THE FIELD CENTER
for Children's Policy, Practice & Research

Field Center Editorials

Richard J. Gelles, PhD, Dean, Penn School of Social Policy & Practice
November 2007

The following is an excerpt of testimony presented by Field Center Faculty Director Richard J. Gelles, Dean of the University of Pennsylvania School of Social Policy & Practice and Joanne and Raymond Welsh Chair of Child Welfare and Family Violence, before the Pennsylvania Senate Democratic Policy Committee on November 14, 2007.

This is a significant week in the history of child welfare and child welfare policy in the United States. Ten years ago this week, the United State Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-89) made child safety and permanency the paramount goals of the child welfare system.

The impact of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 has been an increase in yearly adoptions from 20,000 per year to more than 51,000 in 2005. The median length of time children stay in foster care has dropped from 20 months in 1999 to 15.5 months in 2005, while the percentage of children remaining on foster care for five years or longer has dropped from 17 percent in 1999 to 14 percent in 2005. The number of children of children in foster care dropped from 581,000 in 1999 to 514,000 in 2005—(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2007). The changes for the Pennsylvania were:

Despite these improvements in the foster care system in the last 10 years, it is still true that the nation’s child welfare systems are in trouble. It is particularly significant to focus on “systems” because there is not one, single child welfare system in the United States, there are hundreds. Pennsylvania is a county-based system and thus has 67 systems.

Rethinking and Reforming the System

The time has come for new solutions.

First, it’s about Children

Legislative changes and system reforms must focus on “children” as the clients. Philadelphia is now beginning the process of initiating a program called “Family Group Decision Making.” While there are scant data that speak to the effectiveness of this program, it does hold the potential of better engaging families in the case planning process. However, there is no evidence that Family Group Decision Making actually improves the safety and well-being of children.

The lack of focus on children as the clients is evident in state’s legal definitions eligibility for Title IV E Placement Maintenance (55 Pa. Code §3140.112). Children in foster care who are eligible for Title IV E placement maintenance funds lose that eligibility when they turn 18 or 19 if they are in school. This means that when foster children reach the age of 18 or 19, they are “emancipated” and their foster families no longer receive federal and state support. While counties can file for “board extensions,” the idea that children who grow up in foster care are ready to live adult lives at age 18, is unrealistic. Emancipated foster children are at high risk for welfare dependency, homelessness, substance abuse, and crime. While there would be cost to extending children’s foster care board eligibility to age 18, this cost would in all likelihood be offset by welfare and criminal justice savings.

Conclusion

Given that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has a county-based child welfare system, there are limits on what the legislature can do to address system failings. Nonetheless, there are specific legislative initiatives and leadership initiatives that can be examined.

These initiatives include:

1. Raising the age of Title IV E maintenance eligibility to 21.
2. Examine the Pennsylvania Code and consolidate statutes and regulations pertaining to dependent children.
3. Urge the Department of Public Welfare to provide leadership with regard to:
   1. Child welfare workforce issues
   2. Child welfare decision-making, specifically the issue of adequate risk assessment.
   3. Monitoring of dependent children, specifically implementing a statewide, linked data base that includes child welfare, criminal justice, and welfare data.
4. Examine alternatives to foster care placements, including consideration of residential education facilities and the elimination of placing dependent children in out-of-state institutional facilities.