| |
Letter to Senate and House Appropriators to Restore Discretionary Funding Under the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program (PSSF)
© Child Welfare League of America. The content of these publications may not be reproduced in any way, including posting on the Internet, without the permission of CWLA. For permission to use material from CWLA's website or publications, contact us using our website assistance form.
March 11, 2008
The Honorable Tom Harkin
Chairman, Appropriations Subcommittee on
Labor- HHS-Education
Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable Arlen Specter
Ranking Member, Appropriations
Subcommittee on Labor-HHS-Education
Washington, DC 20510
|
The Honorable David Obey
Chairman, Subcommittee on
Labor- HHS-Education
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable James Walsh
Ranking Member, Appropriations
Subcommittee on Labor-HHS-Education
Washington, DC 20515
|
Dear Chairman Harkin and Senator Specter:
Dear Chairman Obey and Congressman Walsh:
The Child Welfare League of America (CWLA), on behalf ofpublic and private child-serving
agencies nationwide, urges the Appropriations Committee to restore funding for the Prompting
Safe and Stable Families program to no less than $100 million in discretionary funding provided
in FY 2003. This level of funding is still well below the $200 million level authorized and
previously promised by the Administration.
PSSF targets four types of families touched by the child welfare system: families in need of
adoption services, families in crisis and need of support, families where a child has been placed
in foster care and the best interest of the child is to be re-unified, and families that are very close
to being split up and states are attempting to preserve these families through intensive services.
Many argue that as a nation, we are only willing to spend on families and children in the child
welfare system once a child has been removed and then only if they meet stringent eligibility
requirements through the limited Title IV-E foster care and adoption assistance programs. They
further argue that we should invest more to prevent abuse. CWLA agrees. This, however, takes a
genuine commitment to funding these prevention services in a meaningful way.
An analysis of thirteen discretionary programs that are targeted to address child welfare services,
including the promotion of adoption and services to prevent child removal, shows that of the
total 2007 discretionary funding of $629 million, a total of $24 million was cut in 2008, a
reduction of nearly four percent.
Ofthe thirteen programs, eleven were cut: Child Welfare Services, Promoting Safe and Stable
Families (PSSF), Mentoring for Children of Prisoners, Child Welfare Training, Child Abuse
Prevention Treatment Act (CAPTA) State Grants, CAPTA Community Based Grants, Adoption
Awareness, Adoption Opportunities, Adoption Incentives, Abandoned Infants, and Education
and Training Vouchers for youth leaving care. There was a slight increase of $1.4 million in
CAPTA Discretionary grants and a new administration earmark of $1 0 million was created for
home visiting programs. The home visiting program is funded through CAPTA.
The PSSF program received the biggest funding cut. For FY 2008 PSSF was cut drastically, with
discretionary funding reduced from the 2007 level of $89 million to $63 million. As we indicated
states are required to spend at least twenty percent oftheir funds on each of four services,
families in need of adoption services, families in need of reunification services, families being
targeted for intense preservation services, and serviceS targeted to support families.
Some examples of state efforts include the state of Pennsylvania in state fiscal year 2006-07
serving 10,880 families and 13,156 children per month in their Family Center programs. These
Centers provide family preservation services such as home visitation which emphasizes the
importance ofparental relationships and discussing discipline principles at home. The Centers
also provide family support services. The primary focus is the PA Family Support Alliance.
Local support groups help to reduce the risk of child abuse and neglect and improve family
functioning. Family preservation services are also provided through family group decision
making. Families are empowered to make the best decisions for their circumstances to ensure the
safety of their children. In addition time limited family reunification services were provided to
over 500 families in 2008 through the Family Centers.
In 2006 the state of Iowa family reunification services funding was distributed through all eight
Department ofHuman Service areas. The focus in these efforts is on providing Family Team
Meetings (FTM). FTM have been used to reduce the incidence ofre-abuse, re-entry into care,
and to increase the face to face visits between children and parents before reunification. Each
area is required to develop service area goals and objectives and then these results are reported
back to the PSSF director. In addition to these kinds ofreunification services, Iowa has used
funding for adoption services that assist families. Through Family Support, Iowa has worked
with Prevent Child Abuse Iowa to provide support services all across the state.
In 2005 over 33,000 Wisconsin children and 31,000 families received support services provided
through PSSF through one ofthe four services funded. In their official state reports, Wisconsin
tells us that when reports that compare actual outcomes with the desired outcomes for the
children and families served, counties are meeting or exceeding their outcomes goals. Wisconsin
also tells us that maintaining PSSF funding is extremely important in order for the state to
continue providing fundamental support and improvements to statewide child welfare practice.
This funding stream is integral to ensuring that program services improve outcomes for all
children and families in Wisconsin; especially for those that are in the child welfare system or at
high risk of entering the system.
In the California county of Santa Clara, as one example of that states efforts, the $1.1 million in
PSSF funding was used to provide family advocates, expansion ofthat county's differential
response approach to child abuse and neglect reports, more parent advocates, support for inter-
jurisdictional adoptions, greater adoption infonnation and more parent training for adoptive
families.
While these limited examples of some state efforts give a picture how families are assisted by
PSSF funds it can't describe how these same states and similar families will be affected by
budget cuts. This challenge only grows as state budget deficits start to increase. Since 2005
when PSSF was still receiving close to $100 million in discretionary funding all these states have
absorbed a cut in PSSF funding of close to 7 percent.
CWLA looks forward to working with the members of the Committee and the Congress to
increase the critically important federal commitment and resources for these vital services that
protect children from abuse and neglect.
Sincerely,
Christine James-Brown
President/CEO
Child Welfare League of America
CC: Members of Senate and House Appropriations Committees
 Back to Top  Printer-friendly Page  Contact Us
|
|
