Comments Needed on Proposed Regulations for Child Welfare

FOCUS ON CHILD WELFARE TRAINING AND USE OF THE TERM "SOCIAL WORKER"

TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF COMMENTS NEEDED

BACKGROUND

In the September 18, 1998 Federal Register, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published proposed regulations covering a number of child welfare issues, including portions of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997 (P.L. 105-89). ASFA was designed to shorten the time children spend in foster care and place a greater emphasis on child safety and permanence.

The September 18 regulations were followed by publication in the October 1, 1998 Federal Register of review procedures for assessing State compliance with the new regulations, which govern Titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act. Title IV-B covers child welfare services, training, and the new Promoting Safe and Stable Families program (the old Family Preservation and Support Program); Title IV-E covers foster care, adoption, independent living, and training.

THE ISSUES

Both the proposed regulations and procedures cover many issues of concern to social workers, such as the use of reasonable efforts to maintain families and termination of parental rights, but NASW and the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), working with ANSWER (Action Network for Social Work Education and Research), are concentrating this Alert on two issues of particular concern to the social work community: child welfare staff training and use of the term "social worker." It is important that the social work community be heard on these two issues as we continue to fight for social work jobs and enhanced recognition of the profession. If you have experience or expertise in child welfare, you may also wish to include comments on other issues raised in the proposed regulations. (The Federal Register can be found in most libraries and on the Internet: www.access.gpo.gov.)

TO COMMENT

For November 30, 1998 deadline. Proposed Information Collection Activity for Assessing Compliance with State Plan Requirements under Parts B and E of Title IV of the Social Security Act, Federal Register, October 1, 1998, pp. 52703-52738.

Comments must be surface mailed to:

Bob Sargis
Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer
Administration for Children and Families
Office of Information Services
370 L’Enfant Promenade, S.W.
Washington, DC 20447

A sample comment letter follows for your use. Feel free to modify based on your experience and expertise.

For December 17, 1998 deadline. Title IV-E Foster Care Eligibility Reviews and Child and Family Services State Plan Reviews, Federal Register, September 18, 1998, pp. 50057-50098.

Comments may be sent by surface mail or electronically and should be addressed to:

Carol W. Williams
Associate Commissioner
Children’s Bureau
Administration on Children, Youth and Families
330 C Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20447
E-mail: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/hypernews

A sample letter with attachment follows for your use. Feel free to modify based on your experience and expertise

FOR FIRST COMMENT DEADLINE: NOVEMBER 30, 1998

Proposed Information Collection Activity, Federal Register, October 1, 1998, p. 52703-52738.

SAMPLE COMMENT LETTER

Date
Bob Sargis
Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer
Administration for Children and Families
Office of Information Services
370 L’Enfant Promenade, S.W.
Washington, DC 20447

Dear Mr. Sargis:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the October 1, 1998 notice of the new review procedures for assessing compliance with State Plan requirements under Titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act.

I am a social work educator (or I am a professional social worker; or I am the [executive director/president/etc.] of the [# of members] member [state] Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers), and my comments focus on an issue of great concern to the social work profession and social work education.

The issue is the use of the term "social worker." According to the National Association of Social Workers, a social worker is a person who has earned a social work degree (bachelor’s [BSW] or master’s [MSW]) from a social work education program accredited by the Council on Social Work Education. Despite the fact that research indicates that the use of professionally trained social workers in child welfare results in improved outcomes for children and families, only 28 percent of child welfare workers have a BSW or MSW degree. Therefore, unless the Administration on Children and Families intends in those instances where the term "social worker" is used to require that the child welfare staff involved have a BSW or MSW degree, another job title should be used. The title "social worker" should only be ascribed to a professionally trained social worker. A commonly used term for staff having direct case contact is child welfare worker or child welfare caseworker.

Recommendation: If the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) intends to require the use of staff with BSW or MSW degrees in the instances cited in the Notice, the term "social worker" should be defined in the document as: "a person who has earned a social work degree (bachelor’s [BSW]or master’s [MSW]) from a social work education program accredited by the Council on Social Work Education." If ACF does not intend to require a professionally trained social worker be used in the instances cited, the term "social worker" should be changed to "child welfare caseworker."

The term "social worker" appears in the document a total of 26 times: one time in the "Description of Proposed Project"; 24 times in the "On-Site Review Instrument"; and one time in the "Stakeholder Interview Guide."

I thank you for your attention to this issue and hope you will make the necessary changes in the final document.

Sincerely,

FOR SECOND COMMENT DEADLINE: DECEMBER 17

Title IV-E Foster Care Eligibility Reviews and Child and Family Services State Plan Reviews,

Federal Register, September 18, 1998, pp. 50057-50098.

SAMPLE LETTER WITH ATTACHMENT

Date
Carol W. Williams
Associate Commissioner
Children’s Bureau
Administration on Children, Youth and Families
330 C Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20447

Dear Ms. Williams:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the September 18, 1998 proposed rule governing Title IV-E Foster Care Eligibility Reviews and Child and Family Services State Plan Reviews.

I am a social work educator {or I am a professional social worker or I am the [executive director/president/etc.] of the [# of members] member [state] Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers}, and my comments focus on two issues of great concern to the social work profession and social work education.

The first issue is the use of the term "social worker." According to the National Association of Social Workers, a social worker is a person who has earned a social work degree (bachelor’s [BSW] or master’s [MSW]) from a social work education program accredited by the Council on Social Work Education. Despite the fact that research indicates that the use of professionally trained social workers in child welfare results in improved outcomes for children and families, only 28 percent of child welfare workers have a BSW or MSW degree. Therefore, unless the Children’s Bureau intends in those instances where the term "social worker" is used to require that the child welfare staff involved have a BSW or MSW degree, another job title should be used. The title "social worker" should only be ascribed to a professionally trained social worker. A commonly used term for staff having direct case contact is child welfare worker or child welfare caseworker. Specific citations are attached.

The second issue of concern is child welfare staff training. As a social worker educator, I (or As a professional social worker, I; or As professional social workers, we) commend the Children’s Bureau for highlighting staff training as a critical systemic factor in improving the quality of services and outcomes for children and families. However, the proposed regulations are inconsistent with allowable staff training as described in current law. Current law and regulations specifically include as eligible and appropriate, not only training for staff who are already employed by the child welfare agency, but also for personnel preparing for employment.

Many child welfare agencies have found that in order to improve the quality of child welfare services and recruit and retain competent staff, they must develop a strategy, in collaboration with baccalaureate and master’s level social work education programs, to prepare social workers for child welfare practice. This is an important aspect of staff development and training strategies in many jurisdictions. In assessing the extent to which a state is providing adequate staff training, in addition to the training for staff who are already hired, strategies to train staff who are preparing for child welfare work also should be examined.

Furthermore, the proposed language is vague as to whether efforts to provide "long-term" training for staff to obtain social work degrees is included. Many states, including Maryland, New Jersey, California, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, Louisiana, and Oklahoma, currently include as a critical part of their staff development and training plan opportunities for staff to return to the university to obtain a social work degree. For example, Illinois requires that supervisors without a master’s degree obtain their MSW as one key component in improving the service delivery system and moving toward compliance with Council on Accreditation (COA) standards.

The regulations should include language that incorporates the full range of current Title IV-E training and IV-B services provisions to ensure that the States and the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) continue to recognize that educating social workers who are preparing for child welfare practice and providing degree education for current staff remain important components of a State’s staff development and training program. Specific recommended language is attached.

I thank you for your attention to these issues and hope you will make the necessary changes in the final regulations.

Sincerely,

Recommendation: If the Children’s Bureau intends to require the use of staff with BSW or MSW degrees in the instances cited below, the term "social worker" should be defined in the regulations as: "a person who has earned a social work degree (bachelor’s [BSW] or master’s [MSW]) from a social work education program accredited by the Council on Social Work Education." If the Bureau does not intend to require a professionally trained social worker be used in the instances cited, the term "social worker" should be changed to "child welfare caseworker."

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

p. 50059, I. Summary of Proposed Review Processes (last paragraph).

PREAMBLE: X. SECTION-BY-SECTION DISCUSSION OF THE NPRM

p. 50066, A. Child and Family Service Reviews.

Section 1355.34 Criteria for Determining Substantial Conformity (next to last paragraph).

We propose to require that conclusions about outcomes be made on the basis of several perspectives, including those of the children, parents, social worker and service providers involved in the cases reviewed, in order to provide us with more comprehensive information about each case undergoing review.

p. 50077, B. Title IV-E Eligibility Reviews.

Section 1356.21 (i) Requirements for Filing a Petition to Terminate Parental Rights per Section 475 (5) (E) of the Social Security Act (thirteenth paragraph).

p. 50088, Section 1355.33 Procedures for the review.

(c) On-site review.

(4) Sources of information collected during the on-site review to determine substantial conformity must include, but are not limited to:

(iii) Social workers, foster parents, and service providers for the cases selected for the on-site review; and ... .

p. 50089, Section 1355.34 Criteria for determining substantial conformity.

(c) Criteria related to State agency capacity … .

(2) Case review system: … :

(i) provide, for each child, a written case plan to be developed jointly with the child’s parent(s) that includes provisions: . . . for visits with a child placed out of State at least every 12 months by a social worker of the agency or of the agency in the State where the child is placed; …

ISSUE 2: CHILD WELFARE STAFF TRAINING

The language on staff training in the proposed regulations is inconsistent with allowable staff training as described in the fiscal requirements of P.L. 96-272, Section 474 (a)(3)(A) and 45 CFR 1356.65(b)(1)(2)(3). The legislation and regulations specifically include as eligible and appropriate, not only training for staff who are already employed by the child welfare agency, but also for personnel preparing for employment. That language follows.

"such expenditures as are for the training (including both short- and long-term training at educational institutions through grants to such institutions or by direct financial assistance to students enrolled in such institutions) of personnel employed or preparing for employment by the State agency or by the local agency administering the plan in the political subdivision" (Section 474(a)(3)(A), P. L. 96-272).

Furthermore, the proposed language is vague as to whether efforts to provide "long-term" training for staff to obtain social work degrees is included.

The training issue is further confused by the inclusion of preparatory and pre-service training in the October 1, 1998 Federal Register Notice on the proposed review procedures for assessing compliance with State Plan requirements. That language follows.

p. 52736, SECTION I: CORE ISSUES.

On-Site Review. Stakeholder Interview Guide.

Item 4. Staff and Provider Training.

Exploratory Issues:

Strengths and needs of the training provided to: agency staff (at all levels) in preparing them to work with families and children or otherwise carry out the agency’s mission; …

Comparisons between pre-service and in-service training for staff and providers.

Recommended Changes: Section 1355.34 (c)(4)(iii) and (iv) should include language that incorporates the full range of current Title IV-E training and IV-B services provisions to ensure that the States and the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) continue to recognize that educating social workers who are preparing for child welfare practice and providing degree education for current staff remain important components of a State’s staff development and training program (45 CFR 1357.15(t)).

Recommended New Language for Proposed Regulations is in CAPS:

p. 50089, Section 1355.34 Criteria for determining substantial conformity.

(c) Criteria related to State agency capacity to deliver services leading to improved outcomes for children and families.

(4) Staff training: The State is operating a staff development and training program (45 CFR 1357.15(t)) that:

(iii) provides training for all staff who provide family preservation and support services, child protective services, foster care services, adoption services and independent living services soon after they are employed, AND FOR STAFF PREPARING FOR EMPLOYMENT IN THE STATE AGENCY OR THE LOCAL AGENCY ADMINISTERING THE STATE’S CSFP, and that includes the basic skills and knowledge required for their positions;

(iv) provides ongoing training for staff, INCLUDING LONG-TERM TRAINING AT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS THROUGH GRANTS TO SUCH INSTITUTIONS OR BY DIRECT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO STUDENTS ENROLLED IN SUCH INSTITUTIONS that addresses the skills and knowledge base needed to carry out their duties with regard to the services included in the State’s CFSP; and,"