Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
34428869
label
Kellogg Speech
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
34428869
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Kellogg Speech
citationUrl
collections
Records of the First Lady's Office (Clinton Administration)
Jennifer Klein's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
34428869
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7422560-20140536S-028-017-2016
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
98c17f7e8ca4aa2c
ocrText
AS PREPARED
FIRST LADY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
REMARKS FOR THE W.K. KELLOGG FOUNDATION
FAMILIES FOR KIDS BY 2002 CONFERENCE
WASHINGTON, DC
JUNE 26, 1997
It is a pleasure to be in the company of so many men and women who have
contributed their talents and energies to the critical issue of adoption. Over the
years, the Kellogg Foundation has made an unparalleled commitment to improving
our foster care and adoption systems, and I am particularly grateful for the
Foundation's participation in a discussion I held at the White House last summer
about this subject.
Let me thank all of you involved with Kellogg and Families for Kids for your
leadership in drawing attention to the plight of hundreds of thousands of children
across our country who are needlessly languishing in foster care -- and for serving
as models of what can be done to improve the child welfare system and bring more
hope and security to children so desperately in need of both.
Not only are you heroes to countless children who have benefited from your
efforts, you are breaking new ground for elected officials and policy makers -- in
Washington and elsewhere -- who have much to learn from your example.
This conference could not be more timely. After years of inattention and
partisan politics, we are finally forging a bipartisan consensus on Capitol Hill that
could correct some of the most glaring flaws in the adoption process. Today we are
within reach of bringing some common sense and compassion to an overburdened,
understaffed and outdated foster care system.
Those of you who have worked on children's welfare issues -- as I have for
the last 25 years -- have heard no shortage of stories about children who are shuttled
from one foster home to another during their formative years.
I will never forget a case I handled about 15 years ago in Arkansas.
1
I represented a couple who wanted to adopt a four-year-old boy who had been in
their foster care for three years. The boy had been badly neglected as a baby by his
biological mother, who had psychological problems. When he was less than a year
old, she turned him over to the local social service agency so she could follow a
boyfriend to another state. At that point, the baby showed all the symptoms of
severe mistreatment: he had gained little weight, he was unresponsive and he shied
away from human contact.
But in his foster family, he began to thrive. And his foster parents fell in love
with him. Even though they had signed the customary state contract prohibiting
them from adopting him, they wanted to make him a permanent member of their
family.
The state adoption agency refused their request. So the boy was going to be
taken from the security of the family he knew and turned over to strangers on some
adoption list. Meanwhile, the boy's birth mother filed suit to get him back, claiming
she had overcome her problems.
I argued on behalf of the boy's foster parents that the best interests of the
child should take precedence over both the birth mother's claims of her biological
rights and the state's claims to its contractual agreement. I asked the judge to allow
testimony from a child psychologist about the boy's progress in his foster family
and about the possible consequences to his physical, intellectual and emotional
development if he was separated from them. The judge, who had children and
grandchildren of his own, didn't think he had much to learn from these witnesses,
but he allowed them nonetheless. In the end, the psychologist's testimony weighed
heavily in the judge's determination to allow the foster parents to adopt the boy.
Just as often, however, the child's best interests do not take precedence. And
this sad reality is repeated throughout our nation. Antiquated rules and rigid
presumptions continue to deny countless children the lasting family connections
that can influence whether a child does well in school, stays away from drugs, and
goes on to become a responsible, law-abiding adult.
Only recently have we begun to view issues regarding the health and safety
of children in foster care through a clear lens -- instead of a fog of distortions and
political rhetoric over what constitutes real "family values."
2
Clearly, no one wants children to be in situations where they are subjected to
abuse, torture, starvation or neglect. In 1973, when I was just entering the world of
children's advocacy and the law, I wrote an article about children's rights in family
situations -- particularly those that pose a threat to their health and safety. As
recently as a few years ago, some critics suggested that by a supporting a child's
right to a loving family, I favored giving government more power to break up
biological families and giving children the right to bring trivial disputes with their
parents -- like curfews or who takes out the garbage -- to court.
Thankfully, those erroneous interpretations have given way to a clearer
consensus about which children should be placed back with their biological parents
-- and which should not.
We are beginning to recognize that some parents simply are not capable of
taking care of their own children -- and likely never will be. Think about Elisa
Izquierdo, the four-year-old girl in New York City who was found starved to death
in her family's home last year; or five-year-old Richard Holmes who was
discovered earlier this year to have been tortured and abused in his own home in a
Maryland suburb.
Clearly, these children and others like them would be better off growing up
with the love and support of an adoptive family than with biological parents who
put them in harm's way.
At the same time, we have to recognize that some parents who have had
problems with their children can learn to be responsible but need help in coping
with the stresses of parenthood and child-rearing. In these cases we must make sure
that parents have the support and counseling they need.
Today, the House and Senate are considering bills that would bring more
order, logic and compassion to the process.
Under both bills, "reasonable efforts" to return a child to his or her family
would not be required in extreme cases such as torture, abandonment, physical or
sexual abuse. Court hearings to determine the permanent placement of a child
would be required within 12 months of his or her arrival in the foster care system,
instead of the current 18 months. The hearings would be called "permanency
planning hearings" to make clear the goal of the proceedings.
3
There are also provisions in the legislation to provide financial incentives to
states to increase the number of adoptions from the public child welfare system --
and particularly to increase the number of adoptions of special needs children.
These are important steps toward ensuring that children no longer languish
indefinitely in foster care. They are particularly critical for children who are
traditionally hard to place: those with disabilities, who are medically frail, have
siblings, or are minorities. As we embark on a national discussion about race
relations, which the President called for earlier this month, let us take special note
that a disproportionate number of children in foster care are African-American.
These children can bring boundless joy to families, and families can bring
boundless joy to them. But we have to work harder to ensure that these unions
happen.
Let me be clear: The President is committed to working with Congress
to achieve the goals you and the Administration share and to find the funding
necessary to achieve the strongest adoption bill possible.
Many provisions in the House and Senate bills incorporate recommendations
made in Adoption 2002, a report prepared by the Department of Health and Human
Services in response to the President's directive to identify barriers to adoption and
double the number of children placed annually in permanent homes by the year
2002.
Giving states flexibility to shorten the adoption process, highlighting
strategies that are working, and providing incentives to meet adoption goals -- all
part of the President's action plan -- build on other Administration efforts.
To break down financial, cultural and social barriers to adoption, the
Administration has made it illegal to deny or delay an adoption on the basis of race.
And the President has signed into law a $5,000 tax credit for families who adopt,
with an increase to $6,000 for families who adopt children with special needs.
The President's chief concern has been -- and continues to be -- that no child
is deprived of a safe and permanent home for one day longer than necessary. As he
has said, he wants every state, every family court, every case worker in the country
to understand that children's health and safety must be paramount in resolving these
cases.
4
He is determined to work across party lines, at every level of government and
with every sector of society, to give every child in America the security of a loving,
nurturing and permanent home.
Yet while we all know that federal leadership is crucial, we also know that it
is not enough to bring about the sweeping change our child welfare system requires.
That's where you come in.
I want to commend the Kellogg Foundation for bringing together policy
makers, business and religious leaders, elected officials, judges, child advocates,
and foster and adoptive families here to discuss strategies to reduce the number of
children waiting to be adopted and to speed up the adoption process so that no child
lingers in foster care for more than one year.
I also want to commend you for launching the Families for Kids initiative,
which has already produced tangible results in eleven sites around the country,
including:
--providing counseling for adoptive parents
--modernizing computer data
--bringing together churches to find permanent homes for foster children --
particularly special needs children
-- making changes in the judicial system to address the needs of children in
foster care.
As a result of these and other efforts undetaken as part of Families for Kids,
7,000 children were placed in permanent families last year. Many promising new
partnerships are underway. And there are important lessons that can be replicated in
every community and state cross our country.
Today, we understand even more about the urgency of this mission. As the
White House Conference on Early Childhood Development and Learning in April
made clear, children need love, nurturing, stimulation and security from the
moment they enter this world. Depriving them of consistency and permanence is
depriving them of the chance to achieve their God-given potential.
5
At the same time, we must not overlook the critical difference that loving
parents can make in the lives of older children as well. Children of all ages can
benefit from the care and attention of a stable, loving family. And that's why your
efforts are so crucial to bringing the best out in all of America's children, whether
they are infants or adolescents.
I hope you will continue to lead our nation as we continue this important
work. As Americans, we live in the most prosperous country in the world. Our
economy is flourishing. We are known the world over for our compassion and
generous spirit.
So let's meet this test and show that we really do stand for children. Let's
give every child the gift of love that he or she deserves.
Thank you.
###
6
FIRST LADY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
COLUMN FOR RELEASE JUNE 25, 1997
TALKING IT OVER/CREATORS SYNDICATE
The reality of foster care was brought home to Bill and me when we met a teenage boy at
a
the White House this winter. Bill asked him where he was from. "Fairfax County," the boy said.
When Bill asked where in the county, the boy shrugged and answered, "All over."
Unfortunately, thousands of children in our foster care system today have similar stories
to tell. Because of the complex regulations, outdated assumptions, understaffed and
overwhelmed agencies of our child welfare system, too many children spend their formative
years shuttling from one foster home to another. Today, even children lucky enough to find
adoptive families will have waited an average of three years or more in a series of temporary
homes.
But that can change. The Senate and the House of Representatives are both considering
bills that will take important steps toward making sure that no child languishes in foster care.
Currently, a child's case can drag on for years in the foster care system as authorities
make repeated attempts to reunite a child with his or her biological parents. Often these parents,
for a variety of reasons, are unable to change the behavior that caused them to lose their child in
the first place. If either bill becomes law, "reasonable efforts" to return a child to his or her
family would not be required in extreme cases such as torture, abandonment, physical or sexual
abuse. Court hearings to determine the placement of a child would be required within 12 months
-- instead of the current 18 months -- of his or her arrival in the foster care system. To make
clear their purpose, these hearings would be renamed "permanency planning hearings."
As a children's advocate and lawyer who has represented parents and children in their
struggles with the foster care system for more than 25 years, I believe these steps are long
overdue. In 1973, I wrote an article about children's rights under the law, specifically their
1
rights in family situations that pose serious threats to their health and safety. Even a few years
ago, some considered this view controversial. Critics suggested that by supporting a child's right
to a loving family, I advocated giving government more power to break up biological families
and giving children the right to bring trivial disputes with their parents -- such as bed time or
who takes out the garbage -- to court.
Thankfully, that erroneous interpretation of my views has given way to a new bipartisan
consensus around the idea that protecting our children from harm and working to provide them
with permanent, loving families-- even when that may entail separating them from their
biological parents -- should be a priority of our child welfare system. Finally, we are recognizing
that there are parents who will never be able to care for their children. And, in order to secure a
foster child's well-being and stable development, we as a society have the responsibility to
decide as quickly as possible whether a child can return home safely.
Many of the provisions in the House and Senate bills reflect recommendations made in
Adoption 2002, a report prepared by the Department of Health and Human Services in response
to the President's directive to identify the barriers to adoption and double the number of children
placed annually in permanent homes by the year 2002.
Over the years, my husband has dedicated a great deal of time and energy to improving
foster care and promoting adoption. As a result of the Administration's efforts, it is now illegal
to deny or delay an adoption simply because the prospective parents and child are not of the
same race. And last year, the President signed into law a $5,000 tax credit to help families adopt
children.
Federal leadership is crucial, but it will take the commitment of people from all corners of
our country to bring about the sweeping change our child welfare system requires. This week, I'll
be speaking at a national conference on adoption and child welfare reform sponsored by the
W.K. Kellogg Foundation. The conference will bring together business and religious leaders,
2
policy makers, elected officials, judges, child advocates, and foster and adoptive families to
discuss strategies to reduce the number of waiting children and limit the time a child spends in
foster care to no more than one year.
The Kellogg Foundation has been working to reform child welfare systems in eleven
states and localities. Last year alone, the foundation helped find permanent families for 7,000
children. This was possible because the foundation worked with churches and mounted
aggressive media campaigns to recruit prospective adoptive families. And they helped child
welfare agencies reform case work procedures, consolidate records, and modernize data
collection methods so that no child becomes lost in the system.
Now we must build on their work. With thousands of children leading transient lives in
foster care, we cannot afford any more delays. We need to encourage Congress to pass the best
adoption bill possible. Thousands of innocent children are counting on us.
###
3
JUN-25-97 08:06 FROM:OMB ADMINISTRATION
ID:
PAGE 1/1
Possible draft language on adoption proposals
We understand that there is considerable interest in the Senate in two new
proposals to increase adoption assistance and promote family reunification. The first
would substantially expand funding now available within the Family Preservation
program for the cost of family reunification services, by creating a new program for this
purpose. The second would provide grants to States to help them reduce their
backlogs of children awaiting adoption.
The President has strongly supported improvements in adoption assistance,
including within his Budget a program of incentives to double the number of adoptions
and permanent placements by the year 2002 and offset the cost by reducing foster care
costs over time. Thus we welcome the interest in the Senate in this issue.
It is, of course, a difficult time to be proposing new spending, for even the most
worthy causes. However, we share the goals of these proposals, and the
Administration will work with the Congress to find mutually agreeable ways to achieve
them.
ADOPTHIL.WPD
Democrats turn up rhetorical heat as tax, budget votes loom
if Democrats were in the majority,"
hausted the HOPE credit, and
cuts "is one of the most important
or no taxes.
child tax credit to constituents be-
By Patrice Hill
said Senate Minority Leader Tom
adds funds for school construction.
votes that will be taken in this Con-
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
"What we have is a replay of the
fore next year's election. It would
Daschle, South Dakota Democrat.
On capital gains, the Demo-
gress." Meanwhile, House Minor-
last Congress. They are taking
require the Internal Revenue Ser-
House and Senate Democrats
The bipartisan tax bill already
cratic plan dramatically cuts back
ity Whip David E. Bonior led a lib-
care of the biggest corporations in
vice to notify all taxpayers that the
used yesterday's balanced-budget
gives part of a $500-per-child
on breaks enjoyed by wealthier
eral assault on the GOP tax and
this country while children
credit is available on Jan. 1, 1998,
debate to sharpen their rhetoric
credit to working-class families
Americans by substituting a 30
budget bills on the House floor.
don't get the necessary health in-
and adjust tax withholding to .re-
for the larger battle over tax cuts
that currently zero out their tax
percent exclusion from income for
In a theme that Democrats hope
surance they need and lègal immi-
flect the tax cut.
being waged the rest of this week
bills by using the Earned Income
the GOP's dramatic rate reduc-
to amplify in next year's election
grants go without," said Mr. Bon-
in Congress.
Tax Credit. The Democratic plan
tions. It targets maximum capital-
campaigns, Mr. Gephardt, Mis-
ior, Michigan Democrat.
In a second change demanded
Senate Democrats unveiled
would enable them to take the full
gains relief as well as all of its es-
souri Democrat, said the parties'
While Democrats heaped crit-
by legislators from corn-growing
their alternative to the bipartisan
credit, covering an additional 7
tate tax relief on small businesses
differing tax plans "offer a stark
icism on the GOP tax bill, the
regions, House Ways and Means
tax bill pending on the Senate floor,
million children, sponsors say.
and farms.
contrast between the values of Re-
Committee Chairman Bill Archer
House approved some last-minute
cutting taxes by the same net
The Democratic bill provides
In the House, Democrats got a
publicans and Democrats in our
changes, primarily to counter crit-
dropped his plan to accelerate the
amount of $77 billion over five
$41 billion in education tax breaks
head start on today's daylong tax-
approach to helping middle-in-
icism from conservative and farm-
elimination of tax subsidies for
X.
years, but shifting more of the
more than President Clinton re-
cut debate by using much of yes-
come families."
state Republicans and ensure
ethanol producers. The Texas Re-
benefits from wealthier taxpayers
quested. It pares back Mr. Clin-
terday's balanced-budget debate to
Republicans aim to provide the
near-unanimous GOP support in
publican's proposal would allow
who save and invest to working-
ton's HOPE tuition credit less se-
attack the Republican tax bill.
most tax relief to middle-income
today's vote.
the subsidies to expire as currently
class families who pay no taxes.
verely than the bipartisan bill,
House Minority Leader Richard
families who pay the most in taxes,
scheduled in 2000.
One of the changes would ad-
"It is important that Americans
provides a tuition deduction of 20
A. Gephardt led the charge by pro-
while Democrats target their relief
dress concerns of conservatives
Nancy Roman contributed to this
know what would have been done
percent to people who have ex-
claiming that today's vote on tax
to families who currently pay little
who want to deliver the bill's $400
report.
The Washington Times
THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 1997
PHOTOCOPY
PRESERVATION
Senate struggles to adopt
new system of foster care
By Cheryl Wetzstein
guish."
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Critics say children get stuck in
foster care because states and
Committee Democrats have in-
Kevin Green, a Mississippi teen-
sisted that Republicans provide
their documents without any dele-
Meanwhile, Rep. Gerald Solo-
agencies receive per diem pay-
mon, New York Republican and
chairman of the House Rules Com-
mittee, demanded that President
Clinton persuade former Demo-
cratic fund raiser Charlie Yah Lin
Trie to return from China to testify
before Congress.
"How do you explain that the
U.S. government cannot locate
Charles Trie, but Tom Brokaw
can?" Mr. Solomon wrote, refer-
ring to an NBC News interview
with Mr. Trie. In a letter to Mr.
Clinton, Mr. Solomon asked that
Secretary of State Madeleine K.
Albright determine Mr. Trie's loca-
ager who grew up in foster care
ments for each child in care. Un-
and is speaking about it today in
willing to give up the money, they
Washington, might have found a
won't give up the child - at least
wrote.
tions.
tion in China.
permanent home if congressional
for a few years, critics say.
reforms proposed this year were in
In Mr. Green's case, his mother
place during his childhood.
gave him to foster care soon after
But those reforms are now on
he was born prematurely and
hold because lawmakers have
drug-addicted. She would have
'diametrically opposed" ideas
terminated her parental rights
about how to fix the foster-care
anytime, he said, but she didn't do
system, top GOP aides said this
it until he was 16 - well past an
week.
"adoptable" age in many eyes.
Senate Majority Leader Trent
As a result, he grew up in a suc-
Lott, Mississippi Republican, has
cession of foster homes while his
asked senators with competing
social workers tried in vain to re-
ideas to begin forging a consensus
unite him with his mother.
from prosecution.
Mr. Thompson urged Mr. Nich-
Last year, he became one of
Thompson prods GOP to comply in probe
giving them limited immunity
olson to "permanently look into
this matter and ensure that RNC
compliance will be prompt and
Mr. Nicholson wrote Mr.
complete."
Thompson and the ranking com-
mittee Democrat, Sen. John Glenn
of Ohio, on June 11 that the GOP
organization tried to answer com-
mittee concerns.
"Indeed, we invite the commit-
tee to pose substantive questions
rather than issue inflammatory
comments to the media," he wrote.
Republican attorneys, he added,
bill, his spokesman said this week.
were searching "every file" at Re-
publican headquarters and at a
warehouse in an effort to comply.
Only material "which has no rel-
evance to the committee's inves-
tigation" has been deleted, he
The delay disappoints Republi-
nearly 15,000 children to "age out"
can leaders, who hoped after a
of the foster-care system. He at-
416-5 vote in the House on a foster-
tends classes, works two jobs and
care reform bill to get a quick, de-
lives on his own, thanks to the
cisive and bipartisan "win" on a
moral support he got from one of
family issue by Mother's Day.
his foster families and several
Instead, they watched as the
"independent-living" programs.
House bill was derailed in the Sen-
At 19, he knows that what he got
ate, an industry-supported Senate
from the system wasn't enough. "I
bill strangled on its budget-busting
always really wanted to be adopt-
price tag, and a third closely
ed," said Mr. Green, who will speak
guarded and possibly radical ap-
at a conference sponsored by the
proach developed among Senate
W.K. Kellogg Foundation.
conservatives.
The current cease-fire - the
Members of Congress have been
first in several months of vigorous
working all year to pass legislation
Committee, said he wrote the letter
because the Democratic minority
complained that Republicans held
back key information from investi-
The Republican National Com-
to promote the adoption of foster-
mittee sent Mr. Thompson's panel
several boxes of documents in re-
spohse to Senate subpoena, but
many of the records contained ma-
jor deletions,
Mr. Thompson wrote the Repub-
lican Party chairman at a time he's
seeking Democratic support to
grant limited immunity to low-
level witnesses in the probe. At
least two Democratic votes are re-
quired for the immunity, which
needs a two-thirds committee ma-
On June 12, Democratic com-
mittee members blocked Mr.
Thompson's initial request to com-
pel testimony from 18 witnesses by
behind-the-scenes discussions -
care children like Mr. Green.
pleases adoption advocates such as
Maureen K. Hogan, executive di-
At the heart of the debate is a
gators.
jority.
rector of Adopt A Special Kid.
national policy that tells social
As evidenced by the court-
workers to make "reasonable ef-
ordered supervision of foster care
forts" to reunite children with
programs in 22 states and the Dis-
their families - a compassionate
"trict, "the system is literally in fail-
approach to handle families who
ure, massive systemic failure," she
are only temporarily distressed,
[said. "For Congress to do a reform
child welfare advocates say.
that's anything less than a really
The policy has unfortunately
thoughtful approach isn't just irre-
forced too many children back into
sponsible, it's immoral."
unsafe homes, said Reps. Dave
Each year, some 600,000
Camp, Michigan Republican, and
abused, neglected or abandoned
Barbara B. Kennelly, Connecticut
children enter foster care. Most -
Democrat, who sponsored an
66 percent - are eventually re-
party, the Republican head of the:
man not to shield "important
Tennessee Republican, demanded
turned home, but many repeatedly
re-enter the system and "lan-
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Sounding a warning to his own
Senate campaign-finance inquiry
has told the GOP national chair-
facts" from investigators.
In a letter written June 11 and
adoption-promotion bill that
obtained Wednesday by the Asso-
ciated Press, Sen. Fred Thompson,
"complete cooperation" by the Re-
"With respect to witnesses, I
passed the House in April with an
publicans.
would also urge you to counsel
your attorneys not to attempt to
shield important facts with broad
and specious assertions of privi-
lege," as others have done, Mr.
Thompson wrote Republican Na-
tional Committee Chairman Jim
Mr. Thompson, chairman of the
Nicholson.
Senate Governmental Affairs
overwhelming vote of 416-5.
The Washington Times
THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 1997
PHOTOCOPY
PRESERVATION
On Thursday, the First Lady is speaking to the Kellogg Foundation Policy
Conference on Adoption, Families for Kids by 2002, a national gathering of association
leaders, advocates, and state officials working to improve the foster care system. The
President has shown leadership on this issue by directing HHS to developing a blueprint
for administrative and legislative action to increase the number of adoptions out of the
foster care system and move children more quickly into permanent homes.
There are two bills in Congress that reflect the President's priorities. We have
formally supported the House bill, which CBO estimated at no cost. The Senate bill
(sponsored by Senators Chafee and Rockefellor) has a total cost of about $6 billion over
five years. We have taken no formal position on this bill, but would support only two of
the provisions that carry a cost. These provisions cost about $700 million over five years.
There is no action scheduled on either of these bills, as Rockefeller and Chafee are
resisting Lott's attempts to have the Senate vote directly on the House bill. Many in the
adoption community are beginning to criticize the President for not showing leadership at
this critical time.
We would very much like the First Lady to announce on Thursday that the
Administration supports using a small part of the tobacco tax passed by the Senate
Finance Committee on child welfare and to urge the Congress to pass the best child
welfare bill possible.
October 1, 1997
Ms. Jennifer Klein
Senior Policy Analyst
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500
Our Vision: "A permanent. loving family for every child"
Dear Ms. Klein:
During the June, 1997 "Perspectives on Permanency" meeting, many of you requested a
written summary of events and activities of the meeting. In response to that request,
please find "Families for Kids National Conference on Policy Perspectives: A Summary
of Proceedings" enclosed.
Also enclosed is a copy of the newly published brochure titled, "Families for Kids of
Color: Ways Your Organization Can Help. "
It is our sincere desire that these materials will be helpful to you as you strive to find
permanency for children. We applaud you and your commitment to children and families.
W.K.KELLOGG
FOUNDATION
One Michigan
Avenue East
Battle Creek, MI
Sincerely, Valora Valou Washington, Ph.D. Wasty
49017-4058
USA
Project Director
616-968-1611
Families for Kids
TDD on site
Facsimile: 616-968-0413
VW/cas
World Wide Web.
http://www.wkkf.org
Enclosures
S:\FAMILIES\PUBLIC\VWFFKS\septmailingltr.doc
To help people
help themselves
through the practical
application of knowledge
and resources to improve
their quality of life and
that of future generations
FAMILIES FOR KIDS NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON POLICY PERSPECTIVES:
A SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS
Renaissance Washington DC Hotel
June 25-26, 1997
Event Sponsor:
W.K. Kellogg Foundation
Conference Purpose and Scope:
The Conference brought some 350 current Families For Kids (FFK) grantee representatives and
families from all FFK sites together with potential new allies from federal, state, and local
government; the judiciary; philanthropy and the nonprofit sector; education; business; grassroots
family advocacy groups; and organized religion.
The conference sought to focus national attention on the critical issue of children languishing in
foster care ("waiting children"), and to create a sense of urgency about their plight which
compelled action and systemic change at the highest levels. Conference presentations and
activities also aimed to widen the circle of FFK supporters by clarifying the magnitude of the
problems faced by waiting children -- as illustrated through the stories of waiting kids themselves;
to articulate the FFK vision and principles of reform; and to disseminate up-to-the-minute
information about pending legislation, as well as model policies and practices. First Lady Hillary
Rodham Clinton brought the conference to a close by offering support and gratitude to FFK
reformers for their commitment and work in the vineyards of reform.
The conference was timed to provide information useful to the current congressional debate on
legislation affecting waiting children and their families, as well as executive branch initiatives on
adoption. Sessions were designed to offer information at many different levels of detail:
testimonials from affected children and families, conceptual information about intended initiative
outcomes, as well as highly technical information needed to implement reform.
The conference's plenary and breakout sessions on June 26 were preceded on the evening of June
25 by a reception and dinner at which the following policy makers spoke about federal legislative
and cabinet-level agency activities on behalf of children and families: Congressman Dave Camp
(R-MI); Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH); Congresswoman Barbara Kennelly (D-CT); Olivia
Golden (Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, Department of Health
and Human Services). Judge Julian Pinkham (Yakima Nation Tribal Court System) offered a
Native American prayer urging FFK participants and other leading policy makers to act wisely to
protect the health and well being of children in care.
The morning session on July 26 included four brief video presentations on child welfare system
problems and the FFK vision and outcomes which are not summarized in these proceedings.
Morning Session
9:30 a.m.-12:00N
Families For Kids: A Vision for Children
Opening Remarks By Valora Washington, Program Director, Families For Kids
(W. K. Kellogg Foundation). Dr. Washington began her remarks by noting that the conference was
a call to action and an opportunity for all conferees to share what they knew about policies
affecting permanence for children within the foster care system. She said that five questions
would give shape to the proceedings:
How can we better promote healthy development of children in foster care?
Who are the children in foster care?
Who should care for them when parents can't?
What is the plan for these children?
What can be done by systems and what can individuals do?
She underscored the special problems of children of color within the foster care system --
particularly their disproportionate representation within the foster care system of every state. She
also deplored the lack of good data and adequate recognition of race/ethnicity in the policy
debates on the issue.
Increasing the chances of permanency for children drifting in the system would, she said, require
of new potential allies an act of imagination to elevate a dream of change above the intimidating
presence of things as they are. This is what FFK reformers had succeeded in doing and what all
reformers must do if we are to enact what 25 years of research has already taught us about
children's needs and proven system solutions, she said.
Finally Dr. Washington emphasized the importance of expanding the circle of people who know
and care about waiting children moving beyond relatively small professional communities to
gain broader support.
She closed her remarks by introducing the next two speakers Shane Salter and Kevin Green--
two adult African-Americans who had spent virtually their entire childhoods in foster care, never
experiencing permanent loving families. "Let there be no more Shane's and Kevin's; let them be
our teachers," stated Dr. Washington.
Families For Kids: The Challenge "Through The Eyes of Youth"
Shane Salter, Deputy Director, For Love of Children (Washington DC): Mr. Salter began by
telling the story of his own childhood: abandonment at the age of four in a New York City
basement apartment where he attempted to care for his six month old brother; later, nine foster
homes, two group homes and an orphanage; a long period of school failure followed by a dramatic
turnaround featuring graduation from high school as the valedictorian of his class, successful
college years and professional development, marriage and children of his own (both biological
and adopted).
Salter reminded the audience that the system expected "these [foster children like himself] our
most fragile members of society
to succeed without help." He asked that society "make a place
for each little gentle face," and suggested that he was himself everything the system was throwing
away in children, a reminder of all that is "good in children."
Kevin Green, Member, Mississippi Sun Team/Speak Up Now (Jackson, MS): Mr. Green, the
son of a woman addicted to drugs, said that his story began in a hospital room where he struggled
as an infant to survive and later experienced multible foster care placements.
He indicated that his Families For Kids advocacy work as part of the Mississippi Sun Team was
helping to fill a hole in his heart left by being a person without a family. "Why we turn our backs
on kids, I don't know, he said."
2
Valora Washington noted that 16,000 youth leave the system each year merely because of age
without ever achieving a permanent family. She said that an assumption that "we can do better for
kids" had led the W.K. Kellogg Foundation to pull together a group of experts in 1990 to consider
ways to have an impact. On the advice of these experts, the Foundation had undertaken Families
for Kids, initiating reform with a "community visioning process" which ultimately involved
14,000 people in 15 states. The planning process in effect gave participants, she said, a "blank
piece of paper" and asked them to imagine what reforms would best address the systemic
problems causing so many kids to languish in foster care.
She also summarized the goals and outcomes that had given shape to all reform efforts:
FFK Goals:
(1) eliminating the backlog of kids languishing in foster care
(2) achieving system change
FFK Outcomes:
one year at most before permanent placement
one stable foster care family
one assessment to determine need
one case worker or case work team
comprehensive support for caregivers
Community Visioning/Community Leadership
The Honorable William Byars, Jr., Judge of the Fifth Circuit Family Court, Kershaw County,
SC. An acknowledged leader of South Carolina's Families For Kids court and legal reform
movement, Judge Byars reminded the audience that 100,000 kids nationally were stuck in foster
care drift, and that only a "paradigm shift" a radical change in the way people began to see the
issue -- could initiate successful reform. Byars recalled that his own paradigm shift came when he
began to "see the system through the eyes of a child."
Judge Byars noted that the child welfare system stood on two legs: social services and the legal
system. He also noted just a few of the results of recent child welfare legal reform in SC:
an embrace of family preservation, if possible
a stronger focus on permanency
support for kinship care
increase in the termination of parental rights by a factor of ten
increase in adoption by a factor of 6
He emphasized the importance of getting children who cannot return home freed for adoption
faster, by expediting termination of parental rights (TPR), so that kids will have a better chance of
achieving permanency.
Pat and Ricky Landrum and their two children David and Britanny (adopted through South
Carolina Families For Kids) joined Judge Byars on the dais as he concluded his remarks.
State Perspectives On Permanency
Bill Graves, Governor of the State of Kansas and First Lady Linda Graves. Mrs. Graves
noted that the most important crop in the State of Kansas was kids and that her husband's most
important role was that of father to their newly adopted daughter Katie.
3
Governor Graves noted that when he took office, the child welfare system was broken, the State's
leading child welfare agency was operating under the terms of a legal agreement, and adoption
was taking much too long. Change was therefore a requirement, and safety and permanence for
children were to be the hall marks of that change. The change process had three immediate goals,
he said:
protect kids -- the first job
focus on outcomes, not social service process
deliver services more effectively
The Governor also stated that Kansas had privatized the bulk of its child welfare services, and that
the initial results of this privatization were encouraging:
fewer children entering foster care
more returning home each quarter
the average stay in care was less than three months
reunified families were remaining together longer
more than 70% of those kids placed out of home were being placed together with one
sibling
the State was achieving a net gain of five placements a month
Joan Wagnon, Former Kansas FFK Project Director and Newly Elected Mayor of Topeka,
Kansas concluded the state perspectives presentation by noting that collaboration among many
partners had been a successful, primary strategy in Kansas. She also thanked Linda Katz for her
pioneering efforts to establish the concurrent planning process that had been such an important
innovation in the Kansas FFK initiative and elsewhere.
Achieving Permanency: What We Must Do
Pat Babcock, Program Director (W. K. Kellogg Foundation). Mr. Babcock introduced a panel
which included Nicholas Scoppetta (Commissioner, Administration for Children's Services, City
of New York); Donna Starr (President, Native American Commission on Children and Families,
State of Washington); Jim Clark, State Director, South Carolina Department of Social Services);
Kevin Fitzgerald (Director of the North Carolina Division of Social Services); JoAnn Lawer
(Deputy Secretary, Office of Children, Youth & Families, Pennsylvania); and Marva Hammonds
(Director, Families Independence Agencies, Michigan).
Before recognizing each panalist for separate remarks, Mr. Babcock noted that adoption reform
was a partnership of three's:
all three levels of government
all three branches of government
local communities, families, and kids
Brief summaries of the remarks of each commissioner follow.
Nicholas Scoppetta said that New York City had increased adoptions steadily and significantly
since 1994, showing a 58 percent increase in 1995, a 58 percent increase in 1996, and a 78 percent
increase in 1997 (4,131 adoptions). He credited the following strategies for these promising
numbers:
bringing a new focus on adoption and permanence
improving system management
getting the support of two key judges, especially the State's chief judge
creating a special adoption expediting unit
creating contract incentives for private agencies doing adoptions (number of
completed adoptions a criteria for re-contracting)
using concurrent planning
4
boosting family recruitment with One Church One Child, adoption fairs, and the
State's "Family Album"
Donna Starr, a member of the Muckleshoot Tribe, introduced herself by first naming her parents
and grandparents, to dramatize how important ancestral and tribal roots are to Native Americans.
Ms. Starr noted that tribal people do not believe in severing their blood ties, as is often the case
with mainstream, formal adoption processes. She said that many tribes preferred to place children
in guardianships with relatives, using open adoptions as a good last resort. Children, she said,
have to know where they are from, so family information must always follow them. She also
noted that tribes provide children with something stable to come back to, because tribes will take
ownership of kids.
The new State - and FFK-sponsored Native American Commission on Children and Families is,
she said, an important vehicle for engaging Washington's 37 tribes in advocacy for Native
American children and for bringing together all child-serving agencies to look at a child's whole
life. FFK has, she said, "opened eyes."
Jim Clark stressed the importance of improving management of systems serving children. Such
management, he said, must begin with good leadership that articulates a clear vision of change and
brings together system units so that organizational learning can occur. He also stressed the
importance of establishing accountability with county-level managers --making the foremost
criterion of job performance by getting kids into families (adoption). Better measurement
understanding children's points of movement through the system -- was a key to reform. Clark
also said that to succeed, county-level managers needed to be granted greater authority, discretion,
and flexibility. Ritualistic, hierarchical forms of bureaucracy were counter-productive, he said.
Clark pointed to two issues of great concern to the future of reform:
1) the need to raise the quality of foster care homes, always asking, "Is this a home I would
want to put my own child in?"
2) the need to face more directly the problems of entrenched drug and alcohol addiction and
avoid the tendency to automatically grant primacy to the biological mother's wishes
(South Carolina has recently more than doubled the number of TPR's, from 800-1500)
Kevin Fitzgerald noted that North Carolina's 8 "FFK counties" were currently outperforming all
other counties in terms of increasing adoption rates and stabilizing expenditures. He pointed to the
following promising reform trends:
income maintenance and services are more integrated around values of self-reliance
and self-sufficiency
program identities are now being subordinated to clear program outcomes, with
finances beginning to follow outcomes
a vision of safety and permanency are becoming a movement
there have been important changes in court and legal reform
managers and workers have recognized the importance of "being in the community"
JoAnn Lawer summarized developments in the State of Pennsylvania's collaboration with the
Casey Foundation's "Family to Family" program, noting that it shared FFK's central values of
permanency for children and the need to eliminate the backlog of children in care.
Lawer focused most intensely on the program's steps to develop technological ways of analyzing
what is happening to kids in the system, noting that framing outcomes and other indicators of
other success, and helping child welfare professionals understand that "data is our friend" were
essential to progress.
5
Other developments of note included:
adding an additional ground for TPR
adding a medical history registry
allowing children to petition for TPR
creating a statewide adoption network ("SWAN")
In closing, Lawer praised FFK reformers for their theme, "Through the eyes of the child," and
urged that child welfare services work more closely with mental health care providers to ensure
stable adoptions.
Marva Hammonds noted that Michigan had embraced the value of permanency for kids and had
in the Kent County (Grand Rapids, MI) Families For Kids initiative a "stellar" performer that had
dramatically increased placement of waiting kids. She also summarized a number of other positive
developments within the State of Michigan:
a new package of legislative initiatives that would force attorneys and other legal
personnel to recognize a child's sense of time
a new community-based process to review child welfare practice
permanency-focused reimbursement to providers
trust money to prevent child abuse
wrap-around services to prevent disrupted adoptions
6
Luncheon Speakers On the FFK Mandate:
Reduce the Backlog and Change the System
Ernesto Loperena (Executive Director, New York Council on Adoptable Children) opened
luncheon proceedings by noting that the current national policy focus on the health and welfare of
children made this an opportune time for the FFK vision.
He also briefed the audience on "Latinos and Child Welfare -- Voces De La Comunidad," a report
sponsored by the National Latino Child Welfare Advocacy Group and funded by the W.K.
Kellogg Foundation to shed light on the lack of information and understanding that now exists
about the role child welfare services play in the lives of Latino families and children.
According to the report, Latino children are often undercounted in system census data because
they are miscoded as Caucasian or African American, or they are "lost" in the "other" category.
Given the status of current data, distinguishing the nature of the Latino experience within the
system is not possible. Understanding unique Latino needs is also complicated by the many
differences among Latino subgroups now living in America, and by aggregate national data that
tends to obscure the status of Latino children where their concentrations are greatest: California,
Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New York, and Texas.
By way of introducing the first speaker, Nicholas Scoppetta, Mr. Loperena said that Mayor
Giuliani had begun important child welfare reform in New York City by naming Nicholas
Scoppetta, a former foster child, Commissioner of a newly-formed agency, Administration for
Children's Services, City of New York (the agency is responsible for the welfare of some 40,000
children in 60 agencies). Mr. Loperena expressed confidence in the new changes.
Nicholas Scoppetta commended Mayor Giuliani for his courageous commitment to keeping
needless abuse-related child deaths from recurring.
Mr. Scoppetta also summarized the most important recent developments in the New York City
reform movement:
establishing a separate agency for children's services
protecting the agency from budget cuts
adding 53 million to the new agency's budget
regular meetings between the Mayor and Commissioner to report on progress
a newly-released report of reform progress
He concluded his remarks by stating that recent reforms had done more for child welfare in NYC
in the last two years than had been accomplished in the previous twenty years.
Rudolph Giuliani (Mayor of New York) reminded conference participants, with a smile, that New
York City was the "Capital of the World" -- a city of seven and a half million legal residents, an
additional 7 million illegals, and two million "guests."
Protecting children from abuse and neglect is, he said, "an enormously complex and difficult task"
which required a special agency and a shift from a culture of unaccountability to one of
accountability. He said that he was heartened by several recent interventions by ordinary citizens
to help children in distress. These, he believed, were indications that the community at large was
beginning to feel responsible for helping kids and confident that their efforts would be heeded by
officials and indeed make a difference.
He said that local governments, particularly city governments, had the best chance of helping kids
and families, because they were closest to problems and needs. "We must encourage the stability
and preservation of families," he said, "almost as a compulsion."
7
The dramatic reduction in crime in NYC was also helping families and children, he said. New
understanding and enforcement in domestic violence cases was particularly significant he said,
because 75 percent of all violence perpetrated against wives also involved child victims. He
stressed the importance of addressing domestic violence publicly, stating that if "we had dealt
directly with domestic violence 20 years ago, we wouldn't have so many violent young adults
now."
In conclusion, he noted that the "real beneficiaries of adoption are adults, and people are
beginning to recognize this." He also stated that reform efforts were "building a better, more
secure country."
8
Afternoon Breakout Sessions (2:00-4:30)
Implementing Change: Conversations About Permanency
Participants were at liberty to choose from among the following five different breakout sessions:
1. Taking Action to Achieve Permanency for Kids
Putting State Policy and Legislative Frameworks in Place
2. Building Blocks for Permanence
The movement to restructure or privatize child welfare services. Will these efforts ensure
permanency for children?
3. Funding Mechanisms for Outcome-Based Systems
Innovative alternatives are addressing reduced mainstream funding. How are states
developing new resources?
4. Promising Practice Solutions: "Early Interventions"
Innovative solutions that include intervention before children are removed from their
family, reducing foster-care drift and identifying critical cultural issues.
5. Promising Practice Solutions: "The Backlog Blitz"
The end result: Movement into Permanent Families. How Best Can We Achieve this
outcome?
Brief summaries of moderators, presenters, and discussion themes for each of these sessions
follow.
9
Breakout Session #1
Taking Action to Achieve Permanency for Kids
Putting State Policy and Legislative Frameworks in Place
Moderators:
Kathleen Hayes, Project Director, South Carolina Families for Kids
Sara Anderson Mims, Project Director, North Carolina Families for Kids
Presenters:
Mark Hardin, Director, Child Welfare, American Bar Association, Center on Children
and the Law, Washington, DC
Ron Haskins, Staff Director, Subcommittee on Human Resources, U.S. House of
Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC
Cassie Bevan, Staff Professional Assistant, Subcommittee on Human Resources, U.S.
House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC
Barbara Pryor, Legislative Assistant to Senator John D. Rockefeller (D-WV),
Washington, DC
Judy McKenzie, Executive Director, Spaulding for Children, Southfield (Detroit), MI
Major Objectives and Themes
True system reform in child welfare services requires a fundamental paradigm shift away from
programs and policy developed to suit specific interest groups, agencies, and funding sources
toward services needed to assure that all children find permanent homes. Eleven (11) Families for
Kids communities, funded by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, have encouraged policy makers and
legislators to make this shift by establishing a clear vision of permanency for all foster children
and specific goals that improve the child's stability and reduce the child's time spent in foster care.
Panelists in this session addressed those policy and legislative issues that most clearly support the
type of reforms necessary to institutionalize improved outcomes for children. Key themes
included: Reasonable Efforts, Enforcing Time Frames, Permanency Options in Statute and Policy,
and Court Management.
Panelists compared and contrasted Senate and House versions of current adoption bills before
Congress, noting that both made health and safety paramount concerns, shifted away from family
preservation at all costs toward a greater emphasis on permanent placement, pushed for more
expeditious placement of children into permanent homes, and redefined "reasonable efforts" (to
reunify children with families). All agreed that the principle difference between the two bills was
money, with the Senate bill being the more generous of the two.
Discussion of permanency options in policy and practice emphasized the need to recognize the
importance of adoption as an option offering lifetime commitment and legal security. The value of
doing strength-based assessments was also stressed. Yet older children must be prepared to make
it with or without permanency, through partnerships with churches, planned rites of passage,
internships, etc. Professionals, it was suggested, should ask, "What is the life plan?" not just,
"What is the permanency plan?" Presenters noted that when politicians consider subsidies (e.g. for
children with severe disabilities), they often engage in a "shell game" that ignores the real costs of
caring for kids in the absence of permanent families. Such short-sighted thinking was roundly
criticized.
10
Finally, the presentation on the Court Improvement Program (CIP) offered a definition of the
three pillars of permanency: (1) good casework; (2) good service delivery; and (3) good court
processing of cases. The principal features of CIP reform were also summarized, as follows:
speeds up court decision making process
improves scheduling of court hearings
embraces "1 judge, 1 case" principle (for consistency)
increases expertise of judges and attorneys
creates officially-recognized caseloads (more time per case)
had the potential to spotlight judicial stars and laggards
11
Breakout Session #2
Building Blocks for Permanence
The movement to restructure or privatize child welfare services. Will these efforts ensure
permanency for children?
Moderators:
Wendy Lewis Jackson, Project Director, Kent County, Michigan Families for Kids
Antoinette Nelson, Project Director, New York City Families for Kids
Rita Wolf, Interim Project Director, Kansas Families for Kids
Presenters:
Teresa Markowitz, Commissioner of Children and Family Services, State of Kansas,
Topeka, KS
Karabelle Pizzigati, Director of Public Policy, Child Welfare League of American,
Washington, DC
Gary Crow, Executive Director, Lorain County Children Services, Elyria OH
Michael Weekes, Deputy Commissioner of Quality Management and Program
Development, Massachusetts Department of Social Services, Boston, MA
Major Objectives and Themes:
A number of states are restructuring their child welfare services as a way to support reform and
provide better permanency options for children. Major examples include the transferring of child
welfare services to the private sector through an outcomes-based contractual agreement,
privatization of state agencies, or the partial or full combining of mental health, social services
and/or public health departments at the state or local level. A critical factor for consideration is
how these new structures will impact permanency, casework decisions, and costs. Thus key
themes for discussion were: Public/Private Sector Roles, Managed Care Integration, and
Children's Services.
Presentations on managed care and privatization emphasized key principles and strategies in use
across the country, and challenges involved in implementation. Essentials for a good managed
care approach were also summarized, as follows:
assessment
building on what works
good information management systems
an emphasis on quality improvement
realistic pricing systems
Presentations on child welfare service delivery systems stressed the importance of outcomes and
the promise of incentive-based approaches.
12
Breakout Session #3
Funding Mechanisms for Outcomes-based Systems
Innovative alternatives are addressing reduced mainstream funding. How are states developing
new resources?
Moderators:
Marie Jamieson, Project Director, Washington Families for Kids
Renay Sanders, Project Director, Ohio Families for Kids
Presenters:
Isaac Palmer, Deputy Director, Office of Family and Children Services, Ohio
Department of Human Services, Columbus, OH
Fred Wulczyn, Research Fellow, Chapin Hall Center for Children, the University of
Chicago, Chicago, IL
Chuck Harris, Chief of Children's Services, Division of Social Services, Raleigh, NC
MaryLee Allen, Director of Child Welfare and Mental Health, Children's Defense Fund,
Washington, DC
Major Objectives and Themes
Public agencies are exploring new methods to involve private agencies in the delivery of child
welfare services. Panelists described a spectrum of options from small purchase of service
contracts to system-wide managed care, including consideration of such questions as:
What are the advantages and disadvantages of various approaches?
What safeguards should decision makers have in place before they move into a
privatization of services or contracting out of services?
How are outcomes measured?
Key concepts addressed included: Managed Care, Outcome-based Contracts, and New
Approaches to IV-E and IV-B Federal Funding Waivers.
Definitions of managed care highlighted the tension between fiscal and social policy objectives,
and noted that several levels of analysis were necessary to understand critical elements.
One level of analysis -- case management -- is, for example, more than a fiscal mechanism; it
relates to staff organization, as well as coordination of service delivery. The fiscal level of
analysis typically involves either fee-for service or fixed reimbursement formulas. Fee-for-service
arrangements feature per unit costs with variable revenues, whereas fixed reimbursement systems
tend to have more predictable revenues -- a characteristic that is appealing to county
commissioners. There is a need to tie management reforms to fiscal incentives by linking service
outcomes to payment and developing tools to improve case management and utilization.
Managed care is more than privatization if privatized systems merely shift responsibility without
linking work to specific outcomes. Managed care is more than a so-called "performance based"
system if contractors are not allowed to reinvest or reallocate dollars. Finally managed care
systems are more than simple competitive businesses if they use outcomes and allow for
reinvestment.
For child welfare systems, risk varies according to service conditions: Volume of Cases is a high
risk condition because it is not within the system operators' control; Unit Cost, on the other hand,
is a low risk condition because it is fairly easy to control. Planning for volume risk management is
critical.
13
Presentations were made on both the North Carolina and Ohio models of performance-based
contracts for the placement of children with special needs. Representatives from both states talked
about the use of planned Title IV-E waivers, looking forward to the increase in flexibility offered
by the waivers. Both models also feature payments made at intervals throughout the placement
process.
For example, in North Carolina, payments for the placement of special needs children into
adoptive homes are made according to this formula: 60 percent at time of placement, 20 percent at
finalization, and 20 percent if placement is intact one year after placement.
The second example, North Carolina Families For Kids, involves 8 counties in a pure county-
administered child welfare system. Data tracking to gauge performance is a hallmark of the
system, which looks at:
restrictiveness of placement
number of moves and disruptions
entry into and out of the backlog
length of stay
re-entry into care
The five Families For Kids outcomes now form the State of North Carolina's vision for children.
Key elements of the system include:
the five outcomes
specific measures of success
a culture of striving for better performance
attempting to get the incentives right
The session ended with a presentation on the ways in which the federal government signals its
system of care priorities. These general signals were noted:
higher level of reimbursement for a particular practice
funding for base entitlement versus caps in the use of discretionary funds
expediting activities through time-limited funding
using specific conditions, sanctions, and penalties
limiting eligibility to specific groups
granting flexible dollars for innovations
Specific fiscal incentives to promote increased adoptions as written into current House and Senate
legislation were also noted. The House bill (The Adoption Promotion Act), for example, offers an
after-the-fact bonus for each adopted child and includes a significant increase in adoption
opportunities grant program dollars. The more generous Senate version (The Safe Act) extends the
definition of "special needs" to all kids in câre, increasing by approximately one-third the number
of children covered. It also allows for the use of IV-E dollars for family reunification services for
a period of one year, and it includes $50 million in entitlement dollars to track adoption goal
achievement in states receiving federal grants.
The session ended with the expression of some concerns for the future, including:
increasing numbers of children entering the system
decreasing SSI benefits for special needs children
the fate of family services in a child-based rate system
changing oversight responsibilities vis-à-vis the federal government and the states
The presentations as a group emphasized the critical need for managed care systems to have
feedback channels to help determine what is successful and what hard questions need to be asked,
as well as to incorporate principles and outcomes to ensure that children have permanent families.
14
Breakout Session #4
Promising Practice Solutions: "Early Interventions"
Innovative solutions that include intervention before children are removed from their family,
reducing foster care drift and identifying critical cultural issues
Moderators:
Jacquelyn Kidd, Public Policy Analyst, North American Council on Adoptable Children,
St. Paul, MN
Linda West, Project Director, Mississippi Families for Kids
Gary Walsh, Project Director, Montana Families for Kids
Presenters:
Linda Katz, Program Director, Lutheran Social Services of Washington and Idaho,
Mountlake Terrace (Seattle), WA
Veneese Chandler, Executive Director Family Outreach Center, Grand Rapids, MI
Ernesto Loperena, Executive Director, New York Council on Adoptable Children, New
York, NY
Donna Starr, Health and Human Services Director, Muckleshoot Tribe of Indians
(Auburn, WA)
Major Objectives and Themes
Prevention and intervention measures to reduce the length of time children lack permanence are
helping to reshape child welfare as we know it. Family involvement and child-centered decision
making are critical to reforming child welfare systems. This session discussed innovations in
family group conferencing, kinship care, concurrent planning, family advocacy, as well as critical
cultural considerations.
The Family Decision Making Conference. The Family and Community Compact Program of Kent
County Families For Kids (Grand Rapids, MI) was offered as a promising example of the family
group conferencing model, an alternative to foster care. The program serves predominately
African American children and families, since 60 percent of children entering foster care in Kent
County are African American. Parents of these children often have a history of drug or alcohol
abuse and are frequently single parents.
Prospective Compact participants are offered two alternatives: the traditional foster care system,
which involves the courts, or the Compact, which utilizes decision making conferences made up
of extended family or kinship network members (aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.). This group assesses
the permanency needs of the child and identifies primary and backup caregivers -- typically
extended family members -- as well as needed services. The Family Outreach Center reviews the
permanency plan developed in family group conferences, provides supportive services and
referrals, and does case follow-up work. The Center receives approximately 100 referrals per
year.
Kinship Care Models --New York City. A report on kinship care in New York City established that
one-half of all children in the City are in kinship care at the same maintenance rate as regular
foster care.
These benefits of kinship care were noted:
the child knows the family
visits with the birth mother are easier
the placement is more stable
15
These disadvantages were noted:
the length of stay in foster care is typically longer
visits may need to be supervised
there are unanswered questions about standards for subsidized guardianships (for
kinship care) and about what impact such arrangements. may have on adoption as a
permanency alternative
A second kind of kinship care placement initiative provided for by the AIDS Orphan Adoption
Program (established February 1993) was also summarized, as follows:
309 children assisted -- most by kinship placement
the birth parent is empowered to identify caregivers
staff ensures that appropriate caregivers are chosen
funding is provided by AFDC, as well as Veteran's Administration and Social
Security entitlements
Permanency and Native American Cultural Issues. Native American children are over-represented
in the foster care system. This presentation summarized several values and characteristics of
Native American communities that are highly relevant to permanency decision making for Native
American children in care:
reservations are distinct legal and political jurisdictions
Native Americans regard children as wealth and often have large families
extended family members are close-knit and often parent relative children as a matter
of course
Native American culture is typically more communal and less materialistic than the
dominant culture
Native American children who practice their traditional cultural ways are less likely to
enter foster care
These characteristics need to be recognized and utilized as strengths by child welfare
professionals when permanency decisions are being made.
Concurrent Planning In Washington State. This presentation explained that Washington State's
pioneering concurrent planning model developed in relationship to a particular history and target
population. Paradigm shifts preceding the establishment of the model were the passage of an open
adoption law in 1990 and increasing numbers of adoptions both by foster parents and kin.
Children now entering the State's foster care system have increased dramatically primarily
because of parental drug and/or alcohol addiction. Those most at risk for foster care drift are
under age one and either African American or Native American. While 65 percent of all children
entering the system return to their birth families within three months, those with adoption as a goal
typically wait up to five years.
Concurrent planning works simultaneously toward two goals: (1) the reunification of the
biological family, if possible; and (2) an alternative permanency plan such as adoption, if
reunification isn't possible. The model depends on recruiting foster parents and relative families
who will both be prepared to work with biological families to attempt reunification, and to adopt,
if reunification fails.
Concurrent planning supports two Families For Kids outcomes: one year to permanent placement
and one stable foster care placement. The model is child - and family-centered and committed to
cultural sensitivity.
16
Breakout Session #5
Promising Practice Solutions: "The Backlog Blitz"
The end result: Movement into permanent families. How best can we achieve this outcome?
Moderators:
Joe Kroll, Executive Director, North American Council on Adoptable Children, St. Paul,
MN
Brenda Gadson, Project Director, Massachusetts Families For Kids
Karen Abman, Project Director, Pima County (Arizona) Families For Kids
Presenters:
Ruth Amerson, Program Administrator, Another Choice for Black Children, Inc.,
Sanford (Raleigh), NC
Kim Stevens, Family Advocacy Coordinator, Massachusetts Families for Kids, Boston,
MA
Polly Pfeuffer, Permanency Planning Specialist, Arizona Department of Economic
Security, Administration for Children, Youth and Families, Tucson, AZ
Major Objectives and Themes
This breakout session identified system change strategies designed to eliminate the backlog. New
cross-functional assessment teams, specialty placement agencies for children of color, and policy-
oriented advocacy were chief among the strategies presented.
Cross-functional Assessment Teams (Pima, AZ). To assist in eliminating Pima County's backlog of
395 legally-free children (all in care for two years or more), local Families For Kids organizers
created cross-functional assessment teams composed of a permanency planning specialist, a
consulting psychologist, a case manager, a support specialist, as well as invited parents and other
caregivers. These administratively and culturally diverse teams have helped overcome system
fragmentation and in doing so expedited permanency for waiting children. Job duties include:
collaboratively reviewing cases
profiling individual children and their needs
meeting with the case managers and children
developing permanency and action plans
Several concrete team achievements are already apparent, such as:
increased community awareness of waiting children
better agency collaboration
a greater sense of responsibility for children (ownership)
improved training and permanency planning procedures
placement of 239 children as of March, 1997
more older children asking for families
Another Choice For Black Children, Inc. Specialty agencies focusing on the placement of children
of color have become an important element of the child welfare system. The final presentation
described the philosophy and practices of one such agency, Another Choice For Black Children,
Inc., located in Sanford (Raleigh), NC.
17
The agency actively seeks to dispel several destructive myths that often impede permanency for
Black children:
that Black children aren't adoptable
that there are too many children in Black families
that the Black community isn't interested in adoption
that the Black family is defeated
Unlike many more traditional child placement agencies, Another Choice does not make extensive
use of the church, advertisements, or match meetings. Its distinguishing features include a focus
on assessing potential parents in terms of strengths, describing children positively, and
emphasizing positive phone contact work. Each worker places 12-15 children per year and
provides limited supportive services for approximately three months after placement.
Family Advocacy. Adoptive parents can discover that they are unprepared to deal with the needs
of their new children because so many support services are needed but not available to them. The
final presentation in this session focused on the strategies family advocates can use to gain
necessary support and attention from policy makers. These strategies were advocated:
recruit families by retaining the ones you already have
engage legislators using legislative breakfasts
let children and teens speak out
expand family resources
get the community, courts, and legislature involved
18
Concluding Session: Adoption 2002
An Address By First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton
The First Lady began her remarks by noting that the video on adoption made in 1995 (shown
immediately prior to her remarks) was the White House's first venture focusing public attention
on adoption. Since that time, she said, the President has made an unparalleled commitment to
improving the foster care and adoption system through the Adoption 2002 initiative.
She thanked all reformers (including Foundation and government leaders like Valora Washington,
Paul Vander Velde, Olivia Golden, and Carol Williams) for their help on the President's initiative,
for their work on behalf of children needlessly languishing in foster care, and for the knowledge
about effective models of service they were contributing to the change process. She called the
assembled reformers "heroes to children" and ground breakers for policy makers, and she
expressed pleasure in hearing about the many positive impacts growing out of reform efforts.
She also characterized the conference as timely given that federal legislators were forging a
bipartisan coalition on some crucial child welfare issues that put the country "within reach of
bringing common sense to the overburdened and outdated foster care system" by redefining
"reasonable efforts" and offering financial incentives to those interested in adopting children
(especially special needs children) from the public system.
To illustrate the significance of current developments, she recounted a case she had tried some 20
years previous when she was representing a neglected four year old whose biological mother had
psychological problems. The child's foster parents wanted to adopt; the child welfare agency had
refused their request; the biological mother was suing for custody; Mrs. Clinton was arguing that
the child be placed with the foster parents. Although serving "the best interests of the child" was
not common court doctrine at the time, the judge ruled in favor of the foster parents. The First
Lady noted that "we now have a clearer consensus about which children should/shouldn't be
reunited with their biological parents"; yet, she acknowledged that "none of us can predict with
certainty the outcomes of our difficult decisions" and it is therefore necessary to act on our best
judgment at the time
and support our professionals when they do so.
She also emphasized the need to recognize and work harder to overcome the disproportionate
representation of children of color within the foster care system.
She underscored the President's commitment that no child should be deprived of a safe and
permanent home for longer than necessary, and she summarized current efforts to:
highlight successful strategies
breakdown financial and other resource barriers to permanency
make available tax credits for adoptive parents
Finally she thanked the W.K. Kellogg Foundation for bringing reformers to the table to reduce the
number of kids waiting for homes and for launching FFK and achieving positive results (as
evidenced by church involvement, changing judicial attitudes and systems, and 7,000 new child
placements). She expressed optimism about the prospects of reform to change thousands of lives
and urged that all present continue to work together.
19
Conclusion
The W.K. Kellogg Families For Kids initiative is committed to continuing its efforts to focus
national attention on the plight of waiting children and to create a sense of urgency that compels
action on their behalf. Efforts to widen the circle of those who support change and to educate
policy makers and others based on lessons learned from the experience of participating FFK states
and localities also remain top priorities.
S:\FAMILIES\PUBLIC\VWFFKS\SPRINGTH\summary of policy meeting2.doc
20
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a publication.
Publications have not been scanned in their entirety for the purpose
of digitization. To see the full publication please search online or
visit the Clinton Presidential Library's Research Room.
Booklet, "Families for Kids of Color," 21 pages
Families
orKids
f Color: "
Ways Your
Organization
Can Help