1. Recent Federal Legislative and Policy Developments: What CRPs Should Know and Do Howard Davidson Director, ABA Center on Children and the Law davidsonha@staff.abanet.org 202/662-1740

2. What the 2005 NCANDS Data Should Tell CRPs We must give special attention to child neglect cases (62.8% of all victims) We must give special attention to child neglect cases (62.8% of all victims) Teachers and police need on-going training on identifying and reporting child maltreatment (source of 1/3 of reports) Teachers and police need on-going training on identifying and reporting child maltreatment (source of 1/3 of reports) Caseload control is essential (avg. of 67.5 completed investigations per worker/year) Caseload control is essential (avg. of 67.5 completed investigations per worker/year) Look at where your state stands in terms of the big variations in state by state data Look at where your state stands in terms of the big variations in state by state data

3. 14 of Those Big Variations 1. 20% (VT) vs. 99% (AZ) reports are “screened-in” 2. 10% (CA) vs. 0.05% (WV) reports come in from mental health professionals 3. 32 (AL) vs. 217 (UT) reports per worker are being investigated at any one time 4. 91.5% (NY) vs. 3.5% (PA) and 5.6% (VT) of all cases involve “neglect” victims (note: VT & AL have the highest % of “abuse” victims)

4. 5. 45% (ME) vs. 0.1% (IL) of child victims are “psychological maltreatment” victims 6. 18% (DC & FL) vs. under 3% (AZ, ID, KS, MN, NV, NH, NJ, PA, SD, VA, WA, WY) are substantiated kids age 16 & 17 7. 99.9% (HA) vs. under 3% (CO, IL, MA, VA & WA) are victims with reported disabilities 8. Over 1,000 (IL, IN, KY, MA, NC, OH, TX, WI) vs. under 200 (AK, AR, CO, ID, MT, NV, NY, OK, SD, VT) perpetrators were the unmarried partners of a child’s parent

5. 9. Over 100 (IN, NY) vs. under 20 (AL, AK, AR, DC, IA, KS, KY, MI, MT, NE, SD, VT, WA) perpetrators were from within residential facilities 10. Over 300 (CA, NY, OK) vs. under 20 (AZ, DC, ID, ME, MT, NV, UT, VT) perpetrators were in foster homes 11. Over 400 (FL, IL, NY, PA) vs. under 20 (DC, ME, MS, MT, SD) perpetrators were child care providers or were in centers and other pre-school programs

6. 12. 100% (AZ, IA, NH, PR) vs. under 50% (CO, CT, DE, IL, IN, ME, MD, MS, NM, OH, SD, TN, TX, VT, WI) of child victims were “receiving” post-investigation services 13. Under 10% (DE, MD, PR, UT, WV) vs. over 40% (AZ, CA, HA, ID, MT, NV, OR, SD, WA, WY) of child victims were removed from their home 14. Under 10% (DE, FL, KY, ME, MS, PR, TN, UT, VA, WV, WI) vs. over 50% (HA, ID, MT, NV, NH) of child victims had follow- up court actions involving their family

7. Look at Racial Disparity Data Compiled by Center for the Study of Social Policy from 2000 AFCARS state foster care data and 2000 state racial demographic data Compiled by Center for the Study of Social Policy from 2000 AFCARS state foster care data and 2000 state racial demographic data If the Black population was 7%, and 7% of kids in care were Black, there wouldn’t be “racial disparity” – it would be a “O” rate If the Black population was 7%, and 7% of kids in care were Black, there wouldn’t be “racial disparity” – it would be a “O” rate States that had disparity rates of 3.50 or over were labeled “Extreme Racial Disproportionality” States that had disparity rates of 3.50 or over were labeled “Extreme Racial Disproportionality”

8. 3.57 - 5.48 – Extreme disparity range 3.57 - 5.48 – Extreme disparity range Extreme Disproportionality: RI, NJ, NM, IA, IN, PA, AZ, MT, IL, CA, OR, WY, MN, ID, NH, WI (worst, at 5.48) Extreme Disproportionality: RI, NJ, NM, IA, IN, PA, AZ, MT, IL, CA, OR, WY, MN, ID, NH, WI (worst, at 5.48) 2000 Total U.S. Black disparity in foster care: 12.9% of population but 36.6% of foster care population (Sept. 2005, 32%) 2000 Total U.S. Black disparity in foster care: 12.9% of population but 36.6% of foster care population (Sept. 2005, 32%) NCANDS 2005-- Blacks: 23.1% of victims NCANDS 2005-- Blacks: 23.1% of victims AFCARS 2005– Black rate of adoptions from foster care: 1% (13 states) to over 50% (SC, DE, LA, IL, MD, NJ) AFCARS 2005– Black rate of adoptions from foster care: 1% (13 states) to over 50% (SC, DE, LA, IL, MD, NJ)

9. How Is Your State Doing in Implementing 2006 Federal Laws? Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-171) Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-171) –Added two new grant programs to improve how courts handle abuse/neglect cases (1. Improve timely actions through better data/coordination; 2. Train judges and attorneys, including cross-training with child welfare workers) –Must show court-child welfare “substantial, on-going and meaningful collaboration”

10. Safe and Timely Interstate Placement of Foster Children Act (Public Law 109-239) Safe and Timely Interstate Placement of Foster Children Act (Public Law 109-239) –State must complete home studies requested by another state in 60 days (with some exceptions) –State must show effective use of out of state permanent placement resources –Courts must consider whether agency made “reasonable efforts” in considering out of state permanent placements –Kids in out of state placement must be visited at least every 6 months

11. –Courts must help expedite out-of-state placements and have authority to get out- of-state testimony and other information without requiring interstate travel –NOT RELATED TO INTERSTATE PLACEMENT: 1. Court must ensure foster parents, pre-adoptive parents, and relative caregivers get notice that says they have a right to be heard in any court proceeding involving child in their care; 2. Foster child health/education records must be kept updated & given free to every emancipating youth

12. Adam Walsh Child Protection & Safety Act (Public Law 109-248) Adam Walsh Child Protection & Safety Act (Public Law 109-248) –Fingerprint-based nationwide (through FBI) criminal history checks must be done for all prospective foster/adoptive parents & not just for IV-E eligible kids (CAPTA: also done on other adult relatives and non-relatives in the home) –Must check another state’s central registry for entries on any adult living in prospective foster/adoptive home, for all states where applicant lived last 5 years –States must cooperate in sharing info.

13. –Child welfare agencies (& contracted private agencies), after Governor’s OK, now have right to fingerprint-based criminal history information not only on prospective foster and adoptive parents, but also on any adult in a home that is under “investigation relating to an incident of abuse or neglect of a minor” –Such agencies can get access to both National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and Interstate Identification Index (III) and, after training, direct terminal access

14. Child and Family Services Improvement Act (Public Law 109-288) Child and Family Services Improvement Act (Public Law 109-288) –New, $40 million program of up to $1 million/year grants (up to 5 years) to “regional partnerships” (formed by a collaborative agreement) to “increase the well-being of, and improve permanency outcomes for, children affected by meth or other substance abuse” –July 3 application deadline –See: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/open/ HHS-2007-ACF-ACYF-CU-0022.html

15. –Improving frequency of caseworker visits to children in foster care -- states must develop and report to HHS standards for this, leading to at least monthly visits (for 90% of foster children by October 2011) –Beginning next year, states will get new money to help achieve these goals –3 other new agency mandates: 1) Must have process for active consultations with physicians and other medical professionals for use in facilitating assessments and treatment for foster children

16. 2) Must prepare a state child welfare disaster plan that includes how they will: a) Identify, locate, and continue to provide services to children under state care or supervision who are displaced or adversely affected by a disaster; b) Respond to new cases after a disaster; c) Keep in communication with caseworkers and other personnel; d) Preserve essential records; and e) Coordinate services and share information with other states

17. 3) Must assure that every youth is involved in decision-making regarding their exit from the foster care system. At any administrative or judicial “hearing” related to a youth’s permanent placement or transition from foster care, they must be consulted in an age- appropriate manner regarding any proposed permanency or transitional plan