The Families First Prevention Services Act of 2016 (H. R. 5456) is currently before the United States Senate where it is has remained on hold from debate on the Senate floor. The legislation, touted by advocates as being the "most substantial piece of child welfare legislation in the last 10 year", provides federal funding for up to twelve months to families providing care for a child in a child welfare case involving a county department of social services. According to a memorandum from the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee, these compensated services, aimed at preventing a child from entering foster care, include mental health services, substance abuse services, and in-home parent "skill-based programs which contemplate parent training, home visits and individual and family therapy so long as they classify as "promising", "supported", or "well-supported" as defined by the California Evidence Based Clearinghouse and as codified in the proposed legislation.
The legislation passed without opposition in the House of Representatives and was being co-sponsored in the Senate by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), initially as part of the 21st Century Cures Act, a mental health funding bill which would provide money to extend health insurance coverage. Unlike the situation in the House, however, significant opposition has materialized in the Senate lead by opposition groups in California, North Carolina and New York. In an letter addressed to Senators Charles Schumer (D-New York) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York), the New York Public Welfare Association indicated that it ". . . STRONGLY OPPOSES H.R. 5456, as it will greatly impact the ability of New York State and its 58 county-run, local departments of social services (DSS) to best serve foster children,” Furthermore, the letter states that the legislation ". . . represents a major unfunded mandate on state and local child welfare systems which must absorb the loss of federal Title IV-E funding — as well as the costs associated with the bill’s added administrative requirements."
Currently, the bill, which had been stripped from the 21st Century Cures Act, remains in jeopardy, perhaps a good thing given its implications for Federal IV-E funding as written.
While certainly no one is opposed to having fewer children in foster care, the bill seeks to accomplish this by denying compensation of what sponsors deem "inappropriate group home placements." The proposed legislation targets child[ren] who [are] a candidate for foster care, meaning that they are at imminent risk of entering foster care but who can remain safely in their home or kinship placement as long as appropriate services or programs that are necessary to prevent the entry of the child into foster care are provided. The crux of the problem is that many children fit this definition who are initially placed in family or kinship placements. Due to a number of factors, including intra-family dynamics, the patience and skill set of the placement providers, and the behavior of the children in the home, a placement will disrupt because the collective tensions between the children and the provider get the better of the situation. While assistance and support from outside agencies can help, these measures are not a cure-all. County social services agencies could likely confront the horns of a dilemma: under this legislation, an agency may be forced to choose between receiving federal funding for ineffective programs and services or placing the child in a group home, which, while more conducive toward a child's welfare, nevertheless must be done without the prospect of receiving any federal IV-E funding.
Secondarily, while it certainly is a good idea to provide the best services to families in order to prevent children from entering foster care, the question arises as to whether smaller communities with few mental health and substance abuse prevention providers are going to be able to satisfy the stringent threshold requirements for federal compensation by being able to access a "promising", supported" or "well-supported".
Finally, the legislation, as currently written, requires each State to have non-family settings assessed on a continuing basis as a prerequisite to continued federal funding. Current child welfare legislation, such as that in the State of North Carolina, require a judicial official to be advised of the placement of a child in foster care and the court is charged with evaluating the appropriateness of the same. However, if the Family First Prevention Services Act of 2016 were to pass, it would create another level of bureaucracy which independently would determine whether a placement is meeting a child's needs. This dual assessment could lead to conflict between the State and its county departments of social services when funding is declined. More significantly, it could escalate to an even more egregious problem if the State's decision is at odds with a judge in authority over a juvenile's case.
No comments:
Post a Comment