| |
CWLA Key Concerns about the Child SAFE Act, H.R. 4856
On July 19, 2004, Representatives Herger (R-CA), Camp (R-MI), Cantor (R-VA), DeLay (R-TX), Johnson (R-CT), and Lewis (R-KY), introduced the Child Safety, Adoption, and Family Enhancement (Child SAFE) Act. The goal of the bill is to reduce the number of children in foster care and does this by incorporating a version of the Bush Administration's foster care block grant proposal with some of the recommendations of the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care.
As introduced, the Child SAFE Act is unacceptable and needs to be substantially improved. The bill:
- Rejects a key recommendation made by the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care and imposes a cap, or block grant, on Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments. This cap breaks the link between federal funding based on an entitlement funding formula and transforms it into a fixed amount of funds no longer driven by the number of eligible children.
Under a foster care cap, states would have little opportunity to increase federal funds for foster care beyond the capped amounts unless their caseloads grow by 15% from the previous year and national foster care caseloads increase by 10% or a state's foster care caseload increases by 20%. Even if the caseload requirements were met, there is no guarantee that additional funding would be available because the bill requires states to rely on the TANF contingency fund for the additional resources.
Capping federal Title IV-E maintenance payments threatens the continuation of enforceable protections for abused and neglected children in foster care.
- Capping federal foster care funding also locks in significant inequities among states in the proportion of their foster care caseloads that are Title IV-E eligible.
- Recognizes the importance of eliminating the eligibility link to AFDC in the federal foster care and adoption assistance programs, but accomplishes this by reducing the federal match for states for foster care by 35% and the federal match for adoption by 15%-at the same time that states are experiencing severe shortfalls.
- Removes the automatic guarantee of Medicaid for children who are eligible for the first time for federal foster care assistance.
- Rejects a Pew Commission recommendation that could reduce the number of children in foster care by providing federal support for kinship guardianship placements for children who have been in foster care with relatives for at least 12 months, have obtained legal guardianships, and have committed to caring for the child permanently.
- Fails to require that any specified amount of the Safe Children, Strong Families funds be used for prevention or specialized treatment services.
- Pits funding for prevention, substance abuse treatment and other specialized services against ongoing funding for administration, child placement activities, training, and services.
- Does not provide sufficient new resources for services. Increased funding of only $200 million for the Safe Children, Strong Families Program does not begin to address the need.
- Caps funds now used by states for administration and child placement activities related to both foster care and adoption assistance. These include activities that can help to keep children out of foster care, as well as outreach and recruitment of foster and adoptive homes for children who need placement outside their families.
- Caps federal funds now provided to states for training. No training funds would be guaranteed.
- Gives states the choice to transfer "unused" foster care funds from the capped foster care program to the Safe Children, Strong Families block grant. However, because the bill caps foster care payments and allows states to set aside "unused" dollars for future foster care needs, it is much less likely that states will transfer these dollars to the Safe Children, Strong Families block grant where they would no longer be available for foster care maintenance payments. The bill also fails to require that states match any dollars that they transfer to the Safe Children, Strong Families block grant.
- Does not require any reporting on how the Safe Children, Strong Families funds are spent, which will make it extremely difficult to track the investments made in prevention and specialized services (e.g. mental health and substance abuse treatment).
- Establishes a new challenge grant program that would reward states that achieve certain outcomes for children. However, states are unlikely to qualify for the bonuses since the standards that must be achieved to secure the bonuses are set far out of reach for most states.
- Does not respond to states' needs for help in implementing the Program Improvement Plans that are intended to improve outcomes for abused and neglected children.
- Fails to include many of the Pew Commission recommendations that will help improve outcomes for children.
Former Representative Bill Frenzel, Chairman of the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, in his written statement to the Subcommittee on Human Resources on the Child SAFE Act 1, highlighted a number of the Commission's financing recommendations that were not included in the bill and which the Commission strongly recommends should be added:
- Preservation of uncapped federal funding for Title IV-E Foster Care room and board payments.
- Federal guardianship assistance for all children who leave foster care to live with a permanent legal guardian.
- Workforce incentives through an enhanced match rate to states that improve the competence of their overall workforce and lower caseloads.
- A new Permanence Incentive, modeled on the Adoption Incentives Program, which would provide incentive payments to states that increase the percentage of children who leave foster care through adoption, guardianship, or reunification (To be eligible for any payment, a state would have to maintain or increase its rates in all three areas.)
- Improvements in the Child and Family Services Review process that include more and better measures of child well-being and use longitudinal data to yield more accurate assessments of performance over time. (To do this, the Commission calls on Congress to direct the National Academy of Sciences to convene an expert panel to recommend the best outcomes and measures to use in data collection.)
- A requirement that HHS direct a portion of any penalties resulting from the Child and Family Service Review process into a state's Program Improvement Plan.
For more information, contact Liz Meitner, CWLA Vice President of Government Affairs, at 202/942-0257 or emeitner@cwla.org.
Notes
- Click Here to view Mr. Frenzel's testimony.
 Back to Top  Printer-friendly Page  Contact Us
|
|
