- Email: [email protected]
The current threat to protective services and the child welfare system
Pergamon
Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 567-574, 1995 Copyrip8 1995 Elsevia Science Ltd F’rinted in the USA. AU rights resewed 0190-7409m $9.50 + .oo
0190-7409(95)ooo39-9
The Current Threat to Protective Services and the Child Welfare System William Meezan University of Southern California Jeanne Giovannoni University of California, Los Angeles This article describes the Personal Responsibility Act (HR 4) as passed by the United States House of Representatives and considered by the Senate. Unless HR 4 is radically altered the potential effects for child protection and the entire child welfare system could be catastrophic. The demands for child welfare services are predicated to increases, while, at the same time, the existing resources and service quality control mechanisms will be drastically diminished. Since the elections of 1994, there has been a marked shift in the direction of social policy in general and policy affecting families and children in particular. While some of the proposals for change have received bi-partisan support and are responsive to long held concerns, others, if passed into law and implemented, will have devastating affects on families and will, undoubtedly, lead to a further overburdening of the child welfare system. In fact, if proposals passed by the House of Representatives within the Personality Responsibility Act of 1995 (HR 4) and considered by the Senate are enacted into law, the country may see a dismantling of not just specific child welfare programs but of the entire philosophy which has developed over the last few decades to guide the development of family and children’s services. Increasing Demand for Child Werfare Services HR 4 consists of seven Titles, most of which would impact the lives of poor families and their children. It would convert AFDC, the JOBS proRequests for reprints should be addressed to William Meezan, School of Social Work, University of Southern California, MRS 214-University Park, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0411 USA [[email protected]].
567
568
Meezan and Giovannoni
gram, and the Emergency Assistance Program into a capped block grant. This legislation would prohibit the use of federal funds to provide cash assistance to families who have received AFDC for five years cumulatively; most non-citizens; minor mothers with children born out-of-wedlock; and children born to parents on AFDC. It is estimated that over five years, $11.4 billion would be cut from the federal budget for cash assistance program for poor families, and that these changes would impact over 5.6 million children.’ The bill would also block grant three major child care programs and four discretionary child care programs. This new program would be a discretionary authorization, subject to appropriation. States would not longer be required to guarantee child care to AFDC recipients who need it to participate in school, training, or work. It is estimated that over five years, $1.6 billion in federal child care funds would be lost to states, and that in the last year of its authorization over 320,000 children currently assisted through federal child care would no longer be eligible for participation. HR 4 would also significantly affect nutrition assistance available to families by block granting funds. Over five years, $6.6 billion of federal assistance would be lost to nutrition programs. Further, the food stamp program would become a capped entitlement, and other food programs and commodity distribution programs would be block granted, resulting in over a $23 billion loss in the areas of food and nutrition. The Act would also narrow the eligibility requirements for SSI and would severely limit the number of children who could receive benefits. It has been estimated that of the approximately 900,000 children with disabilities on the SSI roles in 1994, over 700,000 would lose cash benefits. It has been further estimated that 150,000 of these children would no longer be eligible to receive medicaid. SSI reforms proposed in HR 4 would reduce 1. Material in this section is taken from a number of sources, including Burke, V. et. al., (April 5, 1995) Werfare reform: The House passed Bill (HR 4). Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress.; Child Welfare League of America (April 3, 1995). Alert update: U.S. House of Representatives approves HR 4 dismantling system of protection for abused and neglected children. Washington DC: Author.; Congressional Budget Office (March 31, 1995). Cost estimate: The personal responsibility act of 1995. Washington DC: Author.; Department of Health and Human Services/ Department of Agriculture (April 7, 1995). HR 4: The personal responsibility act of 1995: Preliminary impacts, summary and state-by-state analysis. Washington DC: Author.; Robinson, D.H. & Spar, K. (May 3, 1995). Child welfnre, child abuse and related issues in the 104th Congress. Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress. Citations to specific reports are not given in this section since much of the information in these publications is duplicative. However, because these reports use different sources and projections to estimate budget impacts, the estimates of the budgetary impacts of the various program changes and the numbers of people who would be affected by them should be seen as approximations.
Legislative Threat to Child Welfare
569
the spending for this program by $13.4 billion over five years. Clearly, such drastic changes would have an enormous impact on the child welfare system. By reducing income, food and child care programs, and eliminating many poor families from benefits under these programs, their ability to cope with other pressures in the environment would decrease. This, undoubtedly, would lead to increases in child abuse, neglect, and abandonment. Dismantling Child Welfare as We Know It With critical basic supports removed from families, one might expect increased support and funding for the child welfare system. Unfortunately, HR 4 also dismantles the child welfare and protective service systems directly. Title II of the Personal Responsibility Act creates a Child Protection Block Grant (CPBG) that would consolidate 23 child welfare and child abuse programs into a single block grant. 2 It would allow states to use federal funds for activities similar to those conducted under these programs, but would not require them to do so. Thus, children in foster care and special needs children in adoptive homes will no longer be guaranteed support. This block grant would be authorized for five years as a capped entitlement to states, starting at $3.9 in FY 1996 and rising to $5.1 billion in FY 2000. An additional $486 million is authorized annually but is subject to appropriation. Based on various estimates, the above sums represent a reduction of between $2.9 billion and $3.5 billion over a five year period on the nation’s most vulnerable children. However, spending on child welfare programs could be reduced even further by the states. During the first two years of the CPBG, states would have to maintain their current level of nonfederal spending for child welfare programs; after this period, no state matching funds would be required. Thus, states would be allowed to reduce or eliminate their own financing for child protection and child welfare services. Further, after two years, states are allowed to transfer up to 30% of their CPBG funds to other block grant programs. Since the CPBG is a capped entitlement which makes no provision for changes in the economy or the social situation of children (e.g. the crack and AIDS epidemic of the 1980’s), the results of this legislation may have 2. Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance; Title IV-B Child Welfare Services, Research and Demonstration, and Training; Title IV-B Family Preservation and Support Services; Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act State Discretionary and Community Based Family Resource Grant Programs; McKinney Act Family Support Centers; Crisis Nurseries; Abandoned Infants Programs; Adoption Opportunities Programs; HUD Family Unification Programs; Missing and Exploited Children’s Programs; Child Advocacy Centers; and the Investigation and Persecution of Child Abuse programs.
570
Meezan and Giovannoni
an even more significant fiscal impact on programs designed to care for atrisk children. It has been estimated that had this block grant been enacted in 1990 (using 1988 levels of funding) states would have received 49% less funding in 1994 than they received under current law. The CPBG sets a child protection standard as the primary criteria under which state child welfare systems would be judged. To receive allocations, each state must submit a plan every three years certifying that it had a law requiring the reporting of child abuse and neglect and a program to investigate such reports promptly (no intervention requirement is specified). In addition, children removed from their home must have a permanency plan and a dispositional hearing within three months of a fact-finding hearing, and children in out-of-home care must be reviewed every six months unless they are in a long-term placement. Finally, states must submit annual reports containing some basic child welfare statistics. States receiving block grant funds would have to establish at least three citizen review panels whose members would be representative of the community. These panels are required to meet at least quarterly in order to review child welfare cases to determine if the state is acting in accordance with its stated plan and the “protection standard.” Under the proposed law, the Secretary of HHS would administer the block grant and determine whether it contained the required information. However, the Secretary could not require additional information to be included in the plan or review the adequacy of the procedures established to meet the federal mandate. Beyond some minor penalty provisions, the HHS Secretary is be prohibited from regulating the conduct of the state or enforcing any provision of the legislation. Thus, penalties cannot be imposed for any abuses in the quality of care provided to children. Not only would the CPBG reduce funding for an already overburdened child protective system and all but eliminate federal oversight of child welfare programs, but many of the provisions of previous legislation, which helped to shape its current philosophical orientation and move it (albeit slowly) toward a more family-centered, ethnic sensitive, prevention-oriented system, would be eliminated. Current federal child welfare laws, which provide immunity for people who report child abuse and neglect, require “reasonable efforts” to be made to keep children with their families, provide for state planning and multi-system coordination of services, mandate reunification services, provide procedural and legal safeguards for parents and children who are separated from each other (including protections through federal court), require placement in the least restrictive environment, ensure confidentiality of information, guarantee adoption subsidies, and provide for the development of training plans for child welfare staff and foster parents, would all be repealed. In addition, the CPBG would repeal
Legislative Threat to Child Welfare
571
the current federal law which allows states to consider the cultural, ethnic and racial background of the child and the capacity of prospective foster or adoptive parents to meet the needs of a child of this background (as long as it does not delay or deny placement) as one factor in a placement decision. The Potential Effects of the CPBG Despite claims that the CPBG would eliminate complexity and redtape, increase flexibility in the design of their child welfare systems, eliminate multiple funding streams, allow for comprehensive planning in child welfare services, keep key features of the child welfare system intact, remove cumbersome mandates and regulations, control federal spending, save significant administrative costs, and allow transfer of funds from other block grants to the CPBG should it be necessary to meet child welfare needs, child advocates around the nation have called for the rejection of the CPBG approach. Among the arguments they have made are: (1) federal accountability for the nation’s most vulnerable children and families would be eliminated; (2) non-CPBG provisions in HR 4 would result in a greater demand for child welfare and child protective services, which were already projected to rise significantly, without providing additional funds; (3) no increased resources would be provided if economic trends and societal conditions worsen or demographic patterns change; (4) transfer of funds from the CPBG to other block grants and the lack of provisions requiring states to maintain their fiscal commitments to child welfare programs would allow funds to be diverted to other areas; (5) the child welfare system would become much more residual, since out-of-home care would consume most of the money available through CPBG and leave few resources for the provision of services in protective cases, for the development of family support, prevention, and family preservation services, for reunification services, for services which prepare youth for independent living, or for adoption services; (6) overburdened CPS systems would have to further constrict demand by narrowing the number of reports which are deemed appropriate for investigation; (7) sufficient funds to ensure foster care placements for children needing them and for adoption assistance payments to encourage the development of permanent homes for children who cannot return to their biological families are not guaranteed; (8) the quality of care provided to children and their families would be severely curtailed due to the elimination of funding for training and licensing and the inability to raise already inadequate foster care payments and adoption subsidies; (9) procedural safeguards would be almost totally eliminated, leaving children and families more vulnerable to potential abuse within the system.
572
Meezan and Giovannoni
One would expect such arguments from advocates and others with a stake in maintaining the current system. The issue becomes whether such arguments are reasonable in light of current knowledge about the impacts of block grants on service programs for children. Although it reflects experiences with the effects of different block grants and different program areas, a study by Kimmich (1985) can shed light on what might be expected if HR 4 is enacted into law. She reported on the effects of the block granting which took place as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 on social services for families and children. She notes that as a result of this law, crisis services were provided before preventive services; that retention of services for the most needy came at the expense of those more marginally in need; that programs limited access by increasing eligibility standards; that state funds could not replace lost federal funds; that children’s social service agencies were the least able to recover from the changes in the law than any other group of agencies which served children; that state costs were passed along, in advance, to local governments, leading to uneven program coverage and qualitatively different programs between local govemment units; that local cost reductions often meant reductions in staff or staff qualifications and increases in caseload; that non-profit organizations could not compensate for the loss of public monies for service and often resorted to increased service fees; and that reduced levels of government-provided services led to an increased demand in the non-profit sector. Recent reports from two states show that the pattern reported by Kimmich may already be repeating itself. There are proposals to shift all child welfare costs to the counties in California in exchange for a .2215 cent passthrough of the state sales tax, which will not offset current costs. At the same time, there is a proposal to leave standard setting, except in the area of training, to the counties (San Francisco Department of Social Services, 1995). In New York, Governor Pataki’s proposed budget consolidates child welfare functions into a block grant for counties, which reduces state spending by 21% for children’s services. This block grant proposal lifts regulations which ensure uniform state standards for the investigation of abuse and neglect reports, the assessment of families, and the provision of preventive services. It also eliminates the mandate for discrete child protective services units. At the local level in New York City, Mayor Giulaini has incorporated the state initiative into his budget proposal by reducing funds for child welfare services by over $200 million, $75 million of which are state funds. These reductions includes a 50% cut in preventive services, elimination of the independent living program, elimination of family planning services to adolescents in foster care. They also would raise caseloads for workers and reduce payments to foster parents (Citizens Committee for Children, n.d.; Public Advocate for the City of New York, n.d.).
Legislative Threat to Child Welfare
573
Conclusions It appears that current proposals before the Congress will do serious harm to the child welfare system and to the families and children it serves. Efforts to block grant child welfare services and to restrict the provision of basic necessities to poor families will, it appears, result in greater demand for child protective and child welfare services; provide less funding for such services; further restrict access to services; eliminate or greatly curtail preventive, family support and family preservation services; diminish the quality of care provided; increase the potential for abuses within the system; and eliminate planning requirements. Unless states are willing to make up lost funding and maintain current standards, which already appears to be unlikely, countless numbers of children will be put in jeopardy of being left in dangerous situations without appropriate services. There may also be unnecessary removal of children from their homes, placements in inappropriate facilities, the exacerbation of foster care “drift,” fewer family reunifications and adoptions, and little preparation of youths for life as productive adult citizens. This sounds like the discredited child welfare system that existed in this country more than 40 years ago, except for the fact that more children will now be affected. The standard by which child welfare services will be judged will fall back to child protection, while the focus on prevention will be lost. Child advocates are currently lobbying the Senate for changes in the provision of the CPBG. Some have argued for the retention of the Foster Care and Adoption Assistance program outside of any program consolidation, the provision of enforceable protections, and the establishment of a revised CPBG for activities to prevent and treat child abuse and neglect (Children’s Defense Fund, 1995). Others have called for the establishment of a separate block grant for the development of preventive, family resource and family support programs. While such proposals may help to eliminate some of the most noxious elements of the current proposal, they do little to address the current resource deficits in the child protective service systemdeficits which reduce agencies’ abilities to serve families and protect children. We close with a plea for action. It would be unfortunate if we wait and react to the effects of the current Child Protection Block Grant proposal. If we do, we will find ourselves abandoning the field of child welfare because of the untenable situation that children, families, workers and administrators will have to face in their daily lives.
Meezan and Giovannoni
574
References Children’s Defense Fund. (April 25, 1995). What is the child protection block grant and how will it endanger children? Washington Citizens Committee
D.C., Author.
for Children of New York (n.d.). Kids first, New York: A bud-
get for New York City children. New York: Author. Kimmich,
M.H. (1985). America’s children who cares?: Growing needs and declin-
ing assistance in the Reagan era. Washington
DC: The Urban Institute Press.
Public Advocate for the City of New York (n.d.). Legislative proposals, budget cuts and their impact on child welfare services. New York: Author. San Francisco
Department
of Social Services (March 20, 1995). Transferring the
burden ignoring the impact: The impact of federal and state welfare reform on San Francisco, its children, families and the poor. San Francisco: Author. Spar, K. (1995). We lfare reform: Implications of H.R. 4 for child welfare services. Washington
DC: Congressional
Research Service, Library of Congress.
Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 567-574, 1995 Copyrip8 1995 Elsevia Science Ltd F’rinted in the USA. AU rights resewed 0190-7409m $9.50 + .oo
0190-7409(95)ooo39-9
The Current Threat to Protective Services and the Child Welfare System William Meezan University of Southern California Jeanne Giovannoni University of California, Los Angeles This article describes the Personal Responsibility Act (HR 4) as passed by the United States House of Representatives and considered by the Senate. Unless HR 4 is radically altered the potential effects for child protection and the entire child welfare system could be catastrophic. The demands for child welfare services are predicated to increases, while, at the same time, the existing resources and service quality control mechanisms will be drastically diminished. Since the elections of 1994, there has been a marked shift in the direction of social policy in general and policy affecting families and children in particular. While some of the proposals for change have received bi-partisan support and are responsive to long held concerns, others, if passed into law and implemented, will have devastating affects on families and will, undoubtedly, lead to a further overburdening of the child welfare system. In fact, if proposals passed by the House of Representatives within the Personality Responsibility Act of 1995 (HR 4) and considered by the Senate are enacted into law, the country may see a dismantling of not just specific child welfare programs but of the entire philosophy which has developed over the last few decades to guide the development of family and children’s services. Increasing Demand for Child Werfare Services HR 4 consists of seven Titles, most of which would impact the lives of poor families and their children. It would convert AFDC, the JOBS proRequests for reprints should be addressed to William Meezan, School of Social Work, University of Southern California, MRS 214-University Park, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0411 USA [[email protected]].
567
568
Meezan and Giovannoni
gram, and the Emergency Assistance Program into a capped block grant. This legislation would prohibit the use of federal funds to provide cash assistance to families who have received AFDC for five years cumulatively; most non-citizens; minor mothers with children born out-of-wedlock; and children born to parents on AFDC. It is estimated that over five years, $11.4 billion would be cut from the federal budget for cash assistance program for poor families, and that these changes would impact over 5.6 million children.’ The bill would also block grant three major child care programs and four discretionary child care programs. This new program would be a discretionary authorization, subject to appropriation. States would not longer be required to guarantee child care to AFDC recipients who need it to participate in school, training, or work. It is estimated that over five years, $1.6 billion in federal child care funds would be lost to states, and that in the last year of its authorization over 320,000 children currently assisted through federal child care would no longer be eligible for participation. HR 4 would also significantly affect nutrition assistance available to families by block granting funds. Over five years, $6.6 billion of federal assistance would be lost to nutrition programs. Further, the food stamp program would become a capped entitlement, and other food programs and commodity distribution programs would be block granted, resulting in over a $23 billion loss in the areas of food and nutrition. The Act would also narrow the eligibility requirements for SSI and would severely limit the number of children who could receive benefits. It has been estimated that of the approximately 900,000 children with disabilities on the SSI roles in 1994, over 700,000 would lose cash benefits. It has been further estimated that 150,000 of these children would no longer be eligible to receive medicaid. SSI reforms proposed in HR 4 would reduce 1. Material in this section is taken from a number of sources, including Burke, V. et. al., (April 5, 1995) Werfare reform: The House passed Bill (HR 4). Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress.; Child Welfare League of America (April 3, 1995). Alert update: U.S. House of Representatives approves HR 4 dismantling system of protection for abused and neglected children. Washington DC: Author.; Congressional Budget Office (March 31, 1995). Cost estimate: The personal responsibility act of 1995. Washington DC: Author.; Department of Health and Human Services/ Department of Agriculture (April 7, 1995). HR 4: The personal responsibility act of 1995: Preliminary impacts, summary and state-by-state analysis. Washington DC: Author.; Robinson, D.H. & Spar, K. (May 3, 1995). Child welfnre, child abuse and related issues in the 104th Congress. Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress. Citations to specific reports are not given in this section since much of the information in these publications is duplicative. However, because these reports use different sources and projections to estimate budget impacts, the estimates of the budgetary impacts of the various program changes and the numbers of people who would be affected by them should be seen as approximations.
Legislative Threat to Child Welfare
569
the spending for this program by $13.4 billion over five years. Clearly, such drastic changes would have an enormous impact on the child welfare system. By reducing income, food and child care programs, and eliminating many poor families from benefits under these programs, their ability to cope with other pressures in the environment would decrease. This, undoubtedly, would lead to increases in child abuse, neglect, and abandonment. Dismantling Child Welfare as We Know It With critical basic supports removed from families, one might expect increased support and funding for the child welfare system. Unfortunately, HR 4 also dismantles the child welfare and protective service systems directly. Title II of the Personal Responsibility Act creates a Child Protection Block Grant (CPBG) that would consolidate 23 child welfare and child abuse programs into a single block grant. 2 It would allow states to use federal funds for activities similar to those conducted under these programs, but would not require them to do so. Thus, children in foster care and special needs children in adoptive homes will no longer be guaranteed support. This block grant would be authorized for five years as a capped entitlement to states, starting at $3.9 in FY 1996 and rising to $5.1 billion in FY 2000. An additional $486 million is authorized annually but is subject to appropriation. Based on various estimates, the above sums represent a reduction of between $2.9 billion and $3.5 billion over a five year period on the nation’s most vulnerable children. However, spending on child welfare programs could be reduced even further by the states. During the first two years of the CPBG, states would have to maintain their current level of nonfederal spending for child welfare programs; after this period, no state matching funds would be required. Thus, states would be allowed to reduce or eliminate their own financing for child protection and child welfare services. Further, after two years, states are allowed to transfer up to 30% of their CPBG funds to other block grant programs. Since the CPBG is a capped entitlement which makes no provision for changes in the economy or the social situation of children (e.g. the crack and AIDS epidemic of the 1980’s), the results of this legislation may have 2. Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance; Title IV-B Child Welfare Services, Research and Demonstration, and Training; Title IV-B Family Preservation and Support Services; Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act State Discretionary and Community Based Family Resource Grant Programs; McKinney Act Family Support Centers; Crisis Nurseries; Abandoned Infants Programs; Adoption Opportunities Programs; HUD Family Unification Programs; Missing and Exploited Children’s Programs; Child Advocacy Centers; and the Investigation and Persecution of Child Abuse programs.
570
Meezan and Giovannoni
an even more significant fiscal impact on programs designed to care for atrisk children. It has been estimated that had this block grant been enacted in 1990 (using 1988 levels of funding) states would have received 49% less funding in 1994 than they received under current law. The CPBG sets a child protection standard as the primary criteria under which state child welfare systems would be judged. To receive allocations, each state must submit a plan every three years certifying that it had a law requiring the reporting of child abuse and neglect and a program to investigate such reports promptly (no intervention requirement is specified). In addition, children removed from their home must have a permanency plan and a dispositional hearing within three months of a fact-finding hearing, and children in out-of-home care must be reviewed every six months unless they are in a long-term placement. Finally, states must submit annual reports containing some basic child welfare statistics. States receiving block grant funds would have to establish at least three citizen review panels whose members would be representative of the community. These panels are required to meet at least quarterly in order to review child welfare cases to determine if the state is acting in accordance with its stated plan and the “protection standard.” Under the proposed law, the Secretary of HHS would administer the block grant and determine whether it contained the required information. However, the Secretary could not require additional information to be included in the plan or review the adequacy of the procedures established to meet the federal mandate. Beyond some minor penalty provisions, the HHS Secretary is be prohibited from regulating the conduct of the state or enforcing any provision of the legislation. Thus, penalties cannot be imposed for any abuses in the quality of care provided to children. Not only would the CPBG reduce funding for an already overburdened child protective system and all but eliminate federal oversight of child welfare programs, but many of the provisions of previous legislation, which helped to shape its current philosophical orientation and move it (albeit slowly) toward a more family-centered, ethnic sensitive, prevention-oriented system, would be eliminated. Current federal child welfare laws, which provide immunity for people who report child abuse and neglect, require “reasonable efforts” to be made to keep children with their families, provide for state planning and multi-system coordination of services, mandate reunification services, provide procedural and legal safeguards for parents and children who are separated from each other (including protections through federal court), require placement in the least restrictive environment, ensure confidentiality of information, guarantee adoption subsidies, and provide for the development of training plans for child welfare staff and foster parents, would all be repealed. In addition, the CPBG would repeal
Legislative Threat to Child Welfare
571
the current federal law which allows states to consider the cultural, ethnic and racial background of the child and the capacity of prospective foster or adoptive parents to meet the needs of a child of this background (as long as it does not delay or deny placement) as one factor in a placement decision. The Potential Effects of the CPBG Despite claims that the CPBG would eliminate complexity and redtape, increase flexibility in the design of their child welfare systems, eliminate multiple funding streams, allow for comprehensive planning in child welfare services, keep key features of the child welfare system intact, remove cumbersome mandates and regulations, control federal spending, save significant administrative costs, and allow transfer of funds from other block grants to the CPBG should it be necessary to meet child welfare needs, child advocates around the nation have called for the rejection of the CPBG approach. Among the arguments they have made are: (1) federal accountability for the nation’s most vulnerable children and families would be eliminated; (2) non-CPBG provisions in HR 4 would result in a greater demand for child welfare and child protective services, which were already projected to rise significantly, without providing additional funds; (3) no increased resources would be provided if economic trends and societal conditions worsen or demographic patterns change; (4) transfer of funds from the CPBG to other block grants and the lack of provisions requiring states to maintain their fiscal commitments to child welfare programs would allow funds to be diverted to other areas; (5) the child welfare system would become much more residual, since out-of-home care would consume most of the money available through CPBG and leave few resources for the provision of services in protective cases, for the development of family support, prevention, and family preservation services, for reunification services, for services which prepare youth for independent living, or for adoption services; (6) overburdened CPS systems would have to further constrict demand by narrowing the number of reports which are deemed appropriate for investigation; (7) sufficient funds to ensure foster care placements for children needing them and for adoption assistance payments to encourage the development of permanent homes for children who cannot return to their biological families are not guaranteed; (8) the quality of care provided to children and their families would be severely curtailed due to the elimination of funding for training and licensing and the inability to raise already inadequate foster care payments and adoption subsidies; (9) procedural safeguards would be almost totally eliminated, leaving children and families more vulnerable to potential abuse within the system.
572
Meezan and Giovannoni
One would expect such arguments from advocates and others with a stake in maintaining the current system. The issue becomes whether such arguments are reasonable in light of current knowledge about the impacts of block grants on service programs for children. Although it reflects experiences with the effects of different block grants and different program areas, a study by Kimmich (1985) can shed light on what might be expected if HR 4 is enacted into law. She reported on the effects of the block granting which took place as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 on social services for families and children. She notes that as a result of this law, crisis services were provided before preventive services; that retention of services for the most needy came at the expense of those more marginally in need; that programs limited access by increasing eligibility standards; that state funds could not replace lost federal funds; that children’s social service agencies were the least able to recover from the changes in the law than any other group of agencies which served children; that state costs were passed along, in advance, to local governments, leading to uneven program coverage and qualitatively different programs between local govemment units; that local cost reductions often meant reductions in staff or staff qualifications and increases in caseload; that non-profit organizations could not compensate for the loss of public monies for service and often resorted to increased service fees; and that reduced levels of government-provided services led to an increased demand in the non-profit sector. Recent reports from two states show that the pattern reported by Kimmich may already be repeating itself. There are proposals to shift all child welfare costs to the counties in California in exchange for a .2215 cent passthrough of the state sales tax, which will not offset current costs. At the same time, there is a proposal to leave standard setting, except in the area of training, to the counties (San Francisco Department of Social Services, 1995). In New York, Governor Pataki’s proposed budget consolidates child welfare functions into a block grant for counties, which reduces state spending by 21% for children’s services. This block grant proposal lifts regulations which ensure uniform state standards for the investigation of abuse and neglect reports, the assessment of families, and the provision of preventive services. It also eliminates the mandate for discrete child protective services units. At the local level in New York City, Mayor Giulaini has incorporated the state initiative into his budget proposal by reducing funds for child welfare services by over $200 million, $75 million of which are state funds. These reductions includes a 50% cut in preventive services, elimination of the independent living program, elimination of family planning services to adolescents in foster care. They also would raise caseloads for workers and reduce payments to foster parents (Citizens Committee for Children, n.d.; Public Advocate for the City of New York, n.d.).
Legislative Threat to Child Welfare
573
Conclusions It appears that current proposals before the Congress will do serious harm to the child welfare system and to the families and children it serves. Efforts to block grant child welfare services and to restrict the provision of basic necessities to poor families will, it appears, result in greater demand for child protective and child welfare services; provide less funding for such services; further restrict access to services; eliminate or greatly curtail preventive, family support and family preservation services; diminish the quality of care provided; increase the potential for abuses within the system; and eliminate planning requirements. Unless states are willing to make up lost funding and maintain current standards, which already appears to be unlikely, countless numbers of children will be put in jeopardy of being left in dangerous situations without appropriate services. There may also be unnecessary removal of children from their homes, placements in inappropriate facilities, the exacerbation of foster care “drift,” fewer family reunifications and adoptions, and little preparation of youths for life as productive adult citizens. This sounds like the discredited child welfare system that existed in this country more than 40 years ago, except for the fact that more children will now be affected. The standard by which child welfare services will be judged will fall back to child protection, while the focus on prevention will be lost. Child advocates are currently lobbying the Senate for changes in the provision of the CPBG. Some have argued for the retention of the Foster Care and Adoption Assistance program outside of any program consolidation, the provision of enforceable protections, and the establishment of a revised CPBG for activities to prevent and treat child abuse and neglect (Children’s Defense Fund, 1995). Others have called for the establishment of a separate block grant for the development of preventive, family resource and family support programs. While such proposals may help to eliminate some of the most noxious elements of the current proposal, they do little to address the current resource deficits in the child protective service systemdeficits which reduce agencies’ abilities to serve families and protect children. We close with a plea for action. It would be unfortunate if we wait and react to the effects of the current Child Protection Block Grant proposal. If we do, we will find ourselves abandoning the field of child welfare because of the untenable situation that children, families, workers and administrators will have to face in their daily lives.
Meezan and Giovannoni
574
References Children’s Defense Fund. (April 25, 1995). What is the child protection block grant and how will it endanger children? Washington Citizens Committee
D.C., Author.
for Children of New York (n.d.). Kids first, New York: A bud-
get for New York City children. New York: Author. Kimmich,
M.H. (1985). America’s children who cares?: Growing needs and declin-
ing assistance in the Reagan era. Washington
DC: The Urban Institute Press.
Public Advocate for the City of New York (n.d.). Legislative proposals, budget cuts and their impact on child welfare services. New York: Author. San Francisco
Department
of Social Services (March 20, 1995). Transferring the
burden ignoring the impact: The impact of federal and state welfare reform on San Francisco, its children, families and the poor. San Francisco: Author. Spar, K. (1995). We lfare reform: Implications of H.R. 4 for child welfare services. Washington
DC: Congressional
Research Service, Library of Congress.