FEDERALLY FUNDED CHILD WELFARE, FOSTER
CARE, AND ADOPTION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIRST CONGRESS
SECOND EDITION
APRIL 4 AND 5, 1990
266
Acting Chairman Downey. Mr. Schwartz.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT G. SCHWARTZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
JUVENILE LAW CENTER, PHILADELPHIA, PA
Mr. SCHWARTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I will, too,
summarize the written testimony that I have presented to the com-
mittee. I am here as a State-based advocate who has represented
children in the dependency, delinquency and mental health sys-
tems for the last 15 years in Pennsylvania, and has for the last 10
years been trying to make Public Law 96-272 work in our State.
The primary thrust of my testimony today is an endorsement of
the ABA proposal that Mark has just made. Before I get into the
issue of the courts, I just do want to add a word on intensive,
family-based programming, about which you have already heard
from other witnesses, from the point of view of those of us who rep-
resent children. This is an extremely important issue, especially
with the unavailability or declining availability of qualified foster
care, adoptive homes, and substitute care for children with special
needs.
The framework of Public Law 96-272 is essentially sound. I think
the design of 1980 is still durable. The effort at preserving families,
providing for case planning, for case reviews, for moving children,
especially special needs children, to adoption, is a sound one.
The problem, from our perspective, is that these procedural pro-
tections, which they are in many respects, do not provide the kind
of services at the front end that our clients need; and the State
agencies -- you have already heard from Secretary Coler and
others -- have not kept up with the provision of substantive serv-
ices, including family-based services.
And we do know, after 10 years of experimentation with a varie-
ty of inhome supports for children with a variety of problems, and
their families, that there are levels of programs that I think we
can rely on. And I would urge that the committee take seriously
some of the proposals about which you have heard in the last few
days to provide inhome support at the same level of entitlement in
terms of philosophy that we do for substitute care.
To the courts, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned that Rome was
burning a little while back. I think the entire city is burning. The
courthouse certainly is, from our perspective in working with law-
yers and judges throughout the country as well as in Pennsylvania.
I support the ABA proposal to improve the quality of court inter-
vention. I am particularly intrigued by the study, of bringing to
light, of illuminating what many of us see every day in courthouses
across the country, where judges and attorneys and other advocates
are struggling to make this system work; because the courts were
designed as a crucial part of the monitoring function of Public Law
96-272.
In many respects, our ability to ensure that case plans are effec-
tive, that children are moved out of unstable situations into more
stable situations, depends on the court's ability to provide a thor-
ough and informed examination of what is taking place in the lives
of children and families.
267
In my judgment, particularly in the major urban communities of
the country, that kind of thorough and informed examination is
just not happening. It is not happening for a variety of reasons.
One, and I think probably most important, is a cumulative case
load. It is different than in a delinquency case, where I would rep-
resent the child, you have an adjudication; you have a disposition;
and the case essentially ends in a finite period of time. These cases
do not end for many of the kids in the system.
We heard about a lifetime of care for children entering the
system now with very, very serious problems. With some excep-
tions, those children will be having 6-month judicial reviews for
most of their lives. This is a burden on the court system that no
other kind of case introduces. I know that when we at Juvenile
Law Center were taking on many of these cases in the early 1980's,
we were taking on about 2 1/2 cases for every case that we closed.
There was a real multiplier effect.
The cumulative caseload has a very limiting effect on the ability
of judges to hear cases in a relaxed fashion, the way they should be
heard; to hear testimony about reasonable efforts; to make deci-
sions about availability and unavailability of services to children.
It also has an unhappy impact on our ability to provide counsel
for children. We just brought suit last year in Philadelphia County
because of the unavailability of counsel for children that was man-
dated under State law. There just were not the numbers. And a cu-
mulative case load exacerbated that problem.
We have reasonable efforts findings essentially being ignored in
the face of trying to get through these cases. The determination is
not being made very thoroughly. We have to get through lists of 80
to 100 cases a day. So we have inadequate review of case plans as
well.
We have just introduced local rules of court in Philadelphia. But
rules are very uneven around the State. They are very uneven
around the country. So I would urge, in addition to the ABA pro-
posals, that this committee address the issue of local rules to stand-
ardize what is going on around the country; and to look at the
issue of case load. And if I might, Mr. Chairman, just add one thing
that I think emerged from Judge Reader's testimony that our office
and a number of others are looking at, about the problem of multi-
ple systems involved with children.
The juvenile court in these cases, by and large, has jurisdiction
over the child welfare agency coming before it. Even in successful
programs such as in Ohio -- which has developed the model cluster
system that many of us are looking forward to seeing results
from -- mental health, education, mental retardation, are not rou-
tinely subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.
And I think it is worth exploring whether or not, as one is inject-
ing either new dollars or new ideas into this system, the juvenile
courts in these cases should have jurisdiction over more than the
child welfare system alone. And I will conclude with that, Mr.
Chairman.