Adoption Assistance by State
Adoption assistance information by State is provided by the Association of Administrators of the Interstate Compact on Adoption and Medical Assistance (AAICAMA). Select one of two options: A) Select a State to view the answers to 13 questions regarding State policies on adoption assistance and post-adoption services, or B) Select a question to find out how it is addressed across all States.
Option A: Select a State
Select a state to view answers to 13 questions regarding State adoption assistance.
Submit Your Search (Required)
Select the "GO!" button to conduct your search.
Option B: Select a Question
Select a question below to find out how all States address the issue. You may select only one question at a time.
Who is Eligible for Adoption Assistance?
1. What specific factors or conditions, in addition to those required by the Federal government, does your State consider to determine that a child cannot be placed with adoptive parents without providing financial assistance? ("What is your State definition of special needs?")
2. What are the eligibility criteria for your State-funded adoption assistance program?
3. What is the maximum amount a family may receive in non-recurring adoption expenses from your State? (Adoptive parents can receive reimbursement of certain approved, "one-time" adoption expenses incurred in the process of finalizing a special needs adoption.)
4. Does your State enter into deferred adoption assistance agreements? (In some States, adoptive parents can enter into an agreement in which they choose to defer the receipt of a Medicaid card, the monthly monetary payment, or both and can elect to receive the Medicaid card and/or monetary payment at another time.)
5. When may adoption assistance payments and benefits begin in your State?
6. How are changes made to the adoption assistance agreement in your State?
Post Adoption Services
7. What types of postadoption services are available in your State, and how do you find out more about them?
Medical Assistance
8. What mental health services are provided by your State?
9. Does your State provide additional finances or services for medical or therapeutic needs not covered under your State medical plan to children receiving adoption assistance?
Fair Hearings
10. What is your State's process for applying for a fair hearing? (A fair hearing is a legal, administrative procedure that provides a forum to address disagreements with agency decisions.)
Web/Internet Links
11. What is your State Web address for general adoption information?
12. What is your State Web address for adoption assistance information?
13. What is your State Web address for State-specific medical assistance information for children?
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Adoption Assistance by State:New Hampshire
New Hampshire
1. What specific factors or conditions, in addition to those required by the Federal government, does your State consider to determine that a child cannot be placed with adoptive parents without providing financial assistance? ("What is your State definition of special needs?")
A child with special needs is defined as a child that has at least one of the following needs or circumstances that may be a barrier to placement or adoption without financial assistance:
The child must be under 18 years of age
The child must be legally free for adoption or in the process of being legally freed for adoption
The child must have one of the following legal relationships with the Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), another public agency, or a private licensed child-placing agency:
Legal supervision
Custody, or
Guardianship
The child must be considered 'hard to place' or 'special needs' because of one or more of the reasons listed below:
Six years of age or older (if age is the only factor used to determine need)
Member of a minority or ethnic group
Member of a sibling group of two or more which should be placed together
A physical or mental disability or emotional disturbance
A language barrier
Ethnic background, race, or color
Note: to see the federal government requirements for eligibility for title IV-E adoption assistance see Fact Sheets for Families
(on the Child Welfare Information Gateway), link: http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_subsid.cfm#federal
or the Child Welfare Policy Manual (on the Children’s Bureau website), link:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/cwpm/programs/cb/laws_policies/laws/cwpm/policy_dsp.jsp?citID=49.
2. What are the eligibility criteria for your State-funded adoption assistance program?
In order to be eligible for State-funded adoption assistance a child must be a special needs child as defined above. Eligibility is based on the needs of the child and the circumstances of the adoptive parents.
3. What is the maximum amount a family may receive in non-recurring adoption expenses from your State? (Adoptive parents can receive reimbursement of certain approved, "one-time" adoption expenses incurred in the process of finalizing a special needs adoption.)
$2,000.00
4. Does your State enter into deferred adoption assistance agreements? (In some States, adoptive parents can enter into an agreement in which they choose to defer the receipt of a Medicaid card, the monthly monetary payment, or both and can elect to receive the Medicaid card and/or monetary payment at another time.)
New Hampshire offers deferred adoption assistance.
5. When may adoption assistance payments and benefits begin in your State?
Adoption assistance payments and benefits may begin in New Hampshire at placement.
6. How are changes made to the adoption assistance agreement in your State?
When can a parent request a change in the adoption assistance agreement?
How does a parent request a change in the adoption assistance agreement?
What if a parent does not receive the change they request in the adoption assistance agreement?
Adoptive parents can make a request to change the adoption assistance agreement at any time. Requests can be made to the adoption program supervisor, in writing, documenting the need for a change. Requests for change should be based on a change in the circumstances of the family or the needs of the child and each request is considered on an individual basis. If the parent disagrees with the decision on the requested change, they have the right to request an appeal of the decision and seek a fair hearing. See Question #10 for more information on the fair hearing process in New Hampshire.
7. What types of postadoption services are available in your State, and how do you find out more about them?
Postadoption services in New Hampshire are administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) and include the following examples:
Resource and referral
Educational opportunities
Respite
Support groups
Case management
Counseling
Adoption search services
Parent support
Mentoring program
New Hampshire partners with Granite State College for a university-based service that develops instruction on an identified need. The organization provides training for foster and adoptive families three or four times annually on a range of subjects including attachment issues, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and developmental disability. Contact Granite State College at the general number: 888.228.3000 (toll free) or 603.271.4946 for information on their Education and Training Partnership.
Information on postadoption services, link: http://www.dhhs.nh.gov/dcyf/adoption/postadoption.htm.
Many private organizations offer a variety of respite options. See the ARCH National Respite Network Respite Locator Service, search by state to locate New Hampshire’s respite programs, link: http://www.respitelocator.org/.
To contact DHHS, DCYF, see the contact and information link: http://www.dhhs.nh.gov/contactus/index.htm. A list of District Offices can be found at, link: http://www.dhhs.nh.gov/contactus/districtoffices.htm.
Note: Not all services may be available in all cases. Contact the adoption program supervisor or post adoption services contact for information regarding process, eligibility, availability, and duration of services.
8. What mental health services are provided by your State?
Public mental health services for children in New Hampshire are administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Office of Community and Public Health and include the following examples: inpatient hospitalization, psychotherapy, social work counseling, mental health services, pastoral counseling, prescription drugs, and respite care.
Medicaid is comprehensive coverage, including in-patient and out-patient hospital services, doctor visits, home health care, eye care, psychological services, certain dental procedures, etc. A complete listing of benefits can be obtained from a DHHS District Office or by calling Medicaid Client Services.
To contact DHHS, Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), see the contact and information link: http://www.dhhs.nh.gov/contactus/index.htm. A list of District Offices can be found at, link: http://www.dhhs.nh.gov/contactus/districtoffices.htm.
Behavioral Health services link: http://www.dhhs.nh.gov/dcbcs/bbh/index.htm.
New Hampshire Medicaid link: http://www.dhhs.nh.gov/ombp/index.htm.
Note: Not all services may be available in all cases. Contact your adoption assistance worker or medical assistance specialist for information regarding process, eligibility, availability, and duration of services.
9. Does your State provide additional finances or services for medical or therapeutic needs not covered under your State medical plan to children receiving adoption assistance?
New Hampshire does not offer additional finances or services for medical or therapeutic needs not covered under their state medical plan to children receiving adoption assistance. New Hampshire adoption assistance staff will assist families in obtaining other available resources.
10. What is your State's process for applying for a fair hearing? (A fair hearing is a legal, administrative procedure that provides a forum to address disagreements with agency decisions.)
Adoptive parents may appeal, within 30 days, any decision by the Division for Children, Youth and Family that affects their child’s adoption assistance benefits. Appeals relative to a decision or the termination or failure to renew the adoption assistance may be made upon written request. Address the appeal to:
Administrative Appeals Unit
Department of Health and Human Services
Room 121C
105 Pleasant Street
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
11. What is your State Web address for general adoption information?
New Hampshire’s general adoption link: http://www.dhhs.nh.gov/dcyf/adoption/adoptingdcyf.htm.
12. What is your State Web address for adoption assistance information?
New Hampshire’s provides some information on adoption assistance at:http://www.dhhs.nh.gov/dcyf/adoption/postadoption.htm.
For additional information, contact New Hampshire Foster Care and Adoption Services, link: http://www.dhhs.nh.gov/dcyf/adoption/contact.htm.
13. What is your State Web address for State-specific medical assistance information for children?
New Hampshire’s state-specific medical assistance links: http://www.dhhs.nh.gov/ombp/medicaid/index.htm and Department of Heaalth and Human Services (DHHS) health programs and services for children and families http://www.dhhs.nh.gov/ombp/medicaid/children/index.htm.
1. What specific factors or conditions, in addition to those required by the Federal government, does your State consider to determine that a child cannot be placed with adoptive parents without providing financial assistance? ("What is your State definition of special needs?")
A child with special needs is defined as a child that has at least one of the following needs or circumstances that may be a barrier to placement or adoption without financial assistance:
The child must be under 18 years of age
The child must be legally free for adoption or in the process of being legally freed for adoption
The child must have one of the following legal relationships with the Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), another public agency, or a private licensed child-placing agency:
Legal supervision
Custody, or
Guardianship
The child must be considered 'hard to place' or 'special needs' because of one or more of the reasons listed below:
Six years of age or older (if age is the only factor used to determine need)
Member of a minority or ethnic group
Member of a sibling group of two or more which should be placed together
A physical or mental disability or emotional disturbance
A language barrier
Ethnic background, race, or color
Note: to see the federal government requirements for eligibility for title IV-E adoption assistance see Fact Sheets for Families
(on the Child Welfare Information Gateway), link: http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_subsid.cfm#federal
or the Child Welfare Policy Manual (on the Children’s Bureau website), link:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/cwpm/programs/cb/laws_policies/laws/cwpm/policy_dsp.jsp?citID=49.
2. What are the eligibility criteria for your State-funded adoption assistance program?
In order to be eligible for State-funded adoption assistance a child must be a special needs child as defined above. Eligibility is based on the needs of the child and the circumstances of the adoptive parents.
3. What is the maximum amount a family may receive in non-recurring adoption expenses from your State? (Adoptive parents can receive reimbursement of certain approved, "one-time" adoption expenses incurred in the process of finalizing a special needs adoption.)
$2,000.00
4. Does your State enter into deferred adoption assistance agreements? (In some States, adoptive parents can enter into an agreement in which they choose to defer the receipt of a Medicaid card, the monthly monetary payment, or both and can elect to receive the Medicaid card and/or monetary payment at another time.)
New Hampshire offers deferred adoption assistance.
5. When may adoption assistance payments and benefits begin in your State?
Adoption assistance payments and benefits may begin in New Hampshire at placement.
6. How are changes made to the adoption assistance agreement in your State?
When can a parent request a change in the adoption assistance agreement?
How does a parent request a change in the adoption assistance agreement?
What if a parent does not receive the change they request in the adoption assistance agreement?
Adoptive parents can make a request to change the adoption assistance agreement at any time. Requests can be made to the adoption program supervisor, in writing, documenting the need for a change. Requests for change should be based on a change in the circumstances of the family or the needs of the child and each request is considered on an individual basis. If the parent disagrees with the decision on the requested change, they have the right to request an appeal of the decision and seek a fair hearing. See Question #10 for more information on the fair hearing process in New Hampshire.
7. What types of postadoption services are available in your State, and how do you find out more about them?
Postadoption services in New Hampshire are administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) and include the following examples:
Resource and referral
Educational opportunities
Respite
Support groups
Case management
Counseling
Adoption search services
Parent support
Mentoring program
New Hampshire partners with Granite State College for a university-based service that develops instruction on an identified need. The organization provides training for foster and adoptive families three or four times annually on a range of subjects including attachment issues, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and developmental disability. Contact Granite State College at the general number: 888.228.3000 (toll free) or 603.271.4946 for information on their Education and Training Partnership.
Information on postadoption services, link: http://www.dhhs.nh.gov/dcyf/adoption/postadoption.htm.
Many private organizations offer a variety of respite options. See the ARCH National Respite Network Respite Locator Service, search by state to locate New Hampshire’s respite programs, link: http://www.respitelocator.org/.
To contact DHHS, DCYF, see the contact and information link: http://www.dhhs.nh.gov/contactus/index.htm. A list of District Offices can be found at, link: http://www.dhhs.nh.gov/contactus/districtoffices.htm.
Note: Not all services may be available in all cases. Contact the adoption program supervisor or post adoption services contact for information regarding process, eligibility, availability, and duration of services.
8. What mental health services are provided by your State?
Public mental health services for children in New Hampshire are administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Office of Community and Public Health and include the following examples: inpatient hospitalization, psychotherapy, social work counseling, mental health services, pastoral counseling, prescription drugs, and respite care.
Medicaid is comprehensive coverage, including in-patient and out-patient hospital services, doctor visits, home health care, eye care, psychological services, certain dental procedures, etc. A complete listing of benefits can be obtained from a DHHS District Office or by calling Medicaid Client Services.
To contact DHHS, Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), see the contact and information link: http://www.dhhs.nh.gov/contactus/index.htm. A list of District Offices can be found at, link: http://www.dhhs.nh.gov/contactus/districtoffices.htm.
Behavioral Health services link: http://www.dhhs.nh.gov/dcbcs/bbh/index.htm.
New Hampshire Medicaid link: http://www.dhhs.nh.gov/ombp/index.htm.
Note: Not all services may be available in all cases. Contact your adoption assistance worker or medical assistance specialist for information regarding process, eligibility, availability, and duration of services.
9. Does your State provide additional finances or services for medical or therapeutic needs not covered under your State medical plan to children receiving adoption assistance?
New Hampshire does not offer additional finances or services for medical or therapeutic needs not covered under their state medical plan to children receiving adoption assistance. New Hampshire adoption assistance staff will assist families in obtaining other available resources.
10. What is your State's process for applying for a fair hearing? (A fair hearing is a legal, administrative procedure that provides a forum to address disagreements with agency decisions.)
Adoptive parents may appeal, within 30 days, any decision by the Division for Children, Youth and Family that affects their child’s adoption assistance benefits. Appeals relative to a decision or the termination or failure to renew the adoption assistance may be made upon written request. Address the appeal to:
Administrative Appeals Unit
Department of Health and Human Services
Room 121C
105 Pleasant Street
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
11. What is your State Web address for general adoption information?
New Hampshire’s general adoption link: http://www.dhhs.nh.gov/dcyf/adoption/adoptingdcyf.htm.
12. What is your State Web address for adoption assistance information?
New Hampshire’s provides some information on adoption assistance at:http://www.dhhs.nh.gov/dcyf/adoption/postadoption.htm.
For additional information, contact New Hampshire Foster Care and Adoption Services, link: http://www.dhhs.nh.gov/dcyf/adoption/contact.htm.
13. What is your State Web address for State-specific medical assistance information for children?
New Hampshire’s state-specific medical assistance links: http://www.dhhs.nh.gov/ombp/medicaid/index.htm and Department of Heaalth and Human Services (DHHS) health programs and services for children and families http://www.dhhs.nh.gov/ombp/medicaid/children/index.htm.
Foster care alternative might be in line for restored state funding
Foster care alternative might be in line for restored state funding - News - ReviewJournal.com
CARSON CITY -- A program that keeps children out of Nevada's foster care system by paying extended family members to take care of them might get a second chance after it faced cuts.
The foster care alternative, called the kinship care program, is one of several welfare, mental health and autism programs that might be added back to Gov. Brian Sandoval's budget after $120 million in additional funding was located.
"If you provide children the opportunity to stay with someone they know, all the evidence says this placement is the best," said Sen. Steven Horsford, D-Las Vegas, at a Thursday budget hearing. "We need to look at the money we would save now versus what we would save in the long run."
CARSON CITY -- A program that keeps children out of Nevada's foster care system by paying extended family members to take care of them might get a second chance after it faced cuts.
The foster care alternative, called the kinship care program, is one of several welfare, mental health and autism programs that might be added back to Gov. Brian Sandoval's budget after $120 million in additional funding was located.
"If you provide children the opportunity to stay with someone they know, all the evidence says this placement is the best," said Sen. Steven Horsford, D-Las Vegas, at a Thursday budget hearing. "We need to look at the money we would save now versus what we would save in the long run."
Federal Judge Again Approves Bonus Fees to Civil Rights Lawyers
Law.com - Federal Judge Again Approves Bonus Fees to Civil Rights Lawyers
Despite high court's limits on bonuses to civil rights lawyers, judge says counsel for foster kids deserve one; the question is: 'How much?'
R. Robin McDonald
Fulton County Daily ReportApril 11, 2011
The federal judge in Atlanta, whose bonus award to civil rights attorneys prompted the U.S. Supreme Court last year to place strict limits on such fees, has again found that a child welfare organization and its Atlanta legal partners deserve additional money for their work in reforming Georgia's foster care system.
"The question is," asked U.S. District Senior Judge Marvin H. Shoob on April 1, "'How much?'"
Shoob was presiding over a hearing on a new request for enhanced legal fees by Children's Rights Inc., a New York-based nonprofit organization, and attorneys with Atlanta's Bondurant Mixson & Elmore. Bondurant attorneys worked with Children's Rights during nine years of the foster care litigation that ultimately forced major changes in Georgia's crisis-ridden child foster care system.
It was the first hearing in the case since the Supreme Court last year remanded Shoob's 2006 ruling that attorneys for the class of more than 3,000 foster children -- to whom he had awarded $6.1 million in legal fees and expenses in the now nine-year-old case -- should be paid a $4.5 million fee enhancement.
Shoob determined that the enhanced fees were warranted because of major reforms that were achieved by counsel for foster children. In awarding the fees, he also cited the difficulties their attorneys encountered during the course of the litigation, including what Shoob described as protracted delays by the state.
In settling the litigation in 2005, the state agreed to institute sweeping systemic reforms of a system that had regularly exposed children to physical abuse; held them in dangerous, unsanitary and dilapidated shelters; placed them in the care of criminals; and deprived them of essential medical care.
The state had agreed to pay reasonable legal fees in the case, but had fought all efforts to enhance those fees for any reason. The Supreme Court took the case to consider whether fee enhancements in successful civil rights cases are ever warranted.
In remanding the case to Shoob, the high court refused to eliminate fee enhancements in cases. But it directed that such fees should be levied "due to superior performance but only in extraordinary circumstances."
In the hearing on April 1, Shoob signaled that the foster care litigation is one of those cases.
The lawyers for the class, Jeffrey O. Bramlett and Michael A. Caplan of Bondurant and Children's Rights lawyer Marcia Robinson Lowry petitioned the court for $5.8 million in enhanced fees, about 97 percent of Shoob's original "lodestar" fee award. The lodestar is calculated by the number of hours worked by attorneys and their staffs, multiplied by the prevailing hourly rates for their work.
The enhanced fees include an additional $3 million to "true up" what Bondurant lawyers said was a lodestar hourly rate of $235 that "didn't measure the true market value" of counsel's time in the case. The request also included $1.2 million in "lost opportunity" costs for funds that Bondurant and Children's Rights used to finance the litigation; $1.3 million to offset delays by the state in the payment of attorney fees; and nearly $400,000 to compensate for the state's delays in paying opposing counsel's legal expenses.
The lodestar, which the state withheld payment on for four years while it appealed the enhanced fees, did not take into account "the extraordinary outlay of expenses" by Children's Rights and Bondurant or the "extraordinary" and protracted nature of the litigation, Bramlett said.
Shoob, he said, had justified his original enhanced fee award in 2006 by finding that the results achieved by the class counsel, the difficulties encountered before the case settled and "protracted delay caused by state defendants ... far exceeded what could reasonably be expected for the standard hourly rates."
"We believe the court, on the basis of settled fact-finding, has within its discretion to find an enhancement of the lodestar determination," despite the Supreme Court ruling, Bramlett argued.
Bramlett also asked Shoob to consider what incentives might be required to persuade Georgia lawyers to take some future case in which the state "acts in a way that damages some of its citizens" if he were to deny enhanced fees in this case.
"As a practical matter, what reasonable rate would be sufficient to induce counsel to take the case?" he asked. "To bring a case of this magnitude, it's a very thin market."
Troutman Sanders attorney Mark H. Cohen, who has represented the state in the litigation and successfully argued the case before the U.S. Supreme Court, challenged the enhanced fee request. "Based on the plaintiffs, you would think the Supreme Court blessed the fact that this counsel fit into the 'rare exception,'" he said, adding that the language of the high court's opinion suggested that it did not.
Cohen challenged assertions by his opposing counsel that, without fee enhancements, no competent attorney would take a similar civil rights case against the state. "That's just flat wrong," he said.
"You don't need enhancements to do what you do very well," he said, noting that Children's Rights routinely enlists "some of the best counsel ... around the country" for help with their child welfare class action cases.
"What makes Georgia so different?" he asked. "Was this case so difficult in Georgia? Was it so much more protracted? Was it so much more obstreperous? On behalf of the defendants, I would submit it wasn't."
Cohen pointed to other cases Children's Rights initiated in other states where he said the litigation was more protracted but the nonprofit organization did not ask for enhanced fees and billed lower fees than those they collected in Georgia.
"You don't need enhancements to get Children's Rights, which does this for a living, or to get the Bondurant firm," he argued. Following the Supreme Court's ruling in the Georgia case, he said, Children's Rights filed a new suit in Texas and enlisted three Texas firms to assist them.
Cohen disputed Shoob's earlier finding that the state had engaged in protracted delay tactics before settling the case. "We didn't do anything but represent our client within the bounds of the law," he said. "Now, we're being punished for it."
Cohen also said although attorneys who represent civil rights litigants most likely will not get paid until the end of the litigation, if they get paid at all, that is not grounds for an enhanced fees. "That's not a rare and exceptional circumstance," he said. "That's standard operating procedure."
Cohen challenged assertions that "private law firms would never take cases, would never advance expenses, would never wait for payment. It happens all the time. ... No law firm that agrees to participate with Children's Rights is doing so because they have any expectation of enhancements. ... Private law firms continue to join Children's Rights to do lawsuits just like they did in Georgia with no enhancements."
Cohen contended that the three-and-a-half years that the state took to settle the case -- even though it closed shelters for foster children in Fulton and DeKalb counties within months of when the case was filed -- and the state's decision to withhold paying any legal fees for nearly five years did not mean the litigation was "exceptionally protracted."
"This case resolved itself as fast as any other case Children's Rights has handled," he said. Georgia's taxpayers, he said -- who have now paid $6 million in legal fees, $740,000 in legal expenses, $1.4 million in accumulated interest payments and $1 million to monitors to oversee the state's compliance with the settlement agreement -- "have paid enough."
But Robinson, Children's Rights' executive director, countered that the case warranted enhanced fees.
"It was the most difficult case my organization has litigated," she said. "This was the most contentious case my organization has been involved in to date," and the resulting changes in the state's child welfare system that were codified in the settlement were "extraordinary," she said, and clearly within the Supreme Court's new mandate.
Shoob said he agreed, noting that enhancements were warranted, in part, because "I don't feel they [the state] fully cooperated." The case, he added, "did take a lot of time and money."
The case is Kenny A. v. Perdue, No. 1:02-CV-1686.
Despite high court's limits on bonuses to civil rights lawyers, judge says counsel for foster kids deserve one; the question is: 'How much?'
R. Robin McDonald
Fulton County Daily ReportApril 11, 2011
The federal judge in Atlanta, whose bonus award to civil rights attorneys prompted the U.S. Supreme Court last year to place strict limits on such fees, has again found that a child welfare organization and its Atlanta legal partners deserve additional money for their work in reforming Georgia's foster care system.
"The question is," asked U.S. District Senior Judge Marvin H. Shoob on April 1, "'How much?'"
Shoob was presiding over a hearing on a new request for enhanced legal fees by Children's Rights Inc., a New York-based nonprofit organization, and attorneys with Atlanta's Bondurant Mixson & Elmore. Bondurant attorneys worked with Children's Rights during nine years of the foster care litigation that ultimately forced major changes in Georgia's crisis-ridden child foster care system.
It was the first hearing in the case since the Supreme Court last year remanded Shoob's 2006 ruling that attorneys for the class of more than 3,000 foster children -- to whom he had awarded $6.1 million in legal fees and expenses in the now nine-year-old case -- should be paid a $4.5 million fee enhancement.
Shoob determined that the enhanced fees were warranted because of major reforms that were achieved by counsel for foster children. In awarding the fees, he also cited the difficulties their attorneys encountered during the course of the litigation, including what Shoob described as protracted delays by the state.
In settling the litigation in 2005, the state agreed to institute sweeping systemic reforms of a system that had regularly exposed children to physical abuse; held them in dangerous, unsanitary and dilapidated shelters; placed them in the care of criminals; and deprived them of essential medical care.
The state had agreed to pay reasonable legal fees in the case, but had fought all efforts to enhance those fees for any reason. The Supreme Court took the case to consider whether fee enhancements in successful civil rights cases are ever warranted.
In remanding the case to Shoob, the high court refused to eliminate fee enhancements in cases. But it directed that such fees should be levied "due to superior performance but only in extraordinary circumstances."
In the hearing on April 1, Shoob signaled that the foster care litigation is one of those cases.
The lawyers for the class, Jeffrey O. Bramlett and Michael A. Caplan of Bondurant and Children's Rights lawyer Marcia Robinson Lowry petitioned the court for $5.8 million in enhanced fees, about 97 percent of Shoob's original "lodestar" fee award. The lodestar is calculated by the number of hours worked by attorneys and their staffs, multiplied by the prevailing hourly rates for their work.
The enhanced fees include an additional $3 million to "true up" what Bondurant lawyers said was a lodestar hourly rate of $235 that "didn't measure the true market value" of counsel's time in the case. The request also included $1.2 million in "lost opportunity" costs for funds that Bondurant and Children's Rights used to finance the litigation; $1.3 million to offset delays by the state in the payment of attorney fees; and nearly $400,000 to compensate for the state's delays in paying opposing counsel's legal expenses.
The lodestar, which the state withheld payment on for four years while it appealed the enhanced fees, did not take into account "the extraordinary outlay of expenses" by Children's Rights and Bondurant or the "extraordinary" and protracted nature of the litigation, Bramlett said.
Shoob, he said, had justified his original enhanced fee award in 2006 by finding that the results achieved by the class counsel, the difficulties encountered before the case settled and "protracted delay caused by state defendants ... far exceeded what could reasonably be expected for the standard hourly rates."
"We believe the court, on the basis of settled fact-finding, has within its discretion to find an enhancement of the lodestar determination," despite the Supreme Court ruling, Bramlett argued.
Bramlett also asked Shoob to consider what incentives might be required to persuade Georgia lawyers to take some future case in which the state "acts in a way that damages some of its citizens" if he were to deny enhanced fees in this case.
"As a practical matter, what reasonable rate would be sufficient to induce counsel to take the case?" he asked. "To bring a case of this magnitude, it's a very thin market."
Troutman Sanders attorney Mark H. Cohen, who has represented the state in the litigation and successfully argued the case before the U.S. Supreme Court, challenged the enhanced fee request. "Based on the plaintiffs, you would think the Supreme Court blessed the fact that this counsel fit into the 'rare exception,'" he said, adding that the language of the high court's opinion suggested that it did not.
Cohen challenged assertions by his opposing counsel that, without fee enhancements, no competent attorney would take a similar civil rights case against the state. "That's just flat wrong," he said.
"You don't need enhancements to do what you do very well," he said, noting that Children's Rights routinely enlists "some of the best counsel ... around the country" for help with their child welfare class action cases.
"What makes Georgia so different?" he asked. "Was this case so difficult in Georgia? Was it so much more protracted? Was it so much more obstreperous? On behalf of the defendants, I would submit it wasn't."
Cohen pointed to other cases Children's Rights initiated in other states where he said the litigation was more protracted but the nonprofit organization did not ask for enhanced fees and billed lower fees than those they collected in Georgia.
"You don't need enhancements to get Children's Rights, which does this for a living, or to get the Bondurant firm," he argued. Following the Supreme Court's ruling in the Georgia case, he said, Children's Rights filed a new suit in Texas and enlisted three Texas firms to assist them.
Cohen disputed Shoob's earlier finding that the state had engaged in protracted delay tactics before settling the case. "We didn't do anything but represent our client within the bounds of the law," he said. "Now, we're being punished for it."
Cohen also said although attorneys who represent civil rights litigants most likely will not get paid until the end of the litigation, if they get paid at all, that is not grounds for an enhanced fees. "That's not a rare and exceptional circumstance," he said. "That's standard operating procedure."
Cohen challenged assertions that "private law firms would never take cases, would never advance expenses, would never wait for payment. It happens all the time. ... No law firm that agrees to participate with Children's Rights is doing so because they have any expectation of enhancements. ... Private law firms continue to join Children's Rights to do lawsuits just like they did in Georgia with no enhancements."
Cohen contended that the three-and-a-half years that the state took to settle the case -- even though it closed shelters for foster children in Fulton and DeKalb counties within months of when the case was filed -- and the state's decision to withhold paying any legal fees for nearly five years did not mean the litigation was "exceptionally protracted."
"This case resolved itself as fast as any other case Children's Rights has handled," he said. Georgia's taxpayers, he said -- who have now paid $6 million in legal fees, $740,000 in legal expenses, $1.4 million in accumulated interest payments and $1 million to monitors to oversee the state's compliance with the settlement agreement -- "have paid enough."
But Robinson, Children's Rights' executive director, countered that the case warranted enhanced fees.
"It was the most difficult case my organization has litigated," she said. "This was the most contentious case my organization has been involved in to date," and the resulting changes in the state's child welfare system that were codified in the settlement were "extraordinary," she said, and clearly within the Supreme Court's new mandate.
Shoob said he agreed, noting that enhancements were warranted, in part, because "I don't feel they [the state] fully cooperated." The case, he added, "did take a lot of time and money."
The case is Kenny A. v. Perdue, No. 1:02-CV-1686.
Time for Reform FIX THE FOSTER CARE LOOKBACK ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Time for Reform FIX THE FOSTER CARE LOOKBACK ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Pew Charitable Trusts would like to thank the following individuals and organizations for their assistance, including Dr. Elliott Smith, associate director of Cornell University's National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect, for completing and verifying all the new data analyses included within; Mary Bissell and Jennifer Miller of ChildFocus for their assistance with writing and research; Madelyn Freundlich for her editing and research assistance; Marlene Cimons for her writing and editing assistance; and the following individuals for their review and comment: Pauline Abernathy, deputy director, Health and Human Services division, The Pew Charitable Trusts; Gina Russo, Kids are Waiting communications manager; Don Schmid, Title IV-E consultant; Steve Christian, National Conference of State Legislatures; Dr. Mark Testa and Melinda Lis, Children and Family Research Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; David Simmons, National Indian Child Welfare Association; Jaia Petersen-Lent, Generations United; Joe Kroll and Mary Boo, North American Council on Adoptable Children; Tom Atwood and Jennifer Cole, National Council for Adoption; Carol Emig and Rob Geen, Child Trends; all of the individuals who provided quotations or consent to use quotations from other publications or venues; and all of those who willingly shared their experiences to inform this report. Marci McCoy-Roth, program officer with The Pew Charitable Trusts, was responsible for guiding the development, research and writing of this report. The views expressed here represent those of the Trusts and not necessarily of the individuals acknowledged above. The report was designed by Freedom by Design, Inc. The children pictured on the cover are models and the photo is being used for illustrative purposes only. The image is licensed from Getty Images. Time for Reform FIX THEFOSTER CARELOOKBACK Thousands of foster children and the states responsible for them are losing the critical help they need from the federal government. In 1998, 53 percent of the children in foster care were eligible for federal support, but, by 2005, the percentage had declined to 46 percent—an estimated 35,000 fewer eligible foster children. The number eligible for federal financial assistance is projected to continue to decline by approximately 5,000 children each year. 1 The decrease in the number of children eligible for federal foster care has translated into an estimated $1.9 billion loss in federal foster care support to the states between 1998 and 2004.2 Because states are required by federal law to protect children from harm and provide foster care services when necessary, states must make up the difference. And as states devote more of their resources to foster care, fewer funds are available to provide the range of other services children and families need.
Read More at :http://74.6.238.254/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=-+Don+Schmid%2C+National+Title+IV-E+Financing+Consultan&fr=crmas&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=-+Don+Schmid%2c+National+Title+IV-E+Financing+Consultan&d=4863908910990140&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=895f8b9b,526d6d81&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=4m2ztwt5vltoEIgeJSd9dQ--
The Pew Charitable Trusts would like to thank the following individuals and organizations for their assistance, including Dr. Elliott Smith, associate director of Cornell University's National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect, for completing and verifying all the new data analyses included within; Mary Bissell and Jennifer Miller of ChildFocus for their assistance with writing and research; Madelyn Freundlich for her editing and research assistance; Marlene Cimons for her writing and editing assistance; and the following individuals for their review and comment: Pauline Abernathy, deputy director, Health and Human Services division, The Pew Charitable Trusts; Gina Russo, Kids are Waiting communications manager; Don Schmid, Title IV-E consultant; Steve Christian, National Conference of State Legislatures; Dr. Mark Testa and Melinda Lis, Children and Family Research Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; David Simmons, National Indian Child Welfare Association; Jaia Petersen-Lent, Generations United; Joe Kroll and Mary Boo, North American Council on Adoptable Children; Tom Atwood and Jennifer Cole, National Council for Adoption; Carol Emig and Rob Geen, Child Trends; all of the individuals who provided quotations or consent to use quotations from other publications or venues; and all of those who willingly shared their experiences to inform this report. Marci McCoy-Roth, program officer with The Pew Charitable Trusts, was responsible for guiding the development, research and writing of this report. The views expressed here represent those of the Trusts and not necessarily of the individuals acknowledged above. The report was designed by Freedom by Design, Inc. The children pictured on the cover are models and the photo is being used for illustrative purposes only. The image is licensed from Getty Images. Time for Reform FIX THEFOSTER CARELOOKBACK Thousands of foster children and the states responsible for them are losing the critical help they need from the federal government. In 1998, 53 percent of the children in foster care were eligible for federal support, but, by 2005, the percentage had declined to 46 percent—an estimated 35,000 fewer eligible foster children. The number eligible for federal financial assistance is projected to continue to decline by approximately 5,000 children each year. 1 The decrease in the number of children eligible for federal foster care has translated into an estimated $1.9 billion loss in federal foster care support to the states between 1998 and 2004.2 Because states are required by federal law to protect children from harm and provide foster care services when necessary, states must make up the difference. And as states devote more of their resources to foster care, fewer funds are available to provide the range of other services children and families need.
Read More at :http://74.6.238.254/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=-+Don+Schmid%2C+National+Title+IV-E+Financing+Consultan&fr=crmas&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=-+Don+Schmid%2c+National+Title+IV-E+Financing+Consultan&d=4863908910990140&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=895f8b9b,526d6d81&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=4m2ztwt5vltoEIgeJSd9dQ--
FOSTER CARE FUNDING (STATISTICS INCLUDED)
FOSTER CARE FUNDING (STATISTICS INCLUDED) *REPOST*
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
This was sent to me from someone else who did an excellent job!
*The foster care statistics referenced in this post are located at the end of this post. They are from various sources that are cited alongside each statistic*
Over the past few days I have done nothing but research statistics, over, and over, and over again! My brain hurts and considering the fact that I don't do math all that well, it’s been a challenge to say the least. Most required calculating in order to provide the statistics in numbers people could really understand. Initially I started researching statistics for a civil lawsuit that I will be filing against Sacramento County, DHHS, CPS, William R. Ridgeway Family Court, judges, social workers, and numerous others. The list of defendants is far too long to list right now. I also needed the statistics for my Non-Profit Organization.
Relating to that, there have been many articles in the Sacramento Bee about the fact that CPS is losing all of their funding, the State of CA is not giving them money, and terrifying people by telling them children will be in more danger because there won't be enough people to ensure child safety! AMAZING!!!! However, since I was lucky enough to be researching statistics, it became clear to me that Sacramento County DHHS/CPS is crying wolf just so they have another excuse for their incompetency! A way out so they still don't have to be accountable for the issues that have come up through the many investigations into Sacramento County CPS.
The Child Welfare League of America provided the following numbers for the most recent studies:
California received $1,795,256,381 (nearly 1.8 BILLION) in federal funds divided into the following categories:
70.8% was from Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance
13.9% was from TANF (a.k.a. WELFARE-food stamps, cash aid)
9.9% was from the Social Services Block Grant
4.2% was from Title IV-B CWS Promoting Safe & Stable Families
1.8% was from Medicaid
1% was from other federal services
That means that the State of CA received $1,271,041,517 (nearly 1.3 BILLION) in federal dollars from Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption assistance. To fully understand the problematic issues with this, you would need to understand how States qualify for Foster Care and Adoption Assistance funds. A bill was passed in 1997, which provides this money to the Department of Social Services in the amount of $4000- $6000 for each child they get adopted out! But wait...there’s more! In the book WARNING The Truth about CPS, Don Lyons explains that it’s “just a starting figure in a complex mathematical formula in which each bonus is multiplied by the percentage that the state has managed to exceed its baseline adoption number. The states must maintain this increase in each successive year. [Like compound interest.]”. Basically it means that each year the state has to exceed the number of adoptions from the previous year in order to receive these funds. WHAT?
When I first began to understand how it worked, I had to sit back and let it settle with me. I had such a hopeless feeling and the only thing flashing in my mind was the old quote "MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL". Well yes, of course it is! Then I realized our government is not immune to greed...especially during tough economic times when funding for programs is dramatically cut! Another quote came to mind soon after that. "THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS". I have no doubt that this bill was passed with good intentions. The need to get children adopted into permanent families is very important for a child instead of rotating them from numerous foster homes, group homes, etc. For children that were removed from their homes because legitimate allegations, finding them a permanent home and family is an amazing thing. However, in my opinion, nobody really looked at the huge holes in this bill. The simple fact that they need to exceed their baseline adoptions for the fiscal year, creates a child mill in which more and more children must enter the system each year in order to increase the number of adoptions out of foster care.
The bill that was passed includes a technical support assistance section "to assist State and local communities to reach their targets for increased numbers of adoptions”. It goes on to say the support is for “the development of best practice guidelines for expending the termination of parental rights…the development of special units and expertise in moving children toward adoption as a permanent goal; [and] models to encourage the fast tracking of children who have not attained one year of age into pre-adoptive placements without waiting for termination of parental rights.” By implementing these policies they are putting a bounty on the heads of American children…your children! CPS and DHHS are denying parents rights and setting parents up for failure before they walk out of your home with your child in hand. Without knowledge of their rights, parents have no chance to protect themselves AND their children until it’s too late.
The Nation Center for Policy Analysis says it best: “The way the federal government reimburses States [actually] rewards a growth in the size of the program instead of the effective care of children.”
I often hear people upset about “lazy parents” that don’t take care of their kids and live off the “system” with taxpayers’ dollars. However, it is clear by the funding figures I provide above, that only 13% of funding is from TANF (aka Welfare). It is also amazing that 70.8% is for foster care and adoption assistance, but only 4.2% is to promote safe and stable families. Perhaps if our government promoted family preservation instead of family destruction it would make crime rates go down, decrease inmate population, decrease the homeless population, decrease unemployment rates, and decrease the amount of welfare recipients, it would probably decrease the amount of children that are abused and/or neglected. I’m just saying that if you look at the statistics in the previous blog post, my theory may very well be a real possibility.
*I’ve included the foster care statistics below.
Foster Care Statistics
· 80% of the US prison inmate population was in the foster care system (US Dept. of Justice, 2005)
· 70% of California's inmates have been in the foster care system (Sacramento Bee article by John Burton [chairman of the CA Democratic Party and chairs the John Burton Foundation for Children Without Homes)
· Children are 11 times more likely to be abused in State care that they are in their own homes. (National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect [NCCAN])
· 90% increase of children and youth in the US foster care system since 1987. (Casey Family Programs National Center for Resource Family Support *CASEY FOUNDATION*)
· 3 out of 10 of the nations homeless are former foster children. (Casey Foundation*)
· Children in foster care are 3 to 6 times more likely to have emotional, behavioral, and developmental problems including:
· Conduct disorders
· Depression
· Difficulties in school
· Impaired social relationships
(Casey Foundation*)
· Approximately 30% of foster children have marked or severe emotional problems. (Casey Foundation*)
· Children and youth in foster care tend to have limited education and job skills and perform poorly in school compared to children NOT in care. (Casey Foundation*)
· Children in foster care lag behind their education by at LEAST one year and have lower educational attainment than the general population. (Casey Foundation*)
· Children in foster care are 5.25 times more like to die as a result of abuse than children in the general population. (CPS Watch Inc.)
· 2.1 % of ALL CHILD FATALITIES took place in foster care.
**Since "state care is supposed to be a 'safe-haven', the number of fatalities should have been less than the child fatalities of the general population (less than 0.4%). However, child fatalities that occurred while in foster care were 5.25 times greater than that amount." (CPS Watch Inc.)
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
This was sent to me from someone else who did an excellent job!
*The foster care statistics referenced in this post are located at the end of this post. They are from various sources that are cited alongside each statistic*
Over the past few days I have done nothing but research statistics, over, and over, and over again! My brain hurts and considering the fact that I don't do math all that well, it’s been a challenge to say the least. Most required calculating in order to provide the statistics in numbers people could really understand. Initially I started researching statistics for a civil lawsuit that I will be filing against Sacramento County, DHHS, CPS, William R. Ridgeway Family Court, judges, social workers, and numerous others. The list of defendants is far too long to list right now. I also needed the statistics for my Non-Profit Organization.
Relating to that, there have been many articles in the Sacramento Bee about the fact that CPS is losing all of their funding, the State of CA is not giving them money, and terrifying people by telling them children will be in more danger because there won't be enough people to ensure child safety! AMAZING!!!! However, since I was lucky enough to be researching statistics, it became clear to me that Sacramento County DHHS/CPS is crying wolf just so they have another excuse for their incompetency! A way out so they still don't have to be accountable for the issues that have come up through the many investigations into Sacramento County CPS.
The Child Welfare League of America provided the following numbers for the most recent studies:
California received $1,795,256,381 (nearly 1.8 BILLION) in federal funds divided into the following categories:
70.8% was from Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance
13.9% was from TANF (a.k.a. WELFARE-food stamps, cash aid)
9.9% was from the Social Services Block Grant
4.2% was from Title IV-B CWS Promoting Safe & Stable Families
1.8% was from Medicaid
1% was from other federal services
That means that the State of CA received $1,271,041,517 (nearly 1.3 BILLION) in federal dollars from Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption assistance. To fully understand the problematic issues with this, you would need to understand how States qualify for Foster Care and Adoption Assistance funds. A bill was passed in 1997, which provides this money to the Department of Social Services in the amount of $4000- $6000 for each child they get adopted out! But wait...there’s more! In the book WARNING The Truth about CPS, Don Lyons explains that it’s “just a starting figure in a complex mathematical formula in which each bonus is multiplied by the percentage that the state has managed to exceed its baseline adoption number. The states must maintain this increase in each successive year. [Like compound interest.]”. Basically it means that each year the state has to exceed the number of adoptions from the previous year in order to receive these funds. WHAT?
When I first began to understand how it worked, I had to sit back and let it settle with me. I had such a hopeless feeling and the only thing flashing in my mind was the old quote "MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL". Well yes, of course it is! Then I realized our government is not immune to greed...especially during tough economic times when funding for programs is dramatically cut! Another quote came to mind soon after that. "THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS". I have no doubt that this bill was passed with good intentions. The need to get children adopted into permanent families is very important for a child instead of rotating them from numerous foster homes, group homes, etc. For children that were removed from their homes because legitimate allegations, finding them a permanent home and family is an amazing thing. However, in my opinion, nobody really looked at the huge holes in this bill. The simple fact that they need to exceed their baseline adoptions for the fiscal year, creates a child mill in which more and more children must enter the system each year in order to increase the number of adoptions out of foster care.
The bill that was passed includes a technical support assistance section "to assist State and local communities to reach their targets for increased numbers of adoptions”. It goes on to say the support is for “the development of best practice guidelines for expending the termination of parental rights…the development of special units and expertise in moving children toward adoption as a permanent goal; [and] models to encourage the fast tracking of children who have not attained one year of age into pre-adoptive placements without waiting for termination of parental rights.” By implementing these policies they are putting a bounty on the heads of American children…your children! CPS and DHHS are denying parents rights and setting parents up for failure before they walk out of your home with your child in hand. Without knowledge of their rights, parents have no chance to protect themselves AND their children until it’s too late.
The Nation Center for Policy Analysis says it best: “The way the federal government reimburses States [actually] rewards a growth in the size of the program instead of the effective care of children.”
I often hear people upset about “lazy parents” that don’t take care of their kids and live off the “system” with taxpayers’ dollars. However, it is clear by the funding figures I provide above, that only 13% of funding is from TANF (aka Welfare). It is also amazing that 70.8% is for foster care and adoption assistance, but only 4.2% is to promote safe and stable families. Perhaps if our government promoted family preservation instead of family destruction it would make crime rates go down, decrease inmate population, decrease the homeless population, decrease unemployment rates, and decrease the amount of welfare recipients, it would probably decrease the amount of children that are abused and/or neglected. I’m just saying that if you look at the statistics in the previous blog post, my theory may very well be a real possibility.
*I’ve included the foster care statistics below.
Foster Care Statistics
· 80% of the US prison inmate population was in the foster care system (US Dept. of Justice, 2005)
· 70% of California's inmates have been in the foster care system (Sacramento Bee article by John Burton [chairman of the CA Democratic Party and chairs the John Burton Foundation for Children Without Homes)
· Children are 11 times more likely to be abused in State care that they are in their own homes. (National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect [NCCAN])
· 90% increase of children and youth in the US foster care system since 1987. (Casey Family Programs National Center for Resource Family Support *CASEY FOUNDATION*)
· 3 out of 10 of the nations homeless are former foster children. (Casey Foundation*)
· Children in foster care are 3 to 6 times more likely to have emotional, behavioral, and developmental problems including:
· Conduct disorders
· Depression
· Difficulties in school
· Impaired social relationships
(Casey Foundation*)
· Approximately 30% of foster children have marked or severe emotional problems. (Casey Foundation*)
· Children and youth in foster care tend to have limited education and job skills and perform poorly in school compared to children NOT in care. (Casey Foundation*)
· Children in foster care lag behind their education by at LEAST one year and have lower educational attainment than the general population. (Casey Foundation*)
· Children in foster care are 5.25 times more like to die as a result of abuse than children in the general population. (CPS Watch Inc.)
· 2.1 % of ALL CHILD FATALITIES took place in foster care.
**Since "state care is supposed to be a 'safe-haven', the number of fatalities should have been less than the child fatalities of the general population (less than 0.4%). However, child fatalities that occurred while in foster care were 5.25 times greater than that amount." (CPS Watch Inc.)
The Child Protective Services Improvement Act -
The Child Protective Services Improvement Act -
The Child Protective Services Improvement Act (H.R. 1534) was introduced on April 1, 2003, by Representatives Ben Cardin (D-MD), George Miller (D-CA), Charles Rangel (D-NY), Pete Stark (D-CA), Carl Levin (D-MI), and Jim McDermott (D-WA). This comprehensive legislation provides new resources to address the needs of abused and neglected children and improve the system designed to protect and care for them.
advertisement
H.R. 1534 provides new funding to help states implement strategies to expand and improve their child welfare system, including the expanded use of child welfare waivers. The legislation will also help public and private child welfare agencies better secure and maintain a stable and well-trained child welfare workforce. New funds are also provided to address the substance abuse treatment needs of families in the child welfare system and to ensure that more children are eligible for federal foster care and adoption assistance. The bill also provides first time federal assistance to support kinship guardianship as a permanency option for some children.
Title I-Ensuring Child Safety By Paying For Performance
Amends Title IV-B of the Social Security Act to create a new grant fund of $100 million per year for 2004 and 2005 and a bonus fund of $100 million per year for 2006, 2007, and 2008. States are awarded funds based on the number of children under the age of eighteen. To qualify for the grant program, a state must have a corrective action plan approved by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as a result of its Child and Family Service Review.
Qualifying states for the bonus fund are those states HHS has determined to have made significant progress in achieving the goals of their corrective action plan. States may not use federal funds to supplant or replace state spending.
Title II-Supporting Quality Front-Line Workers
Amends Title IV-B of the Social Security Act to create a $100 million per year (FY 2004-2008) grant program to assist states in implementing strategies to enhance their child welfare workforce. The funds would be distributed on a formula based on the number of children under the age of 18. State funds would be matched at a 75% rate by the federal government ($1 dollar in state funds draws $3 dollars in federal funds). Funds are reserved for the territories and 2% of the funds are reserved for Indian tribes. States are prohibited from using federal funds to supplant or replace state spending.
A state must submit a plan to receive a grant. The plan must describe a five-year strategy to improve working conditions of child welfare workers in any agency providing services under programs funded through Title IV-B and Title IV-E. The plan must also include indicators the state will use to measure progress and a budget on how a state intends to use funds. The plan must describe ways to improve working conditions, including: increasing wages of workers, increasing the number of workers, reducing the turnover rate of workers, training to improve the ability of workers, improving formal education of workers, increasing the number of workers with college degrees, coordinating recruitment strategies, providing educational scholarships, increasing the safety of the workforce, and improving the coordination of services with other state and local agencies. Strategies include both supervisory and non-supervisory staff.
HHS has penalty authority in cases where a state violates a requirement. By the end of federal fiscal year 2006, HHS shall conduct an interim evaluation with a final report due by the end of federal fiscal year 2008.
Section 202 of this bill extends federal reimbursement for Title IV-E training beyond staff employed by the state to staff employed at institutions or agencies that are state-licensed or state approved. Training funds may also be used for members of staff of agencies administering the state plan of abuse and neglect courts, agency attorneys, attorneys representing children, parents or guardian ad litem, or other court appointed advocates. The training dollars can also be used for people employed by the state, local, or non-profit child-serving agencies administering the state plan to keep children safe and provide permanent families for children.
Title III-Combating The Effects Of Substance Abuse
Title IV-B of the Social Security Act is amended to create Subpart 5, the Child Protection/Alcohol and Drug Partnerships for Children.
The bill provides for the authorization of $100 million for federal fiscal years 2004 and 2005, $150 million in federal fiscal year 2006, and $200 million for federal fiscal years 2007 and 2008. An eligible state must submit a joint application by the child welfare agency and the substance abuse agency for promoting activities that focus on families with substance abuse problems that come to the attention of the child welfare agency.
Together, the child welfare and substance abuse agencies in the state must take steps to develop and increase treatment services, establish appropriate screening and assessment tools, or improve strategies to engage and retain parents in treatment and provide after-care support. Agencies can also use the funds to increase capacity to meet these families needs in a timely way by jointly cross-training child welfare and substance abuse agency staff, to improve data collection to track the progress of these families, and to promote evaluation. This bill holds states accountable for demonstrating the progress they make with these funds.
Title IV-Increasing State Flexibility To Serve Families
The current IV-E foster care and adoption assistance eligibility standards are revised. Instead of linking eligibility for these two programs to the July 1996 now-repealed Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, states may now base Title IV-E eligibility for foster care and adoption assistance to the current eligibility standard for the state's Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) cash assistance program.
Section 402 of this bill allows states to expand IV-E reimbursements beyond the current foster care and adoption assistance to kinship guardianship families. Eligible states will base kinship guardianship payments on the need of the family and the child. Eligibility extends to kinship guardians with a child under the age of 19 or a child under the age of 21 if he or she has a mental or physical disability. A qualifying child is a child who has been removed from the home through the courts, has been under the care of a state agency for a 12 month period, and is eligible under IV-E foster care maintenance payments. In addition, the child is not likely to be returned to the home or adopted, the child demonstrates attachment to the relative guardian, and, in the case of a child 14 years of age or older, has been consulted. The siblings of a child may be placed in the same home when appropriate.
Section 403 of this bill extends and expands the waiver authority of HHS to allow states to implement demonstration projects under Title IV-E. HHS waiver authority is extended from 2002 to 2008. Demonstrations may be implemented that promote community partnerships and coordinate agency collaborations to address child abuse, mental health, domestic violence, housing, and other services. HHS shall not limit waivers based on the number of state waivers granted, the similarity of waivers requested by states, or the number of waivers currently held by a single state. HHS is too develop a streamlined process for granting state requests of waivers.
Title V-Ensuring Adequate Funding For Prevention And Adoption Activities.
The Promoting Safe and Stable Families program is reauthorized to 2008. Mandatory or guaranteed funding in the program would increase from $305 million to $505 million. Funds are also set aside for HHS evaluation, $16.6 million is reserved for court improvement grants and the tribal set-aside is 2%.
For more information, contact John Sciamanna, CWLA Senior Government Affairs Associate, at 202/639-4919 or jsciamanna@cwla.org.
The Child Protective Services Improvement Act (H.R. 1534) was introduced on April 1, 2003, by Representatives Ben Cardin (D-MD), George Miller (D-CA), Charles Rangel (D-NY), Pete Stark (D-CA), Carl Levin (D-MI), and Jim McDermott (D-WA). This comprehensive legislation provides new resources to address the needs of abused and neglected children and improve the system designed to protect and care for them.
advertisement
H.R. 1534 provides new funding to help states implement strategies to expand and improve their child welfare system, including the expanded use of child welfare waivers. The legislation will also help public and private child welfare agencies better secure and maintain a stable and well-trained child welfare workforce. New funds are also provided to address the substance abuse treatment needs of families in the child welfare system and to ensure that more children are eligible for federal foster care and adoption assistance. The bill also provides first time federal assistance to support kinship guardianship as a permanency option for some children.
Title I-Ensuring Child Safety By Paying For Performance
Amends Title IV-B of the Social Security Act to create a new grant fund of $100 million per year for 2004 and 2005 and a bonus fund of $100 million per year for 2006, 2007, and 2008. States are awarded funds based on the number of children under the age of eighteen. To qualify for the grant program, a state must have a corrective action plan approved by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as a result of its Child and Family Service Review.
Qualifying states for the bonus fund are those states HHS has determined to have made significant progress in achieving the goals of their corrective action plan. States may not use federal funds to supplant or replace state spending.
Title II-Supporting Quality Front-Line Workers
Amends Title IV-B of the Social Security Act to create a $100 million per year (FY 2004-2008) grant program to assist states in implementing strategies to enhance their child welfare workforce. The funds would be distributed on a formula based on the number of children under the age of 18. State funds would be matched at a 75% rate by the federal government ($1 dollar in state funds draws $3 dollars in federal funds). Funds are reserved for the territories and 2% of the funds are reserved for Indian tribes. States are prohibited from using federal funds to supplant or replace state spending.
A state must submit a plan to receive a grant. The plan must describe a five-year strategy to improve working conditions of child welfare workers in any agency providing services under programs funded through Title IV-B and Title IV-E. The plan must also include indicators the state will use to measure progress and a budget on how a state intends to use funds. The plan must describe ways to improve working conditions, including: increasing wages of workers, increasing the number of workers, reducing the turnover rate of workers, training to improve the ability of workers, improving formal education of workers, increasing the number of workers with college degrees, coordinating recruitment strategies, providing educational scholarships, increasing the safety of the workforce, and improving the coordination of services with other state and local agencies. Strategies include both supervisory and non-supervisory staff.
HHS has penalty authority in cases where a state violates a requirement. By the end of federal fiscal year 2006, HHS shall conduct an interim evaluation with a final report due by the end of federal fiscal year 2008.
Section 202 of this bill extends federal reimbursement for Title IV-E training beyond staff employed by the state to staff employed at institutions or agencies that are state-licensed or state approved. Training funds may also be used for members of staff of agencies administering the state plan of abuse and neglect courts, agency attorneys, attorneys representing children, parents or guardian ad litem, or other court appointed advocates. The training dollars can also be used for people employed by the state, local, or non-profit child-serving agencies administering the state plan to keep children safe and provide permanent families for children.
Title III-Combating The Effects Of Substance Abuse
Title IV-B of the Social Security Act is amended to create Subpart 5, the Child Protection/Alcohol and Drug Partnerships for Children.
The bill provides for the authorization of $100 million for federal fiscal years 2004 and 2005, $150 million in federal fiscal year 2006, and $200 million for federal fiscal years 2007 and 2008. An eligible state must submit a joint application by the child welfare agency and the substance abuse agency for promoting activities that focus on families with substance abuse problems that come to the attention of the child welfare agency.
Together, the child welfare and substance abuse agencies in the state must take steps to develop and increase treatment services, establish appropriate screening and assessment tools, or improve strategies to engage and retain parents in treatment and provide after-care support. Agencies can also use the funds to increase capacity to meet these families needs in a timely way by jointly cross-training child welfare and substance abuse agency staff, to improve data collection to track the progress of these families, and to promote evaluation. This bill holds states accountable for demonstrating the progress they make with these funds.
Title IV-Increasing State Flexibility To Serve Families
The current IV-E foster care and adoption assistance eligibility standards are revised. Instead of linking eligibility for these two programs to the July 1996 now-repealed Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, states may now base Title IV-E eligibility for foster care and adoption assistance to the current eligibility standard for the state's Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) cash assistance program.
Section 402 of this bill allows states to expand IV-E reimbursements beyond the current foster care and adoption assistance to kinship guardianship families. Eligible states will base kinship guardianship payments on the need of the family and the child. Eligibility extends to kinship guardians with a child under the age of 19 or a child under the age of 21 if he or she has a mental or physical disability. A qualifying child is a child who has been removed from the home through the courts, has been under the care of a state agency for a 12 month period, and is eligible under IV-E foster care maintenance payments. In addition, the child is not likely to be returned to the home or adopted, the child demonstrates attachment to the relative guardian, and, in the case of a child 14 years of age or older, has been consulted. The siblings of a child may be placed in the same home when appropriate.
Section 403 of this bill extends and expands the waiver authority of HHS to allow states to implement demonstration projects under Title IV-E. HHS waiver authority is extended from 2002 to 2008. Demonstrations may be implemented that promote community partnerships and coordinate agency collaborations to address child abuse, mental health, domestic violence, housing, and other services. HHS shall not limit waivers based on the number of state waivers granted, the similarity of waivers requested by states, or the number of waivers currently held by a single state. HHS is too develop a streamlined process for granting state requests of waivers.
Title V-Ensuring Adequate Funding For Prevention And Adoption Activities.
The Promoting Safe and Stable Families program is reauthorized to 2008. Mandatory or guaranteed funding in the program would increase from $305 million to $505 million. Funds are also set aside for HHS evaluation, $16.6 million is reserved for court improvement grants and the tribal set-aside is 2%.
For more information, contact John Sciamanna, CWLA Senior Government Affairs Associate, at 202/639-4919 or jsciamanna@cwla.org.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)