The best guess, and it is still uncertain, is that Ohio' s budget legislation is going to reduce its matching share of Title IV-E adoption assistance to overall monthly payments of $215 PER MONTH. At around 40%, that means the state's contribution will amount to about $86 PER MONTH. Yes, that's right, if the the cuts go through as proposed.
Foster care rates probably will not go down because Ohio County welfare agencies have a legal obligation to provide foster care. Counties are already contracting larger portions of their foster care to private service providers because of the difficulty of securing qualified caregivers.
The problem of course is that with 70 or or percent of special needs children being adopted by their foster parents, the struggle over negotiating an adequate amount of adoption assistance will become more intense. I urge adopting parents to become as well informed as possible and to negotiate as as vigorously as they can. I will assist Ohio families as well as those in other states, upon request.
Families with existing agreements cannot be automatically cut. The existing agreement is essentially a contract. Please let me know what is going on in your state.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Monday, June 22, 2009
Agency Threats to Remove a Child as a Means of Undermining Adoption Assistance Negotiations
State and county agencies frequently threaten to remove the child from a prospective adoptive family if said family becomes too assertive about negotiating adoption assistance benefits. In light of the long standing trend for special needs children to be adopted by their foster caregivers, many of the boys and girls who are objects of these threats have been in foster homes for several years and have forged healthy emotional bonds to the people want to provide a permanent home for them. I have encountered dozens of these disturbing situations over the years, and in only a handful of cases has the safety and suitability of the home maintained by the prospective adoptive parents been in question.
For agencies pledged to the promote the best interests of the children in their care, the threat to remove children from the only stable homes they have ever known is shockingly immoral, particularly when the primary motive lies in frightening prospective adoptive parents into settling for an inadequate amount of adoption assistance. The deliberate attempt to undermine the negotiation of adoption assistance through intimidation is probably against the law as well.
Federal law at 42 U.S.C 673 provides that adoption assistance payments be determined through negotiated written agreements between the state or county agency and the adoptive parents, based upon a thorough consideration of the child’s needs and overall family circumstances. The Code of Federal Regulations at 45 CFR 1356.40(f) stipulates that states “must actively seek ways to promote the adoption assistance program.” The Code of Federal Regulations at 45 CFR 205.10 not only guarantees adoptive parents the right to apply for Title IV-E adoption assistance, but also to appeal adverse decisions regarding the amount of assistance. Efforts to thwart these due process rights run counter to federal adoption assistance law and in principle place a state's federal funding in jeopardy.
Surprisingly, there appears to be no consensus among attorneys regarding the most effective course of action to take when a prospective adoptive parent is threatened with the removal of their child during a disagreement over the amount of adoption assistance. In the absence of clear laws or regulations forbidding arbitrary removal, a petition to the appropriate court for a temporary restraining order or injunction seems to be the most logical course of action. Some parents have attempted to enlist the support of the child's Guardian Ad Litem to intervene with the local court.
The frequency with which adoptive parents are terrorized with threats of losing their child during the course of adoption assistance regulations calls for legislation to prevent vulnerable children that have already lost at least one family from unnecessarily losing another. At minimum such legislation, should forbid agencies from removing children in pre-adoptive homes for reasons other than abuse, neglect or other causes associated with protective services regulations. In addition, any proposed action to remove a child from a pre-adoptive home should automatically trigger a hearing before a court of competent jurisdiction. At the hearing, the existence of a strong and healthy emotional attachment with the prospective adoptive parents should be a prime consideration for the court. Finally, the burden should be on the agency to show that the family that it studied and approved as suitable for the the child has become sufficiently detrimental to the his or her well being as to warrant a traumatic placement in a new household.
For agencies pledged to the promote the best interests of the children in their care, the threat to remove children from the only stable homes they have ever known is shockingly immoral, particularly when the primary motive lies in frightening prospective adoptive parents into settling for an inadequate amount of adoption assistance. The deliberate attempt to undermine the negotiation of adoption assistance through intimidation is probably against the law as well.
Federal law at 42 U.S.C 673 provides that adoption assistance payments be determined through negotiated written agreements between the state or county agency and the adoptive parents, based upon a thorough consideration of the child’s needs and overall family circumstances. The Code of Federal Regulations at 45 CFR 1356.40(f) stipulates that states “must actively seek ways to promote the adoption assistance program.” The Code of Federal Regulations at 45 CFR 205.10 not only guarantees adoptive parents the right to apply for Title IV-E adoption assistance, but also to appeal adverse decisions regarding the amount of assistance. Efforts to thwart these due process rights run counter to federal adoption assistance law and in principle place a state's federal funding in jeopardy.
Surprisingly, there appears to be no consensus among attorneys regarding the most effective course of action to take when a prospective adoptive parent is threatened with the removal of their child during a disagreement over the amount of adoption assistance. In the absence of clear laws or regulations forbidding arbitrary removal, a petition to the appropriate court for a temporary restraining order or injunction seems to be the most logical course of action. Some parents have attempted to enlist the support of the child's Guardian Ad Litem to intervene with the local court.
The frequency with which adoptive parents are terrorized with threats of losing their child during the course of adoption assistance regulations calls for legislation to prevent vulnerable children that have already lost at least one family from unnecessarily losing another. At minimum such legislation, should forbid agencies from removing children in pre-adoptive homes for reasons other than abuse, neglect or other causes associated with protective services regulations. In addition, any proposed action to remove a child from a pre-adoptive home should automatically trigger a hearing before a court of competent jurisdiction. At the hearing, the existence of a strong and healthy emotional attachment with the prospective adoptive parents should be a prime consideration for the court. Finally, the burden should be on the agency to show that the family that it studied and approved as suitable for the the child has become sufficiently detrimental to the his or her well being as to warrant a traumatic placement in a new household.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Congress Amends Title IV-E Adoption Assistance Law and Adds Provision for Subsidized Guardianships
President George W. Bush signed new Title IV-E adoption assistance legislation into law on October 7, 2008. The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-351), phases out ADC-relatedness as an eligibility requirement and provides federal financial participation for certain relatives serving as guardians for special needs children. The House of Representatives passed the legislation, identified as HR 6893, on September 17 and the Senate followed suit five days later on September 22.
A clear and comprehensive summary of the law, entitled “Federal Law Overhauls U.S. Child Welfare Financing,” appears on the web site of North American Council on Adoptable Children (NACAC). That being the case, our previous blog focused in changes in the Title IV-E adoption assistance program. We will now address the provisions for kinship care assistance.
Relative Guardianship Assistance
The new law provides federal funding for relative guardianship assistance on the same terms as Title IV-E adoption assistance.
1. Federal funding per child is available up to the level of support the child would have received were he or she in a foster home.
2. The amount of assistance must be determined by written agreement.
3. The agreement is to be negotiated based upon the need of the child and circumstances of the relative guardian and needs of the child.
4. The agreement must list additional services that the child will be eligible to receive along with the procedures for accessing them.
5. The agreement may be modified periodically in the same manner as an adoption assistance agreement.
6. The agreement will be in effect, if a child moves to another state.
7. The state and/or county must agree to participate by providing matching non-federal funds.
8. The state must agree to pay for non-recurring expenses up to a maximum of $2,000. The expenses will be eligible for federal reimbursement. States currently pat 50% of the cost of non-recurring expenses relative to the adoption of a special needs child under the Title IV-E adoption assistance program.
9. Age and continuing eligibility requirements for relative guardianship assistance are the same as for children receiving Title IV-E adoption assistance.
10. Relative Guardians will have the same right to appeal adverse hearings decisions as adoptive parents under the provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations at 45 CFR 205.10
Eligibility
In order to be eligible for relative guardianship assistance,
a. The child must be removed from his or her home via a voluntary agreement or as the result of a judicial determination that remaining in the home is contrary to the child’s welfare.
b. The child must be eligible for Title IV-E foster care maintenance while residing for at least 6 consecutive months in the home of the prospective relative guardian. Note: This provision suggests that the relative guardian must be certified as a foster parent, but the full implications of this requirement are not entirely clear yet.
c. It must be determined that a return home or adoption are not appropriate options for the child.
d. The child must demonstrate a strong attachment to the prospective relative guardian and the relative guardian a strong determination to caring permanently for the child.
e. Any child who has attained the age of 14 must be consulted about entering into to the relative guardianship.
Siblings
Siblings of eligible children may be placed with the relative guardian if it is deemed in the children’s best interest. In such cases, the sibling of the eligible child would also be eligible for negotiated assistance.
Effective Date
If relative guardianship assistance programs requires state legislation other than a fiscal appropriation, the effective date is the first day after the first regular session of the legislature that takes place one year after the effective date of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008. The effective date of the law is October 7, 2008. This means that the effective date for beginning the relative guardianship assistance program would be the day after the close of the legislative session that ends after October 7, 2009.
In cases where no legislation is needed, the effective date of the relative guardianship assistance program is the quarter that begins on or after October 7, 2008.
A clear and comprehensive summary of the law, entitled “Federal Law Overhauls U.S. Child Welfare Financing,” appears on the web site of North American Council on Adoptable Children (NACAC). That being the case, our previous blog focused in changes in the Title IV-E adoption assistance program. We will now address the provisions for kinship care assistance.
Relative Guardianship Assistance
The new law provides federal funding for relative guardianship assistance on the same terms as Title IV-E adoption assistance.
1. Federal funding per child is available up to the level of support the child would have received were he or she in a foster home.
2. The amount of assistance must be determined by written agreement.
3. The agreement is to be negotiated based upon the need of the child and circumstances of the relative guardian and needs of the child.
4. The agreement must list additional services that the child will be eligible to receive along with the procedures for accessing them.
5. The agreement may be modified periodically in the same manner as an adoption assistance agreement.
6. The agreement will be in effect, if a child moves to another state.
7. The state and/or county must agree to participate by providing matching non-federal funds.
8. The state must agree to pay for non-recurring expenses up to a maximum of $2,000. The expenses will be eligible for federal reimbursement. States currently pat 50% of the cost of non-recurring expenses relative to the adoption of a special needs child under the Title IV-E adoption assistance program.
9. Age and continuing eligibility requirements for relative guardianship assistance are the same as for children receiving Title IV-E adoption assistance.
10. Relative Guardians will have the same right to appeal adverse hearings decisions as adoptive parents under the provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations at 45 CFR 205.10
Eligibility
In order to be eligible for relative guardianship assistance,
a. The child must be removed from his or her home via a voluntary agreement or as the result of a judicial determination that remaining in the home is contrary to the child’s welfare.
b. The child must be eligible for Title IV-E foster care maintenance while residing for at least 6 consecutive months in the home of the prospective relative guardian. Note: This provision suggests that the relative guardian must be certified as a foster parent, but the full implications of this requirement are not entirely clear yet.
c. It must be determined that a return home or adoption are not appropriate options for the child.
d. The child must demonstrate a strong attachment to the prospective relative guardian and the relative guardian a strong determination to caring permanently for the child.
e. Any child who has attained the age of 14 must be consulted about entering into to the relative guardianship.
Siblings
Siblings of eligible children may be placed with the relative guardian if it is deemed in the children’s best interest. In such cases, the sibling of the eligible child would also be eligible for negotiated assistance.
Effective Date
If relative guardianship assistance programs requires state legislation other than a fiscal appropriation, the effective date is the first day after the first regular session of the legislature that takes place one year after the effective date of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008. The effective date of the law is October 7, 2008. This means that the effective date for beginning the relative guardianship assistance program would be the day after the close of the legislative session that ends after October 7, 2009.
In cases where no legislation is needed, the effective date of the relative guardianship assistance program is the quarter that begins on or after October 7, 2008.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Congress Amends Title IV-E Adoption Assistance Requirements by Phasing Out the AFDC Relatedness Requirement
President George W. Bush signed new Title IV-E adoption assistance legislation into law on October 7, 2008. The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-351), phases out ADC-relatedness as a eligibility requirement and provides federal financial participation for certain relatives serving as guardians for special needs children. The House of Representatives passed the legislation, identified as HR 6893, on September 17 and the Senate followed suit five days later on September 22.
A clear and comprehensive summary of the law, entitled “Federal Law Overhauls U.S. Child Welfare Financing,” appears on the web site of North American Council on Adoptable Children (NACAC). That being the case, we will concentrate on the provisions affecting eligibility for adoption assistance. In the next article, we will focus on the new provisions for kinship care assistance.
Adoption Assistance
On the first day of federal fiscal year 2010, which begins on October 1, 2009, children ages 16 and older will no longer be required to meet the AFDC-relatedness requirements in order to qualify for Title IV-E adoption assistance. Two other groups will also be exempt from the requirement.
a. Children who have been state foster care of 60 consecutive months; and
b. Siblings of age eligible children who are placed together with the same family.
In order to qualify for adoption assistance, the children in the above categories must:
1. Meet the federal special needs definition; and
2. Be in the care of a public or private agency at the time adoption proceedings are initiated as a result of an involuntary removal and placement in foster care through a judicial determination that continuation in the home was contrary to the child’s welfare; or
3. Be in the care of a public or private agency at the time adoption proceedings are initiated as a result of voluntary agreement or voluntary relinquishment (permanent surrender in Ohio). In such cases, the requirement for a judicial determination within 6 months of placement to the effect that continuation in the home is contrary to the welfare of the child would still pertain; or
4. Reside in a family foster home or child care institution with a parent who is also a minor as the result of an involuntary removal and judicial determination that continuation in the home was contrary to the child’s welfare, a voluntary agreement or voluntary relinquishment; or
5. Meet all of the requirements for SSI (Title XVI) prior to finalization of the adoption.
On October 1, 2010 (federal fiscal year 2011), the AFDC relatedness requirement will not apply to children who are 14 years of age or older on that date. Phase out of AFDC relatedness continues as follows:
FFY 2012 (October 1, 2011) – Children 12 and older;
FFY 2013 (October 1, 2012) – Children 10 and older;
FFY 2014 (October 1, 2013) – Children 8 and older;
FFY 2015 (October 1, 2014) – Children 6 and older;
FFY 2016 (October 1, 2013) – Children 4 and older;
FFY 2017 (October 1, 2014) – Children 2 and older;
FFY 2018 (October 1, 2015) – All children.
The AFDC Relatedness Requirement
From the beginning, the Title IV-E adoption assistance and foster care maintenance programs both required that a child had to be placed from the home of a specified relative in which he or she met the qualifications or would have qualified for the AFDC (federal welfare) program had an application been completed. Advocates consistently argued that the AFDC relatedness requirement was irrelevant as an eligibility standard for adoption assistance because when the birth parents’ rights were terminated, the child was essentially a legal orphan, a family of one. After 1996, the AFDC requirement became an absurd anachronism. The 1996, federal welfare reform law (Public Law 104-193) abolished the AFDC program and replaced it with the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). Instead of striking AFDC relatedness as an eligibility requirement for adoption assistance on the grounds that the AFDC program no longer existed, federal officials retained it by creating a “look back date.” Question of Section 8.2 of the Child Welfare Policy Manual sets July 16, 1996 as the AFDC “look back date.” This means that in order to qualify for Title IV-E adoption assistance, a child had to meet the AFDC standards as they existed on July 16, 1996.
The farther away one gets from 1996, the harder to reconstruct a hypothetical AFDC-relatedness test. The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 marks the beginning of the end of this obsolete requirement for adoption assistance.
A clear and comprehensive summary of the law, entitled “Federal Law Overhauls U.S. Child Welfare Financing,” appears on the web site of North American Council on Adoptable Children (NACAC). That being the case, we will concentrate on the provisions affecting eligibility for adoption assistance. In the next article, we will focus on the new provisions for kinship care assistance.
Adoption Assistance
On the first day of federal fiscal year 2010, which begins on October 1, 2009, children ages 16 and older will no longer be required to meet the AFDC-relatedness requirements in order to qualify for Title IV-E adoption assistance. Two other groups will also be exempt from the requirement.
a. Children who have been state foster care of 60 consecutive months; and
b. Siblings of age eligible children who are placed together with the same family.
In order to qualify for adoption assistance, the children in the above categories must:
1. Meet the federal special needs definition; and
2. Be in the care of a public or private agency at the time adoption proceedings are initiated as a result of an involuntary removal and placement in foster care through a judicial determination that continuation in the home was contrary to the child’s welfare; or
3. Be in the care of a public or private agency at the time adoption proceedings are initiated as a result of voluntary agreement or voluntary relinquishment (permanent surrender in Ohio). In such cases, the requirement for a judicial determination within 6 months of placement to the effect that continuation in the home is contrary to the welfare of the child would still pertain; or
4. Reside in a family foster home or child care institution with a parent who is also a minor as the result of an involuntary removal and judicial determination that continuation in the home was contrary to the child’s welfare, a voluntary agreement or voluntary relinquishment; or
5. Meet all of the requirements for SSI (Title XVI) prior to finalization of the adoption.
On October 1, 2010 (federal fiscal year 2011), the AFDC relatedness requirement will not apply to children who are 14 years of age or older on that date. Phase out of AFDC relatedness continues as follows:
FFY 2012 (October 1, 2011) – Children 12 and older;
FFY 2013 (October 1, 2012) – Children 10 and older;
FFY 2014 (October 1, 2013) – Children 8 and older;
FFY 2015 (October 1, 2014) – Children 6 and older;
FFY 2016 (October 1, 2013) – Children 4 and older;
FFY 2017 (October 1, 2014) – Children 2 and older;
FFY 2018 (October 1, 2015) – All children.
The AFDC Relatedness Requirement
From the beginning, the Title IV-E adoption assistance and foster care maintenance programs both required that a child had to be placed from the home of a specified relative in which he or she met the qualifications or would have qualified for the AFDC (federal welfare) program had an application been completed. Advocates consistently argued that the AFDC relatedness requirement was irrelevant as an eligibility standard for adoption assistance because when the birth parents’ rights were terminated, the child was essentially a legal orphan, a family of one. After 1996, the AFDC requirement became an absurd anachronism. The 1996, federal welfare reform law (Public Law 104-193) abolished the AFDC program and replaced it with the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). Instead of striking AFDC relatedness as an eligibility requirement for adoption assistance on the grounds that the AFDC program no longer existed, federal officials retained it by creating a “look back date.” Question of Section 8.2 of the Child Welfare Policy Manual sets July 16, 1996 as the AFDC “look back date.” This means that in order to qualify for Title IV-E adoption assistance, a child had to meet the AFDC standards as they existed on July 16, 1996.
The farther away one gets from 1996, the harder to reconstruct a hypothetical AFDC-relatedness test. The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 marks the beginning of the end of this obsolete requirement for adoption assistance.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Erie County Adoption Assistance Policy Manual Out of Compliance with State and Federal Laws
On its web site, the Public Children Services Association of Ohio (PCSAO) lists an Erie County policy manual on adoption assistance under the heading “Tools Develped by PCSAO” The designation of the Erie County manual as a “tool” amounts to an endorsement by PCSAO, an organization that represents county child welfare agencies in the state.
Recent adoption assistance cases in nearby Ohio counties, suggests that Erie County has generously shared its approach to negotiating adoption assistance agreements with its sister agencies. Unfortunately, the manual, Dear Prospective Adoptive Parent suffers from major defects. While touting its approach to negotiating adoption assistance as cutting edge, in reality its provisions violate federal and state law in two significant ways. As a consequence, the agency has proposed adoption assistance payments as low as $150 per month. This rate is based on a formula applied in a hypothetical scenario in the Erie County policy manual. Currently, the state will provide the non-federal matching funds for adoption assistance payments of up to $300 per month, a rate which costs the county agency nothing.
Error Number One
Erie County’s policy maintains that federal adoption assistance may not be used to cover expenses that would be incurred by any “normal family.” This division of adoption assistance into acceptable and unacceptable expense categories is clearly contrary to federal policy as set forth in Section 8.2D.4 and Section 8.2D.1 the Child Welfare Policy Manual.
Question 1 in Section 8.2D.4 of the Child Welfare Policy Manual, notes:
“The payment that is agreed upon should combine with the parents’ resources to cover the ordinary and special needs of the child projected over an extended period of time and should cover anticipated needs, e.g., child care. Anticipation and discussion of these needs are part of the negotiation of the amount of the adoption assistance payment.”
The Child Welfare Policy Manual also states that adoptive parents have complete discretion to decide how adoption assistance payments may be used on behalf of their children, indicating that it may be used for to meet ordinary daily needs or those related to a disabling medical or mental health condition Section 8.2D.1 of the Child Welfare Policy Manual provides:
“Once the adoption assistance agreement is signed and the child is adopted, the adoptive parents are free to make decisions about expenditures on behalf of the child without further agency approval or oversight. Hence, once an adoption assistance agreement is in effect, the parents can spend the subsidy in any way they see fit to incorporate the child into their lives. Since there is no itemized list of approved expenditures for adoption assistance, the State cannot require an accounting for the expenditures.” (Emphasis added).
Error Number Two
Once Erie County applies a formula of acceptable and unacceptable expenses to determine the adoption assistance payment. The parents are then told what the child is entitled to receive. There is no further negotiation. Negotiation of the amount of adoption assistance in the form of a written agreement based upon the child’s needs and the family’s overall circumstances is a cardinal principal of the program. In failing to engage in negotiation, the Erie County policy violates federal law at 42 U.S.C. 673 (a) (3), Section 8.2D.4 of the federal Child Welfare Policy Manual and rule 5101:2-49-05 of the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC).
The Need for Training
The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS) should contact Erie County, PCSAO and the other child welfare agencies across the state and inform them that Erie County’s policy of negotiating adoption assistance agreements is in conflict with state and federal law. The proliferation of dubious practices by county agencies reinforces the need for comprehensive training which includes a model for the negotiation of adoption assistance agreements.
Recent adoption assistance cases in nearby Ohio counties, suggests that Erie County has generously shared its approach to negotiating adoption assistance agreements with its sister agencies. Unfortunately, the manual, Dear Prospective Adoptive Parent suffers from major defects. While touting its approach to negotiating adoption assistance as cutting edge, in reality its provisions violate federal and state law in two significant ways. As a consequence, the agency has proposed adoption assistance payments as low as $150 per month. This rate is based on a formula applied in a hypothetical scenario in the Erie County policy manual. Currently, the state will provide the non-federal matching funds for adoption assistance payments of up to $300 per month, a rate which costs the county agency nothing.
Error Number One
Erie County’s policy maintains that federal adoption assistance may not be used to cover expenses that would be incurred by any “normal family.” This division of adoption assistance into acceptable and unacceptable expense categories is clearly contrary to federal policy as set forth in Section 8.2D.4 and Section 8.2D.1 the Child Welfare Policy Manual.
Question 1 in Section 8.2D.4 of the Child Welfare Policy Manual, notes:
“The payment that is agreed upon should combine with the parents’ resources to cover the ordinary and special needs of the child projected over an extended period of time and should cover anticipated needs, e.g., child care. Anticipation and discussion of these needs are part of the negotiation of the amount of the adoption assistance payment.”
The Child Welfare Policy Manual also states that adoptive parents have complete discretion to decide how adoption assistance payments may be used on behalf of their children, indicating that it may be used for to meet ordinary daily needs or those related to a disabling medical or mental health condition Section 8.2D.1 of the Child Welfare Policy Manual provides:
“Once the adoption assistance agreement is signed and the child is adopted, the adoptive parents are free to make decisions about expenditures on behalf of the child without further agency approval or oversight. Hence, once an adoption assistance agreement is in effect, the parents can spend the subsidy in any way they see fit to incorporate the child into their lives. Since there is no itemized list of approved expenditures for adoption assistance, the State cannot require an accounting for the expenditures.” (Emphasis added).
Error Number Two
Once Erie County applies a formula of acceptable and unacceptable expenses to determine the adoption assistance payment. The parents are then told what the child is entitled to receive. There is no further negotiation. Negotiation of the amount of adoption assistance in the form of a written agreement based upon the child’s needs and the family’s overall circumstances is a cardinal principal of the program. In failing to engage in negotiation, the Erie County policy violates federal law at 42 U.S.C. 673 (a) (3), Section 8.2D.4 of the federal Child Welfare Policy Manual and rule 5101:2-49-05 of the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC).
The Need for Training
The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS) should contact Erie County, PCSAO and the other child welfare agencies across the state and inform them that Erie County’s policy of negotiating adoption assistance agreements is in conflict with state and federal law. The proliferation of dubious practices by county agencies reinforces the need for comprehensive training which includes a model for the negotiation of adoption assistance agreements.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Ohio Ranks Near the Top in Providing Access to Adoption Assistance
Historically, Ohio has ranked high among the states in the percentage of special needs adopted children that were eligible for federal Title IV-E adoption assistance. In a 2008 study, The Value of Adoption Subsidies the North American Council on Adoptable Children found that Ohio ranked third highest in 2005.
States with Highest and Lowest Percentages of Adoptions of Children Receiving Federally Supported Subsidies (2005)
States with Highest and Lowest Percentages of Adoptions of Children Receiving Federally Supported Subsidies (2005)
Highest Percentages
New Hampshire 96.0%
Kentucky 95.9%
Ohio 95.5%
Washington 87.0%
New Jersey 84.4%
New Mexico 84.4%
Mississippi 83.5%
Idaho 81.9%
New York 81.0%
Missouri 78.4%
California 77.9%
Nevada 77.2%
Arizona 77.1%
Oregon 76.6%
Lowest Percentages
District of Columbia *9.4%
District of Columbia *9.4%
Puerto Rico 19.8%
West Virginia 20.9%
Delaware 24.4%
Alabama 35.2%
Massachusetts 35.3%
Georgia 39.8%
Nebraska 45.2%
North Dakota 45.4%
Iowa 47.4%
Wyoming 49.2%
Rhode Island 49.3%
Connecticut 49.9%
*Source AFCARS data. The Washington, D.C. Department of Child and Family Services Agency reports a penetration rate for 2005 of 68 percent. The discrepancy is due, at least in part, to IV-E determinations being completed after data is submitted to AFCARS.
Ohio’s record of inclusiveness represents years of education and advocacy and indicates the state has taken to heart the federal mandate to “actively promote the adoption assistance program” found in the Code of Federal Regulations at Sec. 1356.40 (f). During an era, when some states have limited access to adoption assistance, Ohio can justifiably be proud of this achievement. See table below
Ten States with the Greatest Percentage Decrease of Children Receiving Federally Supported Adoption Subsidies (2000–2005)
West Virginia 20.9%
Delaware 24.4%
Alabama 35.2%
Massachusetts 35.3%
Georgia 39.8%
Nebraska 45.2%
North Dakota 45.4%
Iowa 47.4%
Wyoming 49.2%
Rhode Island 49.3%
Connecticut 49.9%
*Source AFCARS data. The Washington, D.C. Department of Child and Family Services Agency reports a penetration rate for 2005 of 68 percent. The discrepancy is due, at least in part, to IV-E determinations being completed after data is submitted to AFCARS.
Ohio’s record of inclusiveness represents years of education and advocacy and indicates the state has taken to heart the federal mandate to “actively promote the adoption assistance program” found in the Code of Federal Regulations at Sec. 1356.40 (f). During an era, when some states have limited access to adoption assistance, Ohio can justifiably be proud of this achievement. See table below
Ten States with the Greatest Percentage Decrease of Children Receiving Federally Supported Adoption Subsidies (2000–2005)
State Decline
District of Columbia 39.8%
Delaware 34.8%
West Virginia 28.8%
Colorado 24.7%
Vermont 19.6%
Alaska 19.5%
Arkansas 15.4%
Maine 14.9%
Michigan 14.9%
Minnesota 13.5%
Source: The Value of Adoption Subsidies: Helping Children Find Permanent Families
North American Council on Adoptable Children, May 2008
The Value of Adoption Subsidies and Ending The Foster Care Life Sentence, a 2006 study by Children’s Rights of New York both validate Ohio’s policy by showing the crucial role played by adoption assistance in helping parents incorporate special needs foster children into permanent families. In a time of tight budgets and rule revisions, Ohio should resist any temptations to tighten access to IV-E adoption assistance in pursuit of short term savings. To do so would sully an impressive history of support for the best interests of special needs children and work against the state’s overriding goal of securing permanent homes for abused and neglect children.
Delaware 34.8%
West Virginia 28.8%
Colorado 24.7%
Vermont 19.6%
Alaska 19.5%
Arkansas 15.4%
Maine 14.9%
Michigan 14.9%
Minnesota 13.5%
Source: The Value of Adoption Subsidies: Helping Children Find Permanent Families
North American Council on Adoptable Children, May 2008
The Value of Adoption Subsidies and Ending The Foster Care Life Sentence, a 2006 study by Children’s Rights of New York both validate Ohio’s policy by showing the crucial role played by adoption assistance in helping parents incorporate special needs foster children into permanent families. In a time of tight budgets and rule revisions, Ohio should resist any temptations to tighten access to IV-E adoption assistance in pursuit of short term savings. To do so would sully an impressive history of support for the best interests of special needs children and work against the state’s overriding goal of securing permanent homes for abused and neglect children.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Errors in the Negotiation of Adoption Assistance; The Need for a Consistent Model
A number of Ohio county agencies insist that prospective adoptive parents agree to unreasonably low federal Title IV-E adoption assistance payments. Frequently, these agencies base their positions on claims that are incompatible with state and federal law. The most common error is the assumption that monthly adoption assistance payment rates must be based only on costs that are directly related to treatment of the child’s special needs, which are not otherwise covered by health insurance, Medicaid or some other benefit. Predictably, this narrow position results in absurdly low offers of adoption assistance which responsible parents have little choice but to oppose.
Ohio, unlike many states, does not have rate schedules of adoption assistance payments based upon age ranges and levels of care. State A, for example, might feature three rate schedules: Regular, Special and Exceptional, each with age ranges from 0 – 5; 6 – 12 and 12 and up. The number of separate rate schedules varies from state to state. Ohio relies on case by case negotiation. Therefore, it is vitally important that all parties understand and abide by federal and state guidelines. Alas, such is often not the case.
After a child is determined eligible for adoption assistance, the parents negotiate an adoption assistance agreement with the county agency that made the eligibility decision. The county agency, known in state regulations as the public children’s services agency or PCSA, represents the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, the designated state agency charged with oversight of the federal Title IV-E foster care maintenance and adoption assistance programs.
Federal law, the federal Child Welfare Policy Manual and rule 5101:2-49-05 of the Ohio Administrative Code all specify that the negotiation of Title IV-E adoption assistance agreements must be based on a consideration of the child’s needs and family circumstances.
The Child Welfare Policy Manual affirms that
“During the negotiation of an adoption assistance agreement, it is important to keep in mind that the circumstances of the adopting parents and the needs of the child must be considered together. The overall ability of a singular family to incorporate an individual child into the household is the objective.” (See Question 3, Section 8.2D.4 “TITLE IV-E, Adoption Assistance Program, Payments, Rates”)
Federal policy recognizes that special needs and family circumstances are inextricably linked. It is quite common for adoptive parents to give up careers in order to become full-time caregivers, with a corresponding loss of income, health insurance. Parents find themselves devoting increased amounts of time, taking a child to therapy and negotiating with school officials over the child’s academic program and emotional adjustment. The adoptive parents of an emotionally damaged child must devote an extraordinary amount of energy to care and supervision. Abused and neglected children may have irregular sleeping habits, destroy family property and pose a threat to family pets and siblings.
The increase in parental responsibilities, often accompanied by putting a career on hold, enables the parent to more effectively meet the child’s emotional needs, but often results in a loss of family income which, in turn, makes it more difficult to cover other expenses. This is the type of problem that the federal Child Welfare Manual contemplates when it refers to “the adoptive family's capacity to incorporate the child into their household in relation to their lifestyle, standard of living and future plans, as well as the overall capacity to meet the immediate and future needs (including educational) of the child.”
In recognizing the obvious the impact of a child’s special needs on family circumstances and visa versa, federal policy makes no distinction between the specialized and ordinary needs of the child. Question 1 in Section 8.2D.4 of the Child Welfare Policy Manual, notes:
“The payment that is agreed upon should combine with the parents’ resources to cover the ordinary and special needs of the child projected over an extended period of time and should cover anticipated needs, e.g., child care. Anticipation and discussion of these needs are part of the negotiation of the amount of the adoption assistance payment.”
“Unlike other public assistance programs in the Social Security Act,” it explains, “the title IV-E adoption assistance program is intended to encourage an action that will be a lifelong social benefit to certain children and not to meet short-term monetary needs during a crisis.” In question 2 of Section 8.2D.4 the Manual adds, “agreements that are not negotiated to the specific needs of the adoptive child and the circumstances of the family, however, are not permissible.”
The needs of the child and circumstances of the family are intended to function as broad categories. The adopting parents have the best idea of current and anticipated costs as well as the adjustments and sacrifices they will need to make on behalf of a child whose legal ties to his or her birth family have been permanently severed. Ultimately, the negotiation should address this question: Given your situation and the child’s current and anticipated needs, what amount of monthly adoption assistance payment will enable you to have a reasonable chance of providing a permanent, healthy family for the child?
Adoptive parents are both enraged and amused by the all too frequent suggestions that their quest for adoption assistance is motivated by unrealistic expectations or outright greed. While adoption assistance often serves as a crucial source of support, adults who devote their lives to caring for severely abused and neglected children are no strangers to sacrifice. Adopting a special needs child is an admirable calling, but as a money making scheme leaves much to be desired.
Ending The Foster Care Life Sentence, a 2006 study by Children’s Rights of New York, surveyed 250 adoptive and prospective adoptive parents from Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Oregon, and Texas and found “of parents who had already adopted, 65% said they could not have done so without an adoption subsidy.”
While adoption assistance provides sorely needed help, only the most naïve parent expects the subsidy relieve them of financial burdens associated with raising a special needs child. The 2006 Children’s Rights study determined:
“more than half (57%) of survey respondents who had already adopted said the subsidy amount was not sufficient to meet the child’s needs. Of those survey respondents considering adoption, 59% anticipated that the available subsidy would not be sufficient. Additionally, 7% of adoptive and prospective adoptive parents who responded that the subsidy was sufficient to meet the child’s current needs indicated uncertainty that the subsidy would be sufficient to meet the child’s needs in the future.”
Adoption Assistance payments are typically less than foster care payments in Ohio. HITTING THE M.A.R.C.; Establishing Foster Care Minimum Adequate Rates for Children, a 2007 study by Children’s Rights, estimated that current foster care rates did not provide adequate support.
A 2008 report by the North American Council on Adoptable Children, notes that in Fiscal Year 2006, “59 percent of children adopted from foster care were adopted by foster parents and 26 percent were adopted by relatives.” According to the report, entitled The Value of Adoption Subsidies,
“most foster families are in the low to lower middle income range, and many grandparents and other relatives who care for children in foster care are on fixed incomes. Without subsidies, many parents would not have the means to adopt children from foster care. Just as foster care maintenance payments do not cover the true costs involved in the basic care of a child, adoption subsidies are modest financial supports that provide adoptive families with additional resources to meet their children’s needs.”
In sum, the adoption assistance rate sought by parents is best described as an essential, albeit modest supplemental payment that will give them a fighting chance of providing a permanent home for their child.
Why don’t negotiations follow federal and state laws?
There appear to be two primary reasons why a number of Ohio county agencies consistently fail to follow federal and state guidelines in negotiating adoption assistance agreements.
ODJFS has not established a statewide “best practices” model that addresses the negotiation of adoption assistance agreements. Nor, has the state agency conducted in depth training on this crucial area of adoption assistance for well over a decade.
As a consequence, a number county case workers are poorly informed about relevant regulations and hearing officers render inconsistent decisions. Members of both groups often lack a coherent conceptual framework that captures the essential purpose of adoption assistance. Is the purpose of the program, after all, to actively look for ways to help special needs children secure support or to devote most of the worker’s time and energy to a search for reasons to deny as much support as possible?
After all these years, treating adoptive parents as partners and entering into negotiations with no pre-determined outcome is still foreign to agency culture.
Most federal assistance programs combine eligibility with the amount of benefit by applying means tests. Family income resources and size determines the monthly payment. Eligibility and negotiation of a monthly payment are not only separate steps in the adoption assistance program, but there is no quantitative formula for arriving at a proper level of support. How much monthly adoption assistance is fair or adequate? Such questions rely on perceptions of the child’s overall needs and the family’s circumstances. Reasonable people can disagree about such matters.
The process of negotiation is not completely open-ended, however. The federal portion of adoption assistance in Ohio accounts for around 60% of the payment. Federal financial participation is limited to the rate of support the child would receive in a foster home suitable to his or her level of care. This foster care rate functions as a practical ceiling in the negotiation of adoption assistance agreements. Since a majority of special needs children are adopted by their foster parents, the foster care payment takes on even more relevance as a guideline, particularly since the rate was based on level of care assessments made by the county agency.
The foster care rate can and should function as reference point for both the agency and the parents. As such, the parties might end up a few hundred dollars apart in negotiations where the foster care payment was a specialized rate of $1,400 a month, but a situation in which the agency insisted on an adoption assistance payment that was less than half of the foster care rate would be relatively rare. Unfortunately, that situation is all too common today.
The relative financial participation by the state and counties in providing the non-federal matching funds for the IV-E adoption assistance program has also been a long standing source of conflict over the negotiation of adoption assistance agreements. We will address this problem in a future article.
Ohio, unlike many states, does not have rate schedules of adoption assistance payments based upon age ranges and levels of care. State A, for example, might feature three rate schedules: Regular, Special and Exceptional, each with age ranges from 0 – 5; 6 – 12 and 12 and up. The number of separate rate schedules varies from state to state. Ohio relies on case by case negotiation. Therefore, it is vitally important that all parties understand and abide by federal and state guidelines. Alas, such is often not the case.
After a child is determined eligible for adoption assistance, the parents negotiate an adoption assistance agreement with the county agency that made the eligibility decision. The county agency, known in state regulations as the public children’s services agency or PCSA, represents the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, the designated state agency charged with oversight of the federal Title IV-E foster care maintenance and adoption assistance programs.
Federal law, the federal Child Welfare Policy Manual and rule 5101:2-49-05 of the Ohio Administrative Code all specify that the negotiation of Title IV-E adoption assistance agreements must be based on a consideration of the child’s needs and family circumstances.
The Child Welfare Policy Manual affirms that
“During the negotiation of an adoption assistance agreement, it is important to keep in mind that the circumstances of the adopting parents and the needs of the child must be considered together. The overall ability of a singular family to incorporate an individual child into the household is the objective.” (See Question 3, Section 8.2D.4 “TITLE IV-E, Adoption Assistance Program, Payments, Rates”)
Federal policy recognizes that special needs and family circumstances are inextricably linked. It is quite common for adoptive parents to give up careers in order to become full-time caregivers, with a corresponding loss of income, health insurance. Parents find themselves devoting increased amounts of time, taking a child to therapy and negotiating with school officials over the child’s academic program and emotional adjustment. The adoptive parents of an emotionally damaged child must devote an extraordinary amount of energy to care and supervision. Abused and neglected children may have irregular sleeping habits, destroy family property and pose a threat to family pets and siblings.
The increase in parental responsibilities, often accompanied by putting a career on hold, enables the parent to more effectively meet the child’s emotional needs, but often results in a loss of family income which, in turn, makes it more difficult to cover other expenses. This is the type of problem that the federal Child Welfare Manual contemplates when it refers to “the adoptive family's capacity to incorporate the child into their household in relation to their lifestyle, standard of living and future plans, as well as the overall capacity to meet the immediate and future needs (including educational) of the child.”
In recognizing the obvious the impact of a child’s special needs on family circumstances and visa versa, federal policy makes no distinction between the specialized and ordinary needs of the child. Question 1 in Section 8.2D.4 of the Child Welfare Policy Manual, notes:
“The payment that is agreed upon should combine with the parents’ resources to cover the ordinary and special needs of the child projected over an extended period of time and should cover anticipated needs, e.g., child care. Anticipation and discussion of these needs are part of the negotiation of the amount of the adoption assistance payment.”
“Unlike other public assistance programs in the Social Security Act,” it explains, “the title IV-E adoption assistance program is intended to encourage an action that will be a lifelong social benefit to certain children and not to meet short-term monetary needs during a crisis.” In question 2 of Section 8.2D.4 the Manual adds, “agreements that are not negotiated to the specific needs of the adoptive child and the circumstances of the family, however, are not permissible.”
The needs of the child and circumstances of the family are intended to function as broad categories. The adopting parents have the best idea of current and anticipated costs as well as the adjustments and sacrifices they will need to make on behalf of a child whose legal ties to his or her birth family have been permanently severed. Ultimately, the negotiation should address this question: Given your situation and the child’s current and anticipated needs, what amount of monthly adoption assistance payment will enable you to have a reasonable chance of providing a permanent, healthy family for the child?
Adoptive parents are both enraged and amused by the all too frequent suggestions that their quest for adoption assistance is motivated by unrealistic expectations or outright greed. While adoption assistance often serves as a crucial source of support, adults who devote their lives to caring for severely abused and neglected children are no strangers to sacrifice. Adopting a special needs child is an admirable calling, but as a money making scheme leaves much to be desired.
Ending The Foster Care Life Sentence, a 2006 study by Children’s Rights of New York, surveyed 250 adoptive and prospective adoptive parents from Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Oregon, and Texas and found “of parents who had already adopted, 65% said they could not have done so without an adoption subsidy.”
While adoption assistance provides sorely needed help, only the most naïve parent expects the subsidy relieve them of financial burdens associated with raising a special needs child. The 2006 Children’s Rights study determined:
“more than half (57%) of survey respondents who had already adopted said the subsidy amount was not sufficient to meet the child’s needs. Of those survey respondents considering adoption, 59% anticipated that the available subsidy would not be sufficient. Additionally, 7% of adoptive and prospective adoptive parents who responded that the subsidy was sufficient to meet the child’s current needs indicated uncertainty that the subsidy would be sufficient to meet the child’s needs in the future.”
Adoption Assistance payments are typically less than foster care payments in Ohio. HITTING THE M.A.R.C.; Establishing Foster Care Minimum Adequate Rates for Children, a 2007 study by Children’s Rights, estimated that current foster care rates did not provide adequate support.
A 2008 report by the North American Council on Adoptable Children, notes that in Fiscal Year 2006, “59 percent of children adopted from foster care were adopted by foster parents and 26 percent were adopted by relatives.” According to the report, entitled The Value of Adoption Subsidies,
“most foster families are in the low to lower middle income range, and many grandparents and other relatives who care for children in foster care are on fixed incomes. Without subsidies, many parents would not have the means to adopt children from foster care. Just as foster care maintenance payments do not cover the true costs involved in the basic care of a child, adoption subsidies are modest financial supports that provide adoptive families with additional resources to meet their children’s needs.”
In sum, the adoption assistance rate sought by parents is best described as an essential, albeit modest supplemental payment that will give them a fighting chance of providing a permanent home for their child.
Why don’t negotiations follow federal and state laws?
There appear to be two primary reasons why a number of Ohio county agencies consistently fail to follow federal and state guidelines in negotiating adoption assistance agreements.
ODJFS has not established a statewide “best practices” model that addresses the negotiation of adoption assistance agreements. Nor, has the state agency conducted in depth training on this crucial area of adoption assistance for well over a decade.
As a consequence, a number county case workers are poorly informed about relevant regulations and hearing officers render inconsistent decisions. Members of both groups often lack a coherent conceptual framework that captures the essential purpose of adoption assistance. Is the purpose of the program, after all, to actively look for ways to help special needs children secure support or to devote most of the worker’s time and energy to a search for reasons to deny as much support as possible?
After all these years, treating adoptive parents as partners and entering into negotiations with no pre-determined outcome is still foreign to agency culture.
Most federal assistance programs combine eligibility with the amount of benefit by applying means tests. Family income resources and size determines the monthly payment. Eligibility and negotiation of a monthly payment are not only separate steps in the adoption assistance program, but there is no quantitative formula for arriving at a proper level of support. How much monthly adoption assistance is fair or adequate? Such questions rely on perceptions of the child’s overall needs and the family’s circumstances. Reasonable people can disagree about such matters.
The process of negotiation is not completely open-ended, however. The federal portion of adoption assistance in Ohio accounts for around 60% of the payment. Federal financial participation is limited to the rate of support the child would receive in a foster home suitable to his or her level of care. This foster care rate functions as a practical ceiling in the negotiation of adoption assistance agreements. Since a majority of special needs children are adopted by their foster parents, the foster care payment takes on even more relevance as a guideline, particularly since the rate was based on level of care assessments made by the county agency.
The foster care rate can and should function as reference point for both the agency and the parents. As such, the parties might end up a few hundred dollars apart in negotiations where the foster care payment was a specialized rate of $1,400 a month, but a situation in which the agency insisted on an adoption assistance payment that was less than half of the foster care rate would be relatively rare. Unfortunately, that situation is all too common today.
The relative financial participation by the state and counties in providing the non-federal matching funds for the IV-E adoption assistance program has also been a long standing source of conflict over the negotiation of adoption assistance agreements. We will address this problem in a future article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
