2016 Year-in-Review for the Administration for Children and Families

Thanks very much, and I’m glad to be with you today. As you may know, I’ve been a frequent attendee at APHSA Attorneys Conferences over the years, and always appreciate having the opportunity to participate. But, today will be my last appearance as ACF Acting Assistant Secretary, and I want to use these next few minutes to highlight a set of significant actions we’ve taken this year that have implications for human services attorneys. We’ll then have some time for questions and discussion, and I’m happy to talk more about any aspect of our work at ACF.

In each of the last couple of years, I’ve started by noting any new legislation with implications for ACF Programs. That part of the talk is faster this year, because there hasn’t been any. The Family First child welfare bill is still pending in Congress, and we don’t know if it’ll be further considered in the lame duck session, but that’s really it. But, it’s been a busy year for ACF, We’ve issued five final regulations this year, and have several more forthcoming, along with a number of other important issuances of guidance and other actions that may be relevant to your work, and that’s what I’ll turn to now.

Child Care

I’ll start with child care. In 2014, President Obama signed bipartisan legislation that comprehensively updated the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act for the first time in nearly twenty years. The reauthorized law focused on strengthening child care to better support the success of both parents and children and puts a new emphasis on the importance of providing high-quality early education and care. On September 30, we issued final rules for the Child Care and Development Fund to update the regulations in light of reauthorization.

If you work with your state child care agency, you’ve likely already been immersed in the new regulations. But, I’ll highlight several notable features. First, before the new law, health and safety standards varied widely across states and left critical gaps. The Act and rule establish a baseline for health, safety, and quality, including requirements for annual monitoring for CCDF licensed and license-exempt providers and a pre-licensure inspection for licensed CCDF providers; health and safety requirements and training on ten basic topics, such as first aid and CPR, reporting and recognition of child abuse and neglect and child development training; and comprehensive background checks for child care staff members of all licensed and CCDF-eligible providers, including licensed providers who do not receive CCDF funds.

The final rule requires states to disseminate information to parents, providers, and the general public on child care services and other assistance programs such as SNAP. States are also required to describe their policies relating to suspension and expulsion in early childhood settings, including any policies to prevent suspension and expulsion of children birth to age 5 in child care and other early childhood programs. The law and rule lengthen eligibility periods so families have more stable subsidies while also supporting continuity of care and relationships between children and their providers. And, the law and rule gradually increase, over a five year period, the proportion of funds States must use for quality from four percent to nine percent and adding a new three percent infant-toddler set aside.

These are the biggest changes for child care since the 1996 law was enacted. We view the stronger emphasis on health, safety, quality of care, stability and continuity as enormously important and encourage your work with your state agency to help in implementation.

Head Start Performance Standards

I appreciate that many of you do not have direct responsibilities relating to Head Start, since it is principally a federal to local program, though a set of states are Early Head Start grantees. But, I want to talk about the new Head Start performance standards, both because they’re important to anyone engaged in early childhood work, and because states are increasingly focused on opportunities to strengthen coordination between Head Start and child care.

The Head Start Program Performance Standards describe what is needed to deliver comprehensive, high-quality individualized services to support the school readiness and healthy development of children. In September, we published a final rule with the first comprehensive updating of the performance standards in the program’s history.

The final rule draws on years of research and experience to establish higher standards for effective teaching, staff professional development, and high-quality curriculum in Head Start; strong parent engagement and involvement in programs; comprehensive health services and child safety; effective management; and a full school day and year of services for all Head Start children. The new standards require programs to establish new background check requirements, consistent with new child care requirements. The new standards also require programs to establish joint agreements, procedures, and contracts with other federal, state, and local agencies for implementing IDEA, for participation in state data systems, and for the protection of the confidentiality of personally identifiable information of child records.

The regulations add requirements in some areas, but overall significantly reduce the number of specific mandates for grantees. Our goal was not just to reduce the number of regulations. To ensure a consistent level of high quality across the country, it’s essential to have a core set of requirements. But, the new standards embody a shift from prescriptive compliance based regulations to performance oriented requirements, recognizing that needlessly prescriptive regulations can be an enemy to innovation. In any federal-to-local program it’s essential to be thoughtful about what needs to be a requirement, what needs to be an encouragement, and what needs to be left to local discretion. That’s what we’ve done here. If you’re working with your state around child care and early childhood programs, I think you’ll find it helpful to spend time with the Head Start rule.

Child Welfare

Turing now to child welfare. On June 2nd, we published final rules for Comprehensive Child Welfare Information Systems (CCWIS). A CCWIS is a case management information system that title IV-E agencies may develop to support their child welfare program needs; the rule describes the circumstances under which jurisdictions can qualify for more favorable federal match if they meet specified requirements. Compared with prior requirements, the final rule provides agencies with increased flexibility to build smaller systems more tailored to meet their needs, with fewer federal functional requirements. The rule establishes a set of data exchange requirements, requires participating states to develop and implement data quality plans and processes to monitor data quality, and take corrective action to address identified problems. If you’re working with your state child welfare agency, I’d encourage you to spend time with the rule to better understand its requirements and help your state agency identify opportunities.

Last month, the Justice Department and HHS issued a joint guidance letter to state and local child welfare systems on the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regulations. As you all appreciate, Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. The guidance aims to ensure that child welfare systems know about their responsibilities to protect the civil rights of children and families. It is part of an ongoing partnership between the departments to help child welfare agencies protect the well-being of children and ensure compliance with federal nondiscrimination laws.

I encourage you to spend time with the guidance, and talk with your child welfare agency about its relevance to your jurisdiction and steps to ensure you’re in full compliance.

Now I want to turn to issues relating to substance abuse. Overall, the number of children in foster care is substantially lower than it was twenty years ago, but we’ve seen growth in the number of children in care since 2012, and a range of sources indicate that at least part of the growth is attributable to substance abuse and growth in the use of opioids. While there are large variations in state reporting, we’re seeing growth in the share of children entering the system as infants, an increase in the share of cases attributable to neglect, and growth in the percentage of cases in which a parental drug problem is cited as associated with the child’s removal.

The Children’s Bureau’s Regional Partnership Grants (RPG) are playing an important role in developing projects to test service models rooted in recovery research that address the specific substance abuse needs of the parents in their jurisdiction. Several Court Improvement Programs are working to infuse family drug treatment court principles into dependency courts in their state. These efforts begin with ensuring judges, attorneys and court personnel are well trained on substance abuse disorder, the recovery cycle, and evidence-based practices. Participating courts agree to hold hearings more often, adopt new court room practices that are both supportive and promote accountability, and work with the child welfare agency to help ensure effective services are provided to all parents. And, extensive legal and judicial training on how to treat and best serve parents with substance abuse disorders take place nationally under the Court Improvement Program training grant. Many training efforts now focus specifically on challenges associated with opioid addiction and how attorneys can best represent clients and work together with the child welfare agency to ensure they receive the most effective treatment possible.

Additionally, the Children’s Bureau’s Capacity Building Center for Courts (CBCC) is creating an online learning experience for parents’ attorneys that will include a module specifically on how to represent parents with substance abuse disorder. The learning experience is expected to be complete early in 2017 and will be available to attorneys nationwide.

I also wanted to flag the important role of attorneys in relation to Indian Child Welfare Act compliance. The Children’s Bureau is in the final stages of completing an online ICWA learning designed to provide attorneys and judges the background understanding and skills necessary to effectively meet the requirements of the law. The training was written to the new ICWA Regulations issued by BIA and will be available to all judges and attorneys nationally prior to the regulations taking effect in December 2016. And, we’re near completion of our AFCARS regulations, our proposed rules had described a number of ICWA related reporting requirements. Human Trafficking

This year, ACF continues to implement Federal legislation related to strengthening the child welfare response to human trafficking. The Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act of 2014 and the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015 require new actions from states. A few notable implications for child welfare agencies include:

• The Preventing Sex Trafficking requires states to report cases of youth sex trafficking annually to HHS. States must start reporting cases by September 29, 2017.
• The JVTA expanded the definition of child abuse under the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 to include human trafficking and the production of child pornography.
• The JVTA amended the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to require States to include a child who is a trafficking victim under the state definition of “child abuse and neglect” for CAPTA purposes. It also requires CPS workers to identify, assess, serve, and report children known or suspected to be sex trafficking victims, along with new training requirements for CPS workers.

ACF will provide more guidance on these and other provisions in the coming months.

TANF

Turning to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, I want to note four things for attorneys engaged with their state TANF agencies.

First, in the last year, there’s been increasing attention to the fact that such a small share of TANF funds is going to TANF assistance, and that even when one also looks at spending for child care and work activities, it still comprises less than half of TANF and state maintenance of effort spending. This year, a set of media stories highlighted instances in which states were using their TANF funds for services and expenditures seemingly far beyond the core purposes of the law. A state that does so risks a misuse of funds penalty, and when many states do so, we risk broader support for the program. We revamped the TANF financial data reporting system, and the newly released data this year provide substantially more information and transparency about TANF spending. So, I’d encourage you and your TANF agency to look closely at how your state is expending its funds, the extent to which your state is providing assistance and supports for success in employment for needy families, and consider whether existing spending choices should be revisited.

Second, we put out guidance last month to TANF agencies pointing to the virtues of TANF involvement in state and local career pathway efforts, and in the prior month, we put out guidance pointing to how states could do more using work study. And, earlier this year, we highlighted research about using labor market data to target training efforts. Often, we find that TANF agencies are hesitant to strengthen their attention to education, training and job quality because of concerns about when particular activities do and don’t count toward TANF work participation rates. At the same time, we often see that agencies are not utilizing the flexibility they have under current law concerning which activities are allowable and when they’re countable. Ultimately, these are policy questions for your state agency, but you may be able to help them in better understanding their choices.

Third, we’ve been actively involved with our Department of Labor and Department of Education colleagues in issues relating to regulations, guidance, and state plans for implementing the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. Under WIOA, TANF agencies are mandatory partners at the local workforce one-stops and must contribute to the infrastructure costs of the one-stops unless the Governor opts out. We’ve encouraged human services agencies to partner with workforce agencies in WIOA implementation. In your state’s implementation, there may be some challenging questions about funding arrangements and fostering consistency between WIOA and TANF requirements; our Office of Family Assistance is working closely to provide support to states around WIOA implementation.

Finally, in 2012 Congress passed the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, which included a provision that required states to implement policies and practices to prohibit electronic benefit transfer transactions with TANF cash assistance payments at liquor stores, casinos and adult-oriented entertainment venues. While any inappropriate expenditure of public funds raises concerns, there is no evidence to suggest that accessing TANF assistance at such locations is widespread. Still, under the law, states must report annually that they have implemented appropriate policies and practices or risk losing up to 5 percent of their federal TANF funds. We issued final regulations in January 2016 to implement these requirements.

The law also requires states to include in their state TANF plans an explanation of how the state will ensure that recipients of TANF assistance have adequate access to their cash assistance, including minimal or no fees to withdraw cash. ACF’s Office of Family Assistance issued a Program Instruction in April 2016 with examples of strategies that states may use to ensure access to cash assistance and minimize or eliminate fees for recipients, as required by law. ACF will continue to review state TANF plans to make sure that the state is working to ensure that TANF recipients have adequate access to their cash assistance in accordance with the law.

Child Support

Among other things, the 1996 welfare law made dramatic changes to the child support program. It ushered in sweeping new child support enforcement authorities, harnessed the power of “big data” before we called it that, and established interoperable federal, state, county and private sector computer systems to help states find people and money. When implemented, these changes quickly doubled the amount of child support collections.

However, these enforcement tools only work when noncustodial parents have money to collect. By far the program’s most effective enforcement tool is payroll withholding, with three-fourths of child support collections made through income withholding. However, income withholding only works when noncustodial parents have stable jobs. About a quarter of noncustodial parents in the child support caseload are low income, often unemployed or underemployed, with limited education and job skills, frequently with a history of justice involvement .

Across the country, child support programs are undergoing significant changes in how they address situations in which a noncustodial parent is unemployed, incarcerated, or low earning. Our goal is to increase consistent child support payments in nonpaying or sporadically paying cases. Research says that support orders set 15-20% or more above actual income result in lower compliance, that the reason for nonpayment is usually inability to pay, and that unmanageable debt discourages low wage employment. Around the country, state child support programs are implementing evidence-based practices such as early intervention, “right-sized” orders based upon ability to pay, referrals to employment programs, and reduced incarceration through “jobs not jail” initiatives.

We are continuing to move forward with finalizing the child support rule, which is at OMB. The rule will give states additional tools to work with low income noncustodial parents so that their children will benefit from the child support program.

Unaccompanied Children and Refugees

I now want to talk about unaccompanied children and refugees. ACF has certain responsibilities for children arriving in this country without legal status and without a parent or guardian. When these children are referred to us by the Department of Homeland Security we provide health, education, clinical, nutrition, and other services through a set of shelters, and seek to place them with a parent, relative, or other appropriate sponsor with whom the child can live while awaiting their immigration proceedings. For a number of years, the number of arriving children was in the range of 6000 to 8000, but has grown substantially and we received nearly 60,000 children in 2016.

Through our legal access contract, children receive legal orientations and screenings for legal relief when children are in ORR custody. During this Administration, we’ve increased funding for pro bono coordination and increased funding to provide direct representation or court appearance support for both children in ORR custody and post-release. Still, our funding only provides for representation for a limited share of arriving children. We recognize the critical importance of representation for children so that their claims are fully considered. Some states and localities have taken on their own efforts, and we welcome working with you if you do so.

Under the refugee resettlement program, time limited benefits and services are provided to arriving refugees and other humanitarian entrants. We provide funding to States for the operation of the refugee resettlement program, and most states participate in the program. However, if a state elects not to participate, we need to identify non-governmental organizations to administer the benefits and services in that state. As you all know, the refugee program has been in the news in recent months, particularly around questions about security and safety, even though refugees are subject to a lengthy review process and the highest level of security checks of any travelers to the United States. Last November, we published a letter to States and stakeholders emphasizing the importance of ensuring that refugees receive needed services without regard to race, religion, nationality, sex, or political opinion. Four states did elect to leave the program in 2016. If a state elects to leave the program, it has no effect on the number of refugees arriving in the state; it only affects whether the state administers benefits and services, and by exiting the program, the state loses its ability to affect those decisions about benefits and services. So, if these questions arise in your state, I’d hope that you’ll communicate the importance of non-discriminatory program administration, that you can help your state understand the security and vetting procedures applicable to refugees and the consequences of any decision concerning state participation or non-participation.

Conclusion

In this talk, I’ve only been able to touch on some of ACF’s work, but I’ve tried to highlight recent developments that have direct relevance to attorneys in the coming months. I’ll look forward to our Q and A session, and again, it’s great to be here again.