Government Relations Update

CHILD WELFARE IN THE 108^th CONGRESS
Mid-Year Review

June 30, 2003

(1)   NASW Testimony on Reprofessionalizing the Child Welfare Workforce
(2)   Reauthorization of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA)
(3)   Cosponsors Needed for Child Protective Services Workforce Improvement Act
(4)   Action Delayed on Loan Forgiveness for Child Welfare Workers and Others

NASW TESTIMONY ON REPROFESSIONALIZING THE CHILD WELFARE WORKFORCE

NASW submitted written testimony for a June 11, 2003 hearing on the Bush Administration’s Foster Care Flexible Funding Proposal held by the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the House Ways and Means Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The proposal, included in the Administration’s budget proposal for FY 2004, would replace the current entitlement funding under Title IV-E foster care with a fixed grant amount. The Administration has not yet released details of the plan, but contends that states choosing to participate in the new funding arrangement would have greater flexibility in how to spend the dollars and face fewer administrative burdens. The plan’s goal is to focus more federal resources on prevention and reduce the need for expenditures on out-of-home placements. 

NASW Position

NASW has long supported efforts to increase federal support for prevention, but believes there are better, less risky, ways to achieve that goal. The Association is particularly concerned that the proposal would have a negative impact on the training programs funded through the Title IV-E program. Currently, the federal government matches training dollars on a three-to-one basis—three federal dollars are awarded for every one state/local dollar spent on training. Without that fiscal incentive, states, especially given their current fiscal crises, may be forced to abandon the training programs.    

NASW’s testimony focuses on the need for a well-trained, competent, stable child welfare workforce to deliver high quality services; the value of social work education in creating such a workforce; and the importance of federal funding, particularly Title IV-E funding, in training social workers and other child welfare staff.

The testimony incorporates research conducted by a number of social workers and provides a good overview of the social work profession and its connection to child welfare. The documentation may prove useful in child welfare advocacy at the local, state, and federal levels. 

The testimony is posted on the child welfare advocacy page on NASW’s Web site: https://www.socialworkers.org/advocacy/issues/child_welfare.asp

Outlook

The Administration has not provided a timetable for finalizing a more detailed proposal; however, once details are released, members of the House and Senate leadership are expected to push for congressional consideration.  

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT ACT (CAPTA)

In the better-late-than-never category, Congress has finally approved the bill reauthorizing the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) through fiscal year (FY) 2008. CAPTA, renamed the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act, was due to be reauthorized in 2001, but action was delayed due to disagreements and work on issues considered to be higher priority. The House passed the final agreement on June 17, 2003 by a vote of 421-3 and the Senate followed two days later on June 19, with a vote of “unanimous consent.” The President signed the bill into law on June 25. It is Public Law 108-36.  

NASW Position

The final bill incorporates many of the recommendations made by the National Child Abuse Prevention Coalition, of which NASW is a participating member.

The conference agreement reauthorizes:

(1)   Basic state grant program for improving the child protective services (CPS) system infrastructure;

(2)   Discretionary grant program for research, program demonstrations, training, and other innovative activities; and

(3)   Grant program focused on community-based prevention efforts.

Authorized funding levels remain the same—the basic state grants and the discretionary grants are authorized at a total of $120 million and the community-based grants at $80 million for FY 2004; all are authorized at “such sums as necessary” for the following years.

The bill also reauthorizes the Adoption Opportunities Act, the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act and the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act.

A summary of the bill is posted on the child welfare advocacy page on NASW’s Web site: https://www.socialworkers.org/advocacy/issues/child_welfare.asp

A copy of the conference report is available at:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp108:FLD010:@1(hr150) 

Outlook

NASW is now focusing its efforts on increasing the FY 2004 federal appropriation for the bill’s provisions. Current funding is only 45 percent of the amounts authorized. For basic state grants the FY 2003 appropriation is only $22, for discretionary grants, $34 million, and for community-based prevention activities, $33 million. 

FEW COSPONSORS FOR THE CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES WORKFORCE IMPROVEMENT ACT

Rep. Ben Cardin (D-MD) introduced the Child Protective Services Improvement Act (H.R. 1534) on April 1, 2003, and Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) introduced the Child Protection Services (CPS) Workforce Improvement Act (H.R. 2437) on June 11, 2003. Cardin’s bill (H.R. 1534) addresses a broad range of system improvements, while Stark’s bill (H.R. 2437) focuses on improvements to the child welfare workforce. 

H.R. 1534 would:

(1) Provide grants to states to improve the quality of the child welfare workforce;

(2) Increase collaborative efforts between child welfare and substance abuse agencies;

(3) Update the eligibility standards for federal foster care and adoption assistance; and 

(4) Extend federal assistance for subsidized guardianship payments.

H.R. 2437 would:  

(1) Provide grants to states to improve the quality of the child welfare workforce;

(2) Provide loan forgiveness for students who complete degrees in social work (BSW or MSW) or related fields, and who work full-time in a public or private child welfare agency; and

(3) Expand Title IV-E short-term training to include staff in private child welfare agencies and basic mental health training for all child welfare staff.

NASW Position

NASW is supporting both bills. 

Outlook

The Stark bill, H.R. 2437, was introduced with 10 cosponsors—all Democrats. Only two cosponsors have been added since the bill was introduced. Cosponsors are listed below. Additional cosponsors, especially Republicans, are needed if the bill is to receive congressional consideration.

Take Action: A draft letter urging members of Congress to cosponsor the bill is available on NASW’s Congress Web: http://63.66.87.48/cweb4/index.cfm?orgcode=NASW

More information on the Stark bill is posted on the child welfare advocacy page on NASW’s Web site: https://www.socialworkers.org/advocacy/issues/child_welfare.asp

Copies of both bills are available at: http://thomas.loc.gov

Cosponsors of H.R. 2437 (Stark) – 12

California: Tom Lantos; Barbara Lee; Juanita Millender-McDonald; George Miller  
Florida: Robert Wexler
Hawaii: Neil Abercrombie
Maryland: Ben Cardin
Michigan: Sander Levin
New York: Charlie Rangel; Jose Serrano
Tennessee: Jim Cooper
Texas: Martin Frost

ACTION DELAYED ON LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR CHILD WELFARE WORKERS AND OTHERS

Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) and Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH) introduced the Child Protective Services Student Loan Forgiveness Act (S. 409 and H.R. 734) in February. Rep. George Miller (D-CA) introduced the College Opportunity for a Better America Act (H.R. 1306) in March.

The DeWine-Jones bill would provide loan forgiveness for students who obtain a BSW or MSW and work in child welfare. The Miller bill would provide loan forgiveness for a broad range of public service employees, including child welfare workers with social work or related degrees; math, science, bilingual and special education teachers in low-income communities; early childhood educators; nurses; dieticians; specialists working with infant and toddlers with disabilities; and others who work in a public service profession that suffers from a critical lack of qualified personnel and serves a low-income or needy community. 

NASW Position

NASW is supporting both bills. 

Outlook

The loan forgiveness bills are not expected to move separately, but to be considered during debate on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA) Amendments of 1998. HEA was due to be reauthorized this year, but due to time constraints and the need to work on the also-delayed reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), HEA is not expected to be taken up by Congress until sometime next year. 

However, it is still important to build congressional support for the bills by securing additional co-sponsors. Without additional support, including from Republicans, it is unlikely that social workers will be included in the loan forgiveness provisions when HEA is considered. A list of current cosponsors follow.

Take Action: Two separate draft letters (one for the DeWine-Jones bill and one for the Miller bill) urging members of Congress to become cosponsors are available on NASW’s Congress Web: http://63.66.87.48/cweb4/index.cfm?orgcode=NASW

More information on the bills, including a summary of the DeWine-Jones bill, is posted on the child welfare advocacy page of NASW’s Web site: https://www.socialworkers.org/advocacy/issues/child_welfare.asp

Copies of the bills are available at: http://thomas.loc.gov

Cosponsors of S. 409 (DeWine) – 1

West Virginia: Jay Rockefeller

Cosponsors of H.R. 734 (Jones) – 21

California: Barbara Lee; Juanita Millender-McDonald; Lynn Woolsey
District of Columbia: Eleanor Holmes Norton
Florida: Robert Wexler
Indiana: Julia Carson
Illinois: Danny Davis
Massachusetts: Barney Frank
Michigan: Dale Kildee
New Jersey: Rush Holt; Bob Menendez; Frank Pallone; Bill Pascrell; Donald Payne; Jose Serrano
New York: Jerry Nadler; Major Owens
Ohio: Marcy Kaptur; Dennis Kucinich; Tim Ryan
Washington: Jim McDermott

Cosponsors of H.R. 1306 (Miller) – 68

Arizona: Raul Grijalva
California: Joe Baca; Anna Eshoo; Sam Farr; Barbara Lee; Zoe Lofgren; Juanita Millender-McDonald; Grace Napolitano; Loretta Sanchez; Hilda Solis; Pete Stark; Diane Watson
Florida: Corrine Brown; Robert Wexler; Peter Deutsch 
Georgia: Denise Majette
Hawaii: Neil Abercrombie; Ed Case
Illinois: Danny Davis; Lane Evans; Luis Gutierrez; Janice Schakowsky
Indiana: Julia Carson
Maine: Thomas Allen
Maryland: Elijah Cummings; Albert Wynn
Massachusetts: Michael Capuano; Barney Frank; Edward Markey; James McGovern; Martin Meehan; Richard Neal; John Olver
Michigan: Dale Kildee
Minnesota: Betty McCollum; James Oberstar; Collin Peterson
New Jersey: Robert Andrews; Donald Payne
New Mexico: Tom Udall
New York: Gary Ackerman; Eliot Engel; Maurice Hinchey; Nita Lowey; Jerrold Nadler; Major Owens; Charles Rangel; Jose Serrano; Edolphus Towns; Anthony Weiner
North Carolina: Bob Etheridge
Ohio: Stephanie Tubbs Jones; Marcy Kaptur; Dennis Kucinich; Timothy Ryan
Oregon: Darlene Hooley
Pennsylvania: Joseph Hoeffel; Tim Holden
South Carolina: John Spratt
Tennessee: Harold Ford Jr.
Texas: Lloyd Doggett; Martin Frost; Gene Green; Ruben Hinojosa; Ciro Rodriguez; Max Sandlin
Vermont: Bernard Sanders
Washington: Jim McDermott