U.S. Representative Karen Bass recently commented on the Republican proposed cuts to foster care. For more clarification, that would be cutting Title IV of the Social Security Act Chapters A, B, D, E and Medicaid Targeted Case Management.
As no specifics were presented in her statements and I have not taken the time to review the proposed cuts, I shall approach this quagmire in a general sense.
Foster care sucks.
Foster care is an entitlement program meaning eligibility is based on a state judicial determination measuring the poverty means test criteria for qualification of funding under Title IV-A standards. Simply put, you have to be poor to qualify under abuse and neglect determination, wherefore, poverty, itself, is determined as abuse and neglect.
So here we have it. If you cannot provide for the necessary needs of your child, then the state, funded through "foster care" will take parental responsibility of providing for your child.
Again, foster care sucks.
So, here is the logic. If the nation is moving to gut all social assistance to the people and it has been demonstrated that the more that is gutted from infrastructure the more it leads to cognitive, emotional, physical and psychological developmental disabilities. We are now going into the third generation of the deterioration of human capital and the industry of foster care is suppose to be the answer to this.
Now the question is begged, "How can these disabled individuals become productive members of society without governmental assistance?" Future cheap labor.
Who will acquire this future cheap labor? Corporations in quasi-governmental partnerships with the States to bill Social Security as a labor subsidy, or corporate welfare. Why, because the greatest of nations have been built off the backs of the weakest in society.
Michigan has already taken policy action as the Madame Maura Corrigan is always ahead of the game.
The nation onto the third generation of the model of creating this cheap labor in order to compete with the emerging markets of a global economy has created obstacles and barriers, complete with extremely high tolls of interest payments, whereby higher and even quality education becomes impossible to achieve, furthering the agenda of cheap labor. Innovation and creativity are not an option.
To balance out this argument, let us now look at the other facets. Foster care sucks. Just watch the video.
Billions of dollars are falsely claimed by child welfare organizations which are never questioned or punished, all in the name of God, where children are guaranteed a life of hell under state care and the campaign and lobbying pockets are lined with this foster care entitlement money which will never reach a child in need.
It costs tens of thousands to process a child through foster care. It costs a few hundred to let them stay at home. You do the math.
Democratic Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA) appeared on MSNBC on Tuesday where she said that Democrats opposed making cuts in programs like food stamps and the 2010 health care reform law in order to pay for programs that PresidentObama is proposing. Bass said that such cuts would be counterproductive in the long run because programs like food stamps creates “money that goes directly to small business” and stimulates the economy. Bass also said that the Republican compromise on freezing student loan rates amounts to asking students to either accept doubling rates or “forego your cancer screenings.”
When you’re talking about cutting ‘Meals on Wheels,’ when you’re talking about cutting food stamps, which actually is money that goes directly to small business – markets in communities – versus giving tax subsidies to farming corporations. These are the kinds of cuts that the Republicans are talking about, and I think that is completely unacceptable in this time period.
MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts asked Bass how she would defend criticism that Democrats are criticizing the Republican budget plan while not having even proposed one of their own.
“I do think that the Democrats have been very responsible,” responded Bass. “The President has put forward a budget that certainly I support.” She said that Democrats are willing to cut portions of the budget, but would only do so as long as it is part of a “balanced approach.”
On March 28, a version of Obama’s proposed budget was brought to the House floor that was defeated 414-0. Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) brought a version of the Obama budget to the House floor for a vote to show how few votes such a proposal would receive. Bass would eventually alsovote against a Republican budget which passed the House on March 29 by 228 – 191 votes.
Bass went on to say that she is wearing a blue ribbon in honor of “foster month,” and to raise awareness the Republicans are seeking to cut funding from foster care programs as well. “Cutting money to fosters on foster care month? Can’t go with that,” said Bass.
Roberts concluded by asking about the proposed freeze in student loan interest rates. Republicans have agreed to freeze loan interest rates if portions of the health care reform bill are struck as a means of paying for that compromise. Bass said that Democrats oppose this compromise.
“I think it’s completely unacceptable to tell the youth of our country that if you don’t want your student loans to double, than you need to forego your cancer screenings,” said Bass.
What we've got here is a failure to communicate about issues with Medicaid and child welfare.
Former foster youth trying to survive after being tortured in care and dumped on the streets when they age out.
To begin, allow me to make a substantial correction to the reasoning behind this legislation to provide foster youth Medicaid.
The legislative analysis is still on the drawing table so I will save them some time and present my own version.
Foster youth do have legal guardians.
Not every state is structured the same, but for purposes of brevity in proving my point, I introduce Michigan as my example.
The legal guardian for more than 7,000 foster youth in Michigan is.... MCL 400.203 Sec.(3)(1)!
The Superintendent of the Michigan Children's Institute, Bruce Hoffman. (It used to be Bill Johnson but I guess he was needed full time to cover up the fraud in its child welfare contracting. Bruce Hoffman was always number 2.)
Then there is that nasty legal technicality of termination of the Michigan Superintendent's parental rights to these state wards, which of course is defined as "legal and physical guardianship and custody", and has never been examined, except by me.
Of course, I would be remiss if I did not bring up the fact that foster care is not what the pretty shiny brochures make it out to be. So, any child who survives foster care, whether it be through aging out, reunification or just not dying in care, should be designated, automatically, unless there is a petition to opt out, to be formally designated as disabled, under Social Security Administration, Social Supplemental Disability Income, better known as SSI.
Medicaid becomes an automatic provision of SSI, meaning the foster youths are guaranteed health care.
As it stands, former foster youth do not have access to proper health care, particularly services and resources for the hell they have survived under state care.
Much of the horrors of foster care stay with these survivors for their entire lifetime. Why limit to just 26 years?
To further support my position on transitioning foster youth in need of more assistance than what is currently provided, Michigan is still under federal monitoring of its child welfare system because it still sucks.
Lastly, keeping foster youth under the auspices of a state for the purposes of accessing health care is just plain stupid because I can already see the flood gates open to new and improved Medicaid fraud schemes in child welfare.
If we, as a nation, cannot stand up and admit that the entire U.S. child welfare system can only be measured by its success in creating the highest international levels of child poverty in the industrialized world, then at least we can throw these former foster youth a few scraps to survive on the streets once they are kicked out by the same "caring" foster parents who no longer receive maintenance payments for their care.
Claimant is disabled under section 1614(a)(3)(C) of the Social Security Act. Pursuant to § 416.924(a), the sequential evaluation steps of determining a child disability provides that the Administration “will consider all relevant evidence in a child's case record, that we will consider all impairments for which we have evidence and their combined effects, and that we will evaluate any limitations in a child's functioning that result from a child's symptoms, including pain.” (H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 725, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. 328 (1996), reprinted in 1996 U.S. Code, Cong. and Ad. News 2649, 2716. The House report contains similar language. See H.R. Rep. No. 651, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. 1385 (1996), reprinted in 1996 U.S. Code, Cong. and Ad. News 2183, 2444.)
Continuing with reference to Pub.L. 104193 Section 211(a) of Public Law 104193 amended section 1614(a)(3), claimants, foster youth, are disabled as the condition has lasted and is expected to last for a continuous period of more than 12 months, as supported with the duration of this administrative claim, 12 months being the average length of stay in foster care and 12 months being the tolling period to initiate termination of parental rights. Claimants, foster youth, are typically not working, and have impairments which is of the required duration and which significantly limits the ability to work, considering some foster youth who were able to be reunified with their original guardians are under the age of 16 years. [See 20 CFR §§416.920(a) through (c )(1989)]
This is a better policy companion to SB 1852.
This is the time to end the "groupthink" and start to listen to an original source.
As they continue to address the needs of the hundreds of thousands of young people who are currently a part of the foster care system and the tens of thousands who leave the system each year, Reps. Karen Bass (D-Calif.) and Jim McDermott (D-Wash.)—Co-Chairs of the Congressional Caucus on Foster Youth—announced they introduced H.R. 3641, the “Health Insurance for Former Foster Youth Act of 2015,” legislation that will close a loophole and guarantee that foster youth will still receive health insurance through Medicaid until they turn 26 years old regardless of their state of residence.
One of the goals of the Affordable Care Act was to ensure that young people could stay on their parents’ insurance until they turn 26. Because foster youth do not have legal guardians, the law addressed foster youth by guaranteeing that as long they were in the foster care system by the time they were 18 years old, they would be able to receive Medicaid until they turned 26.
However, because of ambiguity in one section of the law, foster youth who leave the foster care system may find themselves without health insurance through Medicaid if they decide to move out the state—even if they are attending college, working, or need to leave for personal reasons.
Although 13 states have addressed this issue, foster youth in the remaining 37 states and the District of Columbia face the choice of leaving the state for new opportunities or losing their health insurance. One of these young people is Lezlie Martinez, a 19-year-old former foster youth from San Diego, California.
Ms. Martinez was planning on moving to Colorado because of the lower cost of living there, and her boyfriend will soon be moving to the state—meaning that she will have a support system for herself as well as for her two-year-old son.
However, Colorado is a state that is not offering free Medicaid to former foster youth, and now Ms. Martinez is faced with having to decide between having healthcare while living in one room with her son or moving to Colorado so she can provide a better life for her child and herself but face losing her health insurance.
“This changes everything,” said Ms. Martinez as she is forced to confront decisions about not just her future, but for her child as well.
“The Affordable Care Act was designed to help young people like Lezlie, not force them to choose between school in another state or healthcare where they currently live,” said Bass. “I commend the states that have addressed this problem, but now it is time for Congress to provide a permanent fix in federal law.”
The “Health Insurance for Former Foster Youth Act” is particularly important to ensure that foster youth maintain uninterrupted access to health insurance. According to the Congressional Research Service, between 35 and 60 percent of youth who enter foster care have at least one chronic or acute health condition such as asthma, cognitive abnormalities, visual and auditory problems, dental decay, and malnutrition that require long-term treatment, and 50 to 75 percent of foster youth exhibit behavioral or social competency issues that may require mental health treatment. In 2013, nearly 50,000 youth exited the foster care system between the ages of 16-20.
“I am proud to join with Congresswoman Bass in introducing this important legislation. Young adults in the foster care system deserve our special care and concern, as they came into the system through no fault of their own. These young adults are among the least served populations and its vitally important that Congress does all it can to provide them affordable and reliable access to medical care. I believe this legislation will do just that by making small clarifying fixes to the Affordable Care Act,” said Congressman McDermott.
Congressmembers G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Tony Cardenas (D- CA), Kathy Castor (D-FL), Judy Chu (D-CA), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Danny K. Davis (D- IL), Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), John Garamendi (D-CA), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Alcee Hastings (D-FL), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Robin Kelly (D-IL), Ron Kind (D-WI), Jim Langevin (D- RI), John Lewis (D-GA), Alan Lowenthal (D-CA), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Bill Pascrell (D-NJ), Donald M. Payne, Jr. (D- NJ), Mark Pocan (D-WI), Charlie Rangel (D- NY), Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Frederica Wilson (D-FL), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) joined the legislation as original co-sponsors.
Over 140 prominent advocacy organizations support the legislation, including First Focus Campaign for Children, The Alliance for Children’s Rights, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), American Psychological Association, Children’s Defense Fund, Child Welfare League of America, and Foster Family-based Treatment Association.
H.R. 3641 is companion legislation to S.1852, introduced by Senator Bob Casey (D-PA).
To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to ensure health insurance coverage continuity for former foster youth.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 29, 2015
Ms. Bass (for herself, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Doggett, Mrs. Watson Coleman, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Cárdenas, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois, Ms. Jackson Lee, Mr. Garamendi, Mr. Rangel, Ms. Norton, Mr. Payne, Ms. Clarke of New York, Ms. Kaptur, Ms. Judy Chu of California, Ms. Slaughter, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Mr. DeSaulnier, Mr. Pocan, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, Mr. Kind, Mr.Lewis, Mr. Butterfield, Ms. Castor of Florida, Mr. Lowenthal, Mr. Hastings, Mr. Van Hollen, and Mr. Ellison) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce
A BILL
To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to ensure health insurance coverage continuity for former foster youth.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1.SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Health Insurance for Former Foster Youth Act”.
SEC. 2.COVERAGE CONTINUITY FOR FORMER FOSTER CARE CHILDREN UP TO AGE 26.
(1) in item (bb), by striking “are not described in or enrolled under” and inserting “are not described in and are not enrolled under”;
(2) in item (cc), by striking “responsibility of the State” and inserting “responsibility of a State”; and
(3) in item (dd), by striking “the State plan under this title or under a waiver of the” and inserting “a State plan under this title or under a waiver of such a”.
(b) Effective Date.—The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
Here is a press release on U.S.Representative Cory Gardner joining the Congressional Caucus on Foster Care with my typical commentary:
WASHINGTON D.C. – Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO) released the following statement after joining the newly created Congressional Caucus on Foster Care:
“Everyone deserves a chance to reach their full potential and become productive members of their communities. Our nation’s most vulnerable youth need strong advocates in Congress that can raise awareness of the challenges facing all foster youth and develop policies for improving child welfare. I believe that this caucus can help address some of those challenges.”
BIGGEST CHALLENGE IN DEVELOPING POLICIES: Admitting there is Medicaid fraud, false claims, generation of fraudulent documents, drugging, murder, suicide, rape, and torture in the nation's child welfare system.
ABOUT THE CONGRESSIONAL CAUCUS ON FOSTER CARE
With more than 424,000 children and older youth in the nation’s foster care system, the number of children who exit the foster care system without finding a permanent family has increased over the years by nearly 29,500. The experiences of youth transitioning out of the foster care system place them at a higher risk for unemployment, poor educational outcomes, health issues, early parenthood, long-term dependency on public assistance, increased rates of incarceration, and homelessness.
Is this an admission of culpability? Is this Congressional Caucus admitting that the national philosophy hails from the"peculiar institution"?
Co-chaired by Congresswoman Karen Bass (D-CA), Congressman Tom Marino (R-PA), Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA) and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN), the newly created bipartisan Congressional Caucus on Foster Care will work to protect and promote the welfare of all children in foster care and those who have “aged out” of the system. The Caucus will provide a forum for Members to discuss the challenges facing all foster youth and develop policy recommendations for improving child welfare outcomes in five focus areas: Safety; Permanency; Well Being; Educational Opportunities; and Youth, Family, and Community Engagement.
Add another area of focus: Oversight. Once again, these leaders have failed to admit the system is riddled with the unbridled mitigation of regulation which breeds defalcation and malfeasance.
This committee must address Medicaid fraud, antitrust violations in contracts and the reason why children are entering the system in the first place, which is a good place to start to reduce the number of children in foster care.
What I find quite interesting is the fact these individuals hail from states with the worst track record in foster care. I wonder where are the Maine and Florida Representatives? I knowwhere the Michigan Representative is.
Congressman Gardner is a freshman member in the U.S. House of Representatives for Colorado's 4th Congressional District. He serves on the Energy and Commerce Committee and is a member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, the Subcommittee on Environment and Economy and the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
213 Cannon HOB, Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-4676
All in all, I do commend these individuals for taking the first step in admitting the foster care system is not working.
What has prompted this mad dash to the congressional hopper to churn out child welfare reform Bills can only be speculated at this point.
So here I go.
1. 2016 is a presidential election rally year effect which also means it is re-election campaign time for U.S. House Representatives. As child poverty spirals out of control, these U.S. House incumbents scramble to address it by introducing legislation so it can be incorporated into the campaign rhetoric and talking points to make them look like they actually care.
2. Then, it could be an indication that the trend of federal probes into child welfare fraud prompted by the rash of failed privatization social and economic policy experiments is just really pissing policy makers and constituent voters off.
3. Or it could just be a desperate public cry for help to bring fresh and innovative analyses to the crafting of a national agenda because the current experts in child welfare, like Michele Bachmann and Maura Corrigan have proven to be nothing but chattel hustlers of the poor, in the name of God.
There is a whole lot of youth-related legislation in the ole’ congressional hopper these days. And with Congress revved up for bipartisan compromise, it’s almost certain to move!
Alright, half that statement is true. Youth Services Insider has noticed a rising tide of bills pertaining to child welfare and juvenile justice, and while the prospects are dim for movement in the short term, it’s important to note the ideas being bandied about.
So here is a handy-dandy guide to some of the youth-related legislation introduced this year…
Child Welfare Finance
S. 1964
Issue: Child welfare finance reform. Definitely the priciest youth bill out there, this wouldoverhaul the multi-billion dollar Title IV-E entitlement to steer more funding to family preservation, crisis intervention and reunification.
A House equivalent is expected to be introduced by Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) soon.
Lead Dog: Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)
S. ????
Issue: Limits on group homes and congregate care spending within IV-E.
There’s no bill yet, but we’re told by several insiders that one is imminent from the office of Senate Finance Chair Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).
It will be interesting to see whether Wyden gets on board with this. He seemed keen on some form of limitation at a summer hearing, and this would kinda, sorta, maybe drive down the price of his aforementioned overhaul bill.
S. 1932
Issue: Like Wyden’s bill, it would create flexibility for some prevention-oriented services under IV-E. Unlike Wyden’s bill, it would eliminate the increasingly ridiculous eligibility criteria for federal IV-E reimbursement. The bill would knock out a rule that states could only seek reimbursement for kids who were removed from parents below a poverty income line from 1996.
Nobody thinks that eligibility link is sane, but some people have voiced to YSI that “de-linking” from it could be pricey and incentivize more removals.
This bill addresses the price problem by simply instructing the federal government to submit a plan to Congress that makes this budget neutral. We have to think that plan would mostly involve lowering the per-child reimbursement rate in a manner proportional to the anticipated increase in covered youths.
Lead Dogs: Sen. Michael Bennett (D-Colo.), Mike Crapo (R-Ind.)
S. 429 and H.R. 835
Issue: A simple but potentially impactful bill in the realm of mental health. This would amend Title XIX to include therapeutic foster care as an allowable expense, which would free up Medicaid dollars to provide more intense services to foster youths in crisis.
Lead Dogs: Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.)
Foster Care
S. 2166
Issue: Introduced last week, the Timely Mental Health for Foster Youth Act would amend Title IV-B to require that states conduct an “initial mental health screening of any child in foster care” by day 30 of his or her time in care. For any child with a mental health issue identified at that screening, a comprehensive assessment must be complete by day 60 in foster care.
Issue: The Affordable Care Act guarantees Medicaid eligibility for foster youth through age 26, but the Department of Health and Human Services made an interpretation that advocates opposed. HHS has maintained that only the state where a youth aged out of foster care is required to guarantee Medicaid. Other states may do so, but don’t have to.
This bill would clean that up with language that makes all states accountable for guaranteeing Medicaid to someone who aged out of care.
Lead Dogs: Rep. Karen Bass (R-Calif.), Sen. Bob Casey (D-Penn.)
H.R. 3160 and S. 1439
Issue: These bills would raise the age cap on the John Chafee Foster Care Independence Program for certain states.
The traditional cap for Chafee grants is 21. That was implemented before the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act permitted states to use federal dollars to keep 18- to 21-year-olds in foster care.
This bill would enable states that have taken the feds up on this to lengthen the runway for youth aging out at 21. Those states could provide Chafee grants to former foster youth up to the age of 23.
Lead Dogs: Rep. Karen Bass (D-Calif.), Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa)
H.R. 1868
Issue: Amends the IV-E to require that child welfare systems notify identified relatives of a child’s removal to foster care within 30 days of the removal.
Lead Dog: Rep. John Conyers (R-Mich.).
S. 664
Issue: Foster parents who care for a child upwards of six months are entitled to claim a $1,000 Child Tax Credit just like any other parent.
This bill would level the playing field for providers of short-term foster care by creating a “Foster Care Tax Credit.” Same amount, $1,000, available only to foster parents who cared for a child for less than six months.
Lead Dog: Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.)
Civil Rights
H.R. 2449 and S. 1382
S. 667 and HR 1299
Issue: We put these sets of bills together because at heart, they both seek to address discriminatory action related to sexual orientation and marital status in the realm of foster care and adoption.
The first set of bills seeks to impose a two-way ban on discrimination based on “gender, orientation or marital status.” Under this bill, no state could treat a foster or adoptive parent differently based on those criteria; nor could it treat a youth differently.
The second set of bills would protect independent providers from any “adverse action” based on their decision to decline the provision or referral for services that “conflict with the provider’s sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions.”
Strictly speaking, the laws could co-exist. A state or county system could permit a private religious provider to discriminate against a particular parent or youth as long as it guaranteed comparable assistance from another provider.
But in reality, the two would likely be at odds in, say, a rural area that relied on a single religious provider for foster and adoptive parent recruitment.
Lead Dogs: (Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) and Sen. Kristen Gillibrand (D-N.Y.); Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) and Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Penn.)
Education
S. 662 and H.R. 1194
Issues: The bills would establish grant awards for “Family Engagement Centers.” The money would travel to nonprofits operating on state levels that could then conduct training and assistance to local education agencies on how to better involve families.
Lead Dogs: Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-Penn.)
S. 1177
Starring: H.R. 3087and S. 1639; H.R. 3221 and S. 2169; H.R. 562
Issues: The Senate has passed S. 1177, which would finally leave No Child Left Behind…well, behind.
The bill includes several caveats for at-risk youth that were rolled up into the bill from other proposed legislation. The House hasn’t moved on its version of an education overhaul yet.
Among the derivative legislation included in S. 1177:
From H.R. 3087 and S. 1639, requirement that schools work with child welfare systems to plan and pay for the transportation needs of foster youth who wish to remain in a school of origin, even when they are moved to another school district.
From H.R. 3221 and S. 2169, a mandate that the progress of homeless youth and foster youth be broken out in the annual state report cards.
From H.R. 562, a requirement that school districts guarantee the transfer of credits and partial credits when transferring schools.
Also, we’re not sure where the language comes from, but S. 1177 also has an important juvenile justice caveat. State education agencies would have to establish procedures to “ensure the prompt re-enrollment of each student who has been placed in the juvenile justice system.”
This could involve re-entry to secondary school or a re-entry program, and must include a “transfer of credits that such student earns during placement.”
Not sure exactly how much teeth that requirement carries, but it’s at least a good first step on a corner of the juvenile justice world mostly ignored thus far by the federal government.
Lead Dogs: Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Reps. Danny Davis (D-Ind.), Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), Alan Grayson (D-Fla.)
Adoption
H.R. 3428
Issue: Amends Title X of the Public Health Service Act to require that all federally funded family planning programs provide information about adoption centers to “each person who inquires about their services.”
Lead Dog: Rep. Robert Wittman (R-Va.)
H.R. 2818 and S. 1637
Issue: These bills would establish a National Responsible Father Registry to protect the rights of birth fathers. This would connect state-level registries, which offer men who can prove paternity the right to be notified when an adoption or a termination of parental rights is initiated.
Lead Dogs: James Inhofe (R-Okla)., Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.)
H.R. 2434 and S. 950
Issue: There was a refundable federal adoption tax credit available in fiscals 2010 and 2011. The credit remains available, but it is not refundable, meaning it is only available to the extent that a parent has federal tax liability.
These bills would amend IRS regulations to restore that status.
Lead Dogs: Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.), Sen. Bob Casey (D-Penn.)
S. 1254
Issue: The Families for Foster Youth Stamp Act would simply establish a federally issued stamp with a portion of proceeds directed to the Adoption Opportunities Program, which includes federal support for incentivizing adoption, provision of post-adoption services and research on adoption outcomes.
Lead Dog: Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa)
H.R. 2068 and S. 369
Issue: The main focus of the federally subsidized Internet Crimes Against Children task forces is to go after online sex traffickers and other scumbags trading in child exploitation over the Internet.
This would expand their scope to include a new hot topic: re-homing. ICACs would be empowered to track down attempts to illegally transfer custody of children over the web, and pursue the re-homers.
Lead Dog: Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)
Juvenile Justice
H.R. 2728 and S. 1169S. 1770 and H.R. 2197
Issue: That first set of bills would reauthorize the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, which has gone without a reauthorization for more than a decade now.
They are mostly similar, with one key difference: the House version includes a scaled-down version of the Youth PROMISE Act, which would fund planning and implementation for violence prevention strategies in communities that need it. The Senate’s version does not.
That second set of bills represents the standalone versions of the PROMISE Act.
The bottom line on all of this is: What does House Education and The Workforce Committee Chairman Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.) want to do on juvenile justice?
The lead minority on his committee, Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), is the author of both the House reauthorization bill and the architect of the PROMISE Act.
On the Senate side, JJDPA reauthorization has moved out of the Senate Judiciary Committee and awaits a vote by the full Senate. This would be the last opportunity for the PROMISE Act to be tacked onto the Senate version.
Lead Dogs: Sens. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Bob Casey (D-Penn.), Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.)
S. 2123Issue: This high profile, bipartisan effort on federal sentencing reform focuses mostly on adult offenders, but provides a few protections for juveniles convicted as adults and committed to the federal Bureau of Prisons.
First and foremost, it would afford an opportunity for parole after 20 years to those convicted of a crime committed before their 18th birthday.
This law relates to the federal courts and prisons, which house a pretty small number of inmates convicted as juveniles (mostly Native American teens and teens from the District of Columbia). But it would be a solid precedent to set as state-level juvenile justice reforms continue to brew.
In particular, there have been erratic reactions to the Supreme Court’s instruction to replace juvenile life without parole sentences with a meaningful chance at parole.
This would amount to the federal government weighing in and saying essentially, “We think meaningful is 20 years into a sentence.”
Lead Dogs: Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa)
H.R. 1672 and S. 675
Issue: These two bills are entitled the REDEEM Act, and focus on expunging juvenile records and limiting youth exposure to solitary confinement. They call for expungement of records for nonviolent offenses on the condition that terms of probation are met, and ban the use of room confinement for “discipline, punishment, retaliation, or any reason” other than as a “temporary response” to behavior that places juveniles at risk.
S. 2123 blended REDEEM’s language in for the purposes of federal criminal procedure.
Lead Dogs: Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.).
Social Impact/Pay for Success
1089 and H.R. 1336
Issue: This would establish a 10-year $300 million pot of federal money available to support social impact partnerships. The source: Title XX of the Social Security Act.
This could have major implications for both child welfare and juvenile justice. Thus far, Congress and the federal government have expressed lots of verbal interest in social financing, but have not backed it up with much cash.
Lead Dogs: Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Todd Young (R-Ind.)
