfare jurisdictions, if the change involves software
for which Federal funds cannot be spent, and so forth. In some States,
the State SACWIS has been developed in such a manner that necessary
functionality is provided within the system in a manner that can
support differing case practice.
Question: How is HHS working with States that have county-administered
programs to implement SACWIS?
Answer: ACF works with all States regardless of there their
organizational structure to address specific State needs. Technical and
management assistance from ACF is on going through a project's
lifecycle. Some of the topics typically covered are: Federal
requirements, Federal regulations, training, system security, system
administration, system requirements, system design, change management,
communications, case assignment and transfer, ownership of the product,
enhancements, usability (e.g. navigation, screen design, pick-list
values, etc.), disaster recovery and business continuity procedures,
along with lessons learned from other States, including county-
administered States.
The means by which assistance is provided to the States varies, but
includes an e-mail listserv, national meetings, meetings with State
representatives at regional and national meetings, organizing national
conference calls and inviting State project staff to attend meetings in
Washington. ACF also offers an annual training event and on-site
technical assistance provided by either State peers, ACF contracted
resources or the National Resource Center for Information Technology in
Child Welfare. More details about these activities can be found in the
ACF action plan developed in response to the GAO report, ``Child
Welfare: Most States Are Developing statewide Information Systems, but
the Reliability of Child Welfare Data Could Be Improved,'' GAO-03-809.
The action plan is also enclosed with this document.
Question: What are the benefits and risks associated with allowing
individual counties to make improvements to their State's child welfare
information system, especially when these changes may not be
implemented statewide?
Answer: A State's SACWIS child welfare information system's
usefulness depends upon consistent, reliable, and timely information.
The need and reliance upon ancillary systems may create unintended
negative effects on the usefulness of the State's SACWIS child welfare
information system. Ancillary systems do not allow for this information
to be reliably shared beyond the area in which they are in operation.
To the extent that other offices within the State could benefit from
knowing the information contained within the ancillary system, the lack
of this information statewide can jeopardize the quality of child
welfare services provided throughout the State.
The use of redundant systems also increases costs to the Federal
Government because the State or county must develop, operate, and
maintain additional data information systems.
The use of ancillary systems compounds the data collection problems
identified in the GAO report 03-809 ``Child Welfare: Most States are
Developing statewide Information Systems, but the Reliability of Child
Welfare Data Could be Improved'' by a factor equal to the number of
additional systems. The data definition problems identified in the
aforementioned GAO report would extend down to the county level.
Question: Once a State begins the design and implementation stage of
their SACWIS, what is required for them to make improvements to these
systems? For example, suppose after 2 years of administering their
SACWIS, a State determined it was not meeting the State's needs and so
the State wanted to make improvements. Would the State be able to
simply make these improvements and claim associated costs as SACWIS
expenditures? Or would the State be required to initiate a new planning
and design phase before making any changes to improve their system and
claim associated costs as SACWIS expenditures?
Answer: For continued SACWIS funding, States must report annually,
through the Annual Advance Planning Document Update (APDU) to HHS on
their SACWIS activities. The APDU includes information on the status of
the project, the activities that have been conducted, the activities
that are planned, the amount of past expenditures and the anticipated
budget needs for the next year and the remainder of the project. Should
the State identify, over the course of the year, that modifications
need to be made or new functionality added, an APDU provides the means
to inform HHS of this need and secure Federal funding for the new
activity. Depending on the impact of the proposed change to the budget,
scope, or timeline, the State may need to communicate more frequently
with HHS than the APDU. HHS evaluates the business case presented by
the State to determine the appropriateness of the proposed activity.
The level of planning and design needed for any change is dependent on
the nature and scope of the change proposed. However, if the State has
an existing project, it would simply update the applicable Advance
Planning Document.
Question: What are examples of SACWIS systems that are in compliance
with Federal requirements and help States to monitor kids in their
care? What features of these SACWIS systems are most beneficial? Are
these features that States are required to have in place in order to be
in compliance, or are these optional features that the State included
to enhance its systems?
Answer: All 27 states where a SACWIS review has been conducted have
at least some components that comply with SACWIS requirements and help
the states monitor children in care. Arizona and Oklahoma are examples
of States that have implemented SACWIS compliant systems, but continue
to enhance them to address State program policy and practice. A State's
SACWIS system's usefulness depends upon consistent, reliable, and
timely information. As identified below, successful SACWIS systems
provide numerous ways in which to monitor children in care.
When an incident of abuse or neglect is reported, SACWIS
must support a search to identify if there is a prior match. SACWIS
systems must record the results of investigations of abuse and neglect
allegations when foster care providers are the subjects and provide
means to inform social workers that an investigation is underway.
A successful SACWIS should support an assessment of the
child and families needs and track these assessments over time. The
recording of the assessment and the scheduling of this activity is
mandatory. In some states, there is a structured process in place for
conducting this assessment. The states may automate this process.
States that have chosen to do so find productivity gains from this
effort including the benefit of uniform case practice.
SACWIS systems must support the creation of case plan
activities and the recording of case review activities.
SACWIS systems must support the generation of documents
and notices for when case plan activities and reviews are due. States
may also include in this functional area the ability to help identify
needed services, track when tasks and services are completed, and
record the results of those activities.
While the specifics of what alerts, notices, and
management reports are created are determined by the State, SACWIS
requires this functionality be provided to support child welfare
services. Successful activities include reports based on performance
measures for successful completion of critical activities; and alerts
to both caseworkers and managers of upcoming and overdue activities,
including visits.
While recording client contacts is an optional item,
states that have opted for this have found value in this function,
particularly when it can record the type of contact made with
additional information including date and narrative on the contact.
Tracking court activities is an optional component, which
when implemented and accepted by the courts, is a very useful tool for
tracking the status of children. When State courts accept documents
generated by the application, duplicate paper work and data capture is
reduced. This allows staff more time to work with the children for whom
they are responsible.
The inclusion of a fiscal component or interface to a
fiscal system is a mandatory function that once implemented, encourages
consistent use of the system. As a result, states are better able to
ensure eligible children receive the appropriate Federal benefits.
The completion of the required and optional interfaces to
other State systems helps states monitor children by providing a
complete picture of the different systems with which the family is
involved.
Question: GAO's testimony indicates that in a related report they
recommended HHS consider ways to enhance the guidance and assistance
offered to States to help them overcome the key challenges in
collecting and reporting child welfare data. What additional steps have
you taken to work with States to address the issues raised in the GAO
report, Child Welfare: Most States Are Developing statewide Information
Systems, but the Reliability of Child Welfare Data Could be Improved
(GAO-03-809, July 31, 2003)? What steps is HHS taking to address the
differences in data definitions which States highlight as a major
reason data that they report is not complete and/or reliable? What is
HHS doing in response to the GAO report to ensure that States receive
the technical assistance and guidance they need to overcome the
challenges in collecting and reporting reliable child welfare data?
Answer: In response to a similar inquiry from Senator Grassley and
Congressman DeLay, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
prepared an action plan to address the recommendations contained in the
GAO report. That action plan addresses the questions raised in this
section of your letter and a copy of that plan has been enclosed.
[The information is being retained in the Committee files.]
[Submissions for the record follow:]
Statement of the Honorable Anibal Acevedo-Vila, a Representative in
Congress from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
I applaud Chairman Wally Herger, Ranking Member Ben Cardin, and all
the Members of the Sub-Committee for convening this important--and very
timely--hearing to explore how the monitoring of our nation's
vulnerable children can be improved. I would also like to thank them
for this opportunity to share Puerto Rico's situation in this regard,
and in particular, the formidable challenges the Commonwealth faces in
the area of accessing the resources it needs to implement the kind of
information systems that can ensure the level of monitoring and
reporting that we believe is required, and which the Federal Government
expects of us.
I agree one hundred percent with the Chairman's assessment that,
``it is critical that child welfare agencies are capable of gathering
and using the necessary information in order to ensure the safety of
children.'' As he pointed out, the recent heartbreaking events in
Florida and New Jersey have highlighted the ``gaps'' in what child
welfare agencies are currently doing in terms of data collection and
the monitoring of the children in their care.
While it is truly a shame that those children had to suffer like
they did before this level of attention was focused on the problem,
that is all the more reason to make sure that we do everything in our
power to close these holes in the safety net for our vulnerable
children so that no child fall through those cracks again. If we don't
mend these holes, we risk letting the entire safety net unravel. I
think we can all agree that doing everything we can to ensure that all
our nation's child welfare agencies have fully functional automated
child welfare systems to keep track of vulnerable children is
indispensable in repairing this net.
Unfortunately, my district, Puerto Rico, is one place where it is
critical that our capacity to more adequately track these vulnerable
children needs to be improved dramatically, in order to prevent a
recurrence of the experiences of the children in New Jersey and Florida
that were mentioned earlier. In 2002, the Commonwealth received around
30,000 complaints of abuse and neglect and approximately 10,000
children went through our foster care system. As I have mentioned on
other occasions, when Governor Sila Calderon was sworn into office
nearly three years ago, she encountered a child welfare system that was
not keeping up with the urgent needs of our abused and neglected
children. There was a backlog of over 4,000 complaints that were
waiting to be assigned and investigated, the investigations themselves
took 2 to 3 months to complete, and social workers where overwhelmed
with caseloads of over 50 complaints each.
This was a completely unacceptable situation, in effect, one that
could very easily result in exactly the kind of regrettable events that
were the inspiration for this hearing. Improving our child protection
system became one of our highest priorities, so in just two and a half
years, with an investment of an additional $12 million in Commonwealth
dollars, we doubled the number of social workers in this program,
shrunk the backlog of cases by 88 per cent, and reduced social workers'
caseloads down to an average of 28. In addition, last year a pilot
program to reduce the turn around of complaint investigations to 48
hours was successfully instituted in one of the Family Department
regions, and it was extended the rest of the Island earlier this year.
Moreover, last year we inaugurated our first multidisciplinary
transitional shelter for children, ``Mi Casita Feliz,'' at an annual
operating cost of $2.4 million. This 108 bed shelter, run in
cooperation with the Health, Justice, and Police Departments, not only
provides immediate shelter for children who have just been removed, but
it also offers integrated medical, psychological, social, and
educational evaluations and services. Similar shelters are slated to
open in two other regions of the Island by next summer.
While the Commonwealth runs a child protection program that has
more children in its custody than 30 states, we received less federal
foster care funding than 44 states. States with foster care caseloads
around the size of ours, which varies between nine and ten thousand
children, received from $33 to up to $100 million dollars last year in
federal foster care assistance. Children in Puerto Rico were only able
to draw down about $13 million. The reason that vulnerable children in
Puerto Rico cannot count on the same federal support during their time
of utmost vulnerability is because the law establishes a cap on the
amount of IV-E assistance the Commonwealth can claim for its eligible
children. And as you can deduce from the situation I just described, it
is far below the real needs of our abused and neglected children. There
is only enough room under the federal cap to provide maintenance
payments to foster families and institutions that care for these
children. Everything else that is needed to run an effective foster
care system, as well as the essential information systems for
monitoring these children, has to be funded by the Commonwealth alone.
Not surprisingly, some our greatest challenges are precisely in
information systems. Puerto Rico does, in fact, report for the NCANDS
and the AFCARS. We are subject to the same Child and Family Service
Reviews as every other jurisdiction, despite being provided only a
fraction of the resources available to the states. But I invite you to
imagine the incredible challenge it is for the very hard working--I
would say heroic--people of our Family Department to be able to meet
all the reporting and monitoring requirements the Federal Government
expects us to meet when all of the case files are on paper, when
offices at the local and regional levels have no data connections with
the central office, when there are intake offices that don't have even
typewriters or fax machines--let alone computers.
The Commonwealth is committed to remedying this situation, despite
the fact that right now there really isn't any way to access any new
federal funds to do so. We understand the value of having a functioning
State Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) and we want
to do everything we can to implement one, regardless of the obstacles
before us and the fact that we cannot receive the enhanced matching
funds that states were able to draw upon. We believe that it is
imperative to set up this system, not only to ensure the safety of the
children in our care, but because we want to make certain that the
system is transparent and accountable, and that the federal investment
in Puerto Rico's child welfare system is protected.
While right now the chances that the Commonwealth foster care
program being able to receive federal matching funds to close these
significant gaps in our child protection safety net are marginal, we do
have reason to be hopeful that this may change soon. Thanks to the
assistance of some of our colleagues in the other body, both Republican
and Democrat, the Finance Committee's welfare reform bill includes a
provision that would enable Puerto Rico to draw down additional funds
for IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance outside of this welfare
cap. I invite you, Mr. Chairman, the Ranking Member, and the rest of
the committee to support this measure when the time comes to approve a
final bill. While the provision does not eliminate the cap on IV-E
completely, in order to be responsible about the budgetary impact this
change might cause, we do believe that it will provide a much needed
increase in federal resources to our program, where right now, federal
dollars are spread so thinly. I am confident that together, we can work
in a bipartisan way to help Puerto Rico come up to speed in its data
systems, close the gaps in our safety net, and ensure that not one
vulnerable child get left behind.
Statement of Larry W. Sarner and Jean Mercer, Ph.D., Advocates for
Children in Therapy, Loveland, Colorado
Advocates for Children in Therapy thank the chairman and members of
the Human Resources Subcommittee for holding this hearing and offering
us an opportunity to discuss a major factor in the abuse of the
Collingswood children and many other foster and adoptive children. Our
organization, ACT, is a non-profit group dedicated to fighting abuse of
children in putatively therapeutic care.
Unlike some other witnesses in the present hearing, we believe that
the Collingswood case was not primarily a consequence of overburdened
caseworkers, poor supervision, or inadequate budgets. Although those
problems need to be addressed, a more important factor in this case was
a belief system followed by the Jacksons and apparently condoned by
caseworkers.
The belief system we refer to is the basis of a form of
quasiprofessional mental health intervention called Attachment Therapy
(or AT) by its proponents and sometimes termed Coercive Restraint
Therapy by its many professional critics. Spreading by means of the
Internet and the mass media, this form of intervention targets foster
and adoptive children. AT itself is a physically intrusive and
potentially dangerous practice. It is often accompanied by a parental
approach called ``therapeutic foster parenting'' and this appears to
have occurred in the Jacksons' case, resulting in serious mistreatment
of the four boys.
Attachment Therapy is a pseudoscientific and pseudotherapeutic
approach to childhood behavior problems, especially among foster and
adopted children. It postulates that the bad behavior of ``difficult''
children comes from their failure to attach to their current
caregivers. Thus, it seeks to ``treat'' these children by quite
literally trying to force the children to love and obey their
caregivers unquestioningly. It does this by brutalizing the children
and trying to break their wills, both in the therapy room and at home.
The more children try to hold on to their dignity and individuality,
the more severe treatment they receive.
At a time when there is a national demand for evidence-based
medical and psychiatric treatment, AT and its adjunctive treatments
exist without an evidence basis. Indeed, its practice and the
assumptions about child development which underlie it run completely
counter to established facts about children's lives. The AT-therapeutic
foster parenting approach is mental health quackery at its worst and
most disturbing. We urge you and your staff to read a recently
published book for a complete discussion of this complex matter,
Attachment Therapy on Trial: The Torture and Death of Candace Newmaker.
Brutality is brutalizing to its practitioners as much as to its
victims. In the case of AT, parents in particular become desensitized
to their child's suffering as their brutality continues week after
week, year upon year, because good outcomes are forever elusive. Many
cases of parents ``going too far'' using AT parenting techniques have
been reported, with growing frequency of late.
As you and your staff investigate this case further, you will see
telltale signs of Attachment Therapy and its parenting techniques in
this case:
The control of food to a child is an important AT
parenting technique. There have been several instances of starvation or
near-starvation associated with AT parenting, most recently in highly
publicized cases in Utah and Texas. AT parenting specialists
specifically counsel diets of nothing more than peanut butter-and-jelly
sandwiches and/or cold oatmeal for weeks or months on end.
Until relatively recently, locking doors of certain rooms
in the home, such as a child's room, has been a common recommendation
by AT parenting specialists. Now they recommend putting alarms on them.
AT parenting directs that parents require children to
sit, usually on the floor, unmoving, for long periods of time. They
call it ``strong sitting,'' or sometimes ``power sitting.''
AT parenting specialists recommend establishing authority
over children by requiring children to unquestioningly perform long
hours of useless tasks, or do them in time-wasting ways. Cutting a lawn
with garden shears, or washing clothes in buckets, would be examples of
such. In other settings it has been removing fallen leaves by hand or
shoveling manure.
AT parenting specialists commonly prescribe keeping
childrens' rooms bare and devoid of mental stimulation. Children are
allowed very few, if any, toys, and playing with the ones they may have
is considered a privilege that must be earned. In Catch-22 fashion,
such privileges are rarely earned.
Formal education, too, is considered a privilege and not
a right. AT tells adoptive parents that these children are budding
sociopaths not fit to be in the company of others, especially at
school. Homeschooling is a growing option chosen by parents, which is
not to say that they actually schooled.
Denial of medical care is a frequent occurrence. In the
AT world-view, children's physical complaints are considered false,
attention-getting, and manipulative. Treating ailments appropriately is
regarded as allowing the child to ``win'' the all-important control
battles. Moreover, caregivers following AT fear that medical
professionals, after seeing a child, might report them for neglect or
abuse.
AT demonizes children and dismisses any complaints they
may express about their caregivers. Thus, it is a common occurrence
that parents caught abusing their children with AT techniques call the
children liars when they detail the abusive treatment they have
received.
AT universally demonizes birth families of adopted
children. AT proponents urge a complete break of contact between
children and their birth parents, regardless of circumstances. During
``treatment,'' they demand that children agree with an unfavorable
assessment of the birth parents by requiring the child to discard or
distort any favorable memories they may still have about their former
families.
Unfortunately, the adoption/foster-care agencies of many states and
counties around the United States, including those in New Jersey,
actively promote this pseudoscientific and pseudoprofessional nonsense.
New Jersey, for instance, distributes a 32-page pamphlet to foster and
adoptive parents that teaches foster and adoptive parents to
misdiagnose their children with attachment disorder and then tells them
what supposedly they can do about it. The pamphlet, part of a home-
study course, urges parents to put children into treatment with
Attachment Therapists, where the children are not only mal treated
during their time with the Therapists, but the parents are also taught
how to continue treatment at home, with abusive techniques such as
you've seen in this case.
Caseworkers, meanwhile, are given the message that AT parenting
techniques are acceptable, no matter how abusive they appear on their
face. One caseworker in Utah recently investigated a report that a ten-
year-old was being kept home from school in a bare bedroom for days at
a time and allowed to say only ``Yes, Mom,'' ``No, Mom,'' and ``May I
go to the bathroom?'' The caseworker, after being told these were AT
techniques, saw nothing wrong with any of this, and even counseled the
mother on how to avoid being reported in the future. It is not
surprising, then, that caseworkers in New Jersey had no alarm bells go
off about the treatment of the Jackson boys.
It is essential to address the question of what the Federal
Government can do about this. We can be sure that there will be calls
by other witnesses for additional federal aid to child-welfare agencies
to provide more workers for better oversight. Whatever the merit of
such calls, there is an even better way for the Federal Government to
prevent cases like this: root out AT from the child-welfare system in
every state. That is something that the House of Representatives last
year endorsed doing with the passage of HCR 435 by a 397-0 vote. And it
can be accomplished by doing four simple things:
First, the Federal Government can severely restrict the use of an
attachment disorder diagnosis for the classification of children as
``special-needs'' and thereby entitle adoptive parents to an adoption
subsidy. This will remove the financial incentives to misdiagnose and
maltreat children, as well as free up scarce federal dollars for the
truly needy.
Second, the Federal Government can tighten up its authorizations
for medicaid payments and other subsidies to mental-health providers,
to assure that payments aren't made for attachment therapists and
attachment parenting specialists. For the most part such payments would
be in violation of PL 106-310, the Children's Health Act of 2000, but
regulators implementing that act should be alert to the subterfuges and
non-disclosures that AT practitioners use to prevent detection.
Third, there should be a tightening of controls on federal grant
money for the study of therapies and interventions. We have identified
several grants to ``study'' AT and allied practices. Invariably these
are not studies to determine safety and efficacy, but rather for
identifying means of integrating AT seamlessly into the adoption and
foster-care systems. Controls should assure that federal grants are
spent wisely, and only on scientifically validated interventions (which
AT certainly is not).
Last, but certainly not least, the Federal Government must use its
aid to state agencies to assure that caseworkers are not either
surreptitiously or negligently ignoring signs of child-abuse just
because parents are following the advice and practices of so-called
therapists or parenting specialists. Abuse is abuse, regardless of the
source of the advice encouraging it, or whether the title ``therapy''
is attached to it.
It probably does not require additional legislation to achieve
these four simple things. The bureaucratic mechanisms are already in
place. Perhaps Congress in its oversight function can persuade the
executive branch to issue the rules and establish the controls that can
save a lot of suffering--and ironically a lot of money, too.
Thank you for your attention.
Sandata Technologies, Inc.
Port Washington, New York, 11050
December 3, 2003
Chairman Herger, Ranking Member Cardin and members of the Subcommittee:
We appreciate the opportunity to offer this statement on behalf of
Sandata Technologies, Inc. in connection with the Subcommittee's review
of States' child welfare information systems and the November 19, 2003
hearing on ``Improved Monitoring of Vulnerable Children.''
The Subcommittee's hearing is particularly timely in light of
recent, tragic reports of abuse and neglect suffered by children whose
well-being was entrusted to the State of New Jersey's child welfare
agency. The serious failures of the New Jersey Division of Youth and
Family Services underscore the need for significant improvements in the
systems designed to track and monitor children and the services
delivered by child welfare and foster care programs. This tragedy has
thereby focused renewed attention on the broader problems facing such
agencies throughout the nation.
A recent review of States' efforts to develop child welfare
information systems by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO)
concluded that inaccurate and incomplete data entry by caseworkers
affected the quality of data reported to the U. S. Department of Health
and Human Services, which in turn resulted in potentially unreliable
information on abused and neglected children available in federal data
systems.[1] According to GAO, States also reported technical
challenges reporting data.[2]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[1]\ Child Welfare: Most States Are Developing Statewide
Information Systems, but the Reliability of Child Welfare Data Could Be
Improved, GAO-03-809 (July 2003).
\[2]\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As GAO's analysis has highlighted, State agencies face significant
management challenges in delivering child welfare and foster care
social services. However, easy-to-use technology currently exists to
assist States in addressing these concerns. Telephony for child welfare
and foster care, with its accurate real time data collection capability
and management data presentation, can enable improved ``visibility''
into field operations and improved government oversight.
Through the use of telephony, State agencies can automate case note
capture, reporting and the monitoring of field activities. A telephone-
based, voice-to-text technology will collect all relevant information
from the assessment site. Telephony eliminates the need for laborious
paperwork and enables social workers to focus on providing services to
children in need. Equally important, it enables supervisors to confirm
visits and to ensure that all children are being assessed. This
technology delivers all of the collected information from the field and
delivers it to the supervisor's desk-top computer in real-time.
In summary, the use of telephony can provide concrete benefits to
State agencies, including:
Detailed tracking of caseworker visits, so children do
not ``fall through the cracks.''
Real-time management visibility of every case on demand.
Aggregated data for greater managerial control.
Significantly decreased administrative costs through
elimination of manual data entry of time, attendance, and narrative
notes to create a complete meeting record.
Increased productivity and dramatic reductions in
paperwork with voice-to-text functionality.
Improved retention and recruitment of social workers.
Quick and easy implementation.
We look forward to working in partnership with you as the
Subcommittee considers ways to strengthen States' child welfare and
foster care programs and to improve the quality of services provided to
children in need. Thank you for your consideration of our views.
Sincerely,
Stephen A. Silverstein
President
Mark C. Baff
Vice President
Statement of the Honorable Dennis A. Cardoza, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California
Mr. Chairman, as you well know, despite spending in excess of $7
billion of federal funds annually on foster care services, our nation's
foster care system remains a critical failure. As an adoptive parent, I
understand first hand the challenges our country's foster care children
face as they attempt to move out of the child welfare system and into
permanent loving homes.
It is especially disheartening as a parent to hear about cases like
the one in New Jersey where it has been alleged that a foster care
family was severely neglecting their four foster children, even while
caseworkers visited the home on numerous occasions. This case has not
only highlighted the problems with the state's ability to properly
monitor the children under their care, but it brought the nation's
attention to the unfortunate reality that children in foster care are
frequently abused by the system not once, but twice. Far too often
children are taken out of the home because they are in a dangerous
abusive situation, whether it be physical or emotional, and then they
are placed in an overburdened system where the abuse persists.
I am encouraged that the House Ways and Means Committee is holding
a hearing today to explore the challenges we face as lawmakers to
rectify some of these glaring deficiencies in our nations child welfare
system. And those deficiencies are many. Many foster children lack
access to quality medical care and mental health services. Due to the
extreme instability of their living situations, many foster children
lag way behind their peers on basic educational levels. Good foster and
adoptive parents are extremely difficult to both recruit and retain,
especially in tight economic times. There is a lack of quality
preventive programs for birth parents as well as drug treatment
facilities in order to achieve family reunification. Finally, the
United States is facing an overburdened judicial system with a chronic
shortage of social workers and case workers.
As a response to these glaring problems, I have created an Adoption
and Foster Care Advisory Committee comprised of members of the
community who are directly involved with the foster care system. At a
recent meeting of my Advisory Committee, the stark realities of the
child welfare system were discussed and it was obviously that the
Federal Government had much work to do. In fact, one participant stated
that it would take double the funding that the states and local
agencies currently get just to comply with the law and regulations on
the books. As demonstrated by the New Jersey case, the system is
working only on the surface. Caseworkers visited the New Jersey house
where these children were living numerous times, but after that the
system failed them, the data reporting was unclear and the checks and
balances required to protect them were not being utilized.
The answer, however, is not to just double the funding we give to
states to care for our dependent children, but instead we must look for
innovative ways to maximize and streamline the areas that can be
improved. I am a cosponsor of a comprehensive child welfare bill
sponsored by some members of this Committee which I feel would
accomplish many of those goals. H.R. 1534, the Child Protective
Services Improvement Act, by Representative Cardin would provide
additional funding for all facets of the child welfare system from
improving the working conditions of caseworkers to providing for drug
and alcohol treatment centers for families while encouraging states to
implement safeguards and improved data collection aimed at preventing
further cases of abuse.
I strongly believe that our entire child welfare system needs to be
analyzed and quite frankly overhauled. Let's keep what is working and
fix the rest immediately. Foster children have very few people
advocating on their behalf and that is unacceptable. These children
deserve better. As this session of Congress draws to a close I would
hope that this Committee would make them a priority next year.
Again, Mr. Chairman I thank you for convening this hearing today.
As a Member of Congress and an adoptive parent I look forward to
working with you and your Committee in the future.
Statement of the Covenant House New Jersey, Newark, New Jersey
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for calling
this important hearing.
We urge Federal and State officials to implement official oversight
ensuring that foster children's special education and developmental
needs are protected. The years of abuse suffered by the Jackson
children could not have gone unnoticed if DYFS engaged in interagency
collaboration to safeguard the rights of the youth in their care.
Current state policies leave foster children with disabilities
especially vulnerable. There are serious gaps in services for children
in foster care who have special needs. No child in the DYFS system
should be cared for without a coordination of efforts between special
educators, health and mental health care providers, substance abuse
treatment facilities, children's hospitals, and vocational
rehabilitation services. Just as any parent reaches out to doctors,
specialists, teachers, and others in the community to help raise a
child, so too does the state, in loco parentis, have the responsibility
to care for children within a framework of coordinated efforts.
While Bruce Jackson is the impetus for this hearing, Covenant House
New Jersey (CHNJ) has seen less tragic but certainly equally compelling
cases of children that have left the DYFS system without a plan of
service care and coordination. CHNJ experiences firsthand how a
disproportionate number of youth seeking shelter are former foster care
clients.
CHNJ is a nonprofit agency that has been providing services to
homeless and at-risk youth in New Jersey since 1989. Through broad
based programs, located in Newark and Atlantic City, CHNJ provides
youth between the ages of 18 and 21, with shelter, food, clothing and a
full range of services offered to help stabilize them from life on the
streets. CHNJ also hosts the Youth Advocacy Center, a legal services
and advocacy center. Staffed by four attorneys, the Youth Advocacy
Center provides direct representation to at-risk youth in civil
matters. Additionally, the Youth Advocacy Center undertakes public
policy initiatives around issues concerning homeless and at risk youth.
Currently, the Youth Advocacy Center is studying how the lack of
transition services for special needs foster children and other at-risk
youth, leads to chronic homelessness for this particularly vulnerable
population.
Currently, there exists no continuum to move foster youth from the
child welfare system into appropriate care within the adult health
system. This is true even though transition planning has been part of
the New Jersey special education regulations since 1988. Transition
planning involves strategizing a plan for adulthood that identifies
post school services, programs and supports that will need to be in
place after the student exits the school system. These areas include
post-school adult living, and daily living skills.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C.
1400 et seq. (20 C.F.R. 300), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act, require states receiving federal funds under the act to provide a
free appropriate public education (FAPE) for all children with
disabilities between the ages of 3 and 21. New Jersey has special
education regulations that implement IDEA and the federal regulations.
NJAC 6A:14-11, et seq. As such, under Federal and State law, in
addition to a special education program, a disabled child is entitled
to related services such as developmental, corrective, and other
supportive services. These services can include transportation to and
from the school or around the school building, physical therapy,
occupational therapy, speech/language therapy, counseling and
psychological services, parent counseling and training and school
health services. Significantly, each child has a child study team,
managed by a case manager who, together with the parent, the child's
teachers, and other specialists, assumes responsibility for
coordinating the development, monitoring, and evaluation of the child's
individualized education plan (IEP), facilities communication between
the home and school and assumes responsibility for transition planning.
Despite the Federal and State protections afforded all children, we
can tell you about Shanicia, a 19 year old former DYFS client, who has
already had one child, and is about to give birth to her second. She
has an IQ of 57, and as such, is mentally retarded. After multiple
moves and school changes, and no consistent parent or adult to monitor
and advocate for a comprehensive and appropriate IEP, Shanicia found
herself homeless upon graduating from high school and aging out of the
DYFS system. Like many foster youth, Shanicia was eligible for services
provided by the New Jersey Department of Vocational Rehabilition.
Additionally, like many foster youth, her student IEP should have
provided for transition services that promoted movement from school to
post-school activities, including post-secondary education, vocational
training, integrated employment, adult services, and independent
living. By failing to engage in mult-agency collaboration, DYFS allowed
Shanicia to fall through the cracks. Currently, Shanicia's children are
now involved in the DYFS system.
We can also tell you about Queena, a special needs child, and a
former foster client, who came to Covenant House at the age of 18,
expecting her first child. Having been in DYFS custody since childhood,
Queena was returned to her mother's custody when she was seventeen.
When Queena attempted to enroll herself back in school upon returning
to her mother's care, she was illegally excluded from school. The local
school district informed her that it could not locate her former school
records and it offered no other services in the meantime. Under
existing education regulations, the local school district should have
conducted an immediate review of evaluation information and Queena's
IEP. At a minimum, the school should have provided her with a interim
IEP. She was entitled to immediate educational services. Instead Queena
stopped school just a few months shy of her senior year of high school.
Placement in her mother's home did not go well, and Queena came to
Covenant House as a homeless client. By not reaching out to the school
department so that Queena's return home could have occurred with a
seamless plan in place, DYFS failed to safeguard Queena's educational
federal and state rights.
When these children come to our door, we ask ourselves: Given that
Federal and State education regulations provide for special needs youth
up to age 21, how are disabled youth homeless at the age of 18 or 19?
So too, we urge the Committee to ask: Given that New Jersey is mandated
by Federal and State law to safeguard the education needs of disabled
youth, how can a special needs youth, such as Bruce Jackson, be so
abused without drawing the attention of a DYFS worker, or a whole range
of service providers--such as those found in any special education
child study team, including a psychologist, a social worker, and a
learning disabilities teacher/consultant?
We believe special needs youth find themselves at our door because
of a failure by DYFS to engage in multi-agency collaboration. We
believe that DYFS must coordinate seamless plans of services, with
designated areas of responsibility provided by schools, health care
providers and the state vocational rehabilitation agency. DYFS must
ensure that a coordinated set of services promote youth's movement into
adulthood, including supported employment, adult services, and adult
living.
Specifically, in the Jackson case, initial reports indicate that
Bruce and the other Jackson siblings were being home-schooled by their
adoptive parents. While the Jackson case is an extreme example, it
illustrates the urgent need for DYFS to assume official oversight to
ensure that a foster child's special education and developmental needs
are being met and that their rights are being protected.
Currently DYFS has no official oversight ensuring that anyone will
assume responsibility for a foster child's special education needs.
What steps did DYFS take to ensure that the Jackson home would
safeguard the educational rights of Bruce Jackson, and their other
adopted sons? Did the Jackson family demonstrate their capacity to
educate special needs children prior to being approved for placement by
DYFS? Did DYFS take advantage of the expertise and experience of the
Department of Education, and other agencies, such as the Department of
Vocational Rehabilitation, to verify whether home schooling was the
appropriate mechanism for maximizing these children's potential?
If the Jackson youths' alleged eating disorders were being
addressed by a team approach, through a collaboration of DYFS, the New
Jersey Department of Education, and other service providers, could such
abuse have gone unnoticed for so long? If DYFS believed that the
Jackson children suffered from eating disorders, as is alleged, DYFS
should have recognized these children as special needs youth, and
ensured that special education and all related health and psychological
services were in place for these children. These children should have
been linked to a full range of service providers.
Similarly, even if DYFS ensured that youth in their care had a
continuum of services in place prior to a youth aging out, would these
children end up homeless at the age of 18? No disabled foster youth
should ever find themselves homeless at Covenant House's door.
The years of abuse suffered by the Jackson children, and the
neglect of the children who arrive at Covenant House, would not go
unnoticed if DYFS workers received mandatory training in special
education and developmental needs, and if DYFS engaged in interagency
collaboration to safeguard the rights of the youth in their care. We
urge Federal and State officials to implement official oversight
ensuring that foster children's special education and developmental
needs are protected.
Statement of the Family Alliance to Stop Abuse and Neglect, Teaneck,
New Jersey
The Family Alliance to Stop Abuse and Neglect was formed over one
year ago to address the horrific abuse of children with disabilities in
New Jersey's care systems, including preventable deaths. We are
gratified that the House Subcommittee on Human Resources of the
Committee on Ways and Means is now taking up this vital issue and is
dedicated, in the words of Chairman Herger, to ``making sure other
children do not suffer similar fates.''
To this end, we would like to share with Subcommittee members some
key facts that we have gathered from our work toward regulatory and
statutory reforms in New Jersey, and from our research into the
problems experienced in other states. New Jersey's deficiencies in the
administration and monitoring of care systems for vulnerable children,
although currently drawing more attention than other states,
nevertheless reveal many of the same weaknesses that we have identified
across the country.
The most devastating weakness is the unpredictable, uncoordinated
patchwork of protections and expectations covering the various settings
that provide services to our most vulnerable children. Large numbers of
children who enter foster care have disabilities, either from birth or
resulting from circumstances in the child's early environment, which
precipitated the events leading to foster care or adoption. This is
also the population likely to become eligible for Federal adoption
subsidies and related services. Foster care and special needs adoption
are generally administered by the state agency or division responsible
for youth and family services--in New Jersey, DYFS. However, foster
care and adoption are not the only settings in which these children are
served. They may be placed in privately-run but publicly-funded
residential facilities for children with disabilities, in state
institutions or ``developmental centers'' for individuals with mental
retardation, or in children's mental health facilities.
For no good reason, protections vary widely among these settings.
In New Jersey, DYFS would be expected to intervene in a home in which a
child is being routinely subjected to physical or mechanical restraints
(immobilizing arms or legs) or to punishments such as slapping, forcing
a child to spend hours in a blindfold, withholding food, or forcing a
child to inhale or swallow noxious substances. But DYFS is also
expected to monitor the well-being of these same children in private
and public residential settings where such activities are redefined as
``treatment'' and incorporated into their Individualized Habilitation
Plans (IHPs). This is a clear double standard that is nevertheless
sanctioned in the regulations of the state Division of Developmental
Disabilities (DDD). Thus it would be perfectly possible for DYFS to
remove a child from a home where, for example, he is being disciplined
via forced ingestion of noxious substances, and place him in a facility
where forced ingestion of noxious substances then becomes part of his
habilitation plan.
During the past year DYFS has been required to investigate harm to
children with disabilities, including the death of a 14-year old boy
left on the floor of a private residential facility in arm restraints
and a helmet for 16 months, until he developed severe pneumonia and
sepsis. We believe that DYFS' finding of ``no neglect'' in that case
and several others was due to the double standard which sanctions
abusive and neglectful ``treatment'' in select settings. Like the boys
recently removed from their Collingswood home, this 14-year old child
was neither attending school nor did his situation prompt any
intervention from the school district. A precipitous weight loss of 25
pounds in the last weeks of his life went unreported and untreated.
While such conditions would create a scandal if discovered in a foster
or adoptive home, they do not seem to trigger a response when
discovered in a residential facility. In fact, according to its 2003
budget DYFS is still paying for at least one other child under its care
to reside in this same facility (which has lost its accreditation from
the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities, or CARF)
at a cost to taxpayers of nearly $1000 per day. To add a final twist to
this tale of grossly inequitable protections, had this young boy been
placed in a children's health care facility covered by the Federal
Children's Health Act of 2000, the restraints that led to his decline
and death would not have been permitted.
Children who are placed in congregate, facility-based care should
be presumed to be in greater danger than children in foster or adoptive
care for two critical reasons. First, these children tend to be far
more segregated from their communities, making it less likely that
caring friends, relatives, or members of the general public will
observe and respond to indicators of abuse and neglect. The more a
facility relies on restraints and aversive punishers as part of its
clients' ``habilitation'' plans, they less it will be willing or able
to take those clients into public places where such activities on the
part of staff offend public sensibilities and have been known to
trigger calls to the police. A vicious cycle of unobservable
mistreatment is set in motion. Second, these facilities are run by
profitable corporations that have the means and motive to engage a
panoply of lobbyists, public relations staff, attorneys, and others to
protect them from an unwanted degree of regulation and scrutiny.
Individual families do not have such resources available to keep
oversight and accountability at bay (although the recent Collingswood
case is notable for the family's attempt to confront its problems as
many corporations do).
Our organization has repeatedly tried to introduce regulatory and
statutory protections for New Jersey's children with disabilities,
hoping to keep them safe wherever they may live. In the name of
``protecting the industry'' from ``too much regulation,'' a number of
private service providers have blocked these efforts. The legislature
and the state agency have now decided that they will not move on
residential reform until they receive a clear message from the Federal
Government, in particular through the new regulations due out this
Spring for Intermediate-Care Facilities for the Mentally Retarded
(ICFs/MR) which govern many of the state and private facilities in
which children with special needs are placed. These regulations,
although significantly improved in their last revision, still contain
archaic provisions allowing dangerous physical and mechanical
restraints and ``the application of painful or noxious stimuli'' as
``approved interventions'' to be applied to facility residents on a
``systematic'' basis.
The Family Alliance to Stop Abuse and Neglect respectfully requests
that the Subcommittee broaden the scope of its investigations beyond
family placements to the other federally-funded settings in which this
population of children can be found. Across the range of foster care,
subsidized adoption, private and state residential facilities for
individuals with mental retardation and developmental disabilities, and
mental health facilities, we find the same children. Until we develop
statutes and regulations that guarantee equal protections to all
vulnerable children regardless of the setting in which they reside,
mixed messages, segregated and virtually invisible residential
populations, and differential tolerances for abuse and neglect will
continue to permeate State agencies such as DYFS, and to make
monitoring and enforcement efforts confused and problematic.
River Edge, New Jersey 07661
November 9, 2003
Honorable Congressman Wally Herger
And Subcommittee Members
Committee on Ways & Means
Subcommittee on Human Resources
U.S. House of Representatives
Subject: Simple Economics Govern New Jersey's Foster Care/Adoption
Dear Chairman Herger and members of the Subcommittee,
Thank you for caring enough about the Jackson and other vulnerable
children to hold hearings to explore the corrupt child welfare system
in New Jersey. Exposure, although painful, leads to learning and the
opportunity to bring true reform. Knowledge, compassion and integrity
are afforded the chance to triumph over corruption, denial and
ignorance.
As I have indicated in my November 1st statement, I can only speak
from my experience with the New Jersey Child Welfare system, which
demonstrates horrifying similarities to the societal reign of the
holocaust. This includes the well-intentioned foster care and adoption
system, which functions on simplistic laws of supply and demand. The
basic flaw in the theoretical application of rudimentary economics to
New Jersey's child welfare system is that children are NOT commodities.
In New Jersey, presently there are two pools of children ``lucky
enough'' to attract the attention of the child welfare system. Pool #1
primarily consists of sibling groups, older, minority and behaviorally,
psychologically, physically, emotionally and/or mentally challenged
children: these are the less desirable, ``hard to place'' children:
High supply, low demand. The financial prognosis of continuing in state
custody is dismal. Options: 1. Keep child/children in their present
environment (minimize issues requiring child welfare intervention, for
to resolve issues will require resources) and if parent is amenable, 2.
Remove child/children to foster care. While in foster care, these
children are draining expensive resources. In addition to paying for
foster care, the state must expend resources for reunification efforts
or pay the price to secure adoption by those willing to take a less
marketable ``product.'' This is what adoption subsidies were designed
for.
Pool #2 consists of young, infant, white, minimally challenged: for
the most part, healthy and desirable children: Low supply, high demand.
Because of high demand, there is little risk of continuing in state
custody. In this supplier's market, the incentives, financially and
otherwise, are numerous. Options: #1. Keep child/children in their
present environment (require resources), #2 Remove child/children to
foster care; take custody [pending adoption]. Providing services or
reunification efforts to these children and their families would drain
resources. Remember, this is a supplier's market: selected adoptive
families are waiting with open arms for their turn to foster/adopt. It
circumvents the prohibitive costs of private adoption.
Children from both groups earn reward monies from the Federal
Government when they are adopted out. Statistically, all adoptions are
positive key performance measures for the state: bonus points/bonus
dollars. On the other hand, reunification of children with their
families earns no bonus monies. In the case of ``hard to place''
children, reunification costs are a limited expense which may be
financially prudent when subsidies are not sufficient to attract
minimally qualified adoptive parents. For children from the
``desirable'' pool, family reunification is often not an option: it is
an unnecessary expense, drain on resources, costs the state in
thousands of dollars in bonuses and is statistically
unfavorable.[1]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[1]\ In one county, mothers of young Caucasian children are
advised/warned that if DYFS successfully moves to take custody, there
will be little chance of reunification: their children will be adopted
from a readily-available and eager adoption pool.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although this makes economic sense for commodities, should
economics determine the future of a family? Should financial options
and incentives govern vulnerable children's welfare? Are we treating
our children as we do pork bellies and other commodities?
Unfortunately, I can speak from my family's experience within the
system. The foster parents of my two young sons were receiving
thousands of dollars in support from my husband and me while also
collecting compensation from the state. The Commissioner of Human
Services has identified this as against policy''.[2] The
Bergen County Prosecutor characterized it as criminal and referred the
case to the Burlington County Prosecutor's Office for action, where it
resides awaiting cooperation from DYFS. Fraudulent? Criminal? Illegal?
Certainly unethical. DYFS/Human Services cries of insufficient funding
ring hollow in the wake of their support of those foster and adoptive
parents who defraud the system and benefit financially from vulnerable
children. And, these state--sanctioned parents are the people paid for
and charged with raising children to be responsible, virtuous human
beings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[2]\ Commissioner Harris responses in a September 11, 2002 letter,
``I want to assure you that we have taken steps to insure that the case
is handled according to DYFS policy.'' The step that was taken the next
month was to issue me a Superior Court summons for Child Support--which
was dismissed. Interesting to note, my children's father did not
receive a summons--just me. Coincidence or intimidation?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, the foster parents have been receiving and are slated to
receive support, services, allowances and special subsidies for each
until my six and seven year olds reach adulthood. The foster mother, my
biological sister, sought and received the state's assistance in her
mission to adopt my children after failing in her attempts without the
DYFS's involvement. My vulnerable family found itself under attack by
New Jersey's Goliath. The foster mother receives monies and services
for years and the state receives federal support, bonuses and a few
pats on the back. A ``win-win situation,'' right? What about my sons?
What about their best interest? Despite the odds, I will continue to
raise awareness of what really is happening out here in the trenches,
hidden behind the numbers. My first priority is to my family, but I
will do all I can to ensure this does not happen to another child or
family.
Are all DYFS foster care placements and adoptions bad? Of course
not. Are there foster and adoptive parents out there who are truly
motivated by compassion, benevolence and love? Thank God many are! Is
New Jersey unique? I doubt it.
Is there hope? Yes! These hearings are a source of hope. Are there
solutions? Yes! But, handing out hard-earned taxpayer dollars to states
without accountability is irresponsible and reprehensible. To use
federal funds to finance state-sanctioned kidnapping and support fraud
is iniquitous. Most importantly, to not do right by our children when
afforded the opportunity to make a difference, individually and/or
collectively, is to turn your back on humanity.
Thank you for your time, interest and concern. I look forward to
hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Lisa E. Gladwell
Statement of Greg S. Hanson, and Lisa R. Watkins, Hiawatha, Iowa
Child Protection has become an INDUSTRY. The Contract the states
entered into for Federal Grant Money was contingent upon states meeting
many standards. The threat of cutting off funds if states didn't
fulfill all of the requirements has NOT been followed through by the
Federal Government however.
Up until recently these agencies used to fend off any correction or
any decision unfavorable to them by saying that the politician was
``Against Child Protection''. A few congressmen have experienced this
McCarthy era like demogoguery from the Child Protection Industry. Now
things for their INDUSTRY have gotten bad enough that politicians don't
have to fear this tactic of demogoguery as in the past.
I basically don't think ANY government agency should remove kids or
reimburse states for removing kids unless there is some VERY serious
reason in that individual case to override CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of a
family to be intact.
Much like with Enron, Child Protection has been too much motivated
by funding streams and ``bean counting'' at the expense of ethics,
fairness and even responsible handling of money. The main data provided
to the Federal Government to qualify state Child Protection agencies
for federal money is in fact generated by ````judgement calls``'' made
by the agencies themselves, with an urge to grow endlessly. All they
have to do is call every case ``Imminent Danger'' even where they
removed a child from their home for ``Clutter'' or ``messy house''. The
Federal Government feeds them money for this. Caseworkers are immune
from perjury, so they do it a lot.
Hasn't Congress ever noticed that Child Abuse and Neglect is used
as one term, CAN, for funding? What most citizens would consider to be
real child abuse is about 3% of all child removals. The vast majority
of child removals are for neglect, not abuse. Neglect is a large catch
all that can range from drug addiction issues to simply ``messy
house''. The percentage of cases where state agencies really DON'T KNOW
why the child was removed is the most revealing, a percentage usually
higher than the 3%. In other words, statistically, serious child abuse
is statistically small enough to hide within the margin of error. Keep
in mind that these numbers might be of considerably less utility to the
state agencies if the state agencies were not the ones REPORTING these
numbers.
Another factor is that if Child Protection were to accuse 1000
parents wrongly, an amazingly large number would find the overbearing
corrupt Juvenile Courts just too much to cope with, almost terroristic
in their approach, and would surrender completely, seeing the struggle
as futile. I personally watched my fiance' get fall prey to what I have
dubbed ``the stipulation scam'' where her own lawyer pushed her to
``stipulate'' without any serious consultation, just 15 minutes of
pressure before court. 90+ % of all cases are ``stipulated'', a term in
Juvenile Courts which is comparable to a guilty plea, even thought the
Judas lawyer said it was not, and all of the effects are exactly like a
guilty plea. ``Stipulations'' are generally not signed and rarely
involve a document to consider or time to consider it. My fiance' only
agreed to CONSIDER one, but her attorney agreed FOR HER. She never saw
a document to consider nor signed any.
A Judges Association in one area openly and outright urged local
Family Law attorneys to talk most families into stipulation to save on
court time. No reference was made to guilt or innocence, which fits my
experience.
Child Protection and Juvenile Court tread on a most precious
LIBERTY INTEREST, 14th Amendment right to Family Association, yet the
standard of evidence and the constitutional protections in Juvenile
Court are INFERIOR to those for a petty theft.
Bottom line: The overbearing system cons large numbers of families
into being marked guilty when they are not. Americans are ``cowed''
into ``winning through surrender''. Once the ``stipulation scam'' takes
place, Caseworkers ``own'' the family and are quite used to playing
god. For the family to asserting Constitutional Rights at that point
angers caseworkers and makes the situation adversarial because
caseworkers pretend they don't know they are violating the
constitution. Even the caseworker with a Bachelors degree in
criminology claimed ignorance of the US Constitution.
For the Federal OR State government to invoke PARENS PATRIAE (Child
of the State) they SHOULD have to:
1. Prove at least a reasonable ability to parent. So far
government has failed MISERABLY, generally doing WORSE than many of the
supposedly failing parents that get children removed from them. It's
like the Hog in the wallow calling the Horse dirty.
2. Stop calling every little nit-picky thing ``Imminent Danger''
in order to justify depriving CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS to family
integrity. Caseworkers act like Chicken Little making big cases out of
small issues, while the sky really IS falling for some other kid. Kids
should NOT be removed for clutter or messy house which is a SUBJECTIVE
call and could probably be used to describe HALF of all homes,
according to a 'Nam Vet ambulance driver I talked to. Don't they have
more pressing issues than to be whining that a parents ``lived in''
home is ``messy''?
3. True Judicial oversight. Stop allowing Juvenile Courts to be
complete Rubber Stamps for caseworkers. This defeats the entire purpose
of Juvenile Court. Juvenile Court exists to keep caseworkers from
violating the rights of families and kids. This one-sided rubber
stamping and even polarized bias has to stop. They ignore motions from
parents for reasonable, basic and required fairness and protection of
rights.
4. AVENUES OF REDRESS AND CORRECTION that are broken or twisted to
be denied in Iowa and other states. These have been required for over
ten years, yet have never been implemented, have been twisted or dead
ended. When US DHHS Audited all 50 States I don't think they even
investigated these three requirements that would assist protection of
basic citizen rights, because there seems to be no action to repair
these functions in the works. The only way to force the states to honor
their ten year old contract regarding these is to stop their money.
Yes, they are all about money. State Child Protection agencies have
become all about the money, Kevin W. Concannon is infamous for being in
charge in Maine when Logan Marr was removed for reasons reminiscent of
Rube Goldberg devices, only to end up dead in state care. The foster/
adopter was a former Child Protection caseworker who didn't believe in
spanking, yet duct taped the girl to a high chair in her basement and
duct taped over her mouth. Later when DHS director Concannon left
Maine, Iowa hired him to Direct DHS here, actually stating the reason
was his ability to bring this state more Federal Dollars for DHS
programs. The Governor must not have noticed the revolving account
repayment obligations and law suit settlements Maine got saddled with
thanks to Concannon.
But several avenues of redress are broken all over?
A.
Citizens Review Board, required for over TEN YEARS, each state
was to have at least one, and in most cases 3 or more, as review boards
over Child Protective Services case problems. These could have provided
Hope for families dealing with caseworkers telling BIG LIES as in my
families' case. Citizens Review Boards are required over CPS case
problems. Not just over Foster Care, but over Child Protection
malfunction. Iowa DID have a CRB two years ago which was all loaded
with Child Protection workers and contractors, which by the way was
against regulations. Now there is NO CRB except over Foster Care. (CRB
combined with FC Review Board, now ICFCRB)
B.
DHHS ``PIQ'' directive ACYF-CB-PIQ-83-04(10/26/83) directs
states to proivide Administrative hearing process to Federal 45 CFR
205.10 standards regarding GRIEVANCES ABOUT SERVICES PROBLEMS Notice
the DATE on that DHHS ``PIQ'' Directive? Kevin W. Concannon, director
of Iowa DHS claims that we cannot have access to this process even
though we meet the criteria. Concannon clung to some State Law that is
inferior to the Federal law, denying us access to this grievance
process for reasons which violate the Federal Law. Even though we DID
claim to have been denied services in our complaint, he said we could
not have access to this process since we were not denied services.
Think about this a moment though, This creates a mess where MORE
services is better, even if the services are needless, baseless, or in
some way malfunctioning or rigged. As he spelled it out, this process
could not REMOVE services applied without basis, and of course this
process could never address qualitative problems with services, like
bias, twisting or misuse. The process as described by Concannon is,
effectively, of no use to correct grievous wrongs.
C.
The US DHHS holds purse strings and are supposed to require
that state Child Protection Agencies comply with regulations to provide
FAIRNESS and quality of service. The problem is that this is done on a
FISCAL basis and DHHS refuses to investigate complaints from individual
families about ABUSES BY STATE AGENCIES. DHHS refuses to investigate
reports of agency abuses even where a state fails to provide a required
corrective process like the Grievance Process on Services Problems.
DHHS does not enforce their own PIQ directives to the states, and when
the states get reviewed, the festering bad cases don't come to DHHS
attention.
This last summer, after Iowa DHS Child Protection failed an
audit (every state failed), the state formed a ``stakeholders panel''
that was to be representative of both insiders (financial stakeholders)
and families with a LIBERTY INTEREST stake in correcting DHS. The
panel, as I found out, was completely stacked with people who
financially benefit from the system as broken as it is. The state
propagandized this as their genius and good intention, not mentioning
the failed DHHS audit as a reason. The only person on the stakeholders
panel who appeared to be a concerned parent e-mailed me back that she
``would have to check with her advisors'' and never got back to me.
That seemed odd. [sarcastic grin] Open meetings to collect public input
were held in several places around the state, and a report on these
comments was to be made public on a date set ahead of time. Large
crowds of angry parents showed up at most of the open meetings and DHS
did not make the report on public comments available on the web as
promised. The DHS press release guy failed to answer my e-mail asking
where this report is.
D.
Administrative Appeal on Child Neglect and Abuse REGISTRY When
we turned in our appeal, Iowa took 100 days to even acknowledge
receiving it, gave us 10 days to add more, and told us it was in their
work stack. Then we heard nothing for over a YEAR. Then when we brought
it up they held up the process waiting for the Judicial Process, which
has gone on now with my family for almost 3 years.
If ANY government fails to provide these required
protections, they are guilty of emotional and psychological abuse of
children and parents, and failure to protect citizens rights to due
process. Parens Patriae is NOT just about kids. Our governments make
LOUSY parents to citizens in general, why would you trust government
with kids?
MY OWN FAMILY has been betrayed for almost 3 years by
corrupt State officials. The remedy for this bad treatment of citizens
probably won't come from the State, and citizens have to beg the
Federal Courts to protect them from bad State Government officials. I
hear that the Federal Courts are reluctant to protect Citizens
Constitutional Rights when it involves reversing bad decisions by state
agencies.
The Federal Government needs to take a more active role in
correcting bad actions by the state Child Protection agencies in
individual cases. Early on in this process, after learning that US DHHS
regulations for Child Protection agencies were NOT being followed, my
family was thoroughly disgusted to find that US DHHS turned away our
inquiries seeking corrective help. The US DHHS does not want to talk to
individual families about their case, even when DHHS regulations are
being violated badly by the state Child Protection agency.
Privacy laws are being perverted to deny families the
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINE DOCUMENTS USED AGAINST US IN
JUVENILE COURT and even into the Iowa Supreme Court. The sophistry used
is that we are not CRIMINALLY CHARGED, so we don't get our
CONSTITUTIONAL protections! The state only REMOVED A CHILD! Isn't that
a LIBERTY INTEREST as serious as a charge of murder?
My fiance discovered that a transcript of a Juvenile Court hearing
was ``doctored'' or altered badly. We had wondered why this short one
took an inordinately long time to get to her and was not signed. The
Iowa Supreme Court ruled against her request for the original source
tape for verification. Imagine being told to proceed into the Iowa
Supreme Court with a bogus and unsigned transcript to write the appeal
brief from!
The States and the Federal Government have failed to protect their
own citizens from bad state state actors, run amok Child Protection
caseworkers and Rubber Stamp Juvenile Courts who take caseworker lies
as absolute truth.
Many Child Protection caseworkers are living out some ``Rescue
Fantasy'' and carry an anti-spanking political agenda even though it is
LEGAL in every one of the 50 states. Many of the anti-spankers like to
think of or represent judiciously used spanking as BEATING. This ruse
does not generally play well outside of their socialist worker circles.
If a caseworker doesn't like what they find out about a family that
spanks their kids, they can't use SPANKING in court since it's legal
within limits in EVERY state, so they they merely accuse the family of
clutter or messy house and order Parent Skills classes. Virtually every
parent skills class is anti-spanking. AND 90 percent of the parent
skills class itself preaches no-spanking. Caseworkers commonly write
down clutter or Messy House as catch-all designations, used when
caseworkers are suspicious or don't like a parent but they don't have
anything on them to make a case.
The HYSTERIA about Child Abuse has to stop and RIGHTS need to be
put back on a pedestal. I charge both Fed and State governments with
``failure to protect'' Citizens Constitutional Rights in the face of
the Child Protection INDUSTRY.
YOU IN CONGRESS have not supervised the US DHHS well enough to
discover that the states have failed to truly meet the TEN YEAR OLD
obligations to fairness and self-correction (4 A,B and D above).
My family has been trampled on for 2 years and 9 months. Yes, we
had clutter, but we did not have filth. A witch hunt ensued,
caseworkers got caught at terrible LIES. Juvenile Court refused to
correct the lies, despite proof. Caseworkers are IMMUNE, so they LIE
all the time to have their way. We were refused required Active
Participation in FORMATION of Services Plan. This is the list of
``services'', mini industries or ``hoops'' that parents are expected to
jump through to get their kids back. Services were corrupted, tainted
with gossip, fed with false information and in other words twisted to
be against us from before we even started. UNFAIR.
I was to go to a Psychological Evaluation, no apparent basis for
assigning this service, just a list of ``issues'' made up by
caseworkers playing at amateur psychology. One issue was my ``need to
be the victim'' which they eventually removed quietly after the guy who
assaulted me plead guilty to a simple assault. (charge should have been
breaking and entering, but he's an ally to the state in this.) Later
after I went to one session and the psychologist didn't find anything,
he said he needed more information from Child Protection. I signed a
release, and a stack of Child Protection documents an inch thick was
sent to him. I began to ask a LOT of questions about how fair my
``Psychological Evaluation'' was going to be. Too many parents
similarly situated have told me that the psychologist reported exactly
what the caseworkers WANTED him to report, generally in complete
disagreement with the raw data from the standardized tests that they
use for this. (Remember Psychology is an ARTS degree.)
My fiance' went to Domestic Violence victim counseling that she was
ORDERED into, even though there was never any Domestic Violence between
us. It made SOME sense to inoculate her because I had Domestic Violence
convictions many years before (I had a severely bi-polar wife years
ago). But after Child Protection had their INPUT into this service the
counselor became like the grand inquisitor trying to force some deep
dark secrets out of her. When my fiance' denied what was in fact false,
the counselor though she was ``in denial''. The counselor told a
twisted story that I had pushed the childs ``head under water'' (was
actually a shower spray to rinse off shampoo head that looked like an
ice cream swirly) The counselor was trying to guilt and shame my fiance
into getting rid of me. Child Protection commonly uses the ``divide and
conquer'' tactic. My fiance' though, had already seen how Child
Protection caseworkers LIED, twisted and distorted virtually everything
innocent to portray it as EVIL.
So we did not cooperate with ``services'', asking over and over for
them to be repaired, made fair and not RIGGED. We were told, even
yelled at to just do the services, and threatened with Termination of
Parental Rights.
When we found old documents from the very same Child Protection
Agency showing that there was never any sexual abuse even HINTED at, we
showed these documents to a contract Social Worker first.
Then I showed them to the caseworker who fabricated the lie that I
had a ``Sex Abuse History''. He verbally acknowledged that they did
indeed disprove his sworn-to assertions in his affidavit to court.
But STILL, to this day, nobody has corrected the ``Sex Abuse
History'' fiction.
--Juvenile Court here has refused many MOTIONS to correct the ``Sex
Abuse History'' and refused hearings to correct it The exculpatory old
documents were attached as exhibits.
--Iowa Department of Human Services refuses to correct it. (All the
way up the chain of command, Director and Governor even)
--You would THINK that Social Workers should have ethical
requirements to demand that proven falsehoods harming a family should
be corrected, even if the Social Worker has to ``bite the hand that
feeds them'' by urgently requesting that Iowa DHS correct the fictional
``Sex Abuse History''.
--You would EXPECT contract Social Workers to have a duty to the
TRUTH, especially when known falsehood harms a family. Apparently
however, pleasing the state agency caseworkers and getting their state
contract renewed is more important than demanding that a PROVEN FALSE
fabricated ``Sex Abuse History'' be corrected. Lutheran Social Services
is the LARGEST contract provider of Social Workers in the world, yet,
even after seeing exculpatory documents their Social Workers refused to
ask Iowa DHS to correct the proven false ``Sex Abuse History''.
--DHHS doesn't take complaints in individual cases of state agency
abuses of families. Regardless of circumstances.
The Jackson family starvation case recently caught the attention of
Congress, but there have been large numbers of much less sensational
cases that have done harm to massive numbers of families, partly
because of the problems with OVERSIGHT and CORRECTION processes that
are not working properly.
PAYING states to get kids out of Foster Care only enabled them to
REMOVE more needlessly and reward their friends who seek to adopt, like
the woman who killed Logan Marr. Paying states to get kids adopted out
only revved up a meatgrinder that has destroyed healthy families with
relatively MINOR problems.
I personally feel that the vast majority of children removed
probably should NOT have been removed.
Child Protection Caseworkers have treated my family as criminals,
when in fact, no criminal law was broken. The more the caseworkers get
proven WRONG in some cases, the more irate and vindictive they become.
We had a caseworker who moved a visit into the Child Protection
``fishbowl room'' for vindictive reasons. Then she looked for any
complaints she could make about parenting skills. The complaint she
wrote up IN COURT was that the mother was asking her daughter to spell
words that were ``too difficult''. The words the caseworker actually
complained about were ``exoskeleton'' and ``Hubble Space Telescope''.
Not only was that caseworkers comments an intrusion into the
mother's Constitutional right to direct her child's education, but the
child's first grade teacher had assigned the word exoskeleton about a
year earlier. The child had previously been tested as reading and
spelling at a level YEARS ahead of her age group in school, and was in
an Extended Learning Program in school.
That would be a better way to reduce clogged and not functional
Foster care systems. Stop FEEDING so many children to Foster Care
homes. Stop the STATE's financial incentive to juggle kids in Foster
Care, AND the incentives for people to BECOME Foster Care providers for
financial reasons. (As with the Jackson family in New Jersey.)
Why are there so many incentives to REMOVE kids, Terminate Parental
Rights, and place kids in Foster/Adoptive situations? Where are the
financial incentives for Child Protection agencies to REUNITE families?
Please quickly force states to repair the required avenues of
redress (4 A, B and D above), and please direct US DHHS to cut the
money if states fail the ten year old obligations even one day more.
Iowa is still showing no signs of honoring those OLD requirements, much
less the new requirements that Congress and the President made law on
June 25, 2003. What good will the Protecting Families and Children act
(HR14 S.342 HR3839 Keeping Children and Families Safe Act President
signed into law June 25, 2003) do when the previous TEN YEAR OLD
requirements are still not met? Why wasn't the money cut off BEFORE, if
not for the political demogoguery and political fears of smear tactics?
A Federal District Judge in Illinois is angry because Child
Protection changes he ordered 12 years ago have still not been
implemented. Another one, Federal Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer in the Dupuy
case declared the Illinois Child Protection system to be
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The agencies are so corrupt that they refuse to do
the right things, drag feet with STUDIES costing millions, and DARE you
in Congress to cut their precious funding.
I say stop the flow of ``blood money'' to Child Protection.
Withhold funding to state Child Protection agencies until they fulfill
their contractual obligations to provide those safeguards of families,
4 A, B and D above, agreed to ten years ago, in exchange for the money.
Statement of Barbara Harris, Rocky Ridge, Maryland
It is imperative that we implement mandatory investigative
guidelines and a national investigation into all agencies and there
investigators working with our law enforcement. Agencies such as Child
Protective Services, Child Abuse/ Sexual Assault Units and all other
civilian investigators that are currently working without guidelines
are able to side step an individual's constitutional rights, by
paraphrasing interviews, falsifying documents and writing their reports
months later solely based on their recall.
There are an increasing number of false allegations being lodged
against good and caring fathers, mothers, step parents and
grandparents, anyone with a grudge, ex-spouses, vindictive neighbors,
shunned family members can make a false allegation with no fear of
reprisal under current laws.
Child Protective Services has a state and federally funded
incentive to obscure facts, destroying many innocent families, the very
foundation of our country. They do not need evidence, hearsay is
sufficient. They are above the law and currently have no solid
guidelines in which they must abide by.
According to statistics, Federal taxpayers provided States $3.1
billion in 2002 to supportchildren in foster care and adoptive
settings, and $2.8 billion more in administrative fundingfor States and
localities to use to ensure the safety of vulnerable children. That is
a total of $5.9 billion dollars, a very high price tag for an
unsupervised agency. With that kind of funding there is no excuses for
errors in the system.
The dramatic increase of children in foster care is alarming.
Granted it's true, under extreme circumstances removal of a child or
children from their homes is essential, however, it is also essential
for there to be compelling evidence to do so. Every federally funded
effort must be made to reunify these families. I have spoken with
hundreds of parents whose families have unjustly been torn apart by
Child Protective Services, these mothers and fathers cries fall on deaf
ears.
When I hear the horror stories of children falling victim to foster
care and adoptive parents, why is it we never hear of how the children
got there? Where did the mothers, fathers, grandparents, aunts, and
uncles go? Were the immediate family members so horrible that these
children end up with total strangers? Who determined the fate of these
children? At what point do children have a say? What is the extent of
psychological harm has been done to these children?
When a claim of abuse arises, the authorities immediately pressure
the child or children to substantiate that claim. However, when a child
is asked, where do you want to live, does anyone listen? Where is the
dividing line for children's rights? Why can we not clearly define the
laws? These kids are our future, these agencies are destroying their
future. Is this the kind of America we want to leave behind? Of course
not, but it wouldn't be our problem then, it would be our children's
problem. Out of sight, out of mind.
I know how Child Protective Services works, I know how CASA works,
my family has been victimized by these agencies. It was a sick feeling
to learn that a CASA investigator, a civilian, could be allowed to
verbally abuse my child with profanity in order to illicit a false
confession of sexual abuse. I was forced to place a protective order
against my husband. After that false confession, Child Protective
Services came in with threats to remove my children, literally threats,
if I didn't sign a release form allowing them access to my daughters
psychologist and her records. There was no taped evidence and no
supervision of these interviews. When my daughter recanted her story,
and criminal charges were dropped, I filed to remove the protective
order, Child Protective Services intervened at the court proceedings.
The same CASA investigator was granted permission by the State's
Attorney's office to bypass consensual monitoring equipment in order to
obtain an alleged phone confession. This phone confession was only
heard by the investigator, subsequent interviews were only monitored by
a Child Protective Services worker. Although throughout the initial
investigation a law enforcement officer was present, that officer did
not monitor the civilian investigators interviews or actions.
In a different case, the same CASA investigator tried to obtain a
confession of sexual abuse by having the reporter of the crime wear a
wire tap, when no confession was obtained numerous interviews were
conducted with the reporters child, at no time during these interviews
were any audio or videotapes made to accurately verify the victims
statements or how the victims statement was obtained. In both of these
cases the investigator was a prior acquaintance of the reporters.
Children and teenagers are highly influenced by both authoritarian
figures as well as peer pressure. When a person in a position to uphold
the law abuses their power it is impossible to prove without the
monitoring of their actions.
By mandating audio and/ or videotaping of such interviews in there
entirety, it would assist investigators in providing accurate reports,
and hold those accountable for unethical procedures, under current laws
these reporters are protected by complete immunity. Often times in
court proceedings guilt or innocence lies on State expert witness
testimony, without taped interviews erroneous statements are often made
thus leading to false convictions. With the current technology
available today, there is no reason why any person should be convicted
on recall, theory, or opinion.
These kinds of cases are clogging our courts, these innocent
convictions are clogging our jails, these cases are costing taxpayers a
fortune and I believe a huge portion of this could be prevented if
there were mandated and strictly monitored procedures to follow.
Thank you.
Statement of Kandy Helson, Racine, Wisconsin
Here is my statement. I am dismayed. I am an American citizen and I
have voted in every election. The system of Child Welfare is out of
control. Children are being taken from good families. The states
receive adoption bonuses, this bonus system had a place but now it is
no longer necessary. It is being abused. Here is why, a high percentage
of child abuse cases are some form of neglect. The parents are very
poorly represented in court. The child welfare workers have a money
incentive to terminate parents rights. A HIGH percentage of these
parents are having their rights terminated with no criminal charges. If
criminal charges are not being filed a hardly see a reason enough to
terminate parents rights. A serious child abuse crime should of been
committed for parents to lose all rights. Not only do parents lose
their rights but the rest of the extended family do as well. I believe
this violates the civil rights of those relatives to see and continue a
relationship with their blood relative. Another serious problem is the
child welfare system receives more money if they can label the child
with a mental disorder. They classify children who throw tantrums as
behavior disorders. The children are being mentally abused by the
separation from their families. Then they are drugged because that
leads to more funding for the system. What child never throws a
tantrum? How is there valid enough reason to terminate parents rights
but not valid enough reason to file charges criminally. The funding
should provide a way to prevent the neglect that led to the child being
in the system. As neglect is the largest single reason children are
removed from their families. A free government should not interfere
with the family so harshly as what is being done now. A convicted
murderer behind bars has more rights to visit, phone calls and letters
from their children. The American public would be outraged if they knew
exactly what the system that is supposed to protect children has turned
into. It is a money making industry. It need a complete overhaul with
an investigation and criminal charges brought against any worker at all
levels who ripped apart families and abused their power. To continue to
let it happen should lead to all government officials who were
contacted and or notified of the abuses perpetrated on American
families to be investigated who did not take action to investigate and
correct this horrible tragedy.
Indiana Civil Rights Council
Whitestown, Indiana 46075
November 20, 2003
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Human Resources
Dear Honorable Representatives:
The following items are offered as straightforward suggestions to
strengthen a fiscally-sound policy of responsible prevention of the
majority of all child abuse and neglect in this country:
I. LIMIT TOTAL NUMBER OF ADOPTED/FOSTER CHILDREN PER HOUSEHOLD
No new adoptions or foster placements in a particular residential
household should even be considered when doing so would pass the total
number of children, 17 years of age or younger, living in said
household beyond a reasonable limit of (4-6 children: negotiable).
Total number of children to include all sources, whether biological,
adopted, foster, and children residing in the same household via any
form of guardianship or custodial arrangements, temporary and/or
permanent.
Immediate moratoriums, regarding the above substance, should be
placed into effect throughout all states/federal agencies involved with
placement of children, and maintained until such times as legislatures
can pass and implement corresponding law(s).
II. NATURAL PARENTS ARE THE FIRST PREFERENCE FOR CARETAKERS
Instead of the current trends towards increasing the numbers of
state removals of children from their natural parents (and, therefore,
redistributed via adoption, fostering, and other programs), government
must reverse this natural poison to society, and seek to strengthen
priority of insuring that families remain intact whenever possible,
feasible, and practical.
If, due to documented abuse or neglect serious enough to warrant
removal of a child or children from the home of a natural mother or
father who does not reside with the other biological parent, then
temporary and/or permanent custody should be immediately placed with
that other biological parent, whenever possible, feasible, and
practical, in mandatory preference to any alternative forms of
residential placement of said child or children.
If said abuse/neglect is serious enough to warrant removal from co-
habitating biological parents, then temporary placement elsewhere
should be only long enough to determine if/when the family can be
reunited.
III. DISPROPORTIONAL AWARDS OF SOLE CUSTODY IS BAD BUSINESS FOR AMERICA
To further attack the general national incidence of child abuse/
neglect, laws that presume standard full joint custody of children (in
separation, divorce, paternity, and similar proceedings) must be
passed--quickly--in all remaining states which have not done so yet.
The vast majority of custody awards (90%) rest with single mothers,
with only about 5% resting with single fathers, and the remaining 5%
being true joint/shared custody.
Yet, while state and federal agencies, i.e., National Clearinghouse
on Child Abuse and Neglect Information (``missing kids on milk
cartons''), have continually documented the overwhelming consistency
(60-62% annually) of single mothers perpetrating all murders, abuse,
and neglect of minor children (typically also involving the absence of
fathers in the child(rens) lives . . .), and while these same agencies
have also studied and confirmed the higher liklihoods of children
raised by single mothers to be involved with drugs, homeless, teenage
pregnacies, runaways, violent criminals, homosexuals, suicidals, school
drop-outs, and etc., (i.e., BIG costs of taxpayer dollars . . .), most
state governments have still failed to pass presumed joint custody laws
such as were passed in Wisconsin, Louisiana, Kansas, Pennsylvania, and
most recently, Ohio. These states have found that such laws inhibit
divorce rates, save families, keep fathers in childrens' lives, and,
therefore, save children and large amounts of tax dollars.
Respectfully submitted,
Torm L. Howse
President
Statement of E. Pamela Jones, In the Spirit of the Children, Inc., New
York, New York
I would like to take this opportunity to respond to a growing issue
in the child welfare arena in this country. The unconscionable
circumstances of the Jackson children in New Jersey is just one of many
cases that have gone undocumented. It is only fair to all concerned to
look at the whole picture rather than just look at this particular case
when this and other cases have and will continue to surface on the
front page of our nation's periodicals. If we as professionals, child
welfare advocates, and service providers do not begin to speak out
honestly about the real issues that have placed too many of the nations
vulnerable children at risk, under the guise of protecting them and
providing permanency for children in foster care in a effort to reduce
the Child Welfare rolls.
First let us examine the Adoption and Safe Families Act enacted in
1997 (P.L. 105-89). This law when implemented placed an relentless
emphasis on the States: Departments of Human Services, County
Departments of Child and Family Services, and City Agencies to Identify
prospective foster, Pre-adoptive and adoptive homes to its own
detriment. This law also places a strong push on the states and its
localities to compete feverishly to reduce their foster care placement
rolls. The law further attached a monetary incentive of cash bonuses to
the states for each child adopted.
The pervasive issue prior to the law is and a remains today is the
supply and the quality of prospective/identifiable homes for this
population of vulnerable children. The number of children needing
permanent loving, and caring homes far out-pace the number of people
willing to take in these children and youth. The unspoken truth is that
all too often those available and willing to take in these children are
not always well-intended individuals, who are educated or otherwise
positive role models who have qualities that would provide these
children with greater life experiences than the environments the
children have originated from. Many see the opportunity of opening
their home to a child or children in need as a means to secure their
mortgage, car note, and as prospective hired hands (servants) etc.
In the case of New York with the implementation of the ASFA law the
goal of providing Permanency for children in foster care has become a
horse race. The emphasis is on getting the child off the child welfare
rolls in the required time line (18mos.) in order to comply with the
federal and state laws. The goal is not to ensure that those seeking
permanent custody or adoption of a child will receive the needed
supportive services upon the finalization of the adoption to ensure
that there is successful fit for both the child and the adoptive family
holistically.
Rather, the goal becomes ascertaining the numbers needed to
illustrate a reduction in the rolls, close the budget gap, i.e.
deficit, and obtain the cash bonus. This in it self has created an
atmosphere of fear of reprisals for those working in the trenches at
the lower levels of the child welfare system, i.e.; Home finders, Case
Mangers, Case Workers. The emphasis is finding homes (anyone) will do,
in some cases the required background checks are waived, the income
test overlooked; psycho-socials should be included in the background
checks.
In light of the fact that there are a number of children who enter
foster care whom would benefit positively from a permanent home oppose
to institutional environment. It would appear that monies allocated for
foster care and adoption opportunities be better spent in aiding in the
biological families and their children that want assistance and
direction, such as family prevention and intervention services. In the
cases where the only alternative is for the child/children to be placed
in foster care or adoptive homes, provide these families with the
supportive tools and monitoring needed to ensure that the child and
families are adjusting appropriately.
It is also suggested that the screening process for both
prospective foster and adoptive parents be revised to assess the
quality of care and nurturing they can actually provide, verses the
persona that so many case workers are duped into, until the honeymoon
period is over. The development of a concise evaluative tool for
identified foster/adoptive homes would be most useful in determining
the validity of the foster and adoptive parents. This will aid the
system in weeding out those who have hidden agenda's and will reduce
the recidivism rate of the number of children who are adopted at early
ages and then returned to foster care in their adolescence, which is
the unspoken truth that no one in the profession talks about.
The other growing concern is a direct result of ASFA and the
Welfare Reform Act; the numbers of Teen Mothers who have entered the
foster care system, and are now targets under ASFA while in foster care
placement. It is no secret that African-American children/youth are
disportionately represented in the foster care system in the United
States.
Thus, the increased presence of teen mothers in foster care has
created a resource pool and a quagmire. In this instance this
particular population often enter foster care, as a direct result of
not be eligible for TANF or public aid as many are under the age of 18.
And under the Welfare Reform Act these young girls are the
responsibility of their biological parents. The circumstances are such
that when the biological parent of the young girl discovers that public
assistance will not provide aid for the pregnant teen the parent then
seeks either Voluntary Placement or a PINS of the young girl, and thus
she enters foster care, for prenatal services and ultimately foster
care placement. The newborn remains with the teen mother while in care
the newborn in these cases is considered an emancipated minor.
There has been a growing trend of this scenario since the inception
of Welfare Reform, which has forced an explosion of teen moms in foster
care. Understanding that a vast number of these young girls are in many
instances discovering foster care and parenting for the first time and
are unaware of the laws and circumstances that govern the system. This
population has become prey to ASFA as enforced in child welfare. Thus,
this circumstance has availed the foster care system use of ASFA to
terminate the parental rights of these young mothers, and place the
infants / toddlers in foster care and ultimately up for adoption.
The problem that arises from the usage of ASFA and this population
is that the youth that have become pregnant in an attempt to find love,
nurturing, and the attention, that which was lacking at home from their
biological parent. Tend to retaliate, by becoming pregnant again, which
is known as replacement pregnancies and thus raises the pregnancy rate
amongst this particular community and population. This issues is not
isolated to the youth that enter care for the first time but is
universal in the foster care system as a whole there are many issues
that can and should be addressed, as there are many solutions that can
help ameliorate these concerns if we just take the time to have real
and honest dialogue about them.
I am a former foster child of this horrendous system and have been
a longstanding advocate for the children and youth represented in
foster care. I am also an Independent consultant and trainer to child
welfare and have been for the last 13 years. Presently, I am the
Founder and Executive Director of ``In The Spirit Of The Children,
Inc'' Which provides youth who have exited foster care with a continuum
of services to avert homelessness of this population upon discharge.
Thank you, for the opportunity to express my concerns on the
current state of child welfare today.
Statement of Joe Kroll, North American Council on Adoptable Children,
Saint Paul, Minnesota
The North American Council on Adoptable Children welcomes this
opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the tens of thousands of
children adopted from the child welfare system every year, and the
families who adopt them.
Horrific cases like that of New Jersey's Jackson family engrave
themselves in the public memory and focus attention on needed child
welfare reform. At the same time, however, they may inadvertently
exclude from public consciousness the crucial--and laudable--role
played by hundreds of thousands of adoptive and other families who
successfully care for this country's most needy and vulnerable
children. We believe that at-risk children do best in well-supported,
forever families--with birth families, relatives, or adoptive parents.
Families who parent special needs children need increased support.
NACAC knows that much work remains to help adoptive families after
the adoption is finalized, to reduce the number of children entering
child welfare systems in the first place, to increase recognition of
relatives as permanency resources for their abused and neglected young
kin, and to provide more support and supervision for foster parents.
Who Are the Children?
Because of their early history of serious abuse and neglect, foster
children who need permanent families often have debilitating special
needs. More than 85 percent have a physical, mental, or emotional
disability.[1] A child may rage so often that she cannot be
in regular child care, be brain damaged from prenatal exposure to
alcohol so that she cannot process more than one request at a time, or
face life-altering depression that requires professional treatment.
These problems do not end when the child returns home or is placed with
a new, permanent family; some problems even intensify with
age.[2] In spite of these disabilities--and the very real
shortage of supportive services--foster, kinship, and adoptive parents
are succeeding in caring for children who might otherwise be
institutionalized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[1]\ Child Welfare League of America. (2003). Testimony submitted
to the House Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways
and Means for the hearing on the implementation of the Adoption and
Safe Families Act. Washington, DC, April 8, 2003.
\[2]\ Rosenthal, J. & Groze, V. (1994). A longitudinal study of
special-needs adoptive families. Child Welfare, 73 (6), 689-706.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How Prevalent is Maltreatment in Out-of-Home Care?
Foster and adopted children are sometimes, tragically, victims of
abuse and neglect while they are in out-of-home care. One study of more
than 300,000 children in out-of-home care in Illinois in the 1990's
found an average substantiated maltreatment rate of two per
100.[3] But a follow-up study reported that one-third of
that rate could have been mistakenly attributed to out-of-home care
providers.[4] By comparison, child maltreatment occurs in
the general population at about 1.2 per 100.[5] Though more
research is needed, it is evident that foster and adoptive parents need
additional help in caring for special needs children and assuring their
safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[3]\ Poertner, J., Bussey, M., & Flude, J. (1999). How safe are
out-of-home placements? Children and Youth Services Review, 21(7), 549-
563.
\[4]\ Tittle, G., Poertner, J., & Garnier, P. (2001). Child
maltreatment in out of home care: What do we know now? Urbana, IL:
Children & Family Research Center, School of Social Work, University of
IL at Urbana-Champaign. Available on-line at: carehttp://
cfrcwww.social.uiuc.edu/pubs/ListResults2.asp.
\[5]\ U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2003). News
release. HHS releases 2001 national statistics on child abuse and
neglect. Washington, DC: U.S. D.H.H.S. Available on line at: http://
www.hhs.gov/news/press/2003pres/20030401.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How Does Congress View Adoption?
Twice Congress has acknowledged that families who adopt children
from foster care face a difficult job and need extra assistance. The
Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, Public Law 96-272, passed by
Congress in 1980, sought to remove the disincentives to special needs
adoption and granted adoptive parents monthly stipends, matched with
state dollars, that could not exceed the monthly foster care rate.
Since the passage of 96-272, adopted children have fared better than
children who remained in long-term foster care. Evidence-based research
tells us that adopted children have higher levels of emotional
security, a greater sense of belonging, and higher levels of well-being
compared to children in long-term foster care.[6]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[6]\ Triseliotis, J. (2002). Long-term foster care or adoption?
The evidence examined. Child & Family Social Work, 7(1), 23-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As children's stays in foster care lengthened and foster care rolls
grew in the early 90's, Congress again acknowledged the overall success
of adoption and passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. ASFA
provides states with incentives to find adoptive or other homes for
foster children and prioritizes safety in all decisions concerning
family preservation and reunification. The Act amended critical
sections of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 by
identifying cases in which reunification services are not required;
instructed states to file a petition to terminate parental rights when
a child has been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months;
and entitled children to ``reasonable efforts'' to an adoptive home if
they cannot return to their birth family, among other provisions. ASFA
had the intended effect of reducing the backlog of children in foster
care who were waiting to be adopted.[7] However, not enough
time has passed to ascertain the effects of ASFA on the children who
entered the child welfare system in 1997 and after.[8]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[7]\ Wulczyn, F. (2002). Adoption Dynamics: The Impact of the
Adoption and Safe Families Act. Available online at http://
aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/fostercare-issues02/ASFA/index.ht. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
\[8]\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where Do We Go From Here?
The Collingswood, New Jersey case has riveted the public's
attention on the alleged neglectful behavior of an adoptive family, the
short-comings of the child welfare system, and the need for change. One
suggested change is to require a yearly child physical as a part of an
adoptive families' adoption subsidy re-certification process, which
could be positive if warranted services were also required and funded
after the physical. But if the physical serves only as a child
protection monitoring devise, adoptive families would be unfairly
singled out for observation. No other class of parents would have a
similar health monitoring requirement. Perhaps a more constructive
change would be the enhancement of the widely successful federal
adoption assistance program to include support and services for all
families after adoption.
Recommendation: NACAC advocates that services follow children when they
move from foster care to adoption. NACAC recommends that the
federal adoption incentive funds be targeted for post-adoption
services.
There is proof of a strong relationship between providing
routine support and services to adoptive families and positive
outcomes in terms of child health, well-being, and family
stability, especially when mental health services are
provided.[9] Post-adoption services should be
tailored to meet the child's and families' needs, and may
include: information and referral, case management, respite
care, education, therapeutic interventions, advocacy, and birth
family mediation when needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[9]\ Casey Family Services. (2000). Strengthening families and
communities: An approach to post-adoption services, A white paper.
Shelton, CT: Casey Family Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial findings from the Maine Adoption Guide Intervention
Project, a post-adoption support program, notes differences
between adoptive families that received Guide services, and
adoptive families who did not. Guide families report higher
levels of attachment to their adopted children, increased
levels of family trust, and better ``quality of life''
scores.[10] The primary focus of the Maine Adoption
Guide program is to allow the adoptive family to determine what
they need to be healthy and safe. A clinical case manager asks
the family, ``How can I help?'' For example, families ask for
and receive child mental health counseling, support from other
adoptive parents, and social work assistance when attending
their child's special education meetings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[10]\ Michael Lahti. (October 8, 2003). Personal communication.
Portland, ME: University of Southern Maine, Edmund Muskie School of
Public Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Else Would Help Keep Vulnerable Children Safe?
NACAC believes that wider system improvement must occur so that
fewer children enter the foster care system, and so that those who do
will find increased levels of safety and sustenance. At-risk families
should receive proven preventive services to avert their entry into the
child protection system in the first place. Relatives of abused and
neglected children should be more systematically sought and supported
when they step forward to care for their young kin. More foster
families who care for very troubled children should receive extra
attention and supervision.
Recommendation: create well-designed, universal, nurse home visiting
programs for at-risk families in order to halve the number of
children entering the U.S. child welfare system[11]
Home visits by nurses in the first two years of a child's
life improves the functioning of at-risk parents & reduces the
incidence of child maltreatment. Evidence-based interventions
such as well-designed nurse home-visiting programs have been
proven to reduce subsequent pregnancies, cut welfare use, and
decrease criminal behavior in at-risk parents, and lessen the
chance of child abuse and neglect [12]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[11]\ Wulczyn, F. (June, 2001). Age as a risk factor in the
placement of children in foster care. Paper delivered at the Annie E.
Casey Foundation's child welfare financing briefing.
\[12]\ Olds, D., et al., (1997). Long-term effects of home
visitation on maternal life course and child abuse and neglect. JAMA,
278(8), 637-643.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation: Acknowledge kinship care for the stability and well-
being it brings to vulnerable children. Make subsidized
guardianship eligible for federal financial support without
requiring a waiver.
NACAC supports the Kinship Guardianship Assistance Program
(K-GAP) provision contained within the Dodd-Miller Act to Leave
No Child Behind--children's legislation that is pending before
Congress. The K-GAP provision would allow all states to use
federal Title IV-E foster care funding to establish or expand a
subsidized guardianship program for children who can safely
exit the foster care system into legal guardianship of
qualified relatives.[13]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[13]\ Allen, M.L., Bisell, M., Miller, J. (2003). Expanding
permanency options for children: A guide to subsidized guardianship
programs. Washington, DC: Children's Defense Fund & Cormerstone
Consulting Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relatives have emerged as a major source of well-being and
permanence for children entering and leaving foster care, and
should be uniformly recognized and supported as such. In 1986,
18 percent of foster children lived with relatives who were not
their parents; by 2000, 25 percent of foster children lived
with kin.[14] Children in quality kinship care
programs are safer, more stable, and have greater continuity
than children in non-relative foster care.[15]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[14]\ Office of the Inspector General. (1992). Using relatives for
foster care. (OEI-06-09-02390). Washington, DC: U.S. DHHS; U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). AFCARS report #5
(Preliminary estimates published April, 2001). Available on line at:
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/afcars/apr2001.html.
\[15]\ Benedict, M., Zuravin, S., & Stallings, R. (1996). Adult
functioning of children who lived in kin versus non-relative family
foster homes. Child Welfare, 75(5), 529-549; Berrick, J., Barth, R.,
Needell, B. (1994). A comparison of kinship foster homes and foster
family homes: Implications for kinship foster care as family
preservation. Child and Youth Services Review, 16(1-2), 33-64;
Inglehart, A. (1994). Kinship foster care: Placement, service, and
outcome issues. Children and Youth Services Review, 16(1-2), 7-32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today 34 states and the District of Columbia have
implemented subsidized guardianship programs as a permanent
alternative to adoption for certain foster children leaving the
child welfare system.[16] Guardians are usually
relatives or close family friends who receive a monthly stipend
that is often between the TANF rate and the foster care rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[16]\ Allen, M.L. et al. (2003). Op. Cit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relatives are also choosing to adopt their young, dependent
kin in larger numbers than previously. The Multistate Foster
Care Data Archive has recorded a significant increase in the
probability of adoption over the last 12 years for African
American children residing with relatives in urban areas,
though these adoptions take a long time to
complete.[17]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[17]\ Wulczyn, F. (2002). Adoption Dynamics: The Impact of
Adoption and Safe Families Act. Available online at http://
aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/fostercare-issues02/ASFA/index.htm. Washington DC:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than 50 percent of children in relative care families
live with a grandparent who is poor and has health
problems.[18] A Native-American, disabled
grandmother in Minneapolis caring for her abandoned,
hyperactive, four-year-old grandson failed to qualify for
foster care payments and received only a TANF payment for his
care. She also lacked transportation to get him to and from
numerous medical appointments. She desperately wanted more
social work help than she got. Yet this grandparent regularly
sent her grandson to pre-school and stabilized his chaotic
life. Despite relatives' greater needs, they are offered fewer
services than non-kin foster parents, ask for fewer services,
and face barriers to receiving [19] And cash-
strapped state and county child welfare systems don't have the
dollars it takes to staff positions to check in frequently on
the grandmother in the example above. Yet the well-being of
vulnerable children clearly requires more investment than we
are currently providing for relative caregivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[18]\ Andrews Scarcella, C., Ehrle, J., & Geen, R. (2003).
Identifying and addressing the needs of children in grandparent care.
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Assessing the New Federalism,
Series B, No. B-55.
\[19]\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation: NACAC calls for additional federal and state investment
in foster parent training, support, and supervision to increase
child safety and quality permanency planning.
More foster families should receive the attention and
supervision that treatment foster families traditionally
receive. Treatment foster care has generally been reserved for
older, highly troubled foster children as an alternative to
group or institutional care. Treatment foster care is one of
the most widely used forms of out-of-home placement for
children and adolescents with severe emotional and behavioral
disorders.[20] Treatment foster parents are trained,
supported, and closely supervised to participate as a member of
the case planning and treatment team.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[20]\ Chamberlain, P. (2000). What works in treatment foster care,
pp. 157-162. In M. Kluger, G. Alexander, & P. Curtis, eds., What works
in child welfare. Washington, DC:CWLA Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet over time an increasing number of children have entered
foster care with more severe mental health, developmental, and
physical health problems [21] meriting a call for
more foster parents to receive the level of support and
supervision that treatment foster parents receive. Levels of
safety appear to be higher for children in treatment, or
specialized, foster care.[22] Certainly this is
another approach that is worth our investment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[21]\ U.S. General Accounting Office. (1998). Foster care agencies
face challenges securing stable homes for children of substance
abusers. Report to the Chairman, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate.
GAO/HEHS-98-182. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
\[22]\ Poertner, J., Bussey, M., & Flude, J. (1999). How safe are
out-of-home placements? Children and Youth Services Review, 21(7), 549-
563.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
Whenever a child is abused it is a tragedy that leads to the
question: What could have been done to prevent it? Cases like the
Jackson's raise serious questions about child welfare. We believe the
solutions can be found in the hundreds of thousands of families who
successfully care for special needs children each day. What can we
learn from the grandmother living on social security who cares for her
two grandchildren? What can we learn from the empty-nester couple who
opened their home to four teenage boys? If we are serious about
supporting children in families we will look to the mainly competent,
real people caring for our most needy children to find the solutions.
The real issue is the level of support the state provides to adoptive
and other families who step forward to care for the nation's abused and
neglected children.
Statement of Darlene G. Sowles, Pueblo, Colorado
Although the New Jersey case was horrible, this more is an
indication of lack of funding available to train and retain good
workers, and should NOT be used to scapegoat adoptive families. The
purpose of subsidies is to get special needs children out of the foster
care system and into permanent, loving homes, and there is no question
that this is occurring. Although there may be problems with the system,
and with selecting some families who are not appropriate, don't
penalize the majority of families nationwide who are parenting children
who otherwise would remain in long-term foster care (at a much much
greater cost to society). I have two adopted children who were
prenatally exposed to drugs and alcohol. We have additional therapies
each month as well as additional medical needs due to this exposure;
such as asthma and intestinal problems due to sensory integration
dysfunction as a result of drugs in their system. We could not have
adopted had we not had a subsidy for these children. As a former
adoptive family advocate I have worked with many families who have the
same issues. Please, please do not allow the foster and adoptive
families to suffer because of one case that truly is not determined who
is to blame (caseworkers or the family, or even the neighbors and
community who knew something was wrong.) Also keep in mind that many
times children who never got their hunger needs met now suffer from
illness and eating disorders that cause problems in the child's health
not because they weren't being offered food but because they either
aren't eating enough or they can't keep it in. So. . .please do the
research before making a decision. Thank you for hearing our prayers.
Statement of Jody Wardell, Enon, Ohio
My name is Jody Wardell. I have had extensive dealings with the
Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS) as a foster and
adoptive parent in Ohio and as a military family stationed in Montana.
I have had positive and negative experiences with social workers but
the negative experiences left indelible impressions upon me insomuch
that I have gone back to school to obtain a social psychology degree.
As you read through my testimony, here are a few things I would
like you to remember: 1) I am not testifying to commiserate or complain
but to ask that this committee simply begin by asking the right
questions about our most vulnerable children; 2) Clearly understand
that my views do not represent any group or religious affiliation. 3)
What I say and what I do is purely out of love for this country, love
for freedom, and love of the legislative process. I alone am
responsible for my opinions in my effort to exercise freedom of speech;
and 4) my opinions are to express deep concern over possible
constitutionally incorrect policies and procedures that are often
promoted in legislative efforts under the guise of saving children.
My goal is to re-establish a standard regarding family as the
fundamental and essential unit of society. It is my desire to encourage
you to search for universal truth, not merely believe ``experts''
touted by the department; experts who often line their pockets with
taxpayer dollars only to conclude that ``more studies'' are needed.
At my own expense I have been working to expose fraud, waste, and
abuse within the Montana DPHHS Child and Family Service Division (CFSD)
for 3 years. I wrote and produced my own newsletter to keep Montana
legislators informed and continue to work out of Ohio to help keep
information circulating. I also took more than 10 telephone calls
during a 2 and a half hour talk radio show in Kalispell, Montana
dealing with issues of abusive social work power.
Current social work abuse and neglect in Montana is undermining
family as the fundamental unit of society, not only in terms of the
trauma caused to the maltreated parents and children through false
allegations, but also in gross abuse of taxpayer dollars. The cost
economically includes 1) the funds spent on child welfare services
based upon false allegations and 2) the increasingly large sums of
money dedicated to addressing issues based upon ``precautionary
principles'' of ``possible'' consequences of abuse and neglect which in
reality, simply do not exist.
Critics of the Montana DPPHS CFSD have begun to turn public
attention toward what appears to be a DPPHS systemic problem. A
cultural problem that apparently has been ignored by Montana DPHHS
bureaucrats for years: Social workers can and do lie due to personal
issues of dysfunction which cause maladjusted perceptions of abuse,
compassion fatigue and burnout.
To date, there are no in-depth or rigorous financial analyses being
conducted to give taxpayers a solid understanding of excessive costs of
social workers maltreatingthe falsely accused, (i.e., the costs of not
preventing social worker abuse and neglect) let alone a comparative
study to the economic savings associated with preventing social worker
abuse and neglect.
It is a fact that most social workers would have Anne Sullivan
arrested for child abuse by today's standards for what could be, might
be, or possibly be abuse. Many would charge her with psychological,
emotional, and physical abuse or the potential for abuse regarding the
pioneering work she did with Helen Keller. It is a fact that under
current state and federal laws parents are often accused of abuse for
using a variety of healthy, normal, traditional teaching techniques.
Doctors, School Teachers, Therapists, and even Psychologists feel
threatened that they could be charged with a Felony for failure to
report this same kind of ``abuse'' if they do not subscribe to a DPHHS
social worker theory.
Anyone can be accused anonymously and never face the accuser, even
if it was a therapist who heard the information from a second hand
source. Whether or not it was true, a child could be removed from
school or a home, and then be listed in all ``data'' as ``vulnerable''
for years.
What follows are but a few publicly documented problems. I believe
this shows just how skewed Montana DPHHS social work data is on
``vulnerable'' cases. These types of problems are truly the tip of the
iceberg when it comes to alleged corruption in current trend of what I
believe is a new emergence of a civil religion, one in which there is
no separation of church and state because of the combinations of power
granted to the executive branch of government:
November 6, 2003
Policeman fired over sex charges http://www.greatfallstribune.com/news/
stories/20031106/localnews/589954.html Great Falls police officer
Jeffrey Cathel was fired Wednesday amid charges that he had sex with
two girls for several years. Court documents describe on-going
relationships with both victims, one of whom was 10 years old when
Cathel first had sex with her and the other who gave birth to his son.
Both victims are now adults.
http://www.gftribune.com/news/stories/20030803/localnews/1367.html
Woman battles to regain babies confiscated by Alaska, Montana Montana
took her newborn son, Joseph, from the Benefis East nursery Monday,
just 14 hours after he was born. He is 6 days old. Brown may have a
chance to regain custody of the boy in a court hearing Thursday at 11
a.m. before state District Judge Julie Macek. ``By that time, my milk's
going to be dried up,'' she said. ``They really don't care.''
April 9, 2003--Social worker pleads guilty to buying cocaine from
client A former social worker admitted Wednesday that she bought
cocaine from one of her clients. Rita Watson Bennet, 49, pleaded guilty
to possession of dangerous drugs and official misconduct. The Bozeman
woman gave curt answers to the questions put to her by District Court
Judge Nels Swandal at a change . . .
bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2003/04/09/news/drugsbzbigs.txt
July 17, 2002--Social worker pleas innocent to buying drugs from client
A Bozeman social worker pleaded innocent in district court Monday to
charges that she coerced one of her clients to supply her with cocaine.
Rita Watson Bennet, 48, faces three drug-related felony charges as well
as a misdemeanor charge of official misconduct, for allegedly
committing a crime in her . . .
bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2002/07/17/news828.txt
May 31, 2002--Social worker charged with extorting cocaine from client
A case worker employed by a state welfare agency paid a Gallatin County
man $300 for a bag of cocaine after telling him she would let him
return home to his family if he supplied her with drugs, according to
documents filed Thursday in a Bozeman court. Rita Bennet, a 48-year-old
Bozeman woman, was a . . .
bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2002/05/31/news49701.txt
http://www.missoulanews.com/Archives/News.asp?no=942
Who Guards the Guardians?
by RUTH THORNING, Photos by CHAD HARDER
Originally Published: 5/4/2000 In the Feature-News section
. . . This teenager knows what she is talking about. A few years
ago, the state's Child Protective Services (CPS, then known as the
Department of Family Services) came to her school and swept her and her
sisters away from her family. They were apart for three and a half
months. She remembers it vividly. The scars run deep. They will always
hurt.
Montana State Supreme Court reverses lower court decision
The absence of an adjudication prior to approval of a treatment
plan renders the statutory requirements of 41-3-609(1)(f), MCA,
unsatisfied. The District Court failed to comply with statute and
provide fundamentally fair procedures at each stage of the termination
proceedings, as required by due process, thus erring in terminating
R.W.'s parental rights.
How does one expose the level of corruption that appears to exist
in the Department of Health and Human Services Division of Child and
Family Services?
Montana DPHHS seems to be a closed, society of opinion
and gossip, which has power to self-exempt and justify abuses of power
in the name of ``saving children.''
The social workers who control the power also control the
way information is presented and interpreted, whether or not it is true
or correct.
There seems to be no way to get anyone up the DPHHS chain
of command to listen because social workers appear to operate in a
closed society of friends so no one really reads all of the
documentation in the credible files because they rely on ``nutshell''
history dictated by groupthink phraseology.
Therefore data that has been collected for Montana to
receive the federal funding it depends upon is and has been skewed and
incorrect for years.
Allow me to show you how easily it is to be deceived by
``credible'' record and file keeping, let alone data collected based
upon false reality worlds: (See: The Social Animal by Elliot Aronson
and The Color Code, by Dr. Taylor Hartman)
SOCIAL COGNITION: The ability to select, interpret, remember, and
use social information to make judgments and decisions and very often
done using subjective opinion based on personal experiences of: ``what
is bad and what is good?''
The right questions then become:
What is the social workers personal history of ``abuse'' and what
type of personality are they? Addictive? Emotional? Immature? Psycho-
sociopath?
If a rape victim or physical abuse victim goes into counseling to
``help others,'' how much baggage is brought to social cognition based
upon the trauma? How recovered is the social workers ability to reason
and not misinterpret normal behavior as ``possible'' abuse?
COGNITIVE MISERS: Burned out social workers simplify and reduce
information overload. They must be watched for ``social cognition
patterns'' in language as ``experts'' interact with one another.
Because social work lends itself to civil religious belief that ``we
all are capable of abuse,'' it becomes important to look at nods,
gestures, lack of eye contact or a glance away, and repetitive phrases
that are used as information decoys since they are key rituals used in
social work communication.
The right questions are:
What happens then in the narrative of the case file? Once a lie is
told, like the game of gossip, how does it get repealed from the
``credible'' files? How does the social worker interpret body language
in relationship to herself? What types of manipulations do social
workers interject into their writings while editing out their social
cognition patterns from the equation?
SOCIAL CONTEXT: Files are colorfully painted with social worker
opinion, evident in redundant psycho-freak terminology, steeped in
psycho cultural and social babble.
The right questions become: Could it be that too many social work
teams are stacked with group-thinkers or like-minded individuals or are
teams of ``experts'' being formed, not rotated frequently enough to
challenge opinions or facts?
One of the first things that I teach victims of DPHHS abuse is to
learn the psycho-phraseology of the social work community with whom
they are forced to work. Social workers have a language all their own,
and one must truly pinpoint social worker definitions of what ``is''
is.
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES: Is the information/data framed or posed to
help you compare possibilities by reaching out to you through emotional
stimulation or factual evidence? What is the social worker ``hook'' and
is it the only thing that keeps drawing your attention? If the ``hook''
was a lie or incorrect perception, does that affect the comparison?
CONTEXT ACCESSIBILITY: Does the situation appear to be better or worse
than it is, depending upon to what it is compared? What is the decoy?
How and when is information placed? What is the first and last thing
you remember?
PRIMING: The order of the information to preface and enhance the punch
line the social worker wants you to hear. Note the order of information
as it graduates to frenzy, and then note the accessible information
based on the social workers experience. Are you traumatized by the
emotional might be's or is there clear evidence present?
Example: Your Honor, Mother was on time for the visit but, there
was no warmth in the visit, and remember the house was dirty and she
might be suffering from Munchausen by Proxy therefore, well, draw your
own conclusions, because the sky is falling, the sky is falling, and it
will hit you on the head if you do not grant me power to save this one
child--because I am the only one who cares about this child . . .
If a parent is falsely accused of abuse do you understand the
stress in the lives of the family members?
Asking the right questions:
Asking the right questions of DPHHS is paramount to getting the
right data if you are to serve the truly vulnerable. Here are few that
might be of some value:
What law or rules state what child abuse is not?
Are social workers required to advise the accused of
their Miranda Rights like the police must do?
If children are to been ``seen, heard, and believed''
then what are the administrative rules that define what one is to do
with a child who is a pathological liar?
Do social workers have a personal history of dysfunction
that might cloud their judgment? I.e. how many are married, divorced
and how many marriages, shack ups, with or without children?
How many social workers uphold the traditional family,
father, mother, and children, as the fundamental unit of society?
Are they qualified to meet the needs of families with
different values from their own life styles and moral standards?
Is there a break down on the length of time a social
worker remains in DFS, from interns to administrators?
Are they given regular psychological evaluations to rule
out compassion fatigue, compassion burnout, or victim-over
identification problems?
What kind of personal mental health training is given to
social workers and who qualifies, teaches, and determines adequate
training?
Is there a pattern of personalities and frequented teams
of individuals that appear to be a combination not friendly to
families? I.e., outside agencies frequented, therapists frequented or
does the agency not prefer certain therapists because they are too
family oriented?
Does DPHHS admit or confirm human error in their agency
or do they justify wrong doing with ``doing the very best'' they can
do?
How many quit the department because no one up the chain
has done anything to stop rogue social work in the last ten years?
How often are parents told, ``Good luck, cut your losses
and run'' once the agency is involved?
Can confidentiality really be maintained by teams of
volunteers or treatment teams yet parents are not given the same
information as these strangers due to confidentiality or ``need'' for
the child's privacy?
Why is forcibly removing a child not considered arrest?
What internal disciplinary procedures are codified or do
social workers have more compassion for their own?
How thick is the wall of silence within the agency?
Anger or Righteous Indignation?
Several years ago a dear friend of mine told me that she never knew
she could annoy someone, until she met me. She could tell when I was
finished listening to her or tired of her. To say I was surprised at
her comment would be an understatement. I know I annoy people. How was
it she, after 40+ years of living on this earth, just figured out she
could annoy someone?
How is it abusive social workers think they are not annoying? Well,
simply put, like true abusers do, they sit in this state called
``denial.''
Because social workers deal daily with ``garbage in,'' because they
are steeped in looking for, searching for, and in justifying abuse
allegations they very often fail to recognize their own emotional
dysfunction or mental instability in producing ``garbage out''
accusations, suppositions, and rhetoric. True social work abusers fail
to or are incapable of sincerely recognizing their own irritating
faults, which can and do drive normal people into sore frustrations,
and genuinely concerned individuals over the edge. Abusive social
worker provocations are then misinterpreted as anger in the falsely
accused.
What I'm suggesting is: we each can, have, or will annoy someone in
our life span. Social Workers, many who all too often come with excess
dysfunctional baggage, might be prone to picking at normal, healthy
individuals thereby creating a dysfunctional situation when none
initially existed prior to social work ``intervention.''
It is easy then to see how a DPHHS CFSD superior might ignore,
deny, excuse, and belittle legitimate concerns regarding true abuse of
social work practices in the CFSD. Dealing with a ``team'' of social
workers might very well be the reason a falsely accused individual is
``emotional'' or ``anxiety ridden'' or even ``sorely frustrated.''
Social Workers do escalate problems with arrogance, rudeness, and
lack of compassion toward those they are to be preserving in families.
Social Workers do commit abuse or omit meeting the needs of the very
souls who come to them for help. Social workers often become the
abusers, falsely bearing witness to things as they appear from narrow
minded, biased opinions because they think they ``know it all.'' They
too often believe their ``training'' makes them invulnerable. As team
members, they can become subject to groupthink hysteria.
The victim of false allegations has nothing to do but worry about
clearing his or her name in order to get a child back. It can be
emotionally draining. It is absolutely demoralizing. It is physically
consuming. The victim of social worker abuse might be broke, broken
hearted, and broken somewhat in spirit, especially when no longer
knowing in whom to trust.
Who do you trust when the lies and deceits are unveiled? Your
therapist? Your neighbor?
When you read your ``credible file'' with ambiguous language or
subjective opinion, no facts, how do you feel? What do you feel when
your words are twisted, grossly misrepresented, and even falsely
attributed it to you?
Therefore what? Stop ignoring what you hear from the victims of
social work abuse! Stop telling victims of multiple character
assassinations and emotional rape to calm down. Think about their
trauma of having to, for years, retell the horrific story to everyone
they meet, hoping that one person will have the guts to take them at
face value.
Remember: Too many social workers believe that they are above
reproach, without guile, somewhat filled with arrogant superiority for
having ``overcome'' their sick, personal and family dysfunctions (all
too often worn as a ``Red Badge of Courage'').
Most victims of DPHHS did not need anger management until they
stared into the faces of the dysfunctional social worker with her/his
``team'' of closed consensus puppets.
Perhaps now, when looked upon in this prudential light, the anger
of the victims might be then classified more in the line of righteous
indignation. If so, ought not the greater part of compassion be
exercised unto the wounded and weary victims of social work abuses,
valiantly sacrificing all to save a beloved child from the clutches of
such wretched practices?
To summarize information:
1. Current social work abuse and neglect is undermining family as
the fundamental unit of society, not only in terms of the trauma caused
to the maltreated parents and children through false allegations, but
also in gross abuse of taxpayer dollars.
2. The cost economically includes a) the funds spent on child
welfare services based upon false allegations and b) the increasingly
large sums of money dedicated to addressing issues based upon
``precautionary principles'' of ``possible'' consequences of abuse and
neglect which in reality, simply do not exist.
3. The problem with launching another study to collect data from
an organization comprised of DPHHS maintained and controlled
``confidential'' files is that data can be manipulated without ever
being adequately reviewed or challenged within the social context of
DPHHS social work culture.
4. Excessive damage is being done to families and children through
false allegations. Children are languishing in the government
warehousing process while others are being killed and maimed because
too many social workers suffer from misplaced loyalties or cognitive
misers suffering from emotional instability.
Therefore asking the right questions becomes imperative to seeking
solutions lest the new civil religion of social work become the
cultural downfall of society. After all, social worker job security is
not the fundamental unit of society. Family is.
Please feel free to call upon me to be of service at any time. I
welcome the opportunity to be of help in this process of protecting the
most vulnerable citizens in our society.