Family First Prevention Services Act of 2016

Article by JD John

Family First Prevention Services Act of 2016

H.R. 5456             S. Res. 3065

When I became aware of this bill there was much conflict with it. There was unanimous support from the United States House of Representatives, which on any foster youth oriented bill is very supportive and appreciated but, when it went to the United States Senate there was opposition. Those two facts are very clear. I personally think those are the only two facts that are absolute in clarity. Following those facts is where we get division.

The Family First Prevention Services Act, FFPSA, has a framework of preventing youth from entering foster care but there is a grave misrepresentation and use of the wording of prevention. Often when bills are brought forth and signed into law as prevention legislation the intent seems more so of intervention than prevention. I did find this the case with this same piece of legislation and must say that if it is at the point of intervention then the spirit of prevention failed in the writing of this bill. If we already must intervene to youth that are already deemed “imminent risk”, then we prevented nothing and are making them a subsector of the overall foster care system.

FFPSA had two main purposes: 1) to bolster federal investment to prevent foster care entries and 2) reduce the number of children and youth placed in congregate care settings. Looking at the main purposes of the legislation, yes, there are wonderful merits in which such a bill should be successful. The adjunct to such is that the wording within legislation does not always seem to match the purpose and often creates more confusion or over reach.

From what is presented by the supporters of the legislation is that this piece took years in the making; if it took such length then the question begs, why not get it right the first time? Regardless of any bill the adage of “if it helps just one child then it was worth it” does not ring true because as advocates we are not focused on just one child. At present time, there are over 400,000 youth in the foster care system; when I was in care we had have 500,000 youth in care. We have been on a decline in youth being presented at barter in the foster care system, sadly to say we are now seeing a growing increase in the numbers again.

In further digging on the speed of which this bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives I am further bothered considering the sitting Congress can’t pass a comprehensive budget or Continuing Resolutions with such speed. I personally was astonished to find that the House Ways and Means Committee cleared the bill for floor vote just 5 days after the legislative text was made public. Years in works with inadequate writing, approach, and resolutions and expediency in passing one body of Congress with little time for review by supporters and opponents of the bill. That allows one to conclude there are many flaws in which this bill was presented, perhaps even misrepresented. The expediency in which the House allowed this legislation did not allow for states, advocates, or opponents the necessary time to analyze and weigh in on the legislation which is problematic considering the bill does present serious short-comings, one of which is in a question. Where do we place the youth that are in congregate care facilities with such a drastic deficit in appropriate and adequate foster home placements? It may be opined that attention from one issue is being diverted to subvert attention from another serious and problematic issue.

In the expansion of foster care entitlement to provide supportive service for ‘at-risk’ families, how do we define supportive services? Such lack of definition has youth currently aging-out of the system ill-prepared for adulthood due to the lack of ill-education from the supportive services sector alone much of which is contracted out to the non-profit sector of the business community. A perfect example of such is a comprehensive list of exact services, in detail, of what aging-out youth are entitled to in assistance of being self-sufficient. Broad wording is so commonly used that much misinterpretation can occur or misappropriation with a semi-plausible play on such broad wording.

The bill does create for 3 sets of services to qualifying families which are 1) mental health treatment, 2) substance abuse prevention and treatment, and 3) support for the development of parenting skills (stating in-home is subjective because if these families already need intervention then the safety of the youth(s) is already at risk.)

I promote the idea of keeping a youth with his or her family as much as possible but am more hesitate when asked at what cost to the child due to a state or agency trying to be fiscally conservative in its approach to the betterment and welfare of the child. If this bill is meant to focus on the parents, then let’s start getting honest and direct; children are not a pawn for politics or life situations. As to support and treatment, one can only accept support and treatment if they are willing and at a point to recognize problems to ask for the help not have it forced upon them because forced treatment is failed treatment; one cannot force productive rehabilitation on a person if they first do not recognize they have a hardship which needs corrective action and two they are unwilling. The courts can use judicial force for parenting classes so to speak but if such classes have such minimal requirements to complete then financial waste is not only occurring for the courts but for all the agencies and organizations involved but those most impacted are the child(ren) and/or youth(s) caught up in the processes. A personal example is of one family that must take their kinship foster child to meet with his/her mother every so often. After the meetings, they kinship family is fighting for a few to multiple days for the child to return to the youth they had prior to the visit only for the trauma to occur at the next session. This example is clear in showing that it is not always best to be involved of a child with his/her original caregivers (parents). So, is this beneficial or detrimental to the child?

Reviewing this bill can get one to also question eligibility of services. Currently, Title IV-E payments are only available to children whose parents meet outdated income standards of the ended Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program which ended in 1996. Families must meet non-inflation adjusted standards of a 1996 program which means few families will be eligible for services and even fewer states will be able to drawn down federal dollars for federal reimbursement for the new services. With such a financial risk to state coffers, incentivizing may not meet a diversion from foster care but placement into foster care. This bill was already built on the shaky premise of redirecting funding currently being spent on children in out-of-home (OOH) care. Redirection of funds is not the solution but getting Congress, states, state agencies, and the advocacy community to willingly commit to investing additional resources is more fiscally responsible the redirection or basing a bill’s fiscal sense on being cost-neutral. Cost neutral does not equate to cost effective, this being stated as most cost-neutral platforms often become cost prohibitive because of wording or usage limitations. Again, this is where Congress, states, state agencies, and the full advocacy community of child welfare need to step up to the plate and address issues not just mention them. A look outside of the box in how to find those solutions is rather simple – look outside of the proverbial box!

I do disagree with this bill as it does delay implementation of the 2008 Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act. Success is measurable in some aspects; conversely what one considers a great success may not be established under the measurable success perimeters. Also, passing a bill in haste that is counterproductive and delays legislation that was already passed when you are not addressing the full actions required of putting forth a bill that has ramifications for generations to come. Yes, we need to look at our adoption process. Look at some of those who have been adopted out of the foster care system. There are wonderful success stories. We have actors, singers, Olympians, business owners, even multi-millionaires, so quit making it so hard to adopt youth who want stability in their lives so difficult because as I have encountered, adopting from the state is more difficult than a private agency, surrogacy, or even adopting from the international community. All youth deserve love, life, family, and a home; none of which must be attained via biological blood lines. There is a saying amongst older Alumni of the foster care community, “We had the chance to build a family of our own choosing.” Adoption is the same thing, the youth and the family choose each other; those bonds and the strength of those bonds can be far greater than any biological blood line family cherishes.

Another area of discontent is that of haphazardly cutting funding to congregate care facilities. There are great congregate care facilities that are effective in keeping siblings together because they can all be placed together instead of spilt up and states or agencies not uphold their Sibling Rights. Congregate Care facilities that are non-therapeutic that provide valuable resources and services should not be discontinued because of overall inadequate ability to evolve. Defining new congregate care facilities under the guise of a “Qualified Residential Treatment Program” having to meet more of clinical and medical standards that Joint Commission of Healthcare Organizations (JCOHO) should be accrediting rather than oversight by the Department of Health and Human Services and the best welfare of the youth involved. Do not get me wrong, some of the atrocities that occur in some congregate care facilities such as rape, physical abuse, isolationism, verbal abuse, manipulation of rights all need to be addressed. Those factors do not go away and we, as an advocacy community and public and private stakeholders, need to address such issues and quit creating “Multi-tiered Trauma” because the youth coming into care already have survived so much trauma as it is. Even the military builds you up to make you a better person, where is the process for people and organizations to build up instead of hand out? Congregate care facilities have the capacity to offer such services and build positive relationship to make productive citizens and the success stories that the foster care community yearns to market to the masses. I know there are certain exceptions written into this legislation but, they are short-sighted. In closing such facilities where are the youth going to be placed? If an institution or lock down facility is offered as a solution, then this bill and those offering those solutions have more to gain than meets the eyes in ensuring a system of recidivism continues. Break the freaking cycle and let’s build leaders. We have quality control issues when it comes to recruiting great foster homes for youth never-the-less retaining them because they get fed up with the ‘interpretations’. A wonderful example of a program that went outside the box and is proven successful is the Transitional Housing Placement Program (THPP) in California because they never gave up on the youth due to unsuccessful placements in a family setting but don’t require the supervision of a congregate care facility. Again, this goes to applaud those whom thought outside the box and decided that there was another option even if they had to develop it themselves.

The bill also does not address the placement of those youth in congregate care facilities but makes sure to place limitation on how limiting the federal funds will pay for such a placement. This issue must be addressed otherwise some of those youths who are in group homes face increased placement disruptions, higher risk of being run-aways, higher risk of being human trafficked, and sadly to mention may be more likely to be involved with the juvenile justice system which will not look at them as a youth or human but a number and a problem. If my memory of history serves me correctly some of the first foundations of the foster care system are built on congregate care facilities or as we otherwise called them orphanages. I nor any survivor or current recipient of the foster care system are orphans; we have someone that does care and want us the constant reminder of being placed within a broken system is not one that we should have to pay for. We are very ready to provide insight though on how to reform, fix, or if need be beginning the process of building a better system that is comprehensive, effective, and provides the nurturing homes and resources we all need as human beings.

The ”one-size-fits-all” system currently in place does not work. This is a well-known fact. Also, passing legislation that is not comprehensive but tears away at parts of the system is just as ineffective. Comprehensive policy and practice reform is what is truly needed if we are to fix the current foster care system. There are plenty of non-profit organizations that receive federal dollars to provide services, evaluation of the quality of services provided needs to be analyzed and instead of delving out monies to organizations with good intent but improper deliver let’s get those monies and get it where they need to be, on successful programs, supports, and services they are intended for – the youth in the foster care system. Quit the long-standing policy of medicating youth, institutionalizing youth, and just putting them somewhere just to say you did your job or make more money. No child is the same, we are all different with differing dreams, abilities, ambitions, and goals. If family reunification is in the best interest that is wonderful but if not, then build a platform that sets that youth up for stability and success.

On a very positive note, I do agree with Title III of the bill; Continuing Support For Child And Family Services sections 301, 302, and 303. Section 301 is to amend Social Security Act title IV-B to make supporting and retaining foster families a family support service. Section 302 is to amend reauthorization of the Social Security Act Title IV-B through FY2021 which include the Stephanie Tubbs Janes Child Welfare Services program; the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program; funding for monthly caseworker visits and regional partnership grants; and funding for state courts to assess and improve handing of proceeding relating to foster care and adoption. Section 303 is to amend the Social Security Act Title IV-E to revise the John H Foster Care Independence Program to include authorize states electing to extend foster care eligibility through age 21 to extend assistance and services to youths who have aged out of foster care but not yet reached age 23; authorize redistribution of unexpended amounts among states that apply for additional program funds; allow state to make individuals eligible for education and training vouchers through age 25 (but only for 5 years); and modify congressional reporting requirements. Furthermore, Title IV of the bill; Continuing Incentives to States to Promote Adoption and Legal Guardianship via amending Social Security Act IV-E to reauthorize adoption and legal guardianship incentive payments through FY2021.

In conclusion, H.R. 5456 is currently dead as S. Res. 3065. Is there a single person to blame absolutely not, we are all to blame if we did not stand up and say, “It’s not about saving one child but ensuring the safety, welfare, and well-being of ALL of the children in the foster care system. We can do better than this.” No matter your position of being a proponent or opponent of the Families First Prevention Services Act of 2016, we can do better and have an obligation to provide better than the minimum otherwise we have only ourselves to blame for each foster care survivor for not reaching their maximum potential.

Download PDF of FFPSA 2016 Article