Youth Comments Needed for Federal Regulation on Disconnected Youth

By Amabelle Ocampo

Modern technology is allowing foster youth around the country to raise their voice and take part in financial decision making on the federal level.

The White House is calling for youth to help them determine the best ways to spend money to serve youth in need, by logging on to the Federal Register.

The President’s FY 2013 budget authorizes $130 million in existing discretionary Federal Resource to establish 13 “Performance Partnership Pilots” designed to improve outcomes for disconnected youth (18-24) who are unemployed or not currently pursuing an education.

“We want to hear from youth or those who work with youth in local districts to submit plans of action. Specific ideas on how programs can better coordinate their activities and services especially as you look across multiple systems including schools, child welfare, labor job training, juvenile justice and other areas,” said Diana Zarzuelo, a member of the The White House Domestic Policy Council, in a press release.

“This authorization allows states and local entities to blend federal funds through multiple funding sources and obtain waivers, such as for program design, performance, and other requirements, that could bring forth more effective uses of funding to serve disconnected youth.”

Young Americans can add their suggestions for ways to address issues surrounding disconnected youth by submit comments prior to July 5, 2012 at regulations.gov.

Capitol View on Kids

The latest news on children and families  in Washington D.C.

By. John Sciamanna

New Data on Child Welfare Spending Released

Child Trends has released “Federal, State, and Local Spending to Address Child Abuse and Neglect in SFYS 2008 AND 2010”.  The report is the latest edition of the surveys conducted by the Urban Institute and Child Trends with the support of the Annie E. Casey and Casey Family Programs foundations.  Dating back to the late 1990s the surveys give a state by state snap-shot of state spending on child welfare services with details on where states are drawing federal funding from and how much in state dollars states are investing. Some of the key findings comparing state fiscal years 2006 through 2010 include:

• Child welfare spending increased, but rate of growth slowed. States spent $29.4 billion in federal, state, and local funds for child welfare in state fiscal year (SFY) 2010. Between 2006 and 2008, total spending increased by 1%, and between 2008 and 2010, expenditures increased 2% overall.  Without the temporary enhanced federal reimbursements states received in FY 2010 through the Title IV-E as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, the overall increase in spending between 2008 and 2010 is 1%.
• The federal share of child welfare spending, for the first time in the survey’s history, was lower than the share from state dollars in 2008. In 2008, federal funds accounted for 43% of all spending, while state dollars accounted for 45%, and local dollars for 12%. By 2010, the proportion reverted back to the federal share exceeding the state share. The increase in federal share was due in part to the availability of federal funds through ARRA, but the share of federal funds in 2010 exceeds the state share even when ARRA funds are excluded.
• Title IV-E comprised more than half of all federal dollars spent on child welfare. In 2010, Title IV-E accounted for 52% of all federal funds and represented the largest category of federal funds. The second largest federal funding stream for 2010 was Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF, 22% of all federal dollars spent on child welfare), followed by the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG, 12%), Medicaid (7%), Title IV-B (5%), and “other” (3%).
• Spending from the Title IV-E Foster Care Program decreased. In 2010, states spent $3.6 billion in Title IV-E foster care funds a 17% decrease from the amount spent on the Title IV-E foster care program in SFY 2006. Overall spending decreases in Title IV-E foster care is related to declining numbers of children in foster care as well as declining numbers of children being eligible for maintenance payments due to the policy that links Title IV-E foster care eligibility to a 1996 income requirement tied to the defunct AFDC program.
• Title IV-E Adoption Assistance payments are greater than Foster Care Maintenance payments in 2008 and 2010 confirming previous national data.  Thirty-three states reported higher spending for Title IV-E adoption assistance than foster care maintenance payments in 2010, an increase from 2006 when 26 states reported adoption assistance exceeding foster care maintenance.
• The largest percent increases in federal funding are TANF and SSBG. TANF and SSBG (including TANF funds transferred to SSBG by states) experienced the largest increases between SFY 2006 and SFY 2010 of all the major federal funding streams (growing by 18% and 24%, respectively).
• Medicaid expenditures on child welfare services declined steeply. States spent over $1 billion in Medicaid dollars in 2010 for child welfare-related services such as rehabilitative services, targeted case management, and Medicaid-funded therapeutic foster care. This represents a 37% decrease in Medicaid expenditures on child welfare since SFY 2006.

The report continues to reinforce earlier surveys that that there is no real clarity in regard to how states choose the funding formulas for their child welfare systems.  There is no clear relationship between funding patterns and other factors such as a state’s size, location, region, economic makeup or caseloads. To have a clearer understanding one would have to understand the budget politics that take place within each of the fifty states not just recently but over the more than decade of these surveys.  Of particular interest are the increases in SSBG and TANF spending.  More than 20 states increased their use of TANF funds.  While that could be a positive use of TANF funds, particularly if a state used flexible TANF funds to wrap preventive and other services around vulnerable families.  On the other hand one of the major criticisms of TANF during the great recession is that it failed to react to the higher unemployment so if a state froze or reduced caseloads while placing dollars into child welfare, it may not be a positive outcome. SSBG continues to be an every-critical funding source of child welfare and even with much of the SSBG funding coming from a transfer of TANF into SSBG, it raises questions about what will happen to state child welfare funding if Congress follows along with the House-passed reconciliation bill to eliminate SSBG.  Other significant questions include the reduction in Medicaid funding compared to earlier surveys and the significant declines in state draw-downs of Title IV-B child welfare funding.  Medicaid may in part be driven federal restrictions on the use of Medicaid for child welfare services and despite a congressional and administrative reversal many states may be reluctant to open up their Medicaid plans in the same way to restore or provide services such as rehabilitative services.  The IV-B reductions are surprising.  While Congress did cut appropriation for Title IV-B funding through the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program by $25 million in 2007 that results in less than a ten percent cut for both IV-B programs yet 26 states indicated they had reduced IV-B funding by more than ten percent with nine claiming reductions of more than 30 percent.  It suggests that some states may be turning down federal funds despite IV-B requiring only a 25 percent match (one state dollar generates three federal dollars).  One other significant detail is that for the first time the survey gives some idea of how much in Title IV-E funds are drawn down by juvenile justice agencies with the survey indicating that $250 million was drawn in this way.  The Child Trends report is online: http://www.childtrends.org/Files//Child_Trends-2012_06_20_FR_CaseyCWFinancing.pdf

Coalitions Focus on Oversight of Psychotropic Medication in Foster Care

On Thursday June 21, the Child Welfare and Mental Health Coalition and National Foster Care Coalition sponsored a meeting on the oversight and use of psychotropic medication for children in foster care.  Featured speakers included Dr. David Rubin and Meredith Matone from PolicyLab at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Dr. James Rogers, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, and Clare Anderson and Kate Stepleton from the Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), Nadia Sexton, the Centers on Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS), and David DeVoursney, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Association (SAMSHA).

Dr Rubin gave an overview of the PolicyLab’s efforts to improve the quality of health care for children in foster care.  He presented some of the PolicyLabs most recent research based on a review of Medicaid data. Based on their research they were able to analyze the use of psychotropic medications, use of multiple prescriptions per child and the use of antipsychotic medications.  The PolicyLab was able to track individual state progress or lack of progress between 2002 through 2007.  One of the states that received a great deal of focus was the state of Texas.  Texas has implemented a number of reforms to address the over use of medication and to improve the care children are receiving while in care. Dr Rogers presented on the initiatives the state of Texas has taken to reduce the use of prescription medication.  Texas reforms were driven by the 2004 state comptroller’s report that was highly critical of the Texas child welfare system.  In 2005 state legislation established new procedures for all children under a single managed care organization along with new rules on medical consent for children in foster care. Texas also instituted a health passport which is an electronic health care record tracking system open to key parties involved in the care of the foster child.  Data now show that the state has reduced the use of a range of prescription medications including the use of antipsychotic, antidepressants, stimulants and mood stabilizers by a range of 70 to 36 percent.  The Texas data was in fact verified by the independent research by PolicyLab.  One area of consensus was that the goal wasn’t just the reduction in the use of prescription medication but the improved health care and treatment for children in care. Dr Rubin stated he was not against the use of prescription medication but for the proper use.  He pointed out that for those children being overmedicated there had to be alternate forms of treatment and therapy.

PolicyLab expects to post an interactive map featuring state by state data on antipsychotics and polypharmacy use at some point in July.  They will also have a national analysis on the use of antipsychotic use and mental health diagnosis trends among all Medicaid enrolled foster children between 2002 and 2007 in the fall of 2012.  For more information on PolicyLab go online: http://policylab.us

Reunification Briefing Focuses on Parental Assistance

Last week a briefing jointly sponsored by the ABA’s Center on Children and the Law, the National Foster Care Coalition, Children and Families Futures and the Child Welfare League of America focused attention on reunification of children and families in foster care.  The briefing was part of celebrating June as National Reunification Month (http://www.americanbar.org/groups/child_law/what_we_do/projects/nrd.html).  The national initiative has been jointly promoted by a number of organizations over the past several years. With over half of children exiting foster care for reunification, the event is an effort to celebrate the successes that a majority of families experience through reunification.  The briefing included presentations by Robin Lyde, parent advocate from New York City, Susan Jacobs from the Center for Family Representation (CFR) and Judge Larnzell Martin Jr, from Prince George’s County, Maryland. Part of the focus of the briefing was on the effort of the Center for Family Representation to assist parents using a model that provides the parent or parents with a team that includes a parent advocate, a social worker and an attorney. They indicate that they are successful in keeping 73 percent of client’s children out of foster care entirely and that in cases where the child is placed in foster care, the average length of stay in care is 2.2 months.  Susan Jacobs indicated that the New York program was able to increase the number of reunifications for families that used their programs. http://www.cfrny.org/about-us/our-results

The congressional sponsor of the briefing Congresswoman Gwen Moore (D-WS) made some introductory remarks at the outset of the briefing, she introduced a House resolution, H. RES 693, calling for the recognition of June as National Family Reunification Month. She has also introduced HR 3873 the Enhancing the Quality Parental Legal Representation Act.  The bill would increase funding through the court improvement program under the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program to encourage parental representation in child welfare cases.

In the 2006-2009 Child Welfare Outcomes Report to Congress (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cwo06-09/index.htm) HHS drew some interesting conclusions about permanency including reunification of foster children with their families.  The report concludes that a majority of states made considerable strides toward finding permanent homes for children who have been in foster care for 24 months or longer and that it would be useful to determine the drivers behind the success of the 70 percent of states that showed improved between 2006 and 2009. At the same time the report notes that finding permanent homes for children who entered care when they were age 13 or older has been a challenge. In addition to relatively low performance in 2009, there was a change in performance between 2006 and 2009 showing a decline in this area. HHS states that the reasons for low or declining performance need to be understood better and strategies used by states that are more successful should be examined carefully.

Specifically in regard to reunification the report states that national performance on the median length of stay in foster care for children reunified showed a decline between 2006 and 2009. However, the reentry rate for children reunified improved within this same time period. They argued that the two areas should be reviewed in conjunction with one another so that strategies can be developed that improve performance in both the timeliness and permanency of reunifications. They pose the question, are there services that are effective in ensuring safe and timely reunifications, while also preventing reentry? HHS also concluded that states are less successful in reunifying children with diagnosed disabilities than children without, reunification is even less if a child entered foster care after the age of 12 and of the states that were successful in reunifying children within 12 months there appeared to be a correlation with states that had a higher percentage of children visited by caseworkers on a monthly basis.  In regard to older youth they note that 45 percent of youth who exited foster care due to age or being emancipated were in foster care for three years or longer.

Appropriations Update

The House has now acted on eleven of twelve appropriations bills.  The lone bill not debated at least in subcommittee is the Labor- Health and Human Services, Education (Labor-HHS) bill. Five bills have gone to the floor, five have made it through the full committee and one has made it through the subcommittee.  On the Senate side nine bills including Labor-HHS have been approved by the full committee and three have not yet been acted upon.  On June 14 the Senate Appropriations Committee approved the Labor-HHS bill with most of the key child welfare programs funded at the current year funding levels including the three key Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) programs, the two Title IV-B programs (Child Welfare Services and Promoting Safe and Stable Families), the Adoption Opportunities Act, and the Education and Training Vouchers for youth in Foster Care.  The Committee did provide $5 million for the Administration’s proposal to encourage programs and research to address victims of child sex trafficking within child welfare. The Senate bill also provides increases for the child care block grant, increased by $160 million, Head Start increasing by $70 million to bring total funding to $8.039 billion and an increase of $60 million for the Race to the Top Education funding increasing to $600 million with a significant portion to go for the Early Learning Challenge Grants which are a part of the overall education funding program.  It still remains uncertain when the House will approve their version of the Labor-HHS bill.  Under the House framework, Labor-HHS will get $150 billion down from nearly $157 billion this year. The Senate has near level funding compared to this year.  To see proposed budgets spending levels go to the National Foster Care Coalition website at: www.nationalfostercare.org

Correction

Last week the article on “Youth Forum Discusses Foster Care Placements” incorrectly identified Laurie Rubiner’s current position, Ms Rubiner is the Chief of Staff for Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT).

UPCOMING CAPITOL HILL BRIEFINGS/EVENTS

• On Wednesday, June 27^th, First Focus is holding a Children’s Budget Summit, the Summit will focus on how children have fared in the 2012 budget and appropriations process it will be held in the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, Congressional Auditorium. RSVP to jareds@firstfocus.net  

John Sciamanna is a strategic consultant on child welfare policy and legislation.

YSI: Reunification Talk on Capitol Hill

by John Kelly

Youth Services Insider caught most of the Congressional briefing on family reunification this week, which was hosted by a quartet of organizations: the American Bar Association, the National Foster Care Coalition, Children and Family Futures and the Child Welfare League of America.

The general thrust was this:  The successful execution of reunification plans gets short shrift when it comes to improving child welfare systems. Making foster care situations better, and increasing the number of adoptions, garner much of the attention for reform, even though both are more expensive propositions than returning a child home.

This is not entirely the fault of the system; it takes both an amenable court and a willing parent to make a reunification plan work. Speakers Robin Lyde and Sue Jacobs of New York’s Center for Family Representation (CFR) argued at the briefing that overburdened courts and caseworkers were poor partners in reunification, and that a more personal approach is needed.

That is the model CFR and a few other organizations have developed in New York. CFR pairs each family sent its way with a staff attorney, caseworker and a parent advocate to help them meet the requirements of a reunification plan.

Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wisc.) has introduced a bill (H.R. 3873) that would amend the federal Court Improvement Project to include potential funds for “the provision of legal representation to parents and legal guardians with respect to child welfare” proceedings.

The bill would increase the Court Improvement Project authorization by $10 million dollars, and set aside the funding for grants to help family courts provide representation. Applicants would have to demonstrate how they would set up the program, how it will prioritize services and collect data on the program.

It could open up some pilot replications of the CFR approach. If courts partnered with a similar area nonprofit, the funds could alleviate the biggest cost (lawyers) and allow the organization to focus other funds on parent advocates.

The advocate is the crux of the CFR model. A vigilant lawyers and caseworker can help craft the best plan and explain it to a parent, but it’s the advocate that has the credibility to push the parent to stick with it.

Another advocate, Curtis Lindsay of D.C.’s Parent Advocate Project, spoke emotionally at the briefing about including parents formerly involved with the system. Kayla Becker of the American Bar Association got his speech on video, and was kind enough to share:

Foster Care/LGBT Sensitivity Training Bill Headed to Senate Human Services Committee

By Rosa Ramirez

More than 40 years ago, when Jamie Lee Evans, project director of Y.O.U.T.H. Training Project, was 5 years old, her foster parents at a group home in Los Angeles taunted a young boy who they believed was gay.

The boy was effeminate. The foster parents didn’t really like that about him, Evans said.

“Not only were we required to beat him up but they would say ‘we have to beat the gay out of the little kid,’” said Evans, who now trains child welfare professionals about LGBTyouths. “It was a pretty traumatizing business as you can imagine.”

While the treatment of foster care youths who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender has improved, many continue to experience subtle discrimination, hostility and even rejection by the people entrusted to care for them, said Evans. In 2003, California passed the Foster Care Non-Discrimination Act that prohibits the harassment of youths on the basis of actual or perceived race, ethnic group, national origin, religion, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or gender identification.

“A lot of things have changed but not enough,” Evans said.

On June 26, the California State Assembly Committee on Human Services is scheduled to hold a hearing on AB 1856, a bill that would require culturally sensitive training for foster care providers on issues facing lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender children and teens (LGBT).

Authored by Rep. Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) and sponsored the largest LGBT advocacy group in the state, Equality California, the bill would require caretakers to complete 40 hours of classroom instruction and best practices for providing adequate care for LGBT youths in foster care.

It’s estimated that between five and 10 percent of the total foster youth population are LGBT, according to the National Center for Lesbian Rights. Evans said actual percentages could be higher since many of these youths face abuse at home, or get kicked out when they come out about their sexual orientation, which can which can land them in the foster care system.

Yet few resources are available to train care providers about these youths’ needs.

“There’s a lot of different forms of discrimination with the foster care system. Even well-meaning caregivers don’t have the tools to support these youths,” said Maceo Persson, program manager at the Transgender Law Center. The Center works to change policy and advocates for transgender people.

Need for cultural competency training

Gay foster youth face discrimination that could range from caretakers failing to call them by the preferred name or pronoun that’s in accordance with the gender identity to forcing the teen to dress in clothing that doesn’t fit the gender the youth identifies with, Persson said.

A 2006 study documenting experience of LGBT youth in the foster care system called “Out of the Margins” found that these foster youths are vulnerable to violence, rejection or abuse not only from their home but also in schools, foster care and communities.

“As we delved into it more, we noticed there was a dearth of training in LGBT sensitivity,” said Cecilia Tran, an assembly fellow with Ammiano’s office.

Some foster care agencies, Evans said, have forms where potential foster care parents can indicate if they’re not willing to care for an LGBT youth.

“Why are we accepting foster parents who say I don’t want or will not take of an LGBT [children]? How we can allow that to be?” she said.

Fostering Support for LGBT youths

Marissa Guerrero, a program manager for California Court Appointed Special Advocates, said there’s a push in California to incorporate LGBTQ cultural competency training for those working with foster teens.

Some CASA programs, a network of child advocates, in the state, for instance, integrate LGBTQ cultural competency into their core training. Volunteers undergo at least 30 hours of core training on dependency law, child development, among other topics. Two programs, including those in Riverside and Santa Cruz, have incorporated LGBTQ cultural competency into their core training, Guerrero said.

“LGBTQ youth in foster care need the same things all young people need – to feel safe and supported, to have opportunities to engage with their cultures and communities, and to find permanency and interdependence,” Guerrero said. “The value of cultural competency training is that oftentimes the adults in these kids’ lives are committed to ensuring and providing these things for kids, youth, and young adults, but may not know how to do this for LGBTQ youth.”

In April, California CASA hosted symposium on mental health and LGBTQ youth in the foster system, led by the Y.O.U.T.H. Training Project, a program of the California Youth Connection, and Rob Woronoff, a leader in training for LGBT youths, and director of Family Builders Putting Pride into Practice Project.

“We just have to teach general acceptance support and love,” Evans said.

School of Second Chances Closing, Casualty of Funding Cuts

By Amabelle Ocampo 

Foster youth students who have fallen through the cracks in the Sacramento City Unified School District always had one last hope at the end of the education continuum: The Fremont School for Adults. Fremont’s fully accredited High School Completion program provides the opportunity to earn credits necessary for high school graduation, and includes two classes specifically for youths who age out of the foster care system.

Barring a financial miracle, the school will close permanently on June 18.

The FSA closure will displace 2,000 students in the fall.  More than 15 classes will be dropped including two classes serving ”aged out” foster youth who use the facility for accelerated credits to graduate from high school.

“The students are the same kids who failed in community college due to weak English skills, or have dropped out of high school.” said Victoria Hass, a concerned ESL teacher who works for Sacramento Unified School District. (SCUSD) “Many want to improve their English to get a better job, to finish high school with a GED.  Their options are limited.”

SCUSD held the public hearing to announce Tier III school closures to transfer $5,093,862, in unrestricted general funds to instructional K-12 programs according to Patricia A. Hagemeyer, the School District’s Chief Business Officer.

Fremont is not the first school in the state to close.  They are among the 200 statewide facing financial trouble, the largest in state history, according to the California Department of Education.  Oakland Unified School District is currently closing five elementary schools.  Long Beach Unified School District made more than $20 million in cuts in an effort to balance their 2013-2014 budget, eliminating Head Start preschool programs and 300 employee layoffs.

Fremont provides ESL and Citizenship education, high school GED equivalency tests, and credit recovery for high school drop outs.

It has helped young adults such as Jordan Buell, an 18-year-old former foster youth in an independent living program (ILP), earn credit through FSA’s concurrent enrollment. Buell graduated on Monday, June 11, from American Legion Continuing High School with his class.

“ I was able to pick up credits from Fremont at night so that was how I was able to graduate.  It’s a shame that the school will not be available for others,” said Buell.

A high school diploma is required to be eligible for the first year of the California Community College Transfer Entitlement Cal Grant.  The Cal Grant increase the GPA requirement from 2.0 to 2.7 under Governor Jerry Brown’s 2012-13 budget proposal, which creates a climb for students who fell behind in high school.

The dropout rate in Sacramento County is 19.7 percent over a four-year period, slightly above the state average of 18.2 percent.  The rate is far worse for students of color.  In Sacramento County, more than one of every four black or Latino students dropped out of school during the last four years.

Gustavo Arroyo, a board member was especially strained by the decision to close the school. He later discussed with Fremont students a way to possibly keep basic ESL open in another facility, but the foster youth program will cease.

“We are scrambling with emergency fundraising to raise $1.5 million,” said Susan Lytle Gilmore, Director of Adult Education at Sacramento City Unified School District.  A car wash and rummage sale was the student’s last effort to keep their classes going.

Local business owners of Celia’s, 3 Sister’s Restaurant, Zocalo, Dos Coyotes, La Fiesta Bar & Grill are donating a portion of their profits on June 21 and 24 to help with the budget shortfall.

Perhaps, the only way the school can remain open is if the voters pass the Governor’s November tax initiative designed to fund education.

Capitol View on Kids: The Latest News from Washington on Children and Families

by John Sciamanna

Senate Appropriations Committee Approves Labor-HHS Bill

The Senate Appropriations Committee approved a fiscal year 2013 appropriations bill on Thursday, June 14.  Two days earlier, its Labor-HHS subcommittee had approved the same measure.  Most of the key child welfare programs are funded at the current year funding levels including the three key Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) programs, the two Title IV-B programs (Child Welfare Services and Promoting Safe and Stable Families), the Adoption Opportunities Act, and the Education and Training Vouchers for youth in Foster Care.  The one increase in this area did come under Title IV-B, with the Committee approving the administration’s proposal to provide $5 million to encourage programs and research to address victims of child sex trafficking within child welfare.

It is unclear when the House Appropriations Committee will approve its version of the Labor-HHS bill; there have been some reports that it could be taken up as early as this week but there has been no official notice. The Senate committee did provide increases for some children’s programs including the child care block grant, which was increased by $160 million with $70 million for addressing child care subsidy needs and $90 million for quality improvements.  Head Start received a slight increase of $70 million to bring total funding to $8.039 billion.

The Senate also approved an increase of $60 million for the Race to the Top education funding, increasing that appropriation to $600 million. It is expected that a significant portion will be designated for the Early Learning Challenge Grants, which are a part of the overall education funding program. Promise Neighborhoods received an increase to $80 million from the current $60 million.  Promise Neighborhoods is the initiative created by the Obama Administration to encourage a replication of programs similar to the Harlem Children’s Zone.  To see a comparison of the proposed budgets spending levels request a copy of the table at john.sciamanna962 at gmail dot com.

The House has proposed a budget that is $19 billion less than was agreed to by the House and the Senate in last August’s debt ceiling agreement. In addition, the House has designated more spending for the defense budget. The House Appropriations Committee allocated most of their cuts on two subcommittees: Labor-HHS and Transportation-Housing. Under the House framework, Labor-HHS will get $150 billion down from nearly $157 billion this year. The Senate has near level funding compared to this year.

Youth Forum Discusses Foster Care Placements

On Tuesday, June 12, the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth held a roundtable discussion on long term foster care and the state’s use of a classification of care called, Alternate Planned Permanency Living Arrangement or “APPLA” for short.  The acronym APPLA is the result of the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA).  The roundtable was hosted by the caucus co-chairs, Sens. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Mary Landrieu (D-La).

The discussion for the most part focused on the views of more than ten young Capitol Hill interns who are or have been in foster care. In addition, some key staffers gave their perspective on ASFA. Laurie Rubiner, who is now a vice president at Planned Parenthood, was a key senate staffer on child welfare issues as a Legislative Assistant to Sen. John Chafee (R-R.I.).  Chafee, along with Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) were two of the chief architects of ASFA. Rubiner said she had not been familiar with the APPLA acronym and that the term was not the major focus of ASFA. She discussed how the goal of Congress back in 1997 was to address the number of children being left in foster care. At that point foster care caseloads had not yet peaked at their 1999 level of more than 560,000 children in care (compared to 408,000 in 2010). A number of the young people spoke of their experiences in foster care, some ending up with better outcomes and families while others discussed how they beat the odds to obtain educations and move onto college.

ASFA was passed to address the number of children in foster care, with Congress increasing the emphasis on moving children into permanency which included reunification, adoption or kinship care.  At the time, it was felt that far too many children were “languishing” in foster care for years without any real planning by state child welfare agencies. As a result ASFA eliminated that category of “long term foster care” and substituted language that included an alternate planned permanency living arrangement when no other option was available.

In recent years there has been an increased focus on youth “aging out” or departing foster care because they have hit the age limit on eligibility.  With the number of youth aging out at nearly 28,000 a year, some in the Washington advocacy community have suggested that if current law were amended to simply eliminate the APPLA term it would force states into moving children into one of the permanency options.  More recently. some have suggested that simply changing terms or eliminating APPLA will not change case practice and not help young people without a genuine permanency plan.

For example, Missouri’s instruction on APPLA describes it as:

Not intended to be a catch all for whatever temporary plan is needed, APPLA is a “living arrangement that is truly planned and permanent” in nature. “Planned” means the arrangement is intended, designed, considered, premeditated, or deliberate. “Permanent” means enduring, lasting, or stable. The term “living arrangement” includes not only the physical placement of the child, but also the quality of care, supervision, and nurturing the child will receive. …The other four preferred permanency plans (reunification, adoption, guardianship, and placement with a fit and willing relative) consider more than the physical place a child resides. They involve a specific adult or couple (as opposed to an organization) who will be in charge of the young person, exercise certain powers and responsibilities, and likely live with the young person. Further, the caregiver’s familial relationship with the child will be continuing in nature. Therefore, it follows that an APPLA either will involve a permanent adult caregiver of the child or at least adult parent figures playing permanent and important roles in the child’s life. http://www.dss.mo.gov/cd/info/cwmanual/section4/ch23/sec4ch23sub1.htm

At the start of the event both Senators spoke about their desire to see further reforms of the child welfare system.  Landrieu repeated her desire about to trying to craft a system that allows the funding to follow the child instead of funding being wrapped around a particular form of care or placement. In recent weeks, some of the key legislative staff have indicated that efforts to reform the current finance structure should include:  A reform of not just financing but also practice, a need to have consensus among reformers, a realization of the current budget constraints, taking into account all the funding streams including the Social Services Block Grant (SBBG) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).

Yes, Children in TANF Kinship Care Exceeds Foster Care

Last week’s article on the TANF reauthorization indicated that there are more children in kinship care under TANF than there are children in foster care.  Some readers were surprised by that statement but it is in fact true.  The TANF 8^th annual report to Congress (2009, the last complete report based on 2006 data) indicates that approximately 457,000 children reside in TANF “child only families” where the caretaker adult is either a grandparent or another relative. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/data-reports/annualreport8/TANF_8th_Report_111908.pdf  In FY 2010 there were 408,000 children in foster care.

TANF and its predecessor, the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, have had a family category called “child-only.”  These families include an adult, but that adult is not on the caseload and as a result, the benefit is adjusted downward.  In that 8^th Annual Report, 47 percent of the entire TANF caseload was made of child-only families. The child-only caseload has increased over time but the percentage of the entire caseload has decreased faster so that the percentage of child-only families has increased. There were 850,000 families considered child-only covering 1,546,267 children. Of these families, just under 30 percent were relative care families (20.1% grandparents, 9.5% other relatives).  The other 70 percent of child-only families are made up of families where the parent receives Supplementary Security Income SSI, the parent is a legal alien but prohibited by TANF law to be covered, or the parent has been sanctioned off of assistance by the state policy.

As you would expect, kinship families do not have to meet the work requirements under TANF. Child-only kin families tend to get a higher benefit than other child-only families but likely receive less than what the state provides through Title IV-E foster care or Title IV-E kinship care.  Looking at all TANF families (child-only and adult-headed families), kinship families are 15 percent of the entire caseload.  More recent caseload data (without the full annual report data) indicates that there has been some decline in child-only caseloads, going from approximately 831,000 in 2008 and below 800,000 in the most recent data in 2010.  Kinship families continue to be around 29 percent of all child only cases so the number of children in TANF kinship care is likely closer to 430,000.  http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/data-reports/annualreport8/ar8index.htm

As TANF works its way to a five year reauthorization (perhaps next year) this becomes one aspect of TANF that intersects with child welfare:  What is the proper role of TANF/child-only kinship care?  Most states would likely use both formal Title IV-E and TANF.  Policymakers would not want to force a family to enter the child welfare system to get support.  Conversely, pushing families into a TANF child-only program can be a budget savings to states.  Because TANF and its block grant nature is a fixed allocation and state matching spending has not changed since 1996, it can result in a savings by diverting families away from Title IV-E which requires a state match based on how many families qualify.

Title IV-E benefits are likely higher than TANF kinship care.  What is the coordination between the two systems? A TANF caseworker is more targeted and trained to deal with work placement and adult eligibility issues.  A child welfare caseworker may be, or should be, more focused on permanency for the child and on-going casework support. A TANF worker, since the kinship families is not engaged in work, may have limited time and interest and training in doing on-going support for kinship families. A fundamental challenge is how to best coordinate the two programs so that families are not forced into circumstances they don’t want (state custody of the child) but are assisted so that the child and the family’s well-being are being addressed.

Administration Soliciting Comments on Disconnected Youth

The President’s FY 2013 Budget included a request for authority to implement “Performance Partnership Pilots” that would improve outcomes for disconnected youth. In order to inform the Administration’s development of that initiative, they have issued a request for information (RFI) seeking recommendations on effective approaches for improving outcomes for disconnected youth by working across federal, state, and local community programs and systems. The RFI is looking for comments “to improve outcomes for disconnected youth” and refers to efforts to increase the rate at which young people, ages 14 to 24, who are homeless, in foster care, involved in the juvenile justice system, or are neither employed nor enrolled in an educational institution achieve success in meeting educational, employment, and other key lifelong development goals.  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=ED-2012-OVAE-0014-0001

Some Key Commentary And Direction From Senate Appropriators

Senate Appropriators included important instruction to the Administration and policymakers in the Committee report.  The Committee frequently offers direction, expresses concerns and outlines how a program should be directed.

Partially in response to recent House action on the Social Services Block Grant:

The Committee continues to regard the SSBG as a critical source of funding for services that protect children from neglect and abuse, including providing foster and respite care, as well as related services for children and families, persons with disabilities, and older adults. The Committee recognizes the importance of this program, especially in providing mental health and counseling services to underserved populations, and recommends continued usage and flexibility of these funds for such purposes.

In response to this and previous administrations using the Adoption Opportunities Program to address fatherhood and other child welfare initiatives and most recently to promote trauma-informed care:

The Adoption Opportunities program funds discretionary grants to help facilitate the elimination of barriers to adoption and provide technical assistance to help States increase the number of children adopted, particularly children with special needs. Consistent with the reauthorization of this program, the Committee continues to expect that these funds will focus on facilitating the adoption of older children, minority children, and children with special needs. Specifically, the Committee expects HHS to focus new grants on strengthening post adoption services and the recruitment of adoptive parents for these populations of children.

Performance Partnerships for Disconnected Youth:

The Committee recommendation creates a new authority called Performance Partnerships that will provide States and local communities with unprecedented flexibility to achieve defined outcomes for disconnected youth. Up to 13 States and/or local communities will be allowed to combine funding that they receive through various programs within this bill, even if the programs are funded in different departments, for these pilot projects. Grantees will receive waivers to reduce bureaucratic obstacles to the smooth functioning of these performance partnerships; for example, they could be allowed to provide a single set of outcome data to the Departments of Education, HHS, and Labor, rather than slightly different data to each agency.

UPCOMING CAPITOL HILL BRIEFINGS/EVENTS

• June 19, 2:30 PM: The ABA along with the National Foster Care Coalition, Children and Family Futures and the Child Welfare League of America will host a briefing on the Reunification of children in foster care with their families. The briefing is part of recognizing June as Family Reunification month.  The briefing will be held at 122 Cannon House Office Building
• June 21, 12-3 PM: The Child Welfare and Mental Health Coalition and National Foster Care Coalition are sponsoring a Meeting on Oversight of Psychotropic Medication for Children in Foster Care, at the Children’s Defense Fund (25 E St, NW Washington DC), RSVP: Stefanie Sprow (ssprow at childrensdefense dot org) by Friday, June 15. Dr. David Rubin and Meredith Matone from PolicyLab at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia will present on the results of Policy Lab’s recent study.
• June 27: First Focus is holding a Children’s Budget Summit, the Summit will focus on how children have fared in the 2012 budget and appropriations process it will be held in the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, Congressional Auditorium. RSVP to jared at firstfocus dot net.

John Sciamanna is a strategic consultant on child welfare policy and legislation.

Sokhom Mao: Child First Leader

What makes a person so passionate about foster youth? In a series of interviews, the Chronicle of Social Change tells you what makes these people superstars in the world of child welfare services.

This week we talked to Sokhom Mao who is on the Board of Directors for California Youth Connection. Sokhom spoke of the challenges he faced as a foster you and how that’s shaped his passion to advocate policy change.

Video Script (Italics represents Sokhom Mao)

My job is to make sure that the legislature, not only in the state, but also in congress, understand that these are our, the nations children. We all have a stake in improving the lives of each and every one of these children lives to be better.

As a former foster youth, Sokhom Mao knows better than most what takes to improve the lives of those still in the system. From foster youth to youth advocate, Mao says his pursuit of better policy for the future is shaped by his past.

From the people that were around me back then when I was in foster care helped me, pushed me, and motivate me to continue to do the advocacy work and to help other foster youth realize their potential and their talents and skills as well.

As a member of California Youth Connection, Mao has played a big role in the push for extending foster care services until the age of 21. And even though the California legislature has passed the legislation…Mao says counties can still push for further foster care improvements.

We need to make sure that counties are not only embracing this but taking the next step and to making sure that when foster youth decide that they want to remain in care not only to let them to remain in care but also say why don’t you try this, maybe college, vocational training, you want ot move to your own place, give them options

And as the fight for funding foster care extensions continue in California with assembly bill 1712, Sokhom says the fight for foster youth nationwide still needs a spark. Mao says there are still plenty of people who don’t understand that the foster care system needs to be fixed.

At this current time I don’t think or I don’t even know if people understand what foster youth is all about. You hear about foster youth all the time but do people understand. Do they understand fundamentals of foster care?

 

AB 1712 Making it’s Way Through State Senate

By: Orville Thomas

A California bill to immediately extend foster care until the age of 21 is one step closer to passage.

Assembly Bill 1712, which would extend foster care services to youth aged 18-21, will be heard by the Senate Human Services committee on June 26^th according to the committee office. AB 1712, authored by Assm. Jim Beall Jr. (D-San Jose), has been in the Senate since being passed 76-0 by the Assembly in late May.

Members of the Senate Human Services Committee are:

Senator Carol Liu (Chair)
Senator Bill Emmerson (Vice Chair)
Senator Tom Berryhill
Senator Loni Hancock
Senator Tony Strickland
Senator Roderick Wright
Senator Leland Yee

Check back with the Chronicle for updates on AB 1712 and the Commitee’s decision.

Isn’t it Ironic, Don’t you Think?

By. Daniel Heimpel

As the federal government works toward eased flow of information between the foster care system and education, the state that led the charge now aims to dam up the spring. 

SACRAMENTO – As California stumbles into the oncoming fiscal year, a yawning deficit is forcing wrenching cuts. It is an environment wherein hard fought protections for the state’s most vulnerable are felled at a dizzying rate.

“What is sad is that somehow anything that might potentially have a cost is just being swiped away without any close analysis,” said Laura Faer, Public Counsel’s Education Rights Director.

Faer and an unrelenting group of advocates have been fighting proposed changes to California’s education code under Governor Brown’s 2011-12 budget.  These changes would save two hundred thousand dollars but the cost to the state would be far greater, hurting its status as a national leader in policy promoting the educational success of foster children. Not to mention the educational cost to foster youth who already bounce through an average of nine different schools from kindergarten to senior year. This all happening while Congresswoman Karen Bass (D-Calif.) – who was California’s Assembly Speaker in 2010 – promotes federal legislation she introduced last month facilitating the exchange of information between schools and foster care agencies to support foster children’s education.

But, the irony of federal advancement on foster care and education is lost on California administrators too deep in the budget hacking woods to see the forest.

On June 12^th, the Senate Budget Fiscal Review Committee held a budget hearing in Sacramento. Michael Cohen, Chief Deputy Director of the Brown Administration’s Department of Finance explained the rationale behind converting 18 state mandates on Local Educational Agencies and School Districts to a $200 million “block grant.” This would eliminate the cumbersome process wherein local level school authorities must file reimbursemnt claims to recoup costs on  mandates imposed by the state, Cohen said. “We moved to a block grant approach where you eliminate those mandates, which in retrospect were never needed or are no longer needed.”

But, two of the mandates that would be eliminated under Cohen and the Administration’s plan are essential for foster youth struggling to make it through the state’s faltering public school system.

The first deals with the need for all social workers to have access to foster children’s educational records. Over the years, public child welfare agencies in California have increasingly contracted with social workers employed by private Foster Family Agencies to handle day-to-day casework. This means that private social workers are often the person closest to the foster children. But until 2000 when then-Assemblymember George Runner introduced legislation to fix the problem, these social workers did not have direct access to the educational records that would help them make decisions in the best interest of the child.

“The direct link between foster families and social workers is often weak,” the analysis filed in the statehouse reads. “Therefore it can be cumbersome to obtain student records, transmit them to the agency who then transmits the foster family.”

Roberto Favela, Vice President of a large California Foster Family Agency, says that this information is critical to ensuring that school records follow the child. “His personal life is traumatized by a living change,” Favela says, “and now you have an educational change that doesn’t facilitate or accommodate his needs.”

This was one of many examples of California’s progressive policy on the education of foster youth, which in 2003 culminated in landmark legislation to ensure foster youth had at least a fairer shot at at an education. A key mandate embedded into the broader law (AB 490) compelled Local Education Agencies to transfer a foster child’s school records within “two business days” of being moved. The common sense idea of timely transfer of records has since been engrained in federal child welfare policy as well as proposed federal education reform.

Despite a report from the California State Controller in 2011 that this mandate costs nothing, it still ended up on the Brown Administration’s chopping block, leaving advocates like Faer incredulous.

But for Cohen and the Administration, block granting and the subsequent elimination of code sections — which were created through thoughtful consideration and deliberation — is a win-win. “The block grant offers an opportunity for everyone to win by saving the administrative effort and providing flexible funding within the broad parameters of the state’s requirements,” Cohen said in the June 12^th budget hearing.

While in agreement with some aspects of Cohen’s argument, Senator Mark Leno lead the Budget Review Committee in a 10-5 vote modifying the Administration’s block grant scheme, setting the stage for a state-level drama with national implications.

In Washington D.C., the attitude towards the education of foster youth is markedly different.

On May 31^st, the last day of National Foster Care Awareness Month, Representative Karen Bass (D-Calif.) introduced the A Plus + Act, alongside co-sponsors Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Rep. Tom Marino (R-Penn.) and Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.). A + would loosen federal rules on who can access educational records, easing foster care agencies’ ability to get their hands on important school information.

The irony is not lost on Danielle Mole, a Policy Advocate for the Alliance of Children and Family Services, who has been lobbying to save the imperiled educational mandates back in California.

“One of the authors of the A + Act is Karen Bass who not so long ago was an Assembly member here in California,” Mole says. “We have a major California leader moving forward on providing increased collaboration between agencies, while California is potentially putting up addition barriers.”

A + currently sits in the House Education and the Workforce Committee, where staffers are unclear of when it will move forward. But co-sponsor Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) is clear about wanting to see that happen.

“It’s a bipartisan and commonsense bill and it costs nothing,” Stark said in a written statement provided to The Chronicle.

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-Sc.), attended the May 31^st press conference when the bill was announced. As a member the Education and the Workforce Committee, Wilson is in a position to move A + to the floor.

“As an adoptive father, Congressman Wilson understands the importance of this issue and plans to review legislation pertaining to it,” said Wilson Communications Director Caroline Delleney in a statement provided to The Chronicle.

So as Washington presses forward on the education of foster youth, Sacramento may be rolling back.

Proposed Budget Cuts in California Squeeze Kinship Care

By Stephanie Ludwig

With the budget agreement nearly on the table, the proposed California budget cuts will put even more pressure on grandparents and other relatives who are caring for children that would otherwise be placed in the foster care system.

As The Chronicle for Social Change previously reported, a Gov. Jerry Brown’s (D) trailer bill would to the 2012-13 budget would suspend an affidavit program that allows relative caregivers of children to enroll the children in school. The Department of Finance says the Caregiver Affidavit Program costs $584,123.20 a year, while advocates contend it saves the state court and other costs that could run much higher.

Jamila McCallum, director of kinship services for Edgewood Center for Children and Families in San Mateo County, explains that what is currently a single piece of paper gives caregivers the ability to forgo the lengthy guardianship process, which takes six months in the best of cases. Without the affidavit, relative caregivers cannot enroll the child in the caregiver’s school district.

If the guardianship is contested, the family could be in court for up to a year. “Imagine, the child will be missing six-plus months of education and what is the caregiver supposed to do if they need to work?” McCallum said. “They might not have child care or a network of support.”

According to the Stepping Up for Kids report released last month by the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Kids Count Data Center, there are currently 333,000 children in kinship care in California and 4 percent of all children nationally are living with a relative caregiver.

The report also shows that while the national average monthly cost of caring for a child is $990, caregivers who qualify as foster parents can receive $511, while families who do not qualify as foster parents are eligible for just $249 in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits.

Caregivers who may be on fixed incomes or have medical problems are left picking up the slack.

TANF benefits are one of the only funds available to kinship caregivers, however nationally, only 12 percent of kinship care families receive these benefits. In San Mateo County, only about 20 percent of caregivers are receiving TANF services according to McCallum.

One part of the problem, says Annie E. Casey Foundation Director of Family Services and Systems Policy Rob Geen, is accessibility. Caregivers may not be aware they’re eligible for TANF or if they are aware, eligibility workers may deny the caretaker funds under the mistaken belief that relative caregivers are not eligible.

McCallum adds that many of these families may not apply because of pride.
“Our caregivers span a large socioeconomic gap,” McCallum said. “They may feel ashamed to apply even though they may be in need of the funds. There are some of our caregivers who have never had to access social services in their lives.”

If caregivers manage to overcome these obstacles they still may not be able to access these funds as Governor Jerry Brown’s proposed budget will cut $2 billion from programs like TANF and California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKS).

“I think there are people that will say, ‘How can we afford to support kin better?’” says Geen. “I say, ‘How can we afford not to?’ Taking steps to ask kin to pay more for these kids is as step in the wrong direction, and taxpayers will end up paying considerably more as a result.”