We received comments from the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, the Assistant Secretary for Management and Budget, and the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families. Please see APPENDIX D for full texts.Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
The ASPE concurred with the findings and recommendations of the report. They urged more specificity in some of the research recommendations.
We have added some additional detail to the "Issues for Further Research."
Assistant Secretary for Management and Budget
The ASMB concurred with the findings of the report and strongly supported the report's recommendations concerning ACF's role in providing technical assistance to the States in their policy development efforts.
The ASMB voiced strong concerns, however, about the recommendation that ACF require States to develop reasonable and consistent policies concerning the use, evaluation, and support of relative foster care homes. The ASMB does "not believe the Department is, or should be, in a position to require States to develop policies regarding relative placements.... "
We have made several changes in our initial recommendation to address the concerns expressed by the ASMB and ACF. First, we recognize that ACF may not have the authority to require application of standards to children whose care is not reimbursed trough use of Federal funds, so we have recommended that ACF encourage the application of standards.
Second, our intention in the recommendation was not to encourage separate treatment of relative foster-care homes, and we have rewritten the recommendation to make our position clearer. We have not defined specific standards for approving relatives, or even called for separate standards for these homes. These decisions should come from the research efforts suggested, the standard review work of national organizations, and the deliberations of State administrators. Our inclusion in the recommendation of a statement that States might develop new standards for these foster care situations was meant to recognize that States may need some flexibility in this area, not to imply a requirement for
C-1
separate status for these children. Certainly our recommendations make no suggestion for ACF to mandate or even promulgate any specific Federal standards in this area.The recommendations do not, as implied in the ASMB's comments, create a new class of potential IV-E recipients. Legislation, as interpreted by the Supreme Coun in Miller v. Youakim, requires States to make available federally-reimbursed foster-care maintenance payments to relative foster-care providers if they are licensed and the child meets the eligibility requirements for foster care payments under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. ale State policies adhere to this requirement, several States allow or encourage the use of additional limitations in practice (i.e., encouraging staff conduct needs assessments or to await a request from relative foster-care providers before initiating foster care payments). Our concern is that those relatives who are eligible for financial assistance should be made aware of the availability and requirements of such support. We have clarified this point in the recommendations.
The ASMB urged that once basic research efforts have been completed, the Department should establish a public position on relative foster care as a precursor to its efforts to assist the States in their policy development efforts.
We agree. We believe that ACF should lead the Department in developing an intenal policy on this issue. We have added language to the recommendation to support this effort.
Assistant Secretary for Children and Families
ACF expressed several concerns about the recommendations of the report.
They did not concur with the first recommendation that ACF should require States to develop reasonable and consistent standards for evaluating and reimbursing relative foster care homes. Specifically, the ACF
- expressed confusion over the recommendation's call for standards;
Our recommendation speaks only to the issue of health and safety standards, not to permanency planning review requirements.
- shared the ASMB's concern that the report called for a mandate from ACF for States to develop separate standards for relative foster care homes or to incorporate any Federally-defined standards;
We reiterate our response to the ASMB (as above). A requirement for ACF to mandate separate standards or to define specific standards was not our intention. As ACF poilus out, Section 471 (a) (10-11 j requires that ACF review State standards for evaluating the
C-2
safety of foster home placements eligible for Federal Financial Participation. Despite current discussions, children in the legal custody of State child welfare agencies who are placed with relatives are in foster care, and States should be accountable for their care and protection. Therefore, States should be encouraged to accord them the protections available to all children in foster care.
- maintained that they have no legislative authority to require States to develop standards for non-IV-E children in the care of relatives;
We have changed the language of the recommendation, and call for ACF to encourage extension of existing standards or development of reasonable and consistent standards for relative foster homes in order to protect the health and safety of children in the custody of State child welfare agencies.
- asked for clarification concerning the recommendation for exploration of a program of guardianship subsidies for special needs children.
We have rewritten the recommendation.
Finally, the ACF agreed with the recommendation that ACF assist States in their policy development efforts.