FOR DECADES FEDERAL, state, and local governments have been consistently involved in developing and implementing laws, agencies, organizations, and other means to protect children in this country when their parents are unable or fail to protect them. In this chapter the reader will be familiarized with the major social welfare legislation that affects children and families involved in the child welfare system, especially children of color. Research consistently demonstrates that children of color when compared to their white counterparts continue to be disproportionately represented in the child welfare system (Bowser & Jones 2004; Lemon, D’Andrade, & Austin 2005; Harris & Hackett 2008; Washington State Racial Disproportionality Advisory Committee 2008; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2009; Crofoot & Harris 2012). The following social welfare laws are succinctly discussed and critiqued in this chapter: the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974, the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, and the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act of 2011. There is also a discussion of how these laws affect racial disproportionality in the child welfare system. The appendix contains a synopsis of each piece of legislation for readers.
THE CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT ACT OF 1974
The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974 (CAPTA; Pub. L. No. 93–247) was the first major child welfare law to establish federal guidelines for states to use in passing child abuse and neglect reporting laws; each state is responsible for defining child abuse and neglect based on the minimum standards stipulated by CAPTA. However, CAPTA does not provide a federal definition of child abuse or neglect. Consequently, there is ambiguity and variation among the states in their definitions of child abuse and neglect. According to the Child Welfare Information Gateway (2009), CAPTA, as amended by the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003, defines “child abuse and neglect, at a minimum, as any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation, or an act of failure to act which presents imminent risk of serious harm” (1). The primary types of maltreatment recognized by most state statutes are physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, and emotional abuse. Many states also include child abandonment and parental substance abuse in their statutes as types of child abuse and neglect.
These definitions are important because child protective services (CPS) uses them in addressing allegations of child abuse and/or neglect. Any person who has knowledge or suspects that a child is being abused or neglected may contact a CPS office to report an allegation. It is the responsibility of CPS to initially assess the allegation and, using the state definitions of child abuse and neglect, to determine whether or not an investigation is warranted. Frequently, impoverished children and families of color seem to be at the forefront of these allegations, and the result is an acrimonious investigation that often results in the removal of children from the care and custody of their birth parents and placement in out-of-home care (King County Coalition on Racial Disproportionality 2004; Johnson et al. 2007; Harris & Hackett 2008; Washington State Racial Disproportionality Advisory Committee 2008). Disproportionality tends to be quite prevalent at the decision points of CPS investigation and substantiation (Fluke, Yuan, Hedderson, & Curtis 2003; Lemon, D’Andrade, & Austin 2005; Harris & Skyles 2005; Harris & Hackett 2008).
Other provisions of CAPTA include the following:
• State grants: Formula grants to states and territories to help improve their CPS systems, in exchange for which states must comply with various requirements related to the reporting, investigation, and treatment of child maltreatment cases
• Discretionary activities: Federal data collection, dissemination, and technical assistance efforts related to child abuse prevention and treatment, as well as competitive grants to a range of eligible entities for research and demonstration projects or other activities related to the identification, prevention, and treatment of child abuse and neglect
• Community-based grants: Formula grants to states and territories to support community-based activities and services to prevent child abuse and neglect
• Children’s Justice Act grants: Formula grants to states and territories to improve investigation, prosecution, and handling of child maltreatment cases, particularly those cases related to child sexual abuse or exploitation (Child Welfare Information Gateway 2008)
CAPTA also requires the appointment of a guardian ad litem (GAL) in any child abuse or neglect case; the GAL may be an attorney or a court-appointed special advocate (CASA) or both. The GAL is responsible for making recommendations to the court about the best interests of the child.
The following legislation subsequently amended and/or reauthorized funding for CAPTA: Pub. L. No. 95–266 (1978); Title VI, Chapter 7 of Pub. L. No. 97–35 (1981); Pub. L. No. 98–457 (1984); Pub. L. No. 99–401 (1986); Pub. L. No. 100–294 (1988); Pub. L. No. 102–295 (1992); and Pub. L. No. 104–235 (1996). On December 20, 2010, President Barack Obama signed the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 (Pub L. No. 93–247). The act received funding of $1.039 billion and spans a five-year period. The following are its three major goals:
• Improve program operation and data collection over time
• Improve systems for supporting and training individuals who prevent, identify, and respond to reports of neglect, abuse, and maltreatment of children
• Strengthen coordination among providers who address the challenges associated with child abuse, maltreatment, and neglect, as well as dating and domestic violence (National Conference of State Legislators 2010, 1)
The act stipulated that GALs should be trained about early childhood, latency, and adolescent child development; that CPS should collaborate with agencies providing domestic violence services; and that CPS should conduct research on and be encouraged to use the practice of differential response. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (2010), differential response is “a state or community-determined formal response that assesses the needs of the child or family without requiring a determination of risk or occurrence of maltreatment. Such response occurs in addition to the traditional investigatory response” (1). Differential response would result in CPS finding ways to protect children other than removing them from the home and care of their birth parents. The use of differential response has been shown to have a positive effect on children and families (Institute of Applied Research 2004).
THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT OF 1978
The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; Pub. L. No. 95–608) is a federal law that regulates child abuse and neglect cases, as well as adoption cases, involving Native American children; specifically, it mandates that Native American Nations and Tribes have jurisdiction in cases of abuse, neglect, and adoption of these children. Congress passed ICWA because of the high number of Native American children who were removed from their families and placed primarily with European American families in foster care, boarding homes, or adoptive homes. ICWA laid the foundation for child welfare practice with any “Indian child,” which it defines as “any unmarried person who is under age eighteen and is either (a) a member of an Indian tribe or (b) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe.” Because ICWA takes precedence over state law in cases involving Native American children and families, it is important for state child welfare agencies and courts to always determine if any child coming into care is Native American. Native American Tribes have legal and cultural interests in their children.
In 2005 the U.S. Government Accounting Office collected data from states via a survey to determine ICWA’s impact. Although the data collected from states were limited, it was very clear that problems were still prevalent in some states when Native American children entered the foster care system.
ICWA created important protections to prevent state child welfare agencies and courts from inappropriately separating American Indian children from their families. More than 25 years after it was enacted, however, we know very little about the effect of this law on moving American Indian children in foster care to permanent homes in a timely manner, while ensuring their safety and well-being. The scarcity of data on outcomes for children subject to the law, along with variations in how individual states, courts, social workers, and tribes interpret and implement ICWA, make it difficult to generalize about how the law is being implemented or its effect on American Indian children. Our discussions with tribal officials, as well as our review of the limited information on ICWA implementation from the CFSRs [Child and Family Services Reviews], indicate that some problems with ICWA implementation are occurring, although we cannot estimate how extensive such problems are.
(U.S. Government Accounting Office 2005, 58)
It is ironic that problems that were highlighted with ICWA in some states in 2005 have continued to be prevalent since that time. For example, in Washington State Native American children are less likely to exit the foster care system within two years compared to European American children; they are also less likely to have one or two placements and more likely to have four or more placements compared to European American children (Washington State Racial Disproportionality Advisory Committee 2008). In addition, Native American children are twice as likely to remain in foster care for over two years, less likely to be adopted, and less likely to be reunified with their birth parents when compared to European American children (Washington State Racial Disproportionality Advisory Committee 2008). In Washington State the Washington State Racial Disproportionality Advisory Committee worked with tribal leaders and other community partners for passage of a Washington State Indian Child Welfare Act and continues to engage the community in its initiatives to reduce the disproportionate number of Native American children in the child welfare system. Finally, although ICWA is the major federal child welfare law that provides protection for Native American children and families, it is the only child welfare law without regular federal child and services reviews.
THE ADOPTION ASSISTANCE AND CHILD WELFARE ACT OF 1980
In an effort to have children exit the foster care system and to facilitate family reunification, the permanency planning movement of the 1970s was started. When one examines the child welfare system of the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s, one sees few attempts to offer services to facilitate reunification of children with their families and to keep children from languishing in out-of-home placements. However, the permanency planning movement of the mid-1970s served as the major impetus to expedite either the return of children to live with their families or the legal adoption of children in order to become members of new families. Several demonstration projects developed ways to facilitate family reunification or adoption (Emlen, Lahti, Downs, McKay, & Downs 1978; Stein, Gambrill, & Wiltse 1978). The practice principles and methods developed through these projects were incorporated into the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (Pub L. No. 96–272).
The enactment of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act was the most significant affirmation of the intent of foster care to be a short-term, temporary service to children and families. This law provided fiscal incentives to states to (a) take steps to implement permanency planning in foster care, (b) reduce the child’s length of stay in foster care, (c) promote the return of children to their own homes whenever feasible, (d) demonstrate “reasonable efforts” to prevent unnecessary out-of-home placements, and (e) encourage adoption as an exit from the foster care system. It further mandated that reasonable efforts be made to remedy the harms to children that require state intervention and that children be reunified with parents whenever possible.
The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act also mandated that when children are removed from the care of their birth parents, they should be placed in the least restrictive (most family-like) environment available and as close as possible to their birth parents in accordance with the best interests of the child. This mandate was interpreted by many states to mean that kinship care was the placement of choice when children must be removed from their birth parents (Gleeson & Craig 1994). Placement of children in kinship care was a frequent child welfare practice in the late 1980s and early 1990s in large urban states such as New York, California, and Illinois; the majority of these children were members of economically disadvantaged families of color (Barth & Berry 1990; Kusserow 1992; Testa 1992, 1993; Wulczyn & Goerge 1992).
The intent of this law was good because no child should languish in the child welfare system; however, there was evidence that permanency planning did not dramatically reduce the number of children in foster care (Barth, Courtney, Berrick, & Albert 1994). In fact African American children continued to be overrepresented in the child welfare system after this law was passed (Wulczyn & Goerge 1992). According to an eight-year study by Goerge (1990), African American children in Cook County (Illinois) had a median length of stay of fifty-four months; however, the median length of stay for all children in placement was eighteen months. The weight of the evidence demonstrated a major problem with permanency planning: i.e., failure of the child welfare system to provide needed services to birth parents to facilitate family reunification and continued failure to provide services to children and families after family reunification (Fanshel 1981, 1982; Hubbell 1981; Maluccio 1981; Besharov 1986; Hartman 1993; Tatara 1994). According to Turner (1984), “It is noteworthy that community services were infrequently rendered to parents or children, either while the children were in care or following their return home” (502). This practice is still prevalent today in work with children and families in the child welfare system, especially with children and families of color.
THE MULTIETHNIC PLACEMENT ACT OF 1994
Another significant federal law affecting children in the child welfare system is the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994 (MEPA; Pub. L. No. 103–382). This legislation was a response by Congress to address permanency for the large number of children in the foster care system. For example, in 1994 there were 468,000 children in the foster care system in this country; approximately 60,000 of these children were waiting for adoption (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1994). A large percentage of these children were children of color, especially African American children, whose stay in the foster care system and waiting period for adoption were substantially longer when compared to those of European American children.
MEPA was amended by the Inter-Ethnic Adoption Provisions of 1996 (IEAP; Pub. L. No. 103–382) to include the following provisions:
• It prohibits states and other entities that are involved in foster care or adoption placements and that receive federal financial assistance under Title IV-E, Title IV-B, or any other federal program from delaying or denying a child’s foster care or adoptive placement on the basis of the child’s or the prospective parent’s race, color, or national origin.
• It prohibits states and other entities from denying to any individual the opportunity to become a foster or adoptive parent on the basis of the prospective parent’s or the child’s race, color, or national origin.
• It requires that to remain eligible for federal assistance for their child welfare programs, states diligently recruit foster and adoptive parents who reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of the children in the state who need foster and adoptive homes. (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1994)
There has been much controversy regarding this legislation. Proponents state that race and ethnicity should not be factors in placement decisions for children in foster care who are legally free for adoption; they emphasize that it is more important for children of color to have permanent homes than to languish in foster care waiting for a same-race home. However, many opponents state that it is emotionally harmful for children of color to be placed transracially with foster and/or adoptive parents. Some opponents have expressed concern that children of color will not be exposed to their racial and cultural backgrounds. Others state that children will experience identity and self-esteem problems, especially when they enter the adolescent phase of development. For example, the position statement of the National Association of Black Social Workers (1994) clearly affirmed the following:
• Stopping unnecessary out-of-home placements
• Reunifying children with parents
• Placing children of African ancestry with relatives or unrelated families of the same race and culture for adoption
• Addressing the barriers that prevent or discourage persons of African ancestry from adopting
• Promoting culturally relevant agency practices
• Emphasizing that “transracial adoption of an African American child should only be considered after documented evidence of unsuccessful same race placements has been reviewed and supported by appropriate representatives of the African American community” (1)
It is highly important for child welfare professionals to be proactive in their recruitment efforts to increase the number of foster and adoptive homes in communities of color. At the same time professionals have a legal mandate to work with European American families who want to become foster and/or adoptive parents.
THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1996
Welfare reform is generally thought of as the government’s sweeping attempt to change social welfare policy in the United States. Its primary goal is to decrease the number of individuals and families dependent on public assistance and to facilitate efforts of individuals and families to become independent of government assistance and self-sufficient. As a result, welfare reform impacts children and families involved in the child welfare system. The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA; Pub. L. No. 104–193) was welfare reform legislation designed to decrease the number of children growing up in poor single-parent families by mandating that women move from welfare to work; there was also increased emphasis on promoting marriage. The 1996 act reformed welfare by eliminating the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program and replacing it with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. State governments were given broad latitude to develop and implement their own welfare programs. Although many women have left welfare for work since the passage of PRWORA in 1996, most working poor women have been unable to move their families out of poverty because of low-wage employment. Higher rates of child neglect, as well as higher rates of foster care entry, have been linked to maternal moves from welfare to work (Paxson & Waldfogel 2002). However, Courtney, Pilliavin, Dworsky, and Zinn (2001) reported a negative correlation between workforce involvement and CPS investigation.
Poor women are particularly vulnerable to chronic poverty. Many chronically poor women are sometimes dependent but often are working poor. They find themselves in chronic poverty for a multitude of reasons that form a matrix of interrelated factors. These factors include lack of access to education and employment, as well as constraints on human and social capital; these factors are key barriers to moving out of poverty. “An estimated 3.1 million families live in poverty after welfare reform, including 1.5 million who live in dire poverty (income less than 50 percent). In addition, the poverty gap for poor single parent families does not decline in the post PRWORA period” (Peterson, Song, & Jones-DeWeever 2002, 3).
One might ask, Are there other connections between welfare reform and the child welfare system? The answer is yes. First of all, public welfare was the main source of income for many of the children and families involved in the child welfare system prior to TANF. Needell, Cuccaro-Alamin, Brookhart, and Lee (1999) studied a sample of California AFDC recipients and found approximately 27 percent were reported for child maltreatment, 21 percent were investigated, 8 percent of cases were opened, and 3.2 percent entered the foster care system. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2000b) reported another 2.0 to 2.6 percent of children entered the foster care system during the years of 1995 and 1996; these children were recipients of AFDC in California, Illinois, and North Carolina.
Second, poverty rates tend to be higher for children of color, who are disproportionately represented in the child welfare system (Bass, Shields, & Behrman 2004; Bowser & Jones 2004; Roberts 2002).
Third, children of color from single-parent families, especially African American children, remain in foster care longer and have difficulty reunifying with their families (Harris & Courtney 2003; Bowser & Jones 2004; Harris & Hackett 2008). Harris and Courtney (2003) studied children in the California child welfare system; their findings demonstrated the following: “African American children were reunified at slower rates than other children and children from two-parent families were returned home faster than children from single-parent homes” (423). A policy that focuses on reducing poverty among female-headed families of color, especially African American families, would go a long way to decrease the disproportionate number of children of color who continue to enter and remain in the child welfare system in this country. Although there is evidence that caseloads have decreased since the passage of PRWORA and the implementation of TANF, the weight of the evidence still shows that a large number of working poor women have not become self-sufficient and continue to vacillate between welfare and work. Many of these women are mothers of color; they and their families are still in poverty and disproportionately involved in the child welfare system.
Finally, many children of color are cared for by grandparents or other relatives in formal kinship or relative care. Kinship care/relative care placements have become the preferred placement option of child welfare agencies (Urban Institute 2001). “Public [formal] kinship caregivers are more likely than non-kin foster parents to be older, African American, single, and never married. They are also more likely to live in poverty and to be less well educated” (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2000a, 44). If kinship caregivers do not meet the requirements to be formal foster parents, TANF can be provided for the children or for the kinship caregiver and the children. Kinship caregivers who receive TANF for themselves and the children must adhere to TANF regulations, including work requirements and time limits. “Most kin caregivers receive the inadequate Temporary Assistance for Needy Families payment, which averages $200 per month, depending on the number of children, and are not eligible to receive the much-higher foster board payments for nonrelatives that range from $356 to $431 per month, depending on the age of the child” (Hill 2004, 69–70). African American children continue to be disproportionately placed in kinship care when compared to white children (Harris 1999, 2004; Harris & Skyles 2008; Minkler & Fuller-Thomson 1999; Ross & Alday 2006).
Many children of color and their families, especially African American children, are adversely affected by PRWORA in other ways. For example, the law has a lifetime ban on TANF and food stamp benefits for any person convicted of a felony due to the possession, use, or distribution of drugs. A large percentage of African American children enter the child welfare system because of child neglect by birth parents who are abusing drugs (Cross 1997; Harris & Hackett 2008; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2009); parents who abuse drugs experience an extreme hardship if they try to get the financial assistance needed to provide care for their children from programs that are funded via PRWORA, such as TANF (Geen & Boots 1997). Although one of the most widespread effects of PRWORA was a dramatic decrease in caseloads for public social service agencies, the adverse effect for poor families was a change in the type of financial assistance that could be received from the federal government.
THE ADOPTION AND SAFE FAMILIES ACT OF 1997
Another major social welfare law is the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA; Pub. L. No. 105–89). ASFA mandated that the health and safety of children were the most significant factors in placement decisions; it established new time lines to expedite permanency for children by reunification, adoption, or legal guardianship. One of the controversial mandates in ASFA is that a petition to terminate parental rights shall be filed for birth parents whose child has been in the foster care system fifteen of the most recent twenty-two months. ASFA stipulates that case plans and case reviews shall always consider the safety of children and encourages child welfare workers to engage in concurrent permanency planning for children in foster care: i.e., plan for family reunification but also plan for adoption or legal guardianship.
ASFA further mandated the development of a rating system and outcome measures known as the Child and Family Service Reviews (CFSRs). ASFA also
• continues and expands the Family Preservation and Support Services program;
• continues eligibility for the federal Title IV-E adoption assistance subsidy for children whose adoption is disrupted;
• authorizes adoption incentive payments to states;
• requires states to document efforts to adopt;
• expands health care coverage to non-IV-E adopted children with special health care needs;
• authorizes new funding for technical assistance to promote adoptions;
• addresses geographic barriers to adoption;
• establishes kinship care advisory panels;
• includes a sense of Congress provision on standby guardianship;
• establishes new time lines and conditions for filing termination of parental rights;
• sets a new time frame for permanency hearings;
• modifies the reasonable efforts provision in the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980;
• requires states to check prospective foster and adoptive parents for criminal backgrounds;
• requires notice of court reviews and opportunity to be heard for foster parents, pre-adoptive parents, and relatives;
• directs states to establish standards to ensure quality services;
• requires assessment of state performance in protecting children;
• directs development of a performance-based incentive funding system;
• expands child welfare demonstration waivers;
• requires study on the coordination of substance abuse and child protection; and
• authorizes the use of a federal parent locator service. (Child Welfare League of America 1997, 1–4)
In terms of racial disproportionality the ASFA mandate that child welfare workers must file to terminate parental rights for children who have been in foster care fifteen of the most recent twenty-two months poses several issues of concern. Although it is highly important for all children who enter the child welfare system to achieve permanency as soon as possible, this time line is unrealistic when one considers that the largest number of children enter the child welfare system because of neglect by birth parents who abuse alcohol or other substances.
Among confirmed cases of child maltreatment, 40% involve the use of alcohol and other drugs. This suggests that of the 1.2 million confirmed victims of child maltreatment, an estimated 480,000 children are mistreated each year by a caretaker with alcohol or other drug problems. Additionally, research suggests that alcohol and other drug problems are factors in a majority of cases of emotional abuse and neglect. In fact, neglect is the major reason that children are removed from a home in which parents have alcohol or other drug problems.
(Prevent Child Abuse America 2005, 1)
In this country African American and Native American children continue to enter and remain in the child welfare system in disproportionate numbers. Many of these children have parents who have alcohol and/or other substance abuse problems and are unable to get treatment (Child Welfare League of America 2001; Harris 2011). According to Cross (1997), approximately 90 percent of child neglect cases and 60 percent of child abuse cases can be linked to parents with alcohol and/or drug problems. It has been repeatedly shown that African American women who abuse substances are more likely to be reported to CPS than white or Hispanic women with substance abuse problems (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1999). Many birth parents try to get treatment for their substance abuse problems but are put on waiting lists; while they wait for treatment, the permanency planning time clock is steadily moving. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1997) stated that approximately half of families with substance abuse problems in their study received no substance abuse treatment; although another 23 percent with substance abuse problems were offered treatment, no treatment was provided to them; and no substance abuse treatment was offered to 23 percent of the cases identified in this study.
In addition to the limited number of treatment facilities and the failure to provide treatment, there are several other barriers to treatment, especially for women whose children are in the child welfare system. Child care is a major barrier. Many alcoholic and drug-dependent women are single parents and do not have the resources to get the care needed by their children. In a multicity survey of services for alcoholic women conducted by the Woman to Woman Program of the Association of Junior Leagues, the most frequently mentioned institutional barrier to treatment was the lack of child care service for women needing residential care (Association of Junior Leagues 1987; see also American Association of Family and Consumer Services 2013; Friedman n.d.). Among the other obstacles to participation in treatment for women who abuse substances are the following: distrust of the social services system, as well as treatment providers; financial hardship; social isolation; and greater physiological complications (Nelson-Zlupko, Kaufmann, & Dore 1995).
It makes sense to reassess ASFA in light of the fact that large numbers of children are entering the child welfare system due to child neglect because their birth parents abuse substances and are unable to care for their children. The severe shortage of substance abuse treatment facilities greatly hampers efforts to reunify families, especially the disproportionate number of families of color; this problem is a continuous one.
THE FOSTERING CONNECTIONS TO SUCCESS AND INCREASING ADOPTIONS ACT OF 2008
The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (Pub. L. No. 110–351) was enacted to improve outcomes for children and youth in foster care, provide support for kinship caregivers, provide access to foster care and adoption for Native American children, and increase incentives for adoption, as well as increase adoption assistance. To facilitate a positive transition to adulthood and exit from foster care for youth in foster care who have not reached age nineteen, twenty, or twenty-one and are still in school or working, states also are given an option to extend Title IV-E assistance. This act mandates the following:
Promoting Permanent Families for Children in Foster Care with Relatives
• Notice to relatives when children enter care
• Kinship care navigator programs
• Subsidized guardianship payments for relatives
• Licensing standards for relatives
Promoting Permanent Families for Children in Foster Care with Adoptive Families
• Incentives for adoption
• Adoption assistance
Promoting Permanent Families for Children in Foster Care with Birth Families and Other Relatives
• New family connections grants
• Efforts to keep siblings together
Improving Outcomes for Children and Youth in Foster Care
• Foster care for older youth
• Educational stability
• Health care coordination
Increasing Support for Native American and Alaska Native Children
• Direct access to federal support for Indian Tribes
• Technical assistance and implementation services
Improving the Quality of Staff Working with Children in the Child Welfare System
• Extended federal support for training of staff (Center for Law and Social Policy 2008, 1–2)
This federal legislation has several mandates that positively impact the disproportionate number of children of color and their families in the child welfare system. For example, extending Title-IV-E assistance to youth after they reach age eighteen is a positive provision; most youth in foster care continue to need support and services long after their eighteenth birthday. Child welfare professionals certainly can never get too much training, especially training that is specifically geared to their work with the disproportionate number of children and families of color—African American and Native American children, in particular—that continue to enter the child welfare system and are adversely affected by longer placements and service disparities when compared to their white counterparts. Findings from a study by Olsen (1982) demonstrated that when compared to all ethnic groups, Native American children and families had the least chance to be referred for services. According to Harris and Skyles (2005), “Research on delivery of services to children and families in the child welfare system consistently demonstrates that African American children are at a disadvantage regarding the range and quality of services provided, the type of agency to which they are referred, the efficiency with which their cases are handled, the support their families receive, and their eventual outcomes” (95).
Effective implementation of this legislation by states can result in positive outcomes if child welfare professionals work proactively to provide services and supports to children, birth parents, and relatives to preserve families and to facilitate family reunification for children who are currently in out-of-home care. This legislation is about maintaining connections of children and families rather than terminating these connections and can be viewed as a positive effort to decrease the disproportionate number of children of color who are removed from the care of their birth families and placed in the child welfare system.
THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES IMPROVEMENT AND INNOVATION ACT OF 2011
On September 30, 2011, President Obama signed into law the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act (Pub. L. No. 112–341). This law requires states to develop protocols and monitor the use of psychotropic drugs for children in foster care. According to Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA), “This new provision in the law will better protect this vulnerable population from medications that may be harmful to them, especially medications that could have extremely harmful effects” (2011, 1). This law strengthened provisions in the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 that mandated states to develop a health coordination plan for children in foster care and oversee prescription drugs.
The Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act authorized extended funding for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program for five years—i.e., from 2012 through 2016. The services provided via this program will make a difference in the lives of many children of color who are disproportionately represented in the child welfare system, especially through the family support services. Among the purposes of family support services are the following: strengthening and stabilizing families, improving parenting skills, promoting child safety and well-being, and enhancing child development. This law mandates that states spend no less than 90 percent of federal funding received for children and their families in the following service areas: (a) family support, (b) family preservation, (c) time-limited reunification, and (d) adoption promotion and support. As noted throughout this chapter, research has demonstrated that children of color have longer stays in out-of-home care when compared to their white counterparts (Harris & Skyles 2005, 2008; Harris & Hackett 2008). The revised definition of “time-limited family reunification services” is intended to impact children of color in a positive way and reduce their long stays in out-of-home care.
These are services and activities intended to safely permit a child and his/her parent(s) to be reunited within the first 15 months after the child was removed from the parent’s home and placed in foster care. The services and activities are now stipulated as counseling, substance abuse treatment, assistance to address domestic violence, services to provide temporary child care, and transportation to and from any of these services. The new measure adds the following to these activities: peer-to-peer mentoring, support groups for parents and primary caregivers, and services and activities aimed at facilitating visits and other connections between children in foster care and their parents and siblings.
(Stoltzfus 2011, 3)
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services received reauthorization to grant waivers to states that want to develop and implement new programs for the purpose of improving services to children in the care and custody of the child welfare system. It is hoped that all children involved in the child welfare system, especially the disproportionate number of children of color, will have improved outcomes as a result of these new and innovative programs. This law also requires states to have policies and procedures to ensure that children in the foster care system are visited by their caseworkers once each month and provides that most of these visits should occur in the homes where the children are placed during their time in out-of-home care. These visits will allow child welfare caseworkers the opportunity to interact with, observe, and assess these children in their home environments.
REFERENCES
American Association of Family and Consumer Services. (2013). Child care for the 21st century. Alexandria, VA: Author.
Association of Junior Leagues. (1987). Highlights of the women to women survey: Findings from 38 communities in the U.S. and Mexico. New York, NY: Author.
Barth, R. P., & Berry, M. (1990). A decade later: Outcome of permanency planning. In The North American Council on Adoptable Children (Ed.), The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980: The first ten years. St. Paul, MN: The North American Council on Adoptable Children.
Barth, R. P., Courtney, M. E., Berrick, J. D., & Albert, V. (1994). From child abuse to permanency planning: Child welfare services, pathways and placements. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Bass, S., Shields, M. K., & Behrman, R. E. (2004). Children, families, and foster care: Analysis and recommendations. The Future of Children, 14(1), 5–29.
Besharov, D. (1986). The vulnerable social worker. Children Today, 15(5), 34–37.
Bowser, B. P., & Jones, T. (2004). Understanding the over-representation of African Americans in the child welfare system. Hayward Hills, CA: Urban Institute at California State University.
Center for Law and Social Policy. (2008). Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act will improve outcomes for children and youth in foster care. Washington, DC: Author.
Child Welfare League of America. (1997). Summary of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. Washington, DC: Author.
Child Welfare League of America. (2001). Alcohol, other drugs, and child welfare. Washington, DC: Author.
Courtney, M., Pilliavin, I., Dworsky, A., & Zinn, A. (2001, November). Involvement of TANF families with child welfare services. Paper presented at the Association of Public Analysis and Management Research Meeting, Washington, DC.
Crofoot, T. L., & Harris, M. S. (2012). An Indian child welfare perspective on disproportionality in child welfare. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 1667–1674.
Emlen, A., Lahti, J., Downs, G., McKay, A., & Downs, S. (1978). Overcoming barriers to planning for children in foster care. Portland, OR: Portland State University, Regional Research Institute for Human Services.
Fanschel, D. (1981). Decision-making under uncertainty: Foster care for abused or neglected children. American Journal of Public Health, 71(7), 685–686.
Fanschel, D. (1982). On the road to permanency: An expanded data base for service to children in foster care. New York, NY: Child Welfare League of America.
Fluke, J. D., Yuan, Y. Y., Hedderson, T., & Curtis, P. A. (2003). Disproportionate representation of race and ethnicity in child maltreatment: Investigation and victimization. Children and Youth Services Review, 25, 359–373.
Geen, R., & Boots, W. (1997). The impact of welfare reform on child welfare financing. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Gleeson, J. P., & Craig, L. C. (1994). Kinship care in child welfare: An analysis of states’ policies. Children and Youth Services Review, 16(1/2), 7–31.
Goerge, R. M. (1990). The reunification process in substitute care. Social Service Review, 64(3), 422–457.
Harris, M. S. (1999). Kinship care: Reunification vs. remaining in care. In J. P. Gleeson & C. F. Hairston (Eds.), Kinship care: Improving practice through research (pp. 145–166). Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.
Harris, M. S. (2004). Best practices in kinship care for African American mothers and their children. In J. E. Everett, S. P. Chipungu, & B. R. Leashore (Eds.), Child welfare revisited: An Africentric perspective (pp. 156–168). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Harris, M. S. (2011). Adult attachment typology in a sample of high-risk mothers. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 81(1), 41–61.
Harris, M. S., & Courtney, M. E. (2003). The interaction of race, ethnicity, and family structure with respect to the timing of family reunification. Children and Youth Services Review, 25(5/6), 409–429.
Harris, M. S., & Hackett, W. (2008). Decision points in child welfare: An action research model to address disproportionality. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(2), 199–215.
Harris, M. S., & Skyles, A. (2005). Working with African American children and families in the child welfare system. In K. L. Barrett & W. F. George (Eds.), Race, culture, psychology and law (pp. 91–103). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Harris, M. S., & Skyles, A. (2008). Kinship care for African American children: Disproportionate and disadvantageous. Journal of Family Issues, 29(8), 1013–1030.
Hartman, A. (1993). Introduction: Family reunification in context. In B. Pine, R. Warsh, & A. Maluccio (Eds.), Together again: Family reunification in foster care (pp. xv–xxii). Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.
Hill, R. B. (2004). Institutional racism in child welfare. In J. E. Everett, S. P. Chipungu, & B. R. Leashore (Eds.), Child welfare revisited: An Africentric perspective (pp. 57–76). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Hubbell, R. (1981). Foster care and families: Conflicting values and policies. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Institute of Applied Research. (2004). Minnesota alternative response evaluation: Select interim evaluation findings. Retrieved from http://www.arstl.org
Johnson, E. P., Clark, S., Donals, M., Pedersen, R., & Pichott, C. (2007). Racial disparity in Minnesota child protection system. Child Welfare, 86, 7–17.
King County Coalition on Racial Disproportionality. (2004). Racial disproportionality in the child welfare system in King County, Washington. Seattle, WA: Author.
Kusserow, R. P. (1992). Using relatives for foster care (OEI-06–90–02390). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General.
Lemon, K., D’Andrade, A., & Austin, M. (2005). Understanding and addressing disproportionality in the front end of the child welfare system. Berkeley, CA: Bay Area Social Services Consortium.
Maluccio, A. (1981). Casework with parents of children in foster care. In P. Sinanoglu & A. Maluccio (Eds.), Parents of children in placement: Perspectives and programs (pp. 15–31). New York, NY: Child Welfare League of America.
Minkler, M., & Fuller-Thomson, E. (1999). The health of grandparents raising grandchildren: Results of a national study. American Journal of Public Health, 89, 1384–1389.
National Conference of State Legislators. (2010). Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) Reauthorization Act of 2010. Washington, DC: Author.
Needell, B., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Brookhart, A., & Lee, S. (1999). Transitions from AFDC to child welfare in California. Children and Youth Services Review, 21(9/10), 815–841.
Nelson-Zlupko, L., Kaufman, E., & Dore, M. M. (1995). Gender differences in drug addiction and treatment: Implications for social work intervention with substance-abusing women. Social Work, 40(1), 45–54.
Olsen. L. (1982). Services for minority children in out-of-home care. Social Services Review, 56, 572–585.
Paxson, C., & Waldfogel, J. (2002). Work, welfare, and child maltreatment. Journal of Labor Economics, 20(3), 435–474.
Peterson, J., Song, X., & Jones-DeWeever, A. (2002). Life after welfare reform: Low-income single parent families, pre- and post-TANF. (#D446, Research-In-Brief). Washington, DC: Institute for Women’s Policy Research.
Prevent Child Abuse America. (2005). Fact sheet: The relationship between parental alcohol or other drug problems and child maltreatment. Chicago, IL: Author.
Roberts, D. E. (2002). Racial disproportionality in the U.S. child welfare system: Documentation, research on causes, and promising practices. Baltimore, MD: The Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Ross, M. E. T., & Alday, L. A. (2006). Stress and coping in African American grandparents who are raising their grandchildren. Journal of Family Issues, 27(7), 912–932.
Stein, T. J., Gambrill, E. D., & Wiltse, K. T. (1978). Children in foster homes: Achieving continuity of care. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Stoltzfus, E. (2011). Child welfare: The Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act (P. L. 112–34). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
Tatara, T. (1994). Some additional explanations for the recent rise in the U.S. child substitute care population: An analysis of national child care flow data and future research questions. In R. Barth, J. D. Berrick, & N. Gilbert (Eds.), Child welfare research review (Vol. 1, pp. 126–145). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Testa, M. F. (1992). Conditions of risk for substitute care. Children and Youth Services Review, 14, 27–36.
Testa, M. F. (1993). Home of relative (HMR) program in Illinois: Interim report (Revised). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, School of Social Service Administration.
Turner, J. (1984). Reuniting children in foster care with their biological parents. Social Work, 29(6), 501–505.
Urban Institute. (2001). Kinship care: Prevalence, benefits, challenges. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1994). A guide to the Multiethnic Placement Act as amended by the Interethnic Adoption Provisions of 1996. Washington, DC: Administration for Children and Families.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1997). Study of protective, preventive and reunification services delivered to children and their families. Washington, DC: Children’s Bureau.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1999). Blending perspectives and building common ground: A report to Congress on substance abuse and child protection. Washington, DC: Administration for Children and Families.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000a). Report to Congress on kinship foster care. Washington, DC: Children’s Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, Administration for Children and Families.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000b). Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program: Third annual report to Congress. Washington, DC: Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families. (2009). Child maltreatment 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Government Accounting Office. (2005). Indian Child Welfare Act: Information on implementation issues could be used to target guidance and assistance to states. Washington, DC: Author.
Washington State Racial Disproportionality Advisory Committee. (2008). Racial disproportionality in Washington state. Olympia, WA: Author.
Wulczyn, F. H., & Goerge, R. M. (1992). Foster care in New York and Illinois: The challenge of rapid change. Social Service Review, 66(2), 278–294.