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
34429080
label
PASS [Promotion of Adoption, Safety and Support for Abused and Neglected Children] Act [1]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
34429080
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
PASS [Promotion of Adoption, Safety and Support for Abused and Neglected Children] Act [1]
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
34429080
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7422560-20140536S-042-002-2016
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
0e8063ff810bbce1
ocrText
PASS
CLINTON LIBRARY PHOTOCOPY
THE
PRESIDENT
THE WHITE HOUSE
11-19-97
WASHINGTON
copied
November 14, 1997
Reed
'97 NOV 17 AM8:29
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Kagan
FROM:
Bruce Reed
Emanuel (p.5)
Elena Kagan
SUBJECT:
DPC Weekly Report
1. Family -- Adoption Legislation: You are scheduled to sign new adoption legislation
on Wednesday, in an event giving a prominent role to the First Lady. The legislation is a huge
step forward in promoting adoption and improving our nation's child welfare system. The final
bill largely incorporates the Administration's proposals in this area. In particular, the bill (1)
makes clear that children's health and safety are the paramount concerns of the public child
welfare system; (2) clarifies the "reasonable efforts" standard; (3) speeds up court hearings for
children in foster care and generally requires states to initiate proceedings to terminate parental
rights after a child has been in foster care for 15 of the previous 22 months; (4) provides states
with financial incentives to increase the number of children who are adopted; (5) reauthorizes the
Family Preservation Program (staving off an expected battle next year) and increases its funding;
(6) ensures health coverage for adopted children with special needs by requiring states to provide
coverage through Medicaid or the new child health program; (7) expands HHS's authority to issue
waivers to states for child welfare and foster care demonstration projects; and (8) breaks down
barriers to adoptions across state lines by prohibiting states from denying a suitable out-of-state
adoption when no in-state adoption is available.
2. Health -- FDA Reform Legislation: You are scheduled to sign FDA reform legislation
on Friday. This legislation reauthorizes the very successful user fee program that has enabled the
FDA to speed the approval of new drugs. The bill also codifies the REGO reforms, emphasizing
agency performance and accountability, that the Vice President successfully implemented at the
FDA in 1995 and 1996. In the course of considering the legislation, Congress deleted or amended
the provisions (involving, for example, off-tabel uses of drugs and devices) to which consumer
advocates most strongly objected. We worked closely with Senator Kennedy in the effort to ensure
consumer protections, and he happily cast the 100th vote in the Senate's unanimous passage of this
legislation.
3. Health -- Quality Commission: You are scheduled to accept the Quality Commission's
Bill of Rights on Thursday. We plan to submit a memo to you early this week summarizing the
Bill of Rights and recommending an appropriate response. We are also reviewing possible
executive actions to improve the quality of health care in the federal government. We will discuss
these proposals in the memo as well. As a lead-up to your announcement on Thursday, we have
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
11-19-97
asked the board of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) to brief the Vice
President, Secretary Shalala, and Secretary Herman on its upcoming issue, which is dedicated
entirely to concerns about health care quality. JAMA representatives are previewing this issue at
the National Press Club on Tuesday, and an event with the Vice President on the same day should
take advantage of media interest and provide a good basis for your announcement later that week.
4
Health -- Satcher Nomination: The Senate adjourned before acting on the nomination
of Dr. David Satcher, notwithstanding a 12-5 committee vote in favor of confirmation. Senator
Ashcroft placed a hold on the vote on the ground that Dr. Satcher supports the Administration's
position on late term abortion. Some have suggested that the Senator took this action solely to
position himself for a 2000 Presidential run. Dr. Satcher has never played a prominent role in
the abortion debate and has disavowed any intent to use the Office of the Surgeon General to
forward any "abortion rights agenda." Dr. Satcher continues to enjoy the strong support of a
number of Republican Senators (Frist, Nickles, Jeffords) and of virtually every credible health
care group in the nation, including the AMA. Although we are optimistic that the Senate will vote
to confirm Dr. Satcher soon after returning in January, we will work hard throughout the recess
to ensure that this nomination does not become a referendum on partial birth abortion.
5. Health -- HHS Study on Take-Up Rates for Health Insurance: You recently asked
about an HHS study showing a decline in take-up rates for health insurance. The study reported
on 10-year trends in access to and participation in employer-sponsored health insurance. It found
that between 1987 and 1996, the proportion of workers with access to employer-based insurance
remained constant at about 82 percent. The proportion of workers accepting that coverage,
however, declined from 93 to 89 percent. The decline was most pronounced for young and low-
income people; only about 75 percent of the individuals in each of these groups with access to
insurance decided to purchase it. The study noted that the decline in take-up rates occurred during
a period when premiums increased three times as much as wages. These findings confirm what
the Administration has long recognized -- that affordability of insurance is as important as access
to insurance. We hope that we will have an opportunity to build next year upon our efforts in
granting Medicaid waivers and enacting the Children's Health Insurance Program to provide
premium assistance for uninsured Americans.
6. Tobacco/Health -- Florida Tobacco Settlement and Children's Coverage: You
asked last week whether we could agree to Florida's proposal to keep all the money it will gain
from settling with the tobacco industry on condition that it use that money to expand children's
health coverage. Current law gives us little room to enter into this kind of arrangement. The
statute explicitly requires us to collect a specified share of any Medicaid dollars that states have
recaptured. If we do not, private plaintiffs are likely to bring qui tam suits on behalf of U.S.
taxpayers against Florida and other settling states; recovery in such suits would be split between
the federal treasury (70-85 percent) and the private plaintiffs (15-30 percent). Of course, the
federal government would have no right to recover (and any qui tam suits would fail) if the
monies gained from the settlement were not Medicaid-related. But the Department of Justice
believes that the damages Florida claimed -- and the amount it received in the settlement -- derive
2
cuatin in
Defuning what hen been "receptured"
THE PRESIDENT SEEN
11-19-97
from costs to the Medicaid program. Given these circumstances, we think it most fruitful to
pursue a legislative solution to the problem of allocating tobacco funds between the federal and
state governments -- preferably through a comprehensive national settlement, but if necessary (in
the event no comprehensive settlement is reached) through legislation authorizing states to retain
all Medicaid funds recaptured in tobacco litigation provided they use these funds for agreed-upon
purposes.
which
7. Tobacco -- Proposed Legislation: A number of Senators introduced tobacco legislation
in the last two weeks. Sen. McCain introduced a bill precisely incorporating the terms of the
settlement, except for the addition of provisions to protect tobacco farmers. Sen. Hatch introduced
Regulator
legislation increasing the cost of the settlement from $368 billion to $397.5 billion, raising (but not
eliminating) the cap on penalties for failing to reduce youth smoking, and amending the FDA
provisions, though not in a way that the public health groups will view as much of an improvement.
Sen. Kennedy introduced a bill raising the cost of the settlement to more than $600 billion, primarily
by increasing the tobacco excise tax by $1.50 over three years; the Kennedy bill does not provide
tobacco producers with any relief from litigation. Sen. Lautenberg introduced a similar bill, costing
$494 billion.
No one has introduced comprehensive legislation in the House, and last week the Speaker
indicated interest in breaking the settlement into a number of separate bills and acting on each as a
consensus emerges. Also last week, Rep. Bliley said that he would not move legislation until the
tobacco companies release 864 documents currently at issue in Minnesota's lawsuit. (The trial court
found that these documents fall within the crime/fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege, but
the tobacco companies have appealed this ruling.) Gingrich's and Bliley's statements may suggest
a strategy of delay, but could as well have some altogether different meaning.
We are continuing to seek a bipartisan process for enacting comprehensive tobacco
legislation. Both the Speaker and Sen. Lott, however, are proceeding slowly -- in part because they
have had to attend to more immediately pressing matters, in part because they have not yet settled
on an overall tobacco strategy, and in part because so many Members wish to play a role in
developing tobacco legislation. We and John Hilley are keeping in close touch with Congressional
leadership so that we can take advantage of whatever opportunities emerge in the next few months.
8. Welfare -- Cessna Event: At an event in Wichita on Monday, you will dedicate a new
state-of-the-art welfare-to-work facility at Cessna Aircraft Company, which is one of the founding
members of Eli Segal's Welfare to Work Partnership. You will announce (1) that in six months
2,500 companies from all 50 states have joined the Welfare to Work Partnership -- far exceeding the
goal of 1,000 set at the launch of the Partnership; (2) that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has
committed to enlist every local chamber of commerce in persuading their members to join the
Welfare to Work Partnership; (3) that welfare caseloads fell 236,000 in July 1997, 1.9 million in
the 11 months since you signed the welfare law, and 3.8 million since you took office; and (4) that
the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services are issuing new work-focused welfare
regulations (see below).
3
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEM
11-19-97
9. Welfare -- New Regulations: The Administration will announce two sets of new
regulations on Monday: (1) proposed regulations from HHS to states operating the TANF
program (essentially, the regulations for the entire welfare law), and (2) interim final regulations
from the Department of Labor to states and localities receiving grants from the $3 billion Welfare
to Work fund you won in the balanced budget agreement. The welfare to work regulation should
arouse little comment. The TANF regulation, by contrast, may provoke extensive reaction from
both Governors and advocates. As we told you in a prior weekly report, we worked extensively
with HHS on this regulation. In the end, we were able to resolve all issues in a way that we think
reinforces the importance of the law's work requirements while giving states flexibility to design
welfare reform programs and a fair opportunity to correct any failures.
Under the TANF regulations, states that fail the work rates will be levied a penalty based
on performance -- how close they came to meeting the rates. States will have the opportunity to
correct or eliminate violations through a corrective compliance plan, and states that make
substantial progress during their corrective compliance period will be eligible for a reduced or
eliminated penalty. To protect states from unreasonable risk, the penalty for failing to meet the
two-parent participation rate will be proportional to the size of the two-parent caseload in the
state.
The regulation creates a system of disincentives to prevent states from gaming the work
requirements, either by placing hard-to-employ individuals in state maintenance-of-effort programs
(where the work rates do not apply) or by reclassifying the benefits received by these individuals
as child-only (so that the individuals do not figure in the state's calculation of work rates). If the
Secretary finds that a state has diverted recipients into a state program or reclassified benefits as
child-only to evade the work requirements, she will refuse to reduce or limit the size of any
penalties levied for failing to meet the work rates or time limits. The same disincentives apply
when a state places individuals receiving child support payments in its state maintenance-of-effort
program so as to prevent the federal government from gaining a share of these payments.
The regulation, like the law, allows states to reduce the required work participation rate
by the percent the caseload has declined since 1995, so long as the lower caseloads are not due
to new eligibility restrictions. HHS initially proposed that states should not get a credit for
caseload reductions attributable to enforcement measures like fingerprinting, but ultimately agreed
to change this position.
The regulation also addresses Sen. Murray's concerns about victims of domestic violence
without threatening the integrity of the work rules. Under the regulation, a state will not be
penalized for failing to meet work rates or time limits if its failure to do so is attributable to
granting waivers to victims of domestic violence -- provided that the waivers are temporary and
that they are accompanied by services to help the individual prepare for work and self-sufficiency.
Sen. Murray may think that the regulation does not go far enough, but we think it represents the
best accommodation of the full range of interests.
4
THE PRESIDENT KAS SEEN
11-19-97
10. Immigration -- Central Americans/Haitians: The D.C. appropriations bill, as finally
enacted, Includes provisions to (1) give amnesty to certain Nicaraguans and Cubans, (2) ensure
application of the old immigration law's standards to certain Guatemalans, Salvadorans, and East
Europeans, and (3) reduce the number of unskilled worker visas and diversity visas. Although the
bill provides no relief to Haitians, we were able to secure commitments from the Republican
leadership to consider legislation on this issue early next session. These commitments allowed the
Attorney General to announce that the Department of Justice would suspend the deportation of any
Haitians covered by the proposed legislation for approximately six months.
1. Crime -- Crime Statistics: The Justice Department released new crime data on Saturday
from the annual National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The highlights of the survey were
included in this week's radio address. Crime victimization rates are today at their lowest level since
the inception of the NCVS in 1973. The murder and violent crime rates fell 10 percent and property
crime rates fell 8 percent in 1996. The decreases are even more significant when viewed over time:
since 1993, violent and property crime rates dropped 16 percent and 17 percent respectively, and
murder rates dropped a stunning 22 percent. Equally notable, these reductions were felt by all
Americans -- by men and women alike, and by individuals from every racial group and income level.
Ralun
12. Crime -- Juvenile Crime: The final Commerce/Justice/State appropriations bill
contains significant new funding for our key juvenile crime priorities. The bill authorizes and funds
a new $250 million Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant, 45 percent ($113 million) of
Souther
which must be spent on prosecutors, probation officers, and juvenile gun and drug court programs.
Our budget contained $150 million in direct funding for the same purposes. In addition, the Labor-
vikit
HHS appropriations bill provides substantial new funding ($40 million) for afterschool programs
through the 21st Century Schools Program at the Department of Education. We proposed $63
that
school
million for afterschool programs in our budget.
THE
13. Race/Education - Urban Education Initiatives: DPC staff met this week with senior
representatives of several national organizations interested in urban education, including the Council
of Great City Schools, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Urban League, the Rainbow
Coalition, the AFT and NEA, and MALDEF. Our staff provided a broad overview of education
proposals under consideration for FY 1999, including (1) the College-School Partnership initiative
to increase college enrollment among low income and minority students by providing mentoring and
other support services and (2) the Education Opportunity Zone initiative to provide increased
educational assistance to high-poverty districts that agree to adopt a standards-based reform agenda
involving the end of social promotions, the removal of bad teachers, and the reconstitution of failing
schools. The groups generally liked these proposals, but expressed a wide range of views about
student accountability provisions. The AFT felt strongly that even the mentoring initiative should
include a requirement that students meet certain academic standards, while the civil rights groups
expressed opposition to any performance requirements.
14. Race/Education -- California Bilingual Education Ballot Initiative: Opponents of
bilingual education in California have collected enough signatures to place an initiative on the June
5
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
11-19-97
1998 ballot to require that Limited English Proficient (LEP) children be taught in English
(specifically, in "sheltered English immersion" classes for one year and then in ordinary English-
language classes) unless a parent requests bilingual instruction. A recent Los Angeles Times poll
found that over 80 percent of Californians supported such an initiative, including 84 percent of
Latino voters. Most Hispanic groups have come out against the initiative, as has the California
Teachers Association and Sen. Boxer. Other education groups and most public officials (Gov.
Wilson, Lt. Gov. Davis, Attorney General Lungren, and Sen. Feinstein) have not yet taken positions
on the initiative. The DPC has convened a working group with representation from the Department
of Education and other White House offices to review the educational, legal, and political issues this
initiative raises and provide you with appropriate analysis and advice. At this early stage, everyone
in the group agrees that you should refrain from taking a formal position on the initiative.
15. Race -- Service Initiatives: We are working with the Corporation for National Service
and the PIR on several race-related service initiatives that you might want to take a part in
announcing. The actions are designed to lead up to Martin Luther King Day, which Congress
officially designated in 1994 as a day of service "a day on, not a day off" in recognition of Dr.
King's belief in service activities. The CNS will award $225,000 in mini-grants to 70 communities
to organize local days of service in observance of Martin Luther King Day. In addition, Harris
Wofford wants to promote something called the "Kindness and Justice Curriculum," which is the
brainchild of a youth service group involving Dexter King. The group is encouraging schools and
students to do acts of "kindness and justice" in the two weeks leading up to Martin Luther King Day,
to discuss them in class, and to post them on the Web. Finally, we are exploring ways to encourage
interracial dialogue in the Corporation's service-learning programs, where children serve together
and then reflect on that experience in school. These efforts can build on successful AmeriCorps
service projects, like the City Year program, that focus on diversity issues as part of the service
experience.
yu- I Shownd Du sevin
That Day in internacies
efforts Amencous hopefully
6
Promotion of Adoption, Safety and Support for Abused and Neglected Children Act
(PASS)
The result of a comprehensive bi-partisan effort on behalf of children and families, the purpose
of PASS is to promote adoptions and safety for abused and neglected children by clarifying
that a child's health and safety are the paramount considerations when a state makes any
decision concerning the well-being of a child in the foster care system.
1.
PROMOTES ADOPTIONS
Rewards States that increase adoptions with bonus of $2000 for adoptions of
foster children and $4000 for adoptions of children with special needs
Requires States to use "reasonable efforts" to move eligible foster care children
towards safe adoptions
Promotes adoption of all special needs children and ensures health coverage for
special needs children who are adopted
delink
AA
From
welfare
assistance
Breaks down unnecessary geographic barriers facing adoptive families
Requires States to document and report adoption efforts
II.
ENSURES SAFETY FOR ABUSED AND NEGLECTED CHILDREN
Ensures that health and safety are paramount concerns when a State determines
placements for abused and neglected children
Adds "safety of the child" to every step of the case plan and review process
Requires criminal records checks for all foster and adoptive parents
Allows children to be freed for adoption more quickly in extreme cases such as
murder or severe abuse by their parents
III.
ACCELERATES PERMANENT PLACEMENTS
Cuts by 1/3 the time a child must wait for a plan to achieve a safe and
permanent home
Requires states to initiate court proceedings to free a child for adoption once
that child has been waiting in foster care for one year or more
Gives judges the discretion not to initiate legal proceedings in special
circumstances such as when a child is safely placed with loving relatives
Shortens a child's wait for adoption by allowing states to develop a standby
(or concurrent) permanency plan
Prevents long, legal delays through the appeals process
IV,
INCREASES ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORMS
Establishes new outcome measures to monitor and improve state performance
Requires states, for the first time, to document child-specific efforts to move
children into adoptive homes
Introduces innovation grants to reduce backlogs of children awaiting adoption
Strengthens and integrates substance abuse treatment with protections for
children
Continues investments in strengthening families at the community level
Establishes a plan for public oversight of suspicious child deaths
PASS costs 2.3 billon Ever five years when originally introduced;
currently, by the bill deluks star care We arristance know The for only compromise prospectively,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
ADMINISTRATION FOR
The
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES
CHILDREN'S SERVICES
425 SHATTO PLACE
80 LAFAYETTE STREET - 18TH FL
City
LOS ANGELES, CA 90020
NEW YORK, N.Y. 10013
NewYork
(213) 351-5602
(212) 266-2100
Fax: (212) 266-2250
PETER DIGRE
NICHOLAS SCOPPETTA
Director
Commissioner
November 3, 1997
Mr. Bruce Reed
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. Reed:
On behalf of the New York City and Los Angeles County child protection delegations, thank
you for the time you gave to us on the "Emancipation Initiative" as well as pending Senate
legislation that promotes adoptions, S. 1195 - the PASS Act.
As discussed, we believe that the Emancipation Initiative, with leadership from the President,
could marshal significant existing resources on behalf of our most vulnerable young adults and
provide them with an opportunity to live successful, independent lives. There is no additional
cost to this Initiative, yet the public-private partnership required for success would send a
powerful message, demonstrating the best results of such a collaboration.
The PASS Act is landmark legislation which will promote safety and permanency for abused
and neglected children, and will eliminate delays in completing adoptions for those children
where there is no likelihood that family reunification is an option. In addition, as detailed in the
enclosed newspaper articles, the re-authorization of the Family Preservation and Support Act
is a critical component of a balanced approach to ensuring permanent, safe homes. While we
share a concern regarding the proposed funding mechanism for the bill, we understand that
the impact of this provision is under review, and we urge adequate funding from an alternative
source. Our overall impression from our visit was that there exists a real consensus for a bi-
partisan measure in Congress on permanency for foster youth, and urge you to continue your
support.
As the local jurisdictions that care for 20% of the foster children in the United States, we are
extending a sincere offer to work with you so that legislation promoting safety, permanency
and opportunity for our children will become a reality. Thank you again for your commitment to
our most vulnerable children.
Sincerely,
Nancy NANCY M DALY Day
Joy Warren
ELIZABETH H. LOWE
JOY WARREN
Peter Digre
Vicholas Scopetta
PETER DIGRE
NICHOLAS SCOPPETTA
Enclosure
Los Angeles Times
SECTION E
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1997
Reforms Seem to Be Working
till relatively new, legislative reforms that
with community-based services. The less serious
S
seek to protect children by strengthening the
cases are not recorded in a central registry.
communities around them appear to be reduc-
Elsewhere, multidisciplinary teams of profes-
ing widespread complaints about the child protec-
sionals have been stationed in different sectors of
tive services system across the country. Prelimi-
Cedar Rapids, Iowa; trained volunteers are paired
nary reviews of comprehensive systemwide
with at-risk families in Macomb County, Mich.; and
reforms, such as those in Florida and Missouri,
in Washington, anonymous reports are investi-
show families are better off and children remain
gated only under the most serious circumstances.
safe, according to the National Conference of State
While many reforms are not fully implemented
Legislatures in Denver.
or evaluated, they are spreading quickly, says
In Jacksonville, Fla., for instance, calls to the
Susan Notkin, director of the children's program at
child abuse hotline are referred to the family's
the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation in New
nearest "full service school," which can direct the
York, which is funding some of the reforms. To
parents to local services. Also, under a "commu-
work, she says, reforms must include a safety plan
nity support agreement," a community volun-
for each child, a strong network of local organiza-
teer-a friend, a minister or a relative-commits to
tions and citizens. an evaluation plan, and a
helping the family. When the agreement to accept
recognition by child protection workers that they
responsibility is signed, the case is officially closed.
must share decisions with their new community
So far, 300 citizens have signed such contracts.
partners.
In Missouri, the state's child protection agency
"It's very exciting," says Notkin. "But it's tough.
operates a triage system in which troubled families
It's very tough."
are screened for either a formal investigation in
collaboration with police or an informal assessment
-LYNN SMITH
LUIS SINCO / Los Angeles Times
Otis Woodward and Elena Ocegueda, with their 2-
of a family preservation program offered jointly by
year-old daughter, Whitney, are recent graduates
Drew Child Development Center and the county.
Los Angeles Times
SECTION E
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1997
A Grass-Roots Approach to Keeping the Family Whole
"
Children: County networks strive to bring the problems of
abuse and neglect close to home. Community involvement gives
Why should I
parents in crisis access to the people and programs that can help.
take her babies
away when she
NEIGHBOR TO NEIGHBOR
eye on you, you're going to do a perfect
job. It's the way it's supposed to be."
has a support
After three decades of building multi-
billion-dollar child protection systems
network like
One in an occusional series about
that studies indicate have been unable to
community building
protect most children, agencies across
that? When a
the country are rethinking the way it's
By LYNN SMITH
couple hundred
supposed to be-retooling their systems
TIMES STAFF WRITER
to shift responsibility for the commu-
people are
eter Digre, director of Los An-
nity's most vulnerable children and
keeping an eye
P
geles County's child protection
families back from complex, distant in-
agency, might have known he
stitutions to neighborhoods and commu-
on you, you're
wouldn't be the most popular
nities.
person at Praises of Zion church in
At least 12 states, not including Cali-
going to do a
South-Central, an area where a dispro-
fornia, have passed legislation that al-
lows troubled families to receive help
perfect job. It's
portionate number of children have been
without the often-stigmatizing official
placed in foster care. Still, he was
the way it's
investigations that try to fix blame.
surprised when the Rev. J. Benjamin
Others are experimenting with reforms
Hardwick called a mother up to the
supposed to be.
to involve police rather than social
pulpit, described her troubles, then
workers to investigate abuse reports,
pointed to Digre and announced: "And
freeing up social workers to do their jobs.
"
Peter wants to take her babies away.
Some reform efforts are pro-active-
After the service, at which Digre was
centralizing services in one-stop neigh-
a guest, he recalled that concerned
borhood shops and recruiting volunteers
Peter Digre
congregation members surrounded the
and paraprofessionals to help over-
mother with offers of help. but no one
whelmed families before crisis occurs.
Director of the
came forward to shake his hand.
In Los Angeles County, a system of 28
Department of
LORISHEPLER Angeles Times
"It was beautiful," he recalls. "Why
networks was created four years ago
Children and
should I take her babies away when she
through a collaboration between the
After receiving help, Kathleen Pierce is surrounded by Kandace, left, Kory and Kaleen. "I thought the whole world
Family Services.
has a support network like that? When a
Department of Children and Family
had dealt me an injustice. I realize now I was dealing an injustice to my children, and they didn't deserve it."
couple hundred people are keeping an
Please see NEIGHBOR, E5
NEIGHBOR
Even if they are not in gangs,
What's more, the networks have
many graduates of the system find
also helped build "community ca-
they aren't able to form family or
pacity," according to USC associate
Continued from E1
community ties, says Amaryllis
professor of social work Jacquelyn
Services and neighborhood-based
Watkins, a deputy director of the
McCroskey. Each network has a
agencies to help parents faced with
Department of Children and
group of community advisors,
losing their children to foster care.
Family Services. "If people don't
sometimes including former cli-
While some worry about chil-
have à stake in the community,
ents. They have created new jobs,
dren's safety whenever they are
they won't protect it," she said.
such as those for "teaching and
returned to families who have been
Triangle Church is one of the
demonstrating workers" who show
abusive in the past, many say the
"lead agencies" the county works
parents in their own homes how to
worst thing about the new ap-
with to help reverse that cycle and
care for children and manage a
proach is that it hasn't changed the
rebuild the community through the
household. Some neighborhood
old system enough. Under the
system of "family preservation
residents who moved out have
traditional system, parents who
networks." Family preservation
returned to work in the programs
have been reported to social serv-
strategies are not new but have
because they want to give some-
ices receive a visit from a social
typically used individual social
thing back to their community.
worker once or twice a month and
workers to provide intensive in-
lists of referrals for counseling and
home counseling during a family's
"I
don't believe there's anyone
other programs. The family pres-
crisis, such as drug abuse in the
who can't change. All they
ervation networks consist of a
home, reports of child abuse or loss
have to have is the right support,"
yearlong program that involves
of a job. Under the Los Angeles
says Andrea Jackson, who grew up
the community in innovative sup-
system, the county contracts with
in South-Central. Now a graduate
port programs.
private nonprofit agencies, which
student in behavioral sciences and
But, "The evidence is pretty
then subcontract for neighborhood
ethnic studies, she teaches parent-
compelling that it needs to be a
services-in-home counseling,
ing at Triangle Baptist Church.
differently conceived system,"
drug treatment and people to serve
Her morning class draws a dozen
says Frank Farrow, the children's
as role models-to help parents
parents, many of whom are recov-
services director of the Washing-
who voluntarily enter the pro-
ering from-addictions, were them-
ton D.C.-based Center for the
gram.
selves raised with harsh physical
Study of Social Policy. The present
Parents cooperate in creating
punishments and who say they
system, he says, "doesn't reach
their own custom plan. County
can't recall hugs or kind words
people it should, and when it does,
social workers still make recom-
from their parents.
it can't do very much."
mendations to remove children if
Jackson kicks off an animated
Farrow says national studies
they appear to be in danger. They
discussion by posing a Socratic
show as much as 50% of all child
keep in touch with family preser-
question: Is it ever advisable to
abuse and neglect goes unreported,
vation workers, who visit the fami-
spank?
and at least 40% of the confirmed
lies up to four times a week and are
Gloria Moore, reunited with her
cases have been through the sys-
often more familiar with the com-
five children, says she sometimes
tem before.
munity's resources, and help link
has to give her children "a tap on
In 1993, the U.S. Advisory Board
families with housing, health care,
the hand" because they ignore her
on Child Abuse and Neglect called
child care and other services.
otherwise. "I know you're not sup-
for a new neighborhood-based
The networks, started first in
posed to," she says. "I always said,
strategy for child protection. The
'I'll never do that.'
current system of mandatory re-
areas with the highest number of
Carla Eddington, a single mother
porting was designed in the 1960s
abuse and neglect reports and fos-
of five who is now being treated for
when child abuse was thought to
ter-care placements, now cover an
depression, suggests parents lose
be rare. Since then, agencies have
estimated 80% of the county. So
influence when they tell children
been buried by reports and investi-
far, the networks have served
not to hit their friends and then
gations that in 1993 substantiated
30,000 children in 5,000 families.
punish by hitting. "You're not
2.8 million cases of child maltreat-
There is often no way of know-
setting an example," she says.
ment. The vast majority are cases
ing whether families in the net-
"You're saying it's OK to hit."
of neglect, usually linked directly
works reabuse their children. Re-
Jackson tells them that children
to alcohol or drug abuse by care-
searchers said accurate scientific
will avoid someone who spanks
takers. Most protective efforts,
evaluations of such programs are
them a lot. That they can use time
meanwhile, continue to focus on
nearly impossible to make because
out or ignore them, or remember to
identifying and investigating sus-
of the multiple causes of family
reward children when they are
pected cases, rather than treating
dysfunction.
well-behaved. "It's important to
or preventing the problem.
However, according to one mea-
understand," she says, "the more
In South-Central, the Rev.
sure from the family services de-
praise you give them, the more
Frank Higgins of Triangle Baptist
partment, the networks have at
they want."
Church contends the investigatory
least decreased the rates of foster-
Many parents understand that
child protection system has de-
care placement. While placement
until the new policies went into
stroyed the community. He de-
rates continued to rise from 1992 to
effect four years ago, they might
scribes a tragic cycle that starts
1996, in areas with networks in
have lost their children perma-
when children are separated from
place they rose only 32%, com-
nently.
parents, damaged in unstable or
pared with 86% in other areas. The
A single mother, Tatia McDon-
uncaring foster care and, then,
$15-million network system saved
alienated and troubled, they return
an estimated $27 million in federal,
ald, 31, was raised in an unhappy
foster home. She had her first baby
to the community. He has no
state and county foster-care costs,
at 14 and began drinking at 17. A
statistics, but he suspects as many
according to county officials, who
companion once hit her SO hard she
as half the gang members in Los
also estimate the networks have
lost some teeth. At 25, she turned
Angeles may be veterans of the
leveraged an additional $150 mil-
to cocaine. When her youngest son
county's child protection system.
lion in services.
was born with drugs in his system,
the county took away all four of
her boys.
Until then, there had been a
"Sometimes, I tell them it's a
systemwide commitment to keep-
F
riends and relatives readied
strength that they let me in their
their cameras while a trio of
ing families together, said the
house," says Jenny Jones, program
drummers beat out African
director at Drew Child Develop-
worker. County figures show that
rhythms in a small auditorium in
ment Center in Watts, another of
in the ensuing months temporary
Watts. Candles and flowers deco-
out-of-home placements soared.
the county's lead agencies.
rated the stage. A brown paper
Although they have dropped back
Family workers say about two-
sign declared, "It takes a whole
again, she said: "It's like that era is
thirds of the parents make it
village to raise a child" and, under-
over. Now it's all permanency and
through the yearlong program.
neath, "Congratulations, Y'all!"
adoption."
Even then, it's no guarantee of
A dozen parents, sweating in red,
long-term success.
Even supporters admit lifelong
green and black caps and gowns
At least two children died, one in
or multigenerational problems in a
marched in, ready to celebrate
1993 and another in 1995, while
family have little chance of being
their graduation from the yearlong
their families were receiving the
fixed in a year. But Higgins and
family preservation program at the
intensive services provided by the
others argue family preservation
Drew Child Development Center.
networks, according to Bruce Ru-
networks-with their extra mea-
In the back row sat a couple, new
binstein. a former deputy director
sures of services-should be ex-
and reluctant volunteers for the
of the Department of Children and
panded. What's needed beyond
program, holding their baby who
Family Services. The family of a
counseling and support, they say,
was exposed to drugs at birth.
third child, Sherrice Iverson. had
are more long-term programs that
Standing nearby, social worker
address whatever families need to
Sweeney said he had invited them
also gone through a family preser-
reestablish themselves-job train-
specifically "so they can see where
vation network before the 7-year-
ing, education, child care, trans-
they'll be in a year."
old was killed this year in a Las
portation, and the bigger problems
Despite her troubled past, she
Vegas casino while her father was
of affordable housing, crime and
says family preservation workers
gambling. A non-family member is
drugs.
"believed in me 100%." After the
suspected in the death.
Lisa Pion-Berlin, president of
county social worker recom-
Sweeney says the parents with
the state chapter of Parents
mended family preservation, she
the best chances of success are
Anonymous, says more nongov-
received drug treatment, counsel-
those who, like Kathleen Pierce of
ernmental support is needed to let
ing three times a week in her
Whittier, get help in the midst of
parents know it's OK to ask for
home, a "teaching and demonstrat-
their first crisis and are able to
help.
ing" worker once a week to show
restructure their lives.
Without an ongoing support sys-
her basic household skills, and an
Although her third child was
tem, such as the 2,000 groups
adult role model for her oldest son.
born with drugs in his system,
Parents Anonymous provides
Pierce, 33, says she was shocked
nationwide, "gradually, you'll have
Sober for two years, McDonald
when county social workers later
the problem again." There are
now works at a Marriott Hotel and
took all of her children after tests
fewer than 20 support groups in
has been reunited with all her
showed she had relapsed. To regain
Los Angeles County, she says.
children. "I see a difference in my
her children, she entered residen-
Although other states help pay for
kids' eyes now," she said recently,
tial drug treatment. Whittier is an
such groups, "there's no money in
fighting back tears. "They seem
area without a network. She re-
this county or state to do Parents
happier."
ceived the help she needed only
Anonymous," she says.
She still struggles with how to
because there was a spot for her in
Chances of funding long-term
express her love for her children,
the neighboring South-Central
prevention programs are remote,
but she makes the effort because
Family Preservation Network.
advocates say, not only due to this
she doesn't want to let them down.
During drug treatment, she
era of tight resources but also
"I make sure I kiss and hug my
slowly widened her perspective. "I
because policymakers tend to focus
boys every day," she says. "Even
thought the whole world had dealt
on crises. Also there are those who
the 17-year-old."
me an injustice. I realize now I was
believe that parents who have hurt
Social workers say even though
dealing an injustice to my children,
or endangered their children can-
they have volunteered, many par-
and they didn't deserve it."
not be trusted to change.
ents initially resent the intrusion,
Through her social workers Swee-
calling them names or continuing
ney, her family preservation
to watch TV when they visit.
worker Richard Benavides and
Family preservation workers say
adult role model Betty Esparza,
they are dedicated to finding and
Pierce said she was able to nego-
building on parents' strengths,
tiate the world without drugs after
rather than looking for weak-
leaving rehab. They helped her
nesses.
cope with an angry teenage daugh-
ter, buy Christmas presents, find
support groups and funding for a
counselor. When she failed to
schedule appointments, she said
Benavides "would pick up the
phone and dial for me."
Now she's working, attending
support groups and trying to find
They watched and heard good-
natured laughter as nearly all of
new friends. Though her case is
those who took the microphone
officially closed, Benavides and
recalled how much they detested
Sweeney have told her she can call
the intensive services at first.
them if she ever gets in a jam.
"Now I'm on my own," Pierce said.
Some then-cried as they thanked
God and their social workers for
"But I'm not."
their new lives, new jobs.
hile the most violent or
Officials said they believe that
W
those who make it this far have a
chronically addicted parents
are screened out of the program,
good chance of succeeding in the
nearly all parents reported to the
long run.
county could benefit from inten-
Crystal Hodges, a single mother,
sive custom services, said Eric
had her fifth child while she was in
Marts, children's services adminis-
the program, and she said it felt
trator at the family services de-
good to have a sober baby. Now
partment. But the system is oper-
she is going to Compton College,
ating at only about half its
studying computer science and
potential due to funding caps, he
planning to be an accountant, try-
said. When community networks
mg to stay busy and making new
friends at the church on the corner.
can't handle any more cases, par-
ents who might have received
"They call it the love corner," she
family preservation services are
said shyly.
handled under the old system.
The only problem with the
Some social workers also worry
family preservation program, she
that family preservation has be-
said, is that it came too late for her:
come less of a priority in recent
One of her children was already
years as high-profile deaths of
adopted. What she wants for all of
them is "to do better than I did."
children monitored by the system
have pushed the pendulum away
from prevention and toward the
ultimate safety policy-adoption.
Nancy Daly, a member of the
Los Angeles County Commission
for Children and Families, said
pulling back is a natural reaction to
a child's death. "Everyone should
go crazy when a child dies," she
said. "That's just human."
Social workers admit it's also
partly a matter of protecting their
own jobs. One worker, who asked
not to be identified, said workers
have been pressured to "cover
themselves and detain children"
since 1996, when a county social
worker and her supervisor were
fired following the death of an
18-month-old girl. The child, who
was taken from her parents at
birth, was returned home under
the old system of supervision and
apparently was shaken to death by
her mother or father.
THE
SUN
October 26, 1997
PERSPECTIVE
Secret to fighting poverty
teachers to choose the schools
within the public system that
match their convictions about the
methods of education most likely
to lead to successful learning.
Third, many successful Initia-
A few key individuals
road to success.
learning is that if front-line profes-
tives have targeted an array of in-
The predicament is that suc-
sionals and agencies are to be able
terventions on a single community
can make a difference
cessful programs are seldom sus-
to do whatever it takes to help
to strengthen families and neigh-
tained. When efforts are made to
within mainstream systems, the
borhoods. Recognizing that nar-
spread them, to bring them into
systems must support their flexi-
rowly defined interventions don't
By LISBETH B. SCHORR
the mainstream, they are strangled
billty by judging them by their re-
work for those in high-risk circum-
by red tape, rigid bureaucracies
sults rather than for their compli-
stances, they are combining action
HY, in the
and archaic financing.
ance with a maze of rules.
in the economic, service, education
W
midst of a vi-
I set out in search of the people
Second, successful efforts es-
and community-building domains
brant econo-
and places that had beaten the
tablish partnerships with resi-
to expand opportunity while
my, are so
odds and had transformed not just
dents and community organiza-
strengthening individual capacity
many Ameri-
a school but a school system, not
tions that act more like families
to respond to that opportunity.
cans
still
just a social agency but a neighbor-
than bureaucracies. One national
Empowerment zones and foun-
mired in con-
hood, not just a few individuals but
pioneer is Los Angeles County,
dation-funded
neighborhood
centrated poverty?
whole populations.
which has contracted with 25 net-
transformation initiatives rely on a
For Americans turned off on
The secret of these successes? A
works of grass-roots community
community's strengths for design-
government, the answer long has
few key people had the insight,
organizations, including churches,
ing and implementing change,
been that nobody knows what to
courage and influence to climb out
Boys and Girls clubs and day care
while drawing on outside resources
do about the great underclass mal-
of old ruts and make fundamental
centers.
that bring influence.
adies of joblessness, single-parent
changes on three fronts:
These are the organizations,
The evidence is there. From Los
families, school failure, substance
First, they achieved a new bal-
says Peter Digre, director of the
Angeles to Savannah, Ga., from the
abuse and violence.
ance between flexibility at the
county Department of Children
South Bronx to St. Louis, commu-
In fact, we do know what to do
front lines and accountability for
and Family Services, that "breathe
nities are taming bureaucracies,
on a small scale. Here and there, in-
the expenditure of public funds.
in and out with what's going on in
crafting new partnerships and
novative programs have succeeded
We always have known that in the
the neighborhood" and are in the
putting together a critical mass of
in changing life trajectories and
course of home visiting or provid-
best position to be intensively in-
what works to transform entire
setting children and families on the
ing prenatal care or even job train-
volved with vulnerable families.
neighborhoods.
ing, people working on the front
Similarly, to be effective,
We must act on what we know
Lisbeth B. Schorr, director of
lines cannot be constrained by nar-
schools must be free to adopt co-
to mobilize our resources, intellec-
Harvard's Project on Effective In-
row protocols or circumscribed job
herent reforms, must be held ac-
tual and spiritual, to ensure that all
terventions and author of "Com-
descriptions. They must be able to
countable for student achievement
our children can grow up with a re-
mon Purpose" (Doubleday), wrote
respond, whether to a housing crl-
rather than for compliance with
alistic expectation that they can
this article for the Los Angeles
sis or the need for child care or
the central office's ideas of how to
participate in the American
Times, where it first appeared.
drug treatment. What we now are
teach and must allow parents and
dream.
Olivia, Carol, Jen and Nicole
Here are copies of Rockefeller letter to DES and
NGA/NCSL etc letter re offsets. Sorry I didn't get these
around to you sooner.
Mary B.
Z 94564122:#
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 :10-21-97 ; 1:52PM ;
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV
WEST VIRGINIA
Hnited States Senate
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-4802
October 10, 1997
Dear Madama,
It was good to talk to you about adoption and the Senate effort that I am helping to lead in
order to forge a grand compromise that could lead to the swift enactment of a strong adoption
bill, secure new resources for abused and neglected children, and avoid any administrative caps
on the food stamp program.
While I understand that "cost allocation" is a difficult issue for the states and HHS, I
believe that we face the stark choice of either using the opportunity provided by cost allocation
or accepting a cap on food stamp administrative costs, the latter which poses the likely prospect
of a push later for administrative caps on Medicaid, too. Given these the realities we see in
Congress, with an intensely supported agricultural bill financed by food stamp administrative
funds, I believe that the best strategy is to work together to develop an acceptable approach to
cost allocation which would also help us to secure new funding for services for abused and
neglected children and preempt current and future efforts to cap food stamps or Medicaid.
Since this is such a complicated process, let me recap our potential compromise and
provide detailed papers on cost allocation from the Center on Budget and the Congressional
Research Service.
As I explained, Senator Chafee has just proposed to Senator Lugar's favorable reception
that the Senate accept a form of cost allocation that would encourage states to keep TANF and
Medicaid programs aligned and still capture the potential CBO savings by prohibiting states from
shifting administrative costs to avoid the 15% administrative cap imposed under welfare reform.
Preliminary CBO scores of our cost allocation option are expected to yield $1.6 billion in savings
over 5 years. The proposal is to split those savings between the Senate adoption bill and the
Senate agriculture research bill, providing each legislative initiative with $800 million in offsets.
To tailor the Senate PASS Act to fit this compromise, Chafee and I would agree to phase-in the
delinkage of special needs adoptions to only cover future adoptions. This is estimated to cost
approximately $700 million over 5 years and still allow for th $100 million increase for Family
Preservation/Family Support included in the PASS Act.
While complicated, this compromise would address many of the issues that could delay
the enactment of adoption legislation this session. FIrst the agreement resolves the funding
conflict between the Finance Committee and the Agriculture Committee in a positive way that
avoids the direct cap of administrative costs for food stamps. Next the legislation provides
desperately needed funding for abused and neglected children through the maintenance of effort
E 94564422:
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 :10-21-97 : 1:53PM
The Honorable Donna Shalala
October 10, 1997
page 2
standard requiring states to convert any savings from adoption subsidies into the existing child
welfare system. Given the new expectations and demands we impose on states to move children
into adoption and safe, permanent homes, additional financial resources will be crucial for real
success and systemic change.
Finally the PASS Act seeks to reauthorize Family Preservation- Family Support, a
worthwhile initiative started by President Clinton in 1993. I was proud to work with the
President and you to create this program, and want to find a way to continue it despite the new
environment in Congress. I believe it is essential to move this reauthorization in tandem with
our language to clarify reasonable efforts, so that we can reassure the skeptics that the Family
Support dollars will not contribute to further abuse and neglect of children.
Donna, I acknowledge that this is a complicated compromise, but I am convinced that it
is our best chance to enact adoption legislation now, to provide financial assistance to the
struggling child welfare system, and to avoid the dangerous precedent of administrative caps for
food stamps and Medicaid. If we work together, we can achieve all of our goals.
Thank you for all your work and energy on behalf of children and families. Best regards.
Sincerely,
Jay
John D. Rockefeller IV
Donn, please a use the
underlinings, but 1 feel no
The Honorable Donna Shalala
Secretary
Department of Health and Human Services
strongly this in the right way
200 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20201
+ go. We con pass this legislation,
and we need you moru side!
Day-
10.14.97.0055
V 94564122:#
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 :10-21-97 ; 1:53PM ;
OCT-16-1997 15:08
IGA
P.02/03
NATIONAL
NACO
of
a
GOVERNORS
APWA
ASSOCIATION
american
wishans
Medical Confidents of Store Legislatures
association
Cartin
October 9. 1997
The Honorable Thomas A. Daschie
Minority Loader
United States Senate
U.S. Capitol S-221
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Daschie:
On behalf of the National Governors' Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures,
the National Association of Counties, and the American Public Welfare Association. we write 10
express our strong opposition to the funding mechanism in the Promotion of Adoption. Safety.
and Support for Abused and Neglacted Children (PASS) ACC S. 1195. WE specifically are
concerned with Sec. 404 which would require states and counties to allocate to the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant those administrative costs shared with other
federal means-tested programs such as food stamps and Medicaid.
According to preliminary estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, requiring states to
designare TANF as' the "primary" program would shift $300 to 400 million annually in food
stamp costs from the federal government to states and counties. Additional costs would be
shifted to states from the Medicaid program. Clearly, this provision is 8 violation of the
Unfunded Mandares Reform Act of 1995 and would be subject to 2 point of order.
States are now operating welfare programs under a fixed TANF block grant with a 15 percent
administrative cap. Under the proposal in the PASS bill. costs that would have been considered
legitimate food stamp and Medicaid administrative COSTS would now be subject to the TANF cap
or shifted to states and localities. For states that have always apportioned some shared CUSIS
among the relevant programs, the provision would require states to transfer these COSTS into the
TANF block grant. All states are concerned about the Impact of increased administrative costs
that may result from new federal requirements or from caseload increases because of natural
disasters. economic downums. or population increases. The PASS proposal does not allow any
adjustments for these factors.
Although promotion of the adoption of children in foster care is an important public policy goal.
our organizations cannot support legislation that places a financial burden on states and counties
by reducing fedoral spending on other programs for vulnerable children and familles. We urge
you to look for 2 different funding mechanism before proceeding with Senate consideration of S.
1195.
Sincerely,
Reyal
Thound
Raymond C. Scheppach
William T. Pound
Executive Director
Executive Director
National Governors' Association
National Conference of State Legislatures
S 94564122:#
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 :10-21-97 ; 1:54PM ;
OCT-16-1997 15:08
IGA
P.03/03
October 9. 1997
Page two
Ail Johnson
Larry E. Naske
A. Sidney Johnson. m
Executive Director
Executive Director
National Association of Counties
American Public Welfare Association
TOTAL P.03
9 9456412::#
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 :10-21-97 ; 1:55PM ;
$ 300 M = Hospice
CONFIDENTIAL
ADOPTION ASSISTANCE OFFSET OPTIONS
1. Reduce Epotein (EPO) Payments by 5 Percent: EPO is a drug used to treat anemia
related to chronic renal failure. EPO is a sole source drug, its manufacturer is competitively
protected under the Orphan Drug Act. Medicare reimbursement for EPO totals nearly $1
billion per year. Prior to 1993, Medicare payment was $11.00 dose. OBRA 93 reduced
Medicare's payment by $1.00 per dose based on an HHS IG report concluding that facility
costs for EPO before manufacturer rebates -- were approximately $10.00 per dose, $1.00
less than Medicare's $11.00 reimbursement rate. The HHS IG report also concluded that
some facilities received a 2 to 8 percent manufacturers rebate and that Medicare had no way to
capture the savings from this rebate.
This policy would reduce Medicare's reimbursement for EPO by a 5 percent per dose, or
$0.50, to capture savings from manufacturers rebates. ESRD-related beneficiary groups and
the manufacturer of EPO are likely to object to this change.
Savings: $100 million over five years. (Staff estimate)
2. Reduce double payment for enteral nutrients: Enteral nutrients provide nourishment
directly to the digestive tract of a patient who cannot ingest an appropriate amount of calories
to maintain an acceptable nutritional status. For nursing home residents, enteral nutrients
effectively represent a beneficiary's food or meal and could conceptually be included as part of
Medicare's routine Part A payment to the nursing home. However, the HHS IG found that
most nursing homes do not directly purchase enteral nutrients for residents, even though they
report that they can purchase nutrients below Medicare reimbursement levels. Instead, nursing
homes allow outside suppliers to provide the nutrients and bill Medicare under the Part B
prosthetic and orthotic benefit. If Medicare recognized the nutrients as "food," payments for
enteral nutrients would be made as part of the facility payment, rather than separately billed
under Part B.
This proposal would exclude enteral nutrients from Part B reimbursement when the patient
resides in a nursing home. Instead, these costs would be included in a nursing home's routine
costs and reimbursed under Part A.
Savings: $50 million over five years (all of the savings occur in the first year, since
SNF PPS begins in July 1998). (Staff estimate)
3. Reduce the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) by $20-40 million annually. SSBG is
an appropriated entitlement used to support a variety of social service programs designed to
reduce or eliminate dependency, achieve or maintain self-sufficiency, help prevent neglect,
abuse or exploitation of children and adults. The Senate Labor/HHS appropriations bill
DETERMINED TO BE AN
10/9/97
ADMINISTRATIVE MARKING
INITIALS: ms DATE: 5-14-14
reduces SSBG by $135 million in FY 1998. The House bill had a similar provision that was
dropped.
Savings: $100-200 million over 5 years.
10/9/97
DE-LINKING TITLE IV-E ADOPTION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Background
The Federal Adoption Assistance Program under title IV-E of the Social Security Act was
enacted in 1981 to support the adoption of children who have been removed from the homes
of low income parents for abuse or neglect and who the State has determined have special
needs for an adoption subsidy. The special needs children covered by the federal means-tested
entitlement must be removed from a family that meets the eligibility criteria for Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) in effect on July 16, 1996 or Supplemental
Security Income (SSI)*.
The IV-E program provides reimbursement to the States at FMAP for the monthly adoption
subsidies to parents who adopt these eligible special needs children, the one-time non-
recurring adoption expenses incurred by such parents, and State administrative and training
costs associated with the adoption of such children.
These children are also eligible for medical assistance under title XIX, Medicaid, and for
social services under title XX. While the adoptive parents do not have to meet any financial
eligibility criteria in order to receive an adoption subsidy from the State, the income of the
adoptive parent may be considered in determining the subsidy level. The program supports
approximately 150,000 children at an annual cost to the federal government of over $700
million.
Special needs children who do not meet the requirements for IVE reimbursement -- they do
not come from AFDC-eligible or SSI families -- are eligible for adoption assistance subsidies
in all but three States (PA, SD and WV). Without federal reimbursement, States pay the full
cost of subsidies to the parents who adopt these children. Most States (all but 6) also provide
Medicaid coverage for these children, but such coverage is not automatic in many States.
However, families receiving State-funded adoption assistance subsidies may lose access to
Medicaid and other State-funded post-legal adoption services when they move from one State
to another. (They continue to receive their State-funded adoption assistance cash subsidies.)
De-linking Adoption Assistance
The Promotion of Adoption, Safety and Support for Abuse and Neglected Children Act
(PASS), S. 1195, would amend title IV-E to provide federal reimbursement (at FMAP) for all
special needs children adopted from the child welfare system. The proposal would apply
retroactively to children in families now receiving State-funded adoption assistance payments,
as well as to all special needs children being adopted in the future.
*The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act bases eligibility for Title IV-E adoption
assistance on standards for Title IV-A (AFDC) as they existed in a State on July 16, 1996. Additionally, children
who are eligible for SSI are categorically eligible for Title IV-E adoption assistance but new SSI eligibility criteria
will eliminate automatic eligibility for Title IV-E adoption assistance for some children and may affect the continued
eligibility for children currently receiving SSI.
This proposal has the advantage of ensuring more equitable treatment for all children with
special needs who are waiting to be adopted, regardless of the financial status of the birth
families from which they have been permanently removed. It would also ensure that families
would retain Medicaid coverage when moving from one State to another.
CBO has initially estimated the proposal to cost approximately $2.3 billion over the next five
years. The proposal includes maintenance of effort provisions designed to ensure that the
savings accruing to the States would be used for the variety of child welfare, adoption and
foster care services allowed under titles IV-E and IV-B.
P.2
11-03-1997 12:00PM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
Adoption Legislation
Background: The Administration as well as the House and Senate
Leadership are anxious to get bipartisan adoption legislation
passed and signed this year. The House passed its bill by an
overwhelming margin in the Spring and Senator Lott had wanted to
bring the House bill to the Senate floor.
Unfortunately, adoption legislation has been held up in the
Senate for many months because various parties (including the
Administration and Senator Roth) have had problems with the
costly delinking provisions in the package put together by
Senators Chafee, Rockefeller, Craig and others as well as the
cost allocation issue used to offset the $800 million to $2.3
billion costs of the bill.
Last week, Senators Chafee and Craig met with Senator Roth.
While the meeting initially led to an impasse (with Chafee
insisting that the final bill include his delinking item and Roth
insisting that delinking be dropped), the Roth staff have now
floated a compromise bill. We have not seen the compromise
language as yet, but understand it does include several items the
Administration strongly supports (including our Adoption 2002
recommendations and the very important reauthorization of the
family preservation program). However, we understand that it
does not include several other items that we feel are very
important to final legislation. These include Medicaid coverage
for all "special needs" children (at a cost of approximately $30
to $40 million over five years) and several other changes in
provisions dealing with the termination of parental rights (TPR)
The total cost of legislation that includes these Administration
supported items will be approximately $100 million over five
years. After thorough discussions between OMB and HHS, we agreed
to propose that these costs be offset with Title XX funds. some
may not like this offset (Senator Chafee, for example) and we
need to check with Representative Obey before proceeding further
with it. At the same time, Jack Lew is checking again to see if
other offsets may be available.
We believe that we can sell the Roth compromise with the Medicaid
and TPR changes (plus some other small policy and technical
changes) to the House Republicans and therefore achieve final
legislation that can pass both houses by an overwhelming vote.
To do so, however, will require that the Administration and the
Senate Leadership press Senator Roth to accept our changes and
move a little further toward the Chafee/Rockefeller/Craig camp.
11-03-1997
12:01PM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
P.3
Talking Points for Conversation with Majority Leader Lott
The President shares with Senator Lott the strong desire to
move adoption legislation through Congress this year. The
enactment of bipartisan adoption legislation is a key
Administration priority.
While there has been significant delay on this legislation
in the Senate, we are pleased that Senator Roth met with
Senators Chafee and Craig last week. After an initial
impasse, we understand that Senator Roth offered a possible
compromise.
We understand the Roth compromise includes some of the
provisions supported by the Administration as well as some
of the provisions supported by the Chafee/Craig coalition.
It certainly does not go as far as the Chafee/Craig
group had hoped, but it cuts down on the cost
significantly by removing the delinking provisions.
It also does not include several changes sought by
other Democrats.
The Administration could support this compromise as long as
it included, at a minimum, several small but very important
items, including:
Small increase in funding for Family Preservation
(approximately $60 million over three years)
Medicaid coverage for all "special needs" adopted
children (approximately $30-40 million over five years)
House provisions on the termination of parental
rights (especially the House provision prohibiting the
termination of parental rights if services have not
been provided).
Provisions removing geographic barriers to adoption.
We would offset the approximate $100 million cost of the
bill over five years with funds from the Title XX program.
(Need to do some checking before making this public.) This
would take the controversial cost allocation issue off the
table with respect to the adoption legislation.
If Senator Roth could be persuaded to support these
provisions, we will work with you to develop a quick
bipartisan consensus on the bill. If you can do so, we
believe we can persuade other Democratic Senators to drop
their concerns and gain the support of the House sponsors as
well.
11-03-1997 12:00PM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
P.2
Adoption Legislation
Background: The Administration as well as the House and Senate
Leadership are anxious to get bipartisan adoption legislation
passed and signed this year. The House passed its bill by an
overwhelming margin in the Spring and Senator Lott had wanted to
bring the House bill to the Senate floor.
Unfortunately, adoption legislation has been held up in the
Senate for many months because various parties (including the
Administration and Senator Roth) have had problems with the
costly delinking provisions in the package put together by
Senators Chafee, Rockefeller, Craig and others as well as the
cost allocation issue used to offset the $800 million to $2.3
billion costs of the bill.
Last week, Senators Chafee and Craig met with Senator Roth.
While the meeting initially led to an impasse (with Chafee
insisting that the final bill include his delinking item and Roth
insisting that delinking be dropped), the Roth staff have now
floated a compromise bill. We have not seen the compromise
language as yet, but understand it does include several items the
Administration strongly supports (including our Adoption 2002
recommendations and the very important reauthorization of the
family preservation program). However, we understand that it
does not include several other items that we feel are very
important to final legislation. These include Medicaid coverage
for all "special needs" children (at a cost of approximately $30
to $40 million over five years) and several other changes in
provisions dealing with the termination of parental rights (TPR)
The total cost of legislation that includes these Administration
supported items will be approximately $100 million over five
years. After thorough discussions between OMB and HHS, we agreed
to propose that these costs be offset with Title XX funds. Some
may not like this offset (Senator Chafee, for example) and we
need to check with Representative Obey before proceeding further
with it. At the same time, Jack Lew is checking again to see if
other offsets may be available.
We believe that we can sell the Roth compromise with the Medicaid
and TPR changes (plus some other small policy and technical
changes) to the House Republicans and therefore achieve final
legislation that can pass both houses by an overwhelming vote.
To do so, however, will require that the Administration and the
Senate Leadership press Senator Roth to accept our changes and
move a little further toward the Chafee/Rockefeller/Craig camp.
11-03-1997 12:01PM FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
P.3
Talking Points for Conversation with Majority Leader Lott
The President shares with Senator Lott the strong desire to
move adoption legislation through Congress this year. The
enactment of bipartisan adoption legislation is a key
Administration priority.
While there has been significant delay on this legislation
in the Senate, we are pleased that Senator Roth met with
Senators Chafee and Craig last week. After an initial
impasse, we understand that Senator Roth offered a possible
compromise.
We understand the Roth compromise includes some of the
provisions supported by the Administration as well as some
of the provisions supported by the Chafee/Craig coalition.
It certainly does not go as far as the Chafee/Craig
group had hoped, but it cuts down on the cost
significantly by removing the delinking provisions.
It also does not include several changes sought by
other Democrats.
The Administration could support this compromise as long as
it included, at a minimum, several small but very important
items, including:
Small increase in funding for Family Preservation
(approximately $60 million over three years)
Medicaid coverage for all "special needs" adopted
children (approximately $30-40 million over five years)
House provisions on the termination of parental
rights (especially the House provision prohibiting the
termination of parental rights if services have not
been provided).
Provisions removing geographic barriers to adoption.
We would offset the approximate $100 million cost of the
bill over five years with funds from the Title XX program.
(Need to do some checking before making this public.) This
would take the controversial cost allocation issue off the
table with respect to the adoption legislation.
If Senator Roth could be persuaded to support these
provisions, we will work with you to develop a quick
bipartisan consensus on the bill. If you can do so, we
believe we can persuade other Democratic Senators to drop
their concerns and gain the support of the House sponsors as
well.
11-03-1997
12:00PM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
P.2
Adoption Legislation
Background: The Administration as well as the House and Senate
Leadership are anxious to get bipartisan adoption legislation
passed and signed this year. The House passed its bill by an
overwhelming margin in the Spring and Senator Lott had wanted to
bring the House bill to the Senate floor.
Unfortunately, adoption legislation has been held up in the
Senate for many months because various parties (including the
Administration and Senator Roth) have had problems with the
costly delinking provisions in the package put together by
Senators Chafee, Rockefeller, Craig and others as well as the
cost allocation issue used to offset the $800 million to $2.3
billion costs of the bill.
Last week, Senators Chafee and Craig met with Senator Roth.
While the meeting initially led to an impasse (with Chafee
insisting that the final bill include his delinking item and Roth
insisting that delinking be dropped), the Roth staff have now
floated a compromise bill. We have not seen the compromise
language as yet, but understand it does include several items the
Administration strongly supports (including our Adoption 2002
recommendations and the very important reauthorization of the
family preservation program). However, we understand that it
does not include several other items that we feel are very
important to final legislation. These include Medicaid coverage
for all "special needs" children (at a cost of approximately $30
to $40 million over five years) and several other changes in
provisions dealing with the termination of parental rights (TPR)
The total cost of legislation that includes these Administration
supported items will be approximately $100 million over five
years. After thorough discussions between OMB and HHS, we agreed
to propose that these costs be offset with Title XX funds. Some
may not like this offset (Senator Chafee, for example) and we
need to check with Representative Obey before proceeding further
with it. At the same time, Jack Lew is checking again to see if
other offsets may be available.
We believe that we can sell the Roth compromise with the Medicaid
and TPR changes (plus some other small policy and technical
changes) to the House Republicans and therefore achieve final
legislation that can pass both houses by an overwhelming vote.
To do so, however, will require that the Administration and the
Senate Leadership press Senator Roth to accept our changes and
move a little further toward the Chafee/Rockefeller/Craig camp.
11-03-1997 12:01PM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
P.3
Talking Points for Conversation with Majority Leader Lott
The President shares with Senator Lott the strong desire to
move adoption legislation through Congress this year. The
enactment of bipartisan adoption legislation is a key
Administration priority.
While there has been significant delay on this legislation
in the Senate, we are pleased that Senator Roth met with
Senators Chafee and Craig last week. After an initial
impasse, we understand that Senator Roth offered a possible
compromise.
We understand the Roth compromise includes some of the
provisions supported by the Administration as well as some
of the provisions supported by the Chafee/Craig coalition.
It certainly does not go as far as the Chafee/Craig
group had hoped, but it cuts down on the cost
significantly by removing the delinking provisions.
It also does not include several changes sought by
other Democrats.
The Administration could support this compromise as long as
it included, at a minimum, several small but very important
items, including:
Small increase in funding for Family Preservation
(approximately $60 million over three years).
Medicaid coverage for all "special needs" adopted
children (approximately $30-40 million over five years)
House provisions on the termination of parental
rights (especially the House provision prohibiting the
termination of parental rights if services have not
been provided).
Provisions removing geographic barriers to adoption.
We would offset the approximate $100 million cost of the
bill over five years with funds from the Title XX program.
(Need to do some checking before making this public.) This
would take the controversial cost allocation issue off the
table with respect to the adoption legislation.
If Senator Roth could be persuaded to support these
provisions, we will work with you to develop a quick
bipartisan consensus on the bill. If you can do so, we
believe we can persuade other Democratic Senators to drop
their concerns and gain the support of the House sponsors as
well.
P.2
11-03-1997 12:00PM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
Adoption Legislation
Background: The Administration as well as the House and Senate
Leadership are anxious to get bipartisan adoption legislation
passed and signed this year. The House passed its bill by an
overwhelming margin in the Spring and Senator Lott had wanted to
bring the House bill to the Senate floor.
Unfortunately, adoption legislation has been held up in the
Senate for many months because various parties (including the
Administration and Senator Roth) have had problems with the
costly delinking provisions in the package put together by
Senators Chafee, Rockefeller, Craig and others as well as the
cost allocation issue used to offset the $800 million to $2.3
billion costs of the bill.
Last week, Senators Chafee and Craig met with Senator Roth.
While the meeting initially led to an impasse (with Chafee
insisting that the final bill include his delinking item and Roth
insisting that delinking be dropped), the Roth staff have now
floated a compromise bill. We have not seen the compromise
language as yet, but understand it does include several items the
Administration strongly supports (including our Adoption 2002
recommendations and the very important reauthorization of the
family preservation program) However, we understand that it
does not include several other items that we feel are very
important to final legislation. These include Medicaid coverage
for all "special needs" children (at a cost of approximately $30
to $40 million over five years) and several other changes in
provisions dealing with the termination of parental rights (TPR)
The total cost of legislation that includes these Administration
supported items will be approximately $100 million over five
years. After thorough discussions between OMB and HHS, we agreed
to propose that these costs be offset with Title XX funds. Some
may not like this offset (Senator Chafee, for example) and we
need to check with Representative Obey before proceeding further
with it. At the same time, Jack Lew is checking again to see if
other offsets may be available.
We believe that we can sell the Roth compromise with the Medicaid
and TPR changes (plus some other small policy and technical
changes) to the House Republicans and therefore achieve final
legislation that can pass both houses by an overwhelming vote.
To do so, however, will require that the Administration and the
Senate Leadership press Senator Roth to accept our changes and
move a little further toward the Chafee/Rockefeller/Craig camp.
11-03-1997 12:01PM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
P.3
Talking Points for Conversation with Majority Leader Lott
The President shares with Senator Lott the strong desire to
move adoption legislation through Congress this year. The
enactment of bipartisan adoption legislation is a key
Administration priority.
While there has been significant delay on this legislation
in the Senate, we are pleased that Senator Roth met with
Senators Chafee and Craig last week. After an initial
impasse, we understand that Senator Roth offered a possible
compromise.
We understand the Roth compromise includes some of the
provisions supported by the Administration as well as some
of the provisions supported by the Chafee/Craig coalition.
It certainly does not go as far as the Chafee/Craig
group had hoped, but it cuts down on the cost
significantly by removing the delinking provisions.
It also does not include several changes sought by
other Democrats.
The Administration could support this compromise as long as
it included, at a minimum, several small but very important
items, including:
Small increase in funding for Family Preservation
(approximately $60 million over three years)
Medicaid coverage for all "special needs" adopted
children (approximately $30-40 million over five years)
House provisions on the termination of parental
rights (especially the House provision prohibiting the
termination of parental rights if services have not
been provided).
Provisions removing geographic barriers to adoption.
We would offset the approximate $100 million cost of the
bill over five years with funds from the Title XX program.
(Need to do some checking before making this public.) This
would take the controversial cost allocation issue off the
table with respect to the adoption legislation.
If Senator Roth could be persuaded to support these
provisions, we will work with you to develop a quick
bipartisan consensus on the bill. If you can do so, we
believe we can persuade other Democratic Senators to drop
their concerns and gain the support of the House sponsors as
well.
11-03-1997 11:29AM FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
Mention House will-toverwheiming w\ wantednat Lott to P.2
passupport.
to
Adoption Legislation
had
bring
Floor
Background: The Administration as well as the House and Senate
Leadership are anxious to get adoption bipartisan legislation
passed and signed this year. Unfortunately, the legislation has
been held up for many months because various parties (including
the Administration and Senator Roth) have had problems with the
costly delinking provisions in the package put together by
Senators Chafee, Rockefeller, Craig and others as well as the
cost allocation issue used to offset the $800 million to $2.3
billion costs of the bill.
(
that would provide provide
full fed funding states For all to Ster
Last week, Senators Chafee and Craig met with Senator Roth. care, instead of
While the meeting initially led to an impasse (with Chafee
Current
insisting that the final bill include his delinking item and Roth
Fed- state
insisting that delinking be dropped), the Roth staff have now
floated a compromise. We have not seen the compromise language
match)
as yet, but understand it does include several items the
Administration strongly supports (including our Adoption 2002
recommendations and the very important reauthorization of the
family preservation program). However, we understand that it
does not include several other items that we feel are very
important to final legislation. These include Medicaid coverage
for all "special needs" children (at a cost of approximately $35
Bullet
million over five years) and several other changes in provisions
and spell
dealing with the termination of parental rights (TPR)
out
The total cost of legislation that includes these Administration
supported items will be approximately $100 million over five
years. After thorough discussions between OMB and HHS, we agreed
to propose that these costs be offset with Title XX funds. Some
may not like this offset (Senator Chafee doesn't like it for
example) and we need to check with Representative Obey before
proceeding further with it. At the same time, we will check
again with Jack Lew to see if other offsets may be available.
&
is checking
We believe that we can sell the Roth compromise with the Medicaid
and TPR provisions (plus some other more technical changes) to
the House Republicans and therefore achieve final legislation
that can pass both houses by an overwhelming vote. To do 80,
Strategy
however, will require that the Administration and the Senate
is precons.
Leadership press Senator Roth to move a little further toward the
Chafee/Rockefeller/Craig camp.
mill
11-03-1997 : : 30AM FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
P.3
Talking Points for Conversation with Majority Leader Lott
Presiden
The Administration shares with Senator Lott the strong
desire to move adoption legislation through Congress this
year. The enactment of bipartisan adoption legislation is a
key Administration priority.
While there has been significant delay on this legislation
in the Senate, we are pleased that Senator Roth met with
Senators Chafee and Craig last week. After an initial
impasse, we understand that Senator Roth offered a possible
compromise.
We understand the Roth compromise includes some of the
provisions supported by the Administration as well as some
of the provisions supported by the Chafee/Craig coalition.
It certainly does not go as far as the Chafee/Craig
group had hoped, but it cuts down on the cost
significantly by removing the delinking provisions.
It also does not include several provisions sought by
other Democrats.
The Administration could support this compromise as long as
it included, at a minimum, several other small but important
items, including:
Small increase in funding for Family Preservation
(approximately $60 million over three years)
Medicaid coverage for all "special needs" adopted
children (approximately $40 million over five years)
House provisions prohibiting the termination of
parental rights if services have not been provided and
other changes to move the termination provisions closer
to House bill. touse provis some
Adopting House provisions on TPR particularly
Provisions removing geographic barriers to adoption. provision.
We would offset the approximate $100 million cost of the
bill over five years with funds from the Title XX program.
(Need to do some checking before making this public.) This
BOLD
would take the controversial cost allocation issue off the
table with respect to the adoption legislation.
If Senator Roth could be persuaded to support these
provisions, we will work with you to develop a quick
bipartisan consensus on the bill. If you can do so, we
believe we can persuade other Democratic Senators to drop
their concerns and gain the support of the House sponsors as
well.
10/30/1997 18:14 2023320935
NCFA
PAGE 01
MM
National Council For Adoption
"Help Build Happy Families"
DETERMINED TO BE AN
ADMINISTRATIVE MARKING
CONTIDENTIAL
INITIALS: @ DATE: 04/06/15
Oct. 30. 1997
TO: Melanne Verveer, Office of the First Lady, by fax 456-7805
CC Katy Dutton
ulie Mason
FROM: Bill Pierce Biu
SUBJECT: Attached communication regarding The White House
One of the adoption agencies we work with but which is not a member faxed the attached
material to us today after calling and giving us an alert to its existence. It came from an
agency which has an executive director who is quite sophisticated in terms of public policy
matters, who has been following the discussions around foster care and adoption reform
closely and who is of the opinion that the attached broadside is inaccurate and unfair.
In the interest of full disclosure, Maureen Hogan, who is AASK's Executive Director, has
engaged in public criticism of our organization, of me and of former staff members of our
organization. Therefore we are not entirely objective when it comes to this group's claims
and statements. We have strong, ongoing policy differences with this individual.
The broadside is inaccurate in several respects.
First, the Camp-Kennelly bill, although revenue neutral, is far more substantial than M.s.
Hogan claims. That bill, which passed the House 416-5, was a bipartisan effort.
Second the reason that this consensus bill did not sail through the Senate is that forces
who wanted a substantially different bill, with new revenue costs estimated at $2.3 billion,
insisted on a fresh Senate bill. Those involved were Democrats and Republicans, but the
lead players were Senators Chafee and Rockefeller.
Third, 1 working group of Senate staffers did develop an alternative bill. Those staffers
included individuals from several offices, including the offices of the Senators who
ultimately co-sponsored S. 1195, plus Sen. Grassley. Since NCFA was seen as supportive
of Camp-Kennelly, we were not privy to those discussions and do not know whether any
White House people were involved or not.
Fourth, we and a group of others - some 23 in all, representing a wide ideological and
political range - strongly objected to portions of S. 1195. For this reason, among others,
S. 1195 was stalled, but it was the $2.3 billion "offset" that was the major problem
1930 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009-6207
202-328-1200
P.
of 3
FAX 202-332-0935
10/30/1997 18:14
2023320935
NCFA
PAGE 02
identified by Sen. Roth. The "offset" was also termed an unfunded state mandate and
opposed by several of the state organizations.
Fifth, yesterday backers of S. 1195 met with Sen. Roth and Sen. Chafee insisted on major
spending and refused to accept an alternative package proposed by Sen. Roth. There is,
as of yesterday, a stalemate. S. 1195 backers are adamant about substantial changes and
spending; Sen. Roth and others, including most of the House, want something different.
To our knowledge, and we have been tracking this debate very closely for several month
there has been no White House involvement aimed at the Senate bill. It is, therefore, both
inaccurate and unfair to level a broadside at the White House, based on what we know of
the actions and discussions that have taken place.
If, however, the real message of the AASK attack is that those who are concerned about
the $2.3 billion in new spending or the unfunded mandate are stopping the Senate bill, then
there are several groups who could be properly identified in that camp as moving to
"block" S. 1195. An objective analysis of the groups would reveal that there are probably
more "conservative" or "Republican" groups involved in the attempt to "block" S, 1195 as
originally introduced than Democrats.
In other words, the broadside is a bum rap.
My suggestion: National Adoption Month is coming up. Consider having the President
and the First Lady join in a Saturday radio address on Nov. 1 talking about all the positive
adoption measures that have passed or are in the works. In all likelihood, if Sen. Roth
does not blink in the current standoff, and Sen. Chafee insists on major new spending, then
there may be people who can fairly be described as having stopped adoption and foster
care reform, but the main person, so far as we can determine, who will have done so is a
Republican Senator from Rhode Island. If Sen. Chafee blinks, then there is no reason that
a decent bill cannot be sent to the President for his signature during November, National
Adoption Month. If there is such a bill-signing, it would be a wonderful opportunity to
open The White House not just to the key Members who were responsible but the broader
adoption community and some adoptive families.
Sincelwe are not aware of what, if anything, the White House has done in respect to S.
1195, we are not in a position to defend the Administration beyond the sort of approach
that took in this memo.
Feel free to share this memo selectively within The White House.
WP/ns
mv 103097
2
10/30/1997 18:14 2023320935
NCFA
PAGE 03
WHITE HOUSE MOVES IV DEVOR
ADOPTION BILL
To:
Adoption Advocates
From:
AASK/America
Date:
October 29, 1997
Re:
Urgent Legislative Alert
AASK has learned that the White House is urging defeat of
provision in a Senate bill to provide increased subsidies to
adoptive families with special needs, the so-called de-linking
provision. Since the White House has not participated in the
Senate consensus process on adoption their destructive intervention
at this stage threatens to prevent Senate Republicans like Chafee
(R-RI), Grassley (R-10), Craig (R-ID) and Dewine (R-OH) from
protecting the interests of adoptive families. With active
opposition from the White House it has become impossible for Senate
Republicans, especially Sen. Craig who holds a leadership position,
to build support for de-linking among fiscal conservatives on both
sides of the aisle.
The White House introduced its own proposal last December.
Unfortunately, however, that package merely creates several new
study commissions and offers peanuts to encourage the States to
increase adoptions from less than 5% of children in foster care to
less than 10% of children in foster care. The White House plan
would only reach half of the children who are currently legally
free to be adopted. The President has deliberately avoided
correcting the fundamental flaws in the current system. Now he
actively seeks to obstruct the efforts of those who would make
meaningful change.
Only measures championed by Senate Republicans and a handful
of Democrats addresses real world needs with real world solutions.
Any suggestion that Senate leadership has not been working to
protect your interests is misleading. The Senate's plan to provide
you with additional resources has been seriously undermined by
active opposition from the White House.
Action Items!
Call the White House at (202) 456-1414.
Demand that they support stronger measures in the senate to
protect families who adopt children with special needs!
Adopt a Special Kid
226 4th Street N.E., Washington. D.C. 20002 (202) 388-3888 Fax (202) 544-9034
10-16-1997 2:19PM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
P.1
HUMAN SERVICES. ,USA
DATE: 10/16/97
&
HEALTH
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
OF
200 INDEPENDENCE AVE., SW
DEPARTMENT
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20201
PHONE: (202) 690-6311
FAX: (202) 690-8425
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LEGISLATION
HUMAN SERVICES LEGISLATION
ROOM 413 H HUMPHREY BUILDING
FROM:
TO
: Elena Kagan
l
[XX] MARY M. BOURDETTE
Jen Klein
Deputy Asst. Sec.
OFFICE
: WH/DPC
ROOM NO
:
PHONE NO :
FAX NO
:
TOTAL PAGES
Elena -fax -456-2878
INCLUDING COVER) : 3
Jen-fix- - - 456-9412
REMARKS: Here's talking points for the Chafee/Rockefeller meeting at 5:15 in
Room 505 Dirksen. I'm giving to Rich too. We need to figure out a little
more what we say about NO on cost allocation. Maybe we can send hand signals
about our speaking roles
Anyway, I'll be here until the meeting.
10-16-1997 2: 19PM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
P.2
Targeting
M
spective ge
Adoption - Talking Pts - re Chafee/Rockefeller
Praise their leadership/expertise/hard work
We're extremely grateful to Laurie and Barbara for all their
hard work on this.
The President, First Lady and Secretary strongly committed
to our Adoption 2002 goals; aware of key role L/B and bosses
played in bringing the bipartisan group of Senators
together, and keeping their eye on the important issues
Strong desire to continue working together to get legislation
passed and signed this year goal we all share - know the
downsides of waiting till next year
Many aspects of initial C/R bill and new PASS bill that we
support - especially those elements of Adoption 2002.
i.e. bonuses, expedited permanency planning, reasonable
efforts clarification, strengthening TPR, innovation grants
Plus, strongly support the reauthorization of family pres.
Also support the steps PASS take to address the specific problems
that have been identified with the current IVE adoption
assistance program ensuring Medicaid for all special needs
children and maintaining eligibility for special needs children
from disrupted adoptions.
Thus, in addition to the bonuses and procedural changes regarding
reasonable efforts, TPR, permanency that we've discussed with you
before, we're prepared to offer our support for the following
spending elements in PASS:
1. Medicaid for all special needs children
approximately $30 million over 5
2. Continued IVE eligibility for disrupted adoptions
approximately $5 million over 5
3. Reauthorization of family preservation at increased
level in your bill
approx $100 million over 5
While we do not support the use of cost allocation as an offset
for these measures, we're prepared to recommend alternatives
offset for the approximately $150 m cost of these items.
Know the overall delinking proposal is important to you, but we
cannot support it for several reasons:
(1) we do not believe that the policy will lead to more
children being adopted -- instead, we view it as a cost
shift from the states to the feds.
(2) we believe the cost is prohibitive in a time of very
P.3
10-16-1997 2:20PM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
limited resources and (as you know, we have been unable to
get the $21 million we requested for adoption in the
Labor/HHS bill)
(3) we do not agree that we should take over what has been a
state responsibility
(4) on balance and in light of other children's and domestic
needs, this is not a priority we can support.
We think our offer is a very strong package, politically and
policy-wise and one we can sell to the House as well.
We have not discussed this package with anyone else at this
stage. Wanted first to discuss it with you and figure out the
most useful strategies for getting this done quickly. Given
where we are, se see two strategic options.
(1) A Conference Strategy
This is the package we would fight for in conference -
and would be as supportive as possible for Senate
approval of your larger package
We'd be prepared to send very positive letter to Senate
on PASS, outlining key areas we support and some
general expression of concern about cost issues.
We'd help you round up votes for your bill among
Democrats and Republicans if possible.
(2) Senate strategy
Make these changes so we could fully support on Senate
floor.
Hope we can come to some resolution to next steps and work
cooperatively to" get to signing ceremony
10-10-1997 3: 35PM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
P. 1
HUMAN SERVICES USA
DATE:10/10/97
&
HEALTH
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
OF
200 INDEPENDENCE AVE., SW
DEPARTMENT
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20201
PHONE: (202) 690-6311
FAX: (202) 690-8425
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LEGISLATION
HUMAN SERVICES LEGISLATION
ROOM 413 H HUMPHREY BUILDING
FROM:
TO
: Jen Klein
[ X] MARY M. BOURDETTE
Deputy Asst. Sec.
OFFICE
: White House
ROOM NO :
PHONE NO :
FAX NO
:
456-9412
TOTAL PAGES
INCLUDING COVER) : 2
REMARKS: In case you get a chance to see this before Tuesday -- an update.
Further, I talked to Rich T - which lead to the conference call scheduled for
Wed. AM with you and Elena and Rich and me. Best of all worlds is that the
four of us would be able to go over to Barbara ₽ and Laurie R on Wednesday PM
and lay out where we are for them -- so hope we can have all the package
wrapped up and be ready to discuss this in our call.
See you soon.
10-10-1997 3:36PM
FROM MARY BOURDETTE 96905750
P.2
To
: Carol W [email protected]@ACF.WDC, Olivia Golden@[email protected],
John [email protected]@OS.DC
Cc
: Madeline Mocko@[email protected], Cheryl [email protected]@OS.DC,
Dan [email protected]@ACF.WDC, Barbara Clark@[email protected],
William [email protected]@OS.DC
Bcc
:
From
: Mary Bourdette@[email protected]
Subject
: adoption
Date
: Friday, October 10, 1997 at 3:56:48 pm EDT
Attach
:
Certify
: N
Encrypt
: N
An afternoon update on adoption
Sen. Rockefeller called the Secretary this morning to urge her to support a
"new" Senate deal on the adoption bill. She listened and said she'd get back
to him.
The new part is that apparently Senators Chafee and Lugar got together and made
an agreement about the cost allocation offset that both had been vying for to
offset the spending in their bills (Lugar has the ag research bill that was
dependent upon cost allocation for offsets). They agreed to a cost allocation
scheme that would produce about $1.6 b over 5 in savings and that they would
divide these up -- $800 million for the adoption bill, $800 million for the ag
research bill. As you, the admin doesn't support the use of any cost
allocation offset at this time.
Barbara Pryor in Rockefeller's office says they will now trim down the bill to
meet these savings, by doing delinking prospectively only and family
preservation. They still have a number of other issues to deal with - re how
you use a single revenue source for two different pieces of legislation.
While this adds a new dimension to our strategy, I don't think it changes
anything too much and it makes it all the more urgent that we have our own
position in order as soon as possible, so that we can get back to Rockefeller
and Chafee (Sec promised to get back to Rock on tuesday with something). I
know everyone has lots to do - but any chance we can wrap up our thoughts on
package by cob tuesday -- especially re the offsets. From my perspctive, and
despite my liberal leanings, I'd go with the Title XX offset -- for the
simplistic reason that all the people we deal with on adoption (both on hill
and us) are familiar with this and at least we understand the players and the
politics. One could also argue that XX has become the piggy bank for lots of
things and better that it funds things that are for needy families and a
priority for us. I'm anxious to know your views on this though - and could be
talked out of this view.
Thanks gang and have a nice weekend.
3
1 TITLE I-REASONABLE EFFORTS
2
AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
3
FOR FOSTER CARE AND
4
ADOPTION PLACEMENTS
5 SEC. 101. CLARIFICATION OF THE REASONABLE EFFORTS
6
REQUIREMENT.
7
Section 471(a)(15) of the Social Security Act (42
8 U.S.C. 671(a)(15)) is amended to read as follows:
9
((15) provides that-
10
"(A) in determining reasonable efforts, as
11
described in this section, the child's health and
12
safety shall be the paramount concern;
13
"(B) reasonable efforts shall be made to
14
preserve and reunify families when possible-
15
"(i) prior to the placement of a child
16
in foster care, to prevent or eliminate the
17
need for removing the child from the
18
child's home when the child can be cared
19
for at home without endangering the
20
child's health or safety; or
21
"(ii) to make it possible for the child
22
to safely return to the child's home;
23
"(C) reasonable efforts shall not be re-
24
quired on behalf of any parent-
.S 1195 IS
4
1
"(i) if a court of competent jurisdic-
2
tion has made a determination that the
3
parent has-
4
"(I) committed murder of an-
5
other child of the parent;
6
"(II) committed voluntary man-
7
slaughter of another child of the par-
8
ent;
9
((III) aided or abetted, at-
10
tempted, conspired, or solicited to
11
commit such murder or voluntary
12
manslaughter; or
13
"(IV) committed a felony assault
14
that results in serious bodily injury to
15
the child or another child of the par-
16
ent;
17
"(ii) if a court of competent jurisdic-
18
tion determines that returning the child to
19
the home of the parent would pose a seri-
20
ous risk to the child's health or safety (in-
21
cluding but not limited to cases of aban-
22
donment, torture, chronic physical abuse,
23
sexual abuse, or a previous involuntary ter-
24
mination of parental rights with respect to
25
a sibling of the child); or
.S 1195 IS
5
1
"(iii) if the State, through legislation,
2
has specified cases in which the State is
3
not required to make reasonable efforts be-
4
cause of serious circumstances that endan-
5
ger a child's health or safety;
6
"(D) if reasonable efforts to preserve or re-
7
unify a family are not made in accordance with
8
subparagraph (C), and placement with either
9
parent would pose a serious risk to the child's
10
health or safety, or in any case in which a
11
State's goal for the child is adoption or place-
12
ment in another permanent home, reasonable
13
efforts shall be made to place the child in a
14
timely manner with an adoptive family, with a
15
qualified relative or legal guardian, or in an-
16
other planned permanent living arrangement,
17
and to complete whatever steps are necessary to
18
finalize the adoption or legal guardianship; and
19
"(E) reasonable efforts of the type de-
20
scribed in subparagraph (D) may be made con-
21
currently with reasonable efforts of the type de-
22
scribed in subparagraph (B);"
.S 1195 IS
7
1
(I) by inserting "the safety of the
2
child," after "determine"; and
3
(II) by inserting "and safely
4
maintained in" after "returned to".
5 SEC. 103. MULTIDISCIPLINARY/MULTIAGENCY CHILD
6
DEATH REVIEW TEAMS.
7
(a) STATE CHILD DEATH REVIEW TEAMS.-Section
8 471 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 671) is amended
9 by adding at the end the following:
10
"(c)(1) In order to investigate and prevent child
11 death from fatal abuse and neglect, not later than 2 years
12 after the date of the enactment of this subsection, a State,
13 in order to be eligible for payments under this part, shall
14 submit to the Secretary a certification that the State has
15 established and is maintaining, in accordance with applica-
16 ble confidentiality laws, a State child death review team,
17 and if necessary in order to cover all counties in the State,
18 child death review teams on the regional or local level, that
at a minimum,
19 shall review child deaths, including deaths in which-
,
20
"(A) there is a record of a prior report of child
21
abuse or neglect or there is reason to suspect that
22
the child death was caused by, or related to, child
23
abuse or neglect; or
.S 1195 IS
8
1
"(B) the child who died was a ward of the
2
State or was otherwise known to the State or local
3
child welfare service agency.
4
"(2) A child death review team established in accord-
5 ance with this subsection should have a membership that
6 will present a range of viewpoints that are independent
7 from any specific agency, and shall include representatives
8 from, at a minimum, specific fields of expertise, such as
9 law enforcement, health, mental health, and substance
develo child pment,
social work,
10 abuse, and from the community.
11
"(3) A State child death review team shall at a minimum
12
"(A) provide support to a regional or local child
13
death review team;
14
"(B) make public an annual summary of case
15
findings;
16
"(C) provide recommendations for systemwide
17
improvements in services to investigate and prevent
18
future fatal abuse and neglect; and
19
"(D) if the State child death review team covers
20
all counties in the State on its own, carry out the
21
duties of a regional or local child death review team
22
described in paragraph (4).
23
"(4) A regional or local child death review team
24 shall-
25
"(A) conduct individual case reviews;
.S 1195 IS
9
1
"(B) recommend followup procedures for child
2
death cases; and
3
"(C) suggest and assist with system improve-
4
ments in services to investigate and prevent future
5
fatal abuse and neglect."
6
(b) FEDERAL CHILD DEATH REVIEW TEAM.-Sec-
7 tion 471 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 671), as
8 amended by subsection (a), is amended by adding at the
9 end the following:
10
"(d)(1) The Secretary shall establish a Federal child
11 death review team that shall consist of at least the follow-
12 ing:
13
"(A) Representatives of the following Federal
14
agencies who have expertise in the prevention or
15
treatment of child abuse and neglect:
16
"(i) Department of Health and Human
17
Services.
18
"(ii) Department of Justice.
19
"(iii) Bureau of Indian Affairs.
20
"(iv) Department of Defense.
21
"(v) Bureau of the Census.
22
"(B) Representatives of national child-serving
23
organizations who have expertise in the prevention
24
or treatment of child abuse and neglect and that, at
.S 1195 IS
10
1
a minimum, represent the health, child welfare, so-
2
cial services, and law enforcement fields.
3
"(2) The Federal child death review team established
4 under this subsection shall-
INSERT
5
"(A) review/reports of child deaths on military
6
installations and other Federal lands, and coordinate
7
with Indian tribal organizations in the review of
8
child deaths on Indian reservations;
9
"(B) upon request, provide guidance and tech-
10
nical assistance to States and localities seeking to
INSERT
11
initiate or improve child death review teams/and to
12
prevent child fatalities; and
13
"(C) develop recommendations on related policy
14
and procedural issues for Congress, relevant Federal
15
agencies, and States and localities for the purpose of
16
preventing child fatalities."
17 SEC. 104. STATES REQUIRED TO INITIATE OR JOIN PRO-
18
CEEDINGS TO TERMINATE PARENTAL
19
RIGHTS FOR CERTAIN CHILDREN IN FOSTER
20
CARE.
21
(a) REQUIREMENT FOR PROCEEDINGS.-Section
22 475(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 675(5)) is
23 amended—
24
(1) by striking "and" at the end of subpara-
25
graph (C);
.S 1195 IS
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO S. 1195
INSERT on page 10, at line 5:
and analyze relevant data, annual summaries of case
findings and recommendations prepared by the State
child death review teams, and aggregate information on
child deaths occurring on military installations,
Indian reservations and other Federal lands
INSERT on page 10, at line 11:
or to strengthen child death review team functioning,
including data collection and recommendation
formulation activities, in order
11
1
(2) by striking the period at the end of sub-
2
paragraph (D) and inserting "; and"; and
3
(3) by adding at the end the following:
4
"(E) in the case of a child who has been
5
in foster care under the responsibility of the
6
State for 12 of the most recent 18 months, or
7
for a lifetime total of 24 months, or, if a court
8
of competent jurisdiction has determined an in-
9
fant to have been abandoned (as defined under
10
State law), or made a determination that the
11
parent has committed murder of another child
12
of such parent, committed voluntary man-
13
slaughter of another child of such parent, aided
14
or abetted, attempted, conspired, or solicited to
15
commit such murder or voluntary man-
16
slaughter, or committed a felony assault that
17
results in serious bodily injury to the surviving
18
child or to another child of such parent, the
19
State shall file a petition to terminate the pa-
20
rental rights of the child's parents (or, if such
21
a petition has been filed by another party, seek
22
to be joined as a party to the petition), and,
23
concurrently, to identify, recruit, process, and
24
approve a qualified family for an adoption, un-
25
less
.S 1195 IS
12
1
"(i) at the option of the State, the
2
child is being cared for by a relative; or
3
"(ii) a State court or State agency
4
has documented a compelling reason for
5
determining that filing such a petition
6
would not be in the best interests of the
7
child.".
8
(b) DETERMINATION OF BEGINNING OF FOSTER
9 CARE.-Section 475(5) of the Social Security Act (42
10 U.S.C. 675(5)), as amended by subsection (a), is amend-
11 ed-
12
(1) by striking "and" at the end of subpara-
13
graph (D);
14
(2) by striking the period at the end of sub-
15
paragraph (E) and inserting "; and"; and
16
(3) by adding at the end the following:
17
"(F) a child shall be considered to have en-
18
tered foster care on the latter of-
19
"(i) the first time the child is removed
20
from the home; or
INSERT
21
"(ii) the date of the first judicial
hear
22
ing on removal of the child from the
23
home.".
24
(c) ELIMINATION OF UNNECESSARY COURT
25 DELAYS.-
.S 1195 IS
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO S. 1195
INSERT on page 12, at line 21:
order placing the child in non-emergency foster
care subsequent to a finding of maltreatment
13
1
(1) ONE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR
2
APPEALS OF ORDERS TERMINATING PARENTAL
3
RIGHTS.-Section 471(a) of the Social Security Act
4
(42 U.S.C. 671(a)), as amended by section 5591 (b)
5
of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, is amended-
6
(A) by striking "and" at the end of para-
7
graph (18);
8
(B) by striking the period at the end of
9
paragraph (19) and inserting "; and"; and
10
(C) by adding at the end the following:
11
"(20) provides that an order terminating paren-
12
tal rights shall only be appealable during the 1-year
13
period that begins on the date the order is issued.".
14
(2) ONE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR
15
APPEALS OF ORDERS OF REMOVAL.-Section 471(a)
16
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 671(a)), as
17
amended by subsection (a), is amended—
18
(A) in paragraph (19), by striking "and"
19
at the end;
20
(B) in paragraph (20), by striking the pe-
21
riod and inserting "; and"; and
22
(C) by adding at the end the following:
23
"(21) provides that a court-ordered removal of
24
a child shall only be appealable during the 1-year pe-
25
riod that begins on the date the order is issued.
.S 1195 IS
14
1
(d) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.-Nothing in part E of
2 title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 670 et seq.),
3 as amended by this Act, shall be construed as precluding
4 State courts or State agencies from initiating or finalizing
5 the termination of parental rights for reasons other than,
6 or for timelines earlier than, those specified in part E of
7 title IV of such Act, when such actions are determined
8 to be in the best interests of the child.
9
(e) EFFECTIVE DATES.-
10
(1) IN GENERAL.-Except as provided in para-
11
graphs (2) and (3), the amendments made by this
12
section shall apply to children entering foster care
13
under the responsibility of the State after the date
14
of enactment of this Act.
15
(2) TRANSITION RULE FOR CURRENT FOSTER
16
CARE CHILDREN.-Subject to paragraph (3), with
17
respect to any child in foster care under the respon-
18
sibility of the State on or before the date of enact-
19
ment of this Act, the amendments made by this sec-
20
tion shall not apply to such child until the date that
21
is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.
22
(3) DELAY PERMITTED IF STATE LEGISLATION
23
REQUIRED.-The provisions of section 501(b) shall
24
apply to the effective date of the amendments made
25
by this section.
.S 1196 IS
16
1
custody or visitation orders" after "obliga-
2
tions,"; and
3
(B) in subparagraph (A)-
4
(i) by striking "or" at the end of
5
clause (ii);
6
(ii) by striking the comma at the end
7
of clause (iii) and inserting "; or"; and
8
(iii) by inserting after clause (iii) the
9
following:
10
"(iv) who has or may have parental
11
rights with respect to a child,"; and
12
(2) in subsection (c)—
13
(A) by striking the period at the end of
14
paragraph (3) and inserting "; and"; and
15
(B) by adding at the end the following:
16
"(4) a State agency that is administering a pro-
17
gram operated under a State plan under subpart 1
18
of part B, or a State plan approved under subpart
19
2 of part B or under part E.".
20 SEC. 107. CRIMINAL RECORDS CHECKS FOR PROSPECTIVE
21
FOSTER AND ADOPTIVE PARENTS AND
22
GROUP CARE STAFF.
23
Section 471(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
24 671(a)), as amended by section 104(c)(2), is amended—
.S 1195 IS
17
1
(1) by striking "and" at the end of paragraph
2
(20);
3
(2) by striking the period at the end of para-
4
graph (21) and inserting "; and"; and
5
(3) by adding at the end the following:
6
"(22) provides procedures for criminal records
7
checks and checks of a State's child abuse registry
8
for any prospective foster parent or adoptive parent,
9
and any employee of a residential child-care institu-
10
tion before the foster parent or adoptive parent, or
11
the residential child-care institution may be finally
12
approved for placement of a child on whose behalf
13
foster care maintenance payments or adoption as-
14
sistance payments are to be made under the State
15
plan under this part, including procedures requiring
16
that-
17
"(A) in any case in which a criminal
18
record check reveals a criminal conviction for
19
child abuse or neglect, or spousal abuse, a
20
criminal conviction for crimes against children,
21
or a criminal conviction for a crime involving vi-
22
olence, including violent drug-related offenses,
23
rape, sexual or other physical assault, battery,
24
or homicide, approval shall not be granted, un-
25
less the individual provides substantial evidence
.S 1195 IS
18
1
to local law enforcement officials and the State
2
child protection agency proving that there are
3
extraordinary circumstances which demonstrate
4
that approval should be granted; and
5
"(B) in any case in which a criminal
6
record check reveals a criminal conviction for a
7
felony or misdemeanor not involving violence, or
8
a check of any State child abuse registry indi-
9
cates that a substantiated report of abuse or
10
neglect exists, final approval may be granted
11
only after consideration of the nature of the of-
12
fense or incident, the length of time that has
13
elapsed since the commission of the offense or
14
the occurrence of the incident, the individual's
15
life experiences during the period since the com-
16
mission of the offense or the occurrence of the
17
incident, and any risk to the child.".
18 SEC. 108. DEVELOPMENT OF STATE GUIDELINES TO EN-
19
SURE SAFE, QUALITY CARE TO CHILDREN IN
20
OUT-OF-HOME PLACEMENTS.
21
Section 471(a)(10) of the Social Security Act (42
22 U.S.C. 671(a)(10)) is amended-
23
(1) by inserting "and guidelines" after "stand-
24
ards" each place it appears; and
.S 1195 IS
19
1
(2) by inserting "ensuring quality services that
2
protect the safety and health of children in foster
3
care placements with nonprofit and for-profit agen-
4
cies," after "related to".
5 SEC. 109. DOCUMENTATION OF EFFORTS FOR ADOPTION
6
OR LOCATION OF A PERMANENT HOME.
7
Section 475 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
8 675) is amended-
9
(1) in paragraph (1)-
10
(A) in the last sentence-
11
(i) by striking "the case plan must
12
also include"; and
13
(ii) by redesignating such sentence as
14
subparagraph (D) and indenting appro-
15
priately; and
16
(B) by adding at the end, the following:
17
"(E) In the case of a child with respect to
18
whom the State's goal is adoption or placement
19
in another permanent home, documentation of
20
the steps taken by the agency to find an adop-
21
tive family or other permanent living arrange-
22
ment for the child, to place the child with an
23
adoptive family, legal guardian, or in another
24
planned permanent living arrangement, and to
25
finalize the adoption or legal guardianship. At
.S 1195 IS
20
1
a minimum, such documentation shall include
2
child specific recruitment efforts such as the
3
use of State, regional, and national adoption ex-
4
changes including electronic exchange sys-
5
tems."; and
6
(2) in paragraph (5)(B), by inserting "(includ-
7
ing the requirement specified in paragraph (1)(E))"
8
after "case plan".
9 TITLE II-INCENTIVES FOR PRO-
10
VIDING PERMANENT FAMI-
11
LIES FOR CHILDREN
12 SEC. 201. ADOPTION INCENTIVE PAYMENTS.
13
Part E of title IV of the Social Security Act (42
}
14 U.S.C. 670-679) is amended by inserting after section
1
15 473 the following:
1
16 "SEC. 473A. ADOPTION INCENTIVE PAYMENTS.
1
17
"(a) GRANT AUTHORITY.-Subject to the availability
1
18 of such amounts as may be provided in advance in appro
1
T
shall
19 priations Acts for this purpose, the Secretary may make
1
20 a grant to each State that is an incentive-eligible State
2
21 for a fiscal year in an amount equal to the adoption incen-
2
22 tive payment payable to the State for the fiscal year under
2
23 this section, which shall be payable in the immediately suc-
2.
24 ceeding fiscal year.
2.
25
.S 1195 IS
21
:lude
1
"(b) INCENTIVE-ELIGIBLE STATE.-A State is an in-
the
2 centive-eligible State for a fiscal year if-
1 ex-
3
"(1) the State has a plan approved under this
sys-
4
part for the fiscal year;
5
"(2) the number of foster child adoptions in the
:lud-
6
State during the fiscal year exceeds the base number
E))"
7
of foster child adoptions for the State for the fiscal
8
year;
-O-
9
"(3) the State is in compliance with subsection
11-
10
(c) for the fiscal year; and
11
"(4) the fiscal year is any of fiscal years 1998
12
through 2002.
(42
13
"(c) DATA REQUIREMENTS.-
tion
14
"(1) IN GENERAL.-A State is in compliance
15
with this subsection for a fiscal year if the State has
16
provided to the Secretary the data described in para-
ility
17
graph (2) for fiscal year 1997 (or, if later, the fiscal
oro-
18
year that precedes the first fiscal year for which the
ake
19
State seeks a grant under this section) and for each
tate
20
succeeding fiscal year.
en-
21
"(2) DETERMINATION OF NUMBERS OF ADOP-
der
22
TIONS.-
uc-
23
"(A) DETERMINATIONS BASED ON AFCARS
24
DATA.-Except as provided in subparagraph
25
(B), the Secretary shall determine the numbers
22
1
of foster child adoptions and of special needs
2
adoptions in a State during each of fiscal years
3
1997 through 2002, for purposes of this sec-
4
tion, on the basis of data meeting the require-
5
ments of the system established pursuant to
6
section 479, as reported by the State in May of
7
the fiscal year and in November of the succeed
8
ing fiscal year, and approved by the Secretary
9
by/April 1 of the succeeding fiscal year.
August
10
"(B) ALTERNATIVE DATA SOURCES PER-
11
MITTED FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997.-For purposes
12
of the determination described in subparagraph
13
(A) for fiscal year 1997, the Secretary may use
14
data from a source or sources other than that
]
15
specified in subparagraph (A) that the Sec-
]
16
retary finds to be of equivalent completeness
1
17
and reliability, as reported by a State by No-
1
18
vember 30, 1997, and approved by the Sec-
1
19
retary by March 1, 1998.
1
20
"(3) No WAIVER OF AFCARS REQUIREMENTS.-
2
21
This section shall not be construed to alter or affect
2
22
any requirement of section 479 or any regulation
2
23
prescribed under such section with respect to report-
2.
24
ing of data by States, or to waive any penalty for
2.
25
failure to comply with the requirements.
2:
IS
23
1
"(d) ADOPTION INCENTIVE PAYMENT.-
2
"(1) IN GENERAL-Except as provided in para-
3
graph (2), the adoption incentive payment payable to
4
a State for a fiscal year under this section shall be
5
equal to the sum of-
$ 4,000
6
"(A) $2,000, multiplied by amount (if any)
7
by which the number of foster child adoptions
8
in the State during the fiscal year exceeds the
9
base number of foster child adoptions for the
10
State for the fiscal year; and
11
"(B) $2,000, multiplied by the amount (if
1
12
any) by which the number of special needs
13
adoptions in the State during the fiscal year ex-
14
ceeds the base number of special needs adop-
15
tions for the State for the fiscal year.
S
16
"(2) PRO RATA ADJUSTMENT IF INSUFFICIENT
17
FUNDS AVAILABLE.-For any fiscal year, if the total
:-
18
amount of adoption incentive payments otherwise
INSERT
19
payable under this section for a fiscal year exceeds
20
the amount appropriated for that fiscal year, the
21
amount of the adoption incentive payment payable to
n
22
each State under this section for the fiscal year shall
t-
23
be
or
24
"(A) the amount of the adoption incentive
25
payment that would otherwise be payable to the
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO S. . 1195
INSERT on page 23, at line 19:
(as determined under paragraph (1) ) exceeds the difference
between the maximum amount specified in subsection (h) (1)
and the total amounts paid under this section in preceding
fiscal years, the adoption incentive payment payable to a
State in that fiscal year shall equal an amount which bears
the same ratio to the difference as the amount determined
for the State pursuant to paragraph (1) bears to the total
amounts so determined for all States.
24
1
State under this section for the fiscal year; mul
2
tiplied by
3
"(B) the percentage represented by the
4
amount appropriated for that year, divided by
5
the total amount of adoption incentive pay
6
ments otherwise payable under this section for
7
the fiscal year.
8
"(e) 2-YEAR AVAILABILITY OF INCENTIVE PAY-
9 MENTS.-Payments to a State under this section in a fis-
10 cal year shall remain available for use by the State
1(
11 through the end of the succeeding fiscal year.
11
12
"(f) LIMITATIONS ON USE OF INCENTIVE PAY-
12
13 MENTS.-A State shall not expend an amount paid to the
13
14 State under this section except to provide to children or
14
15 families any service (including post adoption services) that
15
16 may be provided under part B or E. Amounts expended
16
17 by a State in accordance with the preceding sentence shall
17
18 be disregarded in determining State expenditures for pur-
18
19 poses of Federal matching payments under section 474.
19
20
"(g) DEFINITIONS.-As used in this section:
20
21
"(1) FOSTER CHILD ADOPTION.-The term
21
22
'foster child adoption' means the final adoption of a
22
23
child who, at the time of adoptive placement, was in
23
24
foster care under the supervision of the State.
24
25
ul-
1
"(2) SPECIAL NEEDS ADOPTION.-The term
2
'special needs adoption' means the final adoption of
he
3
a child for whom an adoption assistance agreement
by
4
is in effect under section 473.
ay-
5
"(3) BASE NUMBER OF FOSTER CHILD ADOP-
for
6
TIONS.-The term 'base number of foster child
7
adoptions for a State' means, with respect to a fiscal
Y-
8
year, the largest number of foster child adoptions in
is-
9
the State in fiscal year 1997 (or, if later, the first
ate
10
fiscal year for which the State has furnished to the
11
Secretary the data described in subsection (c)(2)) or
Y-
12
in any succeeding fiscal year preceding the fiscal
the
13
year.
or
14
"(4) BASE NUMBER OF SPECIAL NEEDS ADOP-
at
15
TIONS.-The term 'base number of special needs
led
16
adoptions for a State' means, with respect to a fiscal
all
17
year, the largest number of special needs adoptions
ur-
18
in the State in fiscal year 1997 (or, if later, the first
74.
19
fiscal year for which the State has furnished to the
20
Secretary the data described in subsection (c)(2)) or
rm
21
in any succeeding fiscal year preceding the fiscal
f a
22
year.
in
23
"(h) LIMITATIONS ON AUTHORIZATION OF APPRO-
24 PRIATIONS.-
26
INSERT
1
"(1) IN GENERAL. For grants under this see
2
tion, there are authorized to be appropriated to the
3
Secretary $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999
4
through 2003.
5
"(2) AVAILABILITY.-Amounts appropriated
6
under paragraph (1) are authorized to remain avail-
7
able until expended, but not after fiscal year
2003."
2004
8 SEC. 202. PROMOTION OF ADOPTION OF CHILDREN WITH
{
9
SPECIAL NEEDS.
9
10
(a) IN GENERAL-Section 473(a) of the Social Secu-
10
11 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 673(a)) is amended by striking para-
11
12 graph (2) and inserting the following:
12
13
"(2)(A) For purposes of paragraph (1)(B)(ii), a child
13
14 meets the requirements of this paragraph if such child—
14
15
"(i) prior to termination of parental rights and
15
16
the initiation of adoption proceedings was in the
16
17
care of a public or licensed private child care agency
17
18
or Indian tribal organization either pursuant to a
18
19
voluntary placement agreement (provided the child
19
20
was in care for not more than 180 days) or as a re-
20
21
sult of a judicial determination to the effect that
21
22
continuation in the home would be contrary to the
22
23
safety and welfare of such child, or was residing in
23
24
a foster family home or child care institution with
24
25
the child's minor parent (either pursuant to such a
25
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO S. 1195
INSERT on page 26, at line 1:
There are appropriated for payment in fiscal years 1999
through 2003 a total amount not to exceed $108,000,000 for
that 5-year period
29
1 Adoption, Safety, and Support for Abused and Neglected
2 Children (PASS) Act to provide to children or families any
3 service (including post-adoption services) that may be pro-
4 vided under this part or part B.".
5 SEC. 203. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
INSERT
6
(d)
IN GENERAL.-The Secretary of Health and
7 Human Services may, directly or through grants or con-
8 tracts, provide technical assistance to assist States and
9 local communities to reach their targets for increased
10 numbers of adoptions and, to the extent that adoption is
11 not possible, alternative permanent placements, for chil-
12 dren in foster care.
13
(b) LIMITATIONS.-The technical assistance provided
paragraph1)
14 under subsection (a) shall support the goal of encouraging
INDENT
15 more adoptions out of the foster care system, when adop-
ACCORDINGLY
16 tions promote the best interests of children, and shall in-
17 clude the following:
18
(1) The development of best practice guidelines
19
for expediting termination of parental rights.
20
(2) Models to encourage the use of concurrent
21
planning.
C,
22
(3) The development of specialized units and
23
expertise in moving children toward adoption as a
24
permanency goal.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO S. 1195
INSERT on page 29, at line 6:
Section 476 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 676) is
amended by adding after subsection (b) the following new
subsection:
" (c) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO FACILITATE ADOPTIONS OF
CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE -
30
1
(4) The development of risk assessment tools to
2
facilitate early identification of the children who will
3
be at risk of harm if returned home.
4
(5) Models to encourage the fast tracking of
5
children who have not attained 1 year of age into
INDENT
ACCORDINGLY
6
adoptive and pre-adoptive placements.
H>
7
(6) Development of programs that place chil-
8
dren in pre-adoptive families without waiting for ter-
9
mination of parental rights.
10
(7) Development of programs to recruit adop-
11
tive parents.
12 SEC. 204. ADOPTIONS ACROSS STATE AND COUNTY JURIS-
13
DICTIONS.
14
(a) ELIMINATION OF GEOGRAPHIC BARRIERS TO
15 INTERSTATE ADOPTION.-Section 471(a) of the Social
16 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 671(a)), as amended by section
17 106, is amended—
18
(1) by striking "and" at the end of paragraph
19
(21);
20
(2) by striking the period at the end of para-
21
graph (22) and inserting "; and"; and
22
(3) by adding at the end the following:
23
"(23) provides that neither the State nor any
24
other entity in the State that receives funds from
.S 1195 IS
38
1
(1) in paragraph (22), by striking "and" at the
2
end;
3
(2) in paragraph (23), by striking the period
4
and inserting "; and"; and
5
(3) by adding at the end the following:
6
"(24) provides that the State shall annually
7
provide to the Secretary the information required
8
under section 479A."
9
TITLE III-ADDITIONAL
10
IMPROVEMENTS AND REFORMS
11 SEC. 301. EXPANSION OF CHILD WELFARE DEMONSTRA-
12
TION PROJECTS.
13
Section 1130(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
14 1320a-9(a)) is amended by striking "10" and inserting
15 "15".
16 SEC. 302. PERMANENCY PLANNING HEARINGS.
17
Section 475(5)(C) of the Social Security Act (42
18 U.S.C. 675(5)(C)) is amended—
19
(1) by striking "dispositional" and inserting
20
"permanency planning";
21
(2) by striking "no later than" and all that fol-
22
lows through "12 months" and inserting "not later
23
than 12 months after the original placement (and
12
24
not less frequently than every 6 -months"; and
.S 1195 IS
51
1
"(i) Individual, group, and family
2
counseling.
3
"(ii) Inpatient, residential, or out-
4
patient substance abuse treatment services.
5
"(iii) Mental health services.
6
"(iv) Assistance to address domestic
7
violence.
8
"(v) Transportation to or from any of
9
the services and activities described in this
10
subparagraph.".
11
(3) ADDITIONAL CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.-
12
(A) PURPOSES.-Section 430(a) of the So-
13
cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 629(a)) is amend-
14
ed by striking "and community-based family
15
support services" and inserting ", community-
16
based family support services, and time-limited
17
family reunification services".
18
(B) EVALUATIONS.-Subparagaphs (B)
19
and (C) of section 435(a)(2) of the Social Secu-
20
rity Act (42 U.S.C. 629d(a)(2)) are each
21
amended by striking "and family support" each
22
place it appears and inserting ", family support,
23
and family reunification".
INSERT
.S 1195 IS
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO S. 1195
INSERT on page 51, after line 23:
(c) REAUTHORIZATION OF FUNDING FOR STATE COURTS TO ASSESS AND
IMPROVE JUDICIAL HANDLING OF PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO FOSTER CARE
AND ADOPTION. -
(1) REAUTHORIZATION OF RESERVATIONS UNDER THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ACT.-Section 430 (d) (2) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 629 (d) (2)) is amended by striking "and 1998" and
inserting "1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003".
(2) REAUTHORIZATION OF FUNDING UNDER THE OMNIBUS BUDGET
RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1993 -Section 13712 of the Omnibus
Budge Reconciliation Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-66) is amended-
(A) in subsection (c) (1) by striking "through
1998" and inserting "through 2003";
(B) in subsection (c) (1) (B) by striking "through
1998" and inserting "through 2003"; and
(C) in subsection (d) (2) by striking "and 1998"
and inserting "1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003".
52
1 SEC. 308. INNOVATION GRANTS TO REDUCE BACKLOGS OF
2
CHILDREN AWAITING ADOPTION AND FOR
3
OTHER PURPOSES.
4
Part E of title IV of the Social Security Act (42
5 U.S.C. 670 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section
6 477, the following:
7 "SEC. 478. INNOVATION GRANTS.
8
"(a) AUTHORITY To MAKE GRANTS.-The Secretary
9 may make grants, in amounts determined by the Sec-
10 retary, to States with approved applications described in
11 subsection (c), for the purpose of carrying out the innova-
12 tion projects described in subsection (b).
13
"(b) INNOVATION PROJECTS DESCRIBED.-The in-
14 novation projects described in this subsection are projects
15 that are designed to achieve 1 or more of the following
16 goals:
17
"(1) Reducing a backlog of children in long-
18
term foster care or awaiting adoption placement.
19
"(2) Ensuring, not later than 1 year after a
20
child enters foster care, a permanent placement for
21
the child.
22
"(3) Identifying and addressing barriers that
23
result in delays to permanent placements for chil-
24
dren in foster care, including inadequate representa-
25
tion of child welfare agencies in termination of pa-
.S 1195 IS
53
I
rental rights and adoption proceedings, and other
2
barriers to termination of parental rights.
3
"(4) Implementing or expanding community-
4
based permanency initiatives, particularly in commu-
5
nities where families reflect the ethnic and racial di-
6
versity of children in the State for whom foster and
7
adoptive homes are needed.
8
"(5) Developing and implementing community-
9
based child protection activities that involve partner-
10
ships among State and local governments, multiple
11
child-serving agencies, the schools, and community
12
leaders in an attempt to keep children free from
13
abuse and neglect.
14
"(6) Establishing new partnerships with busi-
15
nesses and religious organizations to promote safety
16
and permanence for children.
17
"(7) Assisting in the development and imple-
18
mentation of the State guidelines described in sec-
19
tion 471(a)(10).
20
"(8) Developing new staffing approaches to
21
allow the resources of several States to be used to
22
conduct recruitment, placement, adoption, and post-
23
adoption services on a regional basis.
24
(9) Any other goal that the Secretary specifies
25
by regulation
.S 1195 IS
54
1
"(c) APPLICATION.-An application for a grant
2 under this section may be submitted for fiscal year 1998
3 or 1999 and shall contain-
4
"(1) a plan, in such form and manner as the
5
Secretary may prescribe, for an innovation project
6
described in subsection (b) that will be implemented
7
by the State for a period of not more than 5 con-
8
secutive fiscal years, beginning with fiscal year 1998
9
or 1999, as applicable;
and
10
"(2) an assurance that no waivers from provi-
11
sions in law, as in effect at the time of the submis-
12
sion of the application, are required to implement
13
the innovation project; and
14
(3) such other information as the Secretary
15
may require by regulation.
16
"(d) DURATION.-An innovation project approved
17 under this section shall be conducted for not more than
18 5 consecutive fiscal years, except that the Secretary may
19 terminate a project before the end of the period originally
20 approved if the Secretary determines that the State con-
21 ducting the project is not in compliance with the terms
22 of the plan and application approved by the Secretary
23 under this section.
24
"(e) MATCHING REQUIREMENT.-A State shall not
25 receive a grant under this section unless, for each year
.S 1195 IS
55
1 for which a grant is awarded, the State agrees to match
2 the grant with $1 for every $3 received.
3
"(f) NONSUPPLANTING.-Any funds received by a
4 State under a grant made under this section shall supple-
5 ment but not replace any other funds that may be avail-
6 able for the same purpose in the localities involved.
7
"(g) EVALUATIONS AND REPORTS.-
8
"(1) STATE EVALUATIONS.-Each State admin-
9
istering an innovation project under this section
10
shall-
11
"(A) provide for ongoing and retrospective
12
evaluation of the project, meeting such condi-
13
tions and standards as the Secretary may re-
14
quire; and
15
"(B) submit to the Secretary such reports,
16
at such times, in such format, and containing
17
such information as the Secretary may require.
18
"(2) REPORTS TO CONGRESS.-The Secretary
19
shall, on the basis of reports received from States
20
administering projects under this section, submit in-
21
terim reports, and, not later than 6 months after the
22
conclusion of all projects administered under this
23
section, a final report to Congress. A report submit-
24
ted under this subparagraph shall contain an assess-
25
ment of the effectiveness of the State projects ad-
.S 1195 IS
56
1
ministered under this section and any recommenda-
2
tions for legislative action that the Secretary consid-
3
ers appropriate.
4
"(h) REGULATIONS. Not later than 60 days after
5 the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall
6 promulgate final regulations for implementing this section.
(h)
7
AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.-There is
8 authorized to be appropriated to make grants under this
9 section not more than $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years
10 1998 through 2003.
11
TITLE IV-MISCELLANEOUS
12 SEC. 401. PRESERVATION OF REASONABLE PARENTING.
13
Nothing in this Act is intended to disrupt the family
14 unnecessarily or to intrude inappropriately into family life,
15 to prohibit the use of reasonable methods of parental dis-
16 cipline, or to prescribe a particular method of parenting.
17 SEC. 402. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
18
Any information required to be reported under this
19 Act shall be supplied to the Secretary of Health and
20 Human Services through data meeting the requirements
21 of the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting
22 System established pursuant to section 479 of the Social
23 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 679), to the extent such data is
24 available under that system. The Secretary shall make
25 such modifications to regulations issued under section 479
.S 1195 IS