You asked what recommendations the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care made and whether Connecticut is, or plans to, implement them.

SUMMARY

The Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care targeted federal child welfare financing and court operations shortfalls in its 2004 report “Fostering the Future: Safety, Permanence, and Well-Being for Children in Foster Care” (copy enclosed; online at http: //pewfostercare. org/research/doc/finalreport. pdf). Its decision to focus its reform recommendations on these issues stemmed from the conclusion that they underlie many of the current problems: federal financing structures encourage an over-reliance on foster care placements and courts lack the resources and accountability necessary to move children quickly from foster to permanent homes.

The commission’s recommendations identify “next steps” for (1) reducing the number of children in foster care, (2) shortening their stays, (3) minimizing the number of moves from foster home to foster home, and (4) improving their access to appropriate services. It also acknowledges that reducing the over-representation of minority children – especially African Americans who enter foster care at the fastest rate and leave at the slowest – is interwoven with these challenges.

We have asked the Judicial Department about efforts to implement any of the recommendations in Connecticut, and expect to get a response within a few days. This report will be revised to reflect that information.

THE COMMISSION

The commission was established in May, 2003 under a grant from the Pew Charitable Trusts to the Georgetown University Public Policy Institute. Its charge was to develop recommendations to improve outcomes of children in the foster care system, and in particular to prevent unnecessary foster care placements and to expedite the movement of foster children into permanent family arrangements. Its 16 members included former congressmen from both political parties, judges, child welfare experts and agencies, mental health professionals, foster and adoptive parents, and former foster youth.

THE CHALLENGES

Federal Financing Structure

In the commission’s view, current disparities in federal funding streams for child welfare services hamper states’ ability to invest in strategies that can limit the time children need to spend in foster care. The largest source of federal funding comes through the IV-E program, a permanently authorized and open-ended entitlement that guarantees federal reimbursement to states for a portion of the cost of maintaining each eligible child in foster care. It accounted for 48% of federal child welfare spending in state fiscal year (SFY) 2000, the most recent year for which figures were available. Title IV-E expenditures for SFY 2004 are estimated at $ 4. 8 billion.

The Title IV-B program, on the other hand, provides flexible funds that states can use for family preservation services, community-based family support services, time-limited family reunification services, and adoption promotion and support services. Its funding level is much lower than Title IV-E’s, representing 5% of federal spending on child welfare in SFY 2000. Another difference is that IV-B is not an open-ended entitlement, but rather a mixture of capped entitlement dollars and discretionary funding subject to the annual appropriations process. Title IV-B expenditures for SFY 2004 are estimated at $ 693 million.

The Role Of The Courts

The commission identified the following as structural problems that limit courts’ ability to play the role necessary to expedite termination of parental rights and finalize adoption or guardianship arrangements when it is found that children cannot be returned to their birth parents:

1. Many do not track and analyze their overall caseloads, making it difficult for them to (a) spot emerging trends in cases that come before them, (b) identify the major causes of delays in court proceedings, and (c) identify groups of children who may be entering or reentering foster care at very high rates, or staying in care the longest.

2. Institutional barriers and long-standing practices often discourage courts and child welfare agencies from working together to improve outcomes for children in foster care.

3. Many judges handling child welfare cases lack sufficient training in child development or knowledge of effective court practices that could help them make appropriate and timely decisions.

4. Children and parents often lack a strong and effective voice in court decisions that affect their lives.

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS

Financing Child Welfare

The federal financing recommendations generally seek to remove some of the economic barriers to finding permanent alternatives to foster care. These include:

1. making all adopted children eligible for federal adoption assistance funds, rather than only very low income, special needs children;

2. providing federal guardianship assistance to all children who leave foster care to live with a permanent, legal guardian, rather than only to very low income Title IV-E eligible children;

3. providing federal funding for all children in foster care, regardless of family income; and

4. allowing states to use Title IV-E funds for other child welfare services that are shown to safely reduce the use of foster care.

The commission proposed a flexible funding formula for implementing its recommendations. It also recommended that the federal government increase states’ accountability for their use of federal child welfare funds.

Strengthening Courts

The commission’s court recommendations generally seek (1) improvements in courts’ ability to track and analyze cases, both individually and by category; (2) better collaboration with other child welfare service providers; and (3) increased opportunities for children and parents to meaningfully participate in their cases.

It also recommended that states adopt standards of practice for lawyers representing children and families in child welfare matters, ensure that these attorneys are adequately paid, and require state chief justices take responsibility for ensuring that these improvements are made.

It also recommended federal appropriations for (1) training court personnel and other child welfare providers they work with; (2) expanding the Court-Appointed Special Advocate program; and (3) loan forgiveness or other incentives to attract and retain qualified child welfare attorneys.

SP: dw