• Mission & Governance
• Services Overview
• How to Get Involved
• Standing Committees
• NCSL Foundation

• Issue Areas: A-Z
• State-Federal Relations
• NCSL Standing Committees
• News from D.C. and the States

• About State Legislatures
• Elections, Campaigns & Redistricting
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory
• Web Sites

• Online Guide to NCSL Services
• Staff Sections and Networks
• Meetings & Professional Development
• Staff Directories

• Meetings Calendar
• Online Registration
• Meetings Home Page
• Legislative Summit

• Bookstore
• State Legislatures Magazine
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory

Human Services --Federal Issues

Statement of Dave Heaton, Iowa House of Representatives On behalf of the National Conference of State Legislatures Regarding Implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997

Chairman Herger, Ranking Member Cardin, and the members of the Human Resources Subcommittee of the U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means, I am Representative Dave Heaton of Iowa. I chair the Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee in the Iowa House of Representatives. I appear today on behalf of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) where I serve as vice-chair of the NCSL Human Services and Welfare Committee. NCSL is the bipartisan organization that serves the legislators and staff of the states, commonwealths and territories. I am honored to be here.

Mr. Chairman, the Adoption and Safe Families Act strengthened the state/federal partnership to protect our nation's children. I am proud to testify today about how Iowa has made significant progress to ensure that children have safe and loving homes and don't languish in the foster care system. And we are not alone in doing so.

Even before ASFA was enacted in 1997, state legislatures had passed laws to speed the permanency process and shorten children's stays in foster care. In fact, ASFA was based in part on these early state efforts. After passage of the federal legislation, all states enacted implementing legislation and have refined these laws in subsequent legislative sessions.

NCSL supported ASFA, which reinforced the importance of keeping children's safety paramount. It set very high goals for states and a process of child and family service reviews to help assess state outcomes to assure the safety of children and their timely and appropriate placement in permanent homes and to show us where improvements are needed. It created the adoption incentive fund, which we have used in Iowa to improve our efforts to increase permanency for children. Implementing ASFA has not been easy and the child and family services reviews have given us a road map to improvement. We are moving in the right direction, but still have more to do for these vulnerable children, especially older children.

Mr. Chairman, our challenge now is how to shore up our gains and move forward in very difficult state fiscal times. Adoptions have been our greatest success. We have increased adoptions dramatically across the nation - in Iowa, finalized adoptions have climbed from 280 in 1995 to 792 in 2002. A record number of special needs children (781) were adopted in FY 02 in Iowa.

Implementing ASFA involved more than just changing our statute. ASFA's change to shorter time frames for terminating parental rights caused us to rethink our strategy with parents. We have made sure that everyone involved is fully aware of the time frame set out in the law. Judges tell parents up front this is the time frame in which you must get your act together or a petition terminating parental rights will be filed. The judge asks the family if there are services they need so that they can be reunified with their child, even if they are not in the case plan. In other words, Iowa is proactive in communicating the law, and in dealing with a family's issues. Iowa looks for relatives, including noncustodial parents, to see if that relative presents a permanency option.

As I said, Iowa has been very successful in increasing adoptions. The new federal measures in ASFA give us a way to measure our performance. The federal Child and Family Services Review standard is that at least 32 percent of children who cannot be reunited with their parents must be adopted within two years. Iowa exceeds this standard at 48.8 percent.

But adoption is one part of a larger system, and we need to also focus on the needs of the children in foster care. Our child and family services review also pointed out this issue-sadly, we still have too many children caught in a revolving door of multiple foster care placements. I have personally met foster children from all over Iowa whose placements number in the double digits. States are bound by tight federal controls. States need flexibility so that their systems can focus on addressing the root causes of a child's problems, not on following arbitrary rules and process requirements.

ASFA was a great start, but there is more to do and in a time of severe budget shortfalls, state lawmakers will likely be asked for the funding and resources to make the necessary program improvements. We have a $400 million shortfall in Iowa's 2004 budget. In February, NCSL estimated that the minimum cumulative budget deficit for all states for FY04 was $68 billion, with 39 states reporting. This year in Iowa, we had to pass a supplemental appropriation for child and family services of $5.7 million. The vast majority of it went to pay for adoption subsidies. However, this amount was insufficient for the Department of Human Services to use to cover the waiting list of children needing group foster care - over 100 kids on the list. In Iowa, our reviews suggested more social worker training, and maintaining our rich array of services. All of these are especially challenged by our fiscal condition. Flexible federal funding is essential to address the changing needs of families and leverage state program funding.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on some of the key provisions of ASFA and give the perspective of state legislators. These provisions include Adoption Incentives funds, Child and Family Services Review, policy and funding flexibility, the Social Services Block Grant and relative care.

Mr. Chairman, adoption incentive funds have given us a way to build on and increase our success. Funds are used for a range of activities including the recruitment and support of adoptive parents. Supporting adoptive parents is critical to avoid incomplete and disrupted adoptions. One year, we sent the funds down to the Iowa counties that had increased adoption to expand the effect of this important incentive to the local level. Incentive funds have also gone to the Foster and Adoptive Parent Association for peer support. In Iowa, we have wonderful peer support groups for adoptive parents.

Incentive funds also purchased a 30 hour training curriculum for foster and adoptive parents. What's special about this curriculum, called PS-MAPP or Partnering for Safety and Permanence - Model Approach to Partnerships in Parenting, is that this curriculum has been updated to incorporate the philosophy and requirements of ASFA. The curriculum helps new foster and adoptive parents understand ASFA and their role in helping to ensure children are safe and have permanency.

NCSL strongly supports reauthorization of the Adoption Incentives Fund. However, we must acknowledge that in many states, their success at moving children into permanency will impact their ability to compete for incentive funds as the number of children needing an adoptive placement decline. We urge you to work closely with NCSL in developing your proposal for reauthorization. We have supported increased incentives for special needs children. Any changes in how incentives are apportioned should be closely examined for unintended consequences.

Mr. Chairman, a key change sought by state legislators in 1997 was movement from a process assessment of our progress in child welfare to one based on outcomes. States' performance in achieving the outcomes of child safety, permanency and well-being is now being measured by the federal Child and Family Service Reviews. State legislators want their states to meet the tough new federal standards established by these reviews, and we now have a preliminary report for Iowa.

How did we do in Iowa? Are we meeting the standards? The answer is, some are met, some are not, and some are pending further review. These new federal measures give us a way to measure our performance. And, we now have a better understanding of where our states fit in.

We did learn from the reviews several items that Iowans can be proud of. Our statewide system of keeping track of at-risk children and their histories meets or exceeds federal requirements and our case review system is strong and getting stronger, with a written case plan for every child in foster care. We meet the federal requirement for periodic review of every child in foster care. There is a strong partnership between the judiciary, the DHS and the Foster Care Review Board. Iowa has a statewide and focused plan to recruit and support adoptive and foster parents.

By definition, all states must be "in substantial compliance" with all standards in order to meet the new threshold. No state has done so, nor will Iowa. The reviews told us we need to do more. For example, one area identified for improvement was that we needed to do more to help families handle the pressures of reunification so that children don't return to foster care. Thus, our Department of Human Services will work with partners in Iowa and with federal officials to prepare and implement a program improvement plan in the summer of 2003.

However, we already know that these improvements will cost money. Unfortunately, federal funds were not provided to implement the changes recommended by the assessment in the reviews. This is compounded by the lack of flexibility in the use of Title IV-E dollars and the look-back provision, which ties foster care funds to eligibility for the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children program.

We are still trying to shorten the timeframe for permanency solutions. We have been learning from the Illinois experience and are moving to a results based system and trying to free social workers to be able to do more investigations and prevention.

When states have attempted to reform service systems serving children and families, they are often unable to meet local service needs because of the inflexibility of the major federal funding streams and the wasteful administrative structure they require. To meet the challenges facing the children and families in our communities it will take more creativity and flexibility at the state and local levels, not greater restriction at the federal level. The use of funds is sometimes so restricted that states cannot use these funds to meet locally determined needs. States attempting major service reforms often face regulatory barriers that impede their efforts, require creative financing and contradict service priorities.

Children are being adopted from foster care at unprecedented rates; unfortunately, there has been less of a focus on support for families after adoption. Within the next two years, experts say, the cumulative number of children under 18 adopted from out-of-home placement will exceed the number of children in foster care. We need support for the families that open their hearts to these children, many of whom may have health and mental health problems as they mature. This is especially true of families who have been willing to adopt older children. Many of these troubled youngsters have social and emotional wounds caused by abuse, neglect and frequent moves among foster homes. Types of services needed for post adoption support include: mental health services, including short-term residential treatment; respite care; peer support; and information and referral. Respite services, for example, are tremendously beneficial for adoptive parents dealing with children with special needs.

In order to better meet the new priorities of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, states need flexibility to use Title IVE for prevention, including child welfare and family services. NCSL is very pleased that the Administration and Congress are discussing child welfare financing, and we look forward to working with you on this critical issue. We applaud the fact that you recognize the importance of the financing issues in child welfare and the importance of state flexibility. State lawmakers have the responsibility of child welfare funding decisions and thus must participate in framing a financing proposal. NCSL is on record as opposing a mandatory block grant of child welfare funds.

Approximately 8.3 million children live with one parent who is dependent on alcohol and/or in need of treatment for illicit drugs. An estimated 40-80% of children in the child welfare system have families with alcohol and drug problems. In particular, widespread addiction by women has been a hidden problem. The Adoption and Safe Families Act has strict timelines for state decision-making. Significant federal support is needed to meet the treatment needs of families who come to the attention of the system. This is critical to keeping children safe and in permanent families.

NCSL supports reforms to help states address the growing problems that substance abuse has placed on the child welfare system, including extensive outreach, education and early intervention to pregnant women and specialized early childhood problems. State legislators have long been the innovators of these programs, using predominantly state, local and private funds. NCSL supports the creation of federal incentives for partnerships between substance abuse and child welfare agencies that could enhance these efforts. Such efforts include cross system training of staff, improved screening and assessment procedures, comprehensive treatment and prevention programs and improved data collection.

NCSL supports federal incentives for coordination between child welfare systems, domestic violence agencies, and juvenile courts. Families and children in the child welfare system often face complex problems such as homelessness, substance abuse, and HIV infection that require interdisciplinary and interagency solutions. To combat service fragmentation, the federal government should provide support for the coordination of service delivery among the public and private child welfare, child mental health, and juvenile justice systems as well as TANF, education and health agencies. Interagency collaboration including public/private partnerships should be encouraged to further integrate and coordinate services. State flexibility must be maintained in these programs to provide interagency training, budgeting, planning and conflict resolution as well as integrated data systems.

Coordination with Medicaid is critical for these children. I want to note that NCSL is concerned about the recent denial of plans where states have used Medicaid for targeted case management.

NCSL also supports expanded federal waiver authority so that states can test the results of increased state funding flexibility on the development of service alternatives in particular as well as the overall delivery of child welfare and family services. NCSL especially supports lifting the cap on the number of states that can receive child welfare waivers as a way to increase innovation in child welfare programs. We appreciate this provision in H.R. 4.

Social Services Block Grant (SSBG)

The Social Services Block Grant is an increasingly important source of child welfare services, including protective services. The flexibility of SSBG funds, distributed at state discretion, is critical to the success of these programs. In Iowa, we use SSBG to assist our foster care system and to improve case management. SSBG is a vital part of the delivery of community and home-based services to the most vulnerable segments of society including the disabled, elderly, and children in need of protective services. Unfortunately, Title XX has fared poorly in the federal budget environment, and Congress has abandoned its commitment to the current authorized level of $2.8 billion as agreed to in the 1996 welfare law. NCSL urges Congress to increase funding for this critical program.

It is also critical that the amount states can transfer from their TANF grants to the SSBG remains at least 10% and is not reduced. Further reductions in funding for this grant would mean programmatic losses and service reductions.

NCSL supports the concept that grandparents, or other immediate family members, who are caring for children who cannot safely remain with their parents, should be given priority for such custody and placement over placement in a foster home, unless the court determines that placement with any of these relatives is not in the best interest of the child or children.

In Iowa, as I stated earlier, we seek out these relatives. Additionally, kinship foster care placement and/or subsidies should not be contingent on physical removal of a child from his or her relatives. Subsidized guardianship with relatives may be an appropriate permanency option for children who cannot safely return home. Federal funds should be available for this option and for support services for caretaker relatives. This may be especially important for older children for whom adoption may not be well received and when termination has implications not only for relationships with parents but with siblings.

An issue that remains to be addressed is reconciling the "look back" date to a state's old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) plan when determining IV-E eligibility. As members of the subcommittee are well aware, the AFDC program ceased to exist with the creation of the TANF program. NCSL urges federal policymakers to reconsider this provision. We urge Congress to consider delinking foster care eligibility from AFDC eligibility as of July 16, 1996 and move toward reimbursement for all children in care, as the states determine. States already serve all children at risk for abuse and neglect despite their parent's income. States currently fund foster care for all non-AFDC eligible children because all children must be protected under law. It should be a state-federal partnership to serve all vulnerable children.

In Iowa, we created a community empowerment program to focus on primary prevention - ages birth to preschool -- using combined efforts of education, public health, and human services. Most of the money is going to home visiting programs and quality child care. There is a general long-term plan to begin incorporating other age groups as the program matures. As I said earlier, more flexibility is needed to enhance prevention in this system.

NCSL urges Congress to provide states with additional federal financial support and technical assistance in their efforts to implement a comprehensive service system that helps institute more effective child welfare and adoption policies and practices. NCSL assisted the Children's Bureau with AFSA implantation by providing state lawmakers with help as they enacted state statutory and funding changes.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be very happy to respond to any questions that you and the members of the subcommittee have at this time.