Alliance for Children and Families
Public Policy Priority Agenda Issues 2004 - 2005

Contents: (click to view specific issue)

Human Services Workforce Bill

Nonprofit human service providers are finding it increasingly difficult to provide quality service to those in need. The safety and permanency of children is in jeopardy because of large caseloads, worker turnover, and worker burnout. Low wages, an overly complex delivery system, and inherently difficult work have exacerbated this phenomenon within the profession. These factors have led to an overall decrease in the quality of services provided to individuals in need, and have effectively reduced society’s ability to protect children, families, and elderly from neglect and abuse and limited their opportunities to lead productive lives.

The Alliance is proposing to address these issues by seeking Congressional sponsorship for the introduction of “The Nonprofit Human Services Workforce Support Act of 2003”. It will provide much needed reform to training, retention, and recruitment for certain sectors of the human service workforce. The legislation utilizes several mechanisms to provide assistance: grants to states for training and benefits, loan and educational assistance for selected human service professions, and programs to increase homeownership for employees of nonprofit human service agencies.  [top]

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Reauthorization

The Senate Finance Committee on September 10 approved legislation reauthorizing the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program with increased work requirements for welfare recipients, child care funding considered insufficient by child advocates, and $1 billion available over the next five years to promote marriage as a goal for people on welfare.

The Personal Responsibility and Individual Development for Everyone (PRIDE) Act is similar to the House bill, H.R.4, which passed in February. Both would increase the number of hours recipients are required to work: 30 hours weekly under current law would increase to 38 hours under the House bill and to 34 hours in the Senate measure.

Both bills also increase the work engagement requirements for individuals receiving TANF. Under current law, at least 50 percent of a state’s adult recipients must be engaged in work or preparing for work. Both the Senate and the House bill would increase the requirement to 70 percent by 2008.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), who had previously withheld her support for the bill over inadequate provision for child care funding, voted with her fellow Finance Committee Republicans to send the measure to the Senate floor with the understanding that she would be guaranteed the ability to offer an amendment to increase child care funding. The PRIDE Act passed the committee by a party-line vote of 9-8.

Congress has passed legislation to reauthorize TANF through March 2004; it is thus likely that full Committee consideration of the bill will not occur until FY2004. The Alliance supports a comprehensive welfare reauthorization bill that includes increased funding for child care, leaves the work requirements as 30 hours per week, and allows educational activities to count towards fulfillment of hours of mandated weekly labor.   [top]

Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act

In reauthorizing this legislation (42 U.S.C. 55101 et seq), specific provisions, such as those contained in H.R. 5601 and S. 2998 in the 107th Congress should strongly promote improvements to meet the mental health and substance abuse needs of abused and neglected children. These should include: information collection and dissemination on best practices in addressing mental health and substance abuse needs of maltreated children; technical assistance on linking child protective service (CPS) agencies with mental health and substance abuse providers; training grants to help enhance such linkages and delivery of mental health and substance abuse services; demonstration projects to provide model approaches for mental health and substance abuse evaluations of abuse and or neglected children; and encouragement of state efforts to promote partnerships between CPS and mental health and substance abuse programs. The Alliance will monitor implementation of CAPTA and promote enhanced funding to ensure that key provisions are considered in future adjustments to the legislation.  [top]

Head Start Legislation

Despite intense opposition by early childhood education advocates and Democratic leadership, the House passed H.R. 2210 by a margin of one vote (217-216) on July 25, 2003. Closely mirroring the Administration’s proposal, Rep. Michael Castle’s bill turns Head Start funding over to the states which can use the funds to develop and monitor state-created early education programming. Under Title II of Castle’s revised bill, funding is provided for an eight-state, five-year, pilot program. Analysts speculate that turning Head Start funding into a block grant will diminish the federal standards set to guarantee at-risk children a quality preschool education and allow states with enormous budget deficits to use the allocated Head Start funding for other purposes. In addition, states’ inexperience with running high-quality preschool programs may result in the implementation of unproven and untested programs throughout the country. In response to Castle’s proposed pilot program, opposition points to the fact that there is no cap on the number of states that can apply and receive the block grant. Since almost every state can meet the eligibility requirements for applying for the block grant, more than just eight states may take part in the pilot. If Head Start can be strengthened by amending Title I of the current law rather than the proposed reforms in Title II of H.R. 2210, Democrats feel the high standards and proven effectiveness of the program will remain intact, thus providing at-risk children with the services necessary to prepare them for school. The Senate has yet to consider a Head Start bill. The Alliance is opposed to HR 2210 because it is estimated that the block grant provision will result in decreased resources for this effective program. Rather than constrict the Head Start program through block grants, legislative proposals should be expanding Head Start activities to ensure that it is meeting the needs of all eligible children.  [top]

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act

The JJDPA reauthorization was passed by the 107th Congress and signed into law by the President on November 2, 2002 (P.L. 107-273). Mental health services for juveniles are a new focus within state juvenile justice formula grants. The law establishes new requirements for state formula grants related to youth transitioning from child welfare to juvenile justice agency care, or where their juvenile placements and services are funded through the federal child welfare program. Under the law, states are also now required to develop a plan for providing mental health services to youth in the juvenile justice system, including information on how these plans are being implemented and how services will be targeted to juveniles in the greatest need. States are also encouraged to use grant funding for programs that provide treatment to juvenile offenders who are victims of child abuse and neglect, and to their families. The Act’s Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant program purposes have been expanded significantly to provide additional services and treatment for troubled youth, including promotion of mental health and substance abuse screening. The Alliance will carefully monitor implementation of these important new provisions.  [top]

The Proposed Child Protection/Alcohol and Drug Partnership Act

This bill (S. 484/HR.1909) if enacted, would promote safety and permanency for children by providing $1.9 billion over 5 years to state child welfare and substance abuse agencies that jointly develop and increase substance abuse treatment services, establish appropriate screening and assessment tools, and improve strategies to aid children and parents who are identified by the child welfare system as in need of treatment. A comprehensive definition of services to be provided under this bill for children and their families should be broadened to include, but not be limited to, mental health care and services for youth in the juvenile justice system. The Alliance will work with CWLA and other child advocates to promote passage of this important legislation.  [top]

Title IV-E Reform

The current configuration of Title IV-E of the Social Security Act guarantees open-ended funding to states for foster care, administrative costs and training funds- based on the number of eligible children and families. States pay a share of the costs and eligibility of children is linked to standards in place under the 1996 welfare law.

The President’s 2003 budget proposes to radically alter the funding mechanism for Title IV-E programs. It creates an optional block grant for foster care services. States that opt in would receive capped foster care funding for a five year period, limiting increases to 4-5% regardless of increased caseloads. States are limited to 20% of their 5 year allotment each year but can choose to spend less in a given year in order to spend more later. If states experience an unanticipated increase in their foster care caseload, they can receive funds from an emergency fund setup for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

The Alliance is concerned about the capped spending feature. However, we recognize that this new funding mechanism will allow states to spend more on prevention services, which are currently disallowed. It also allows states to spend federal funds on children that come from higher income families than current law allows.

Representative Wally Herger (R-CA) is expected to introduce a bill that is similar to the Administration’s plan.  [top]

Mental Health

On December 8, the President signed into law legislation that would extend some current mental health protections through December 31, 2004. Sponsored by Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), the measure reauthorizes current law that requires insurance plans provided through employers to impose the same lifetime limits on mental health benefits that apply to medical and surgical benefits.

However, comprehensive mental health parity legislation continues to stall in Congress. Introduced on February 27 by Senators Pete Domenici and Edward Kennedy, Representatives Jim Ramstad and Patrick Kennedy, S. 486 and H.R. 953 now have 57 cosponsors in the Senate and 231 in the House. Both bills amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Public Health Service Act. Their goal is to prohibit certain employee group health plans or related insurance programs that provide both medical-surgical and mental health benefits from imposing mental health treatment limitations or financial requirements that differ from those imposed by physical health issues.

On March 23, H.R. 953 was referred to the House Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations and S. 468 was referred to the Senate Subcommittee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions on February 27, 2003. The Alliance fully supports both bills.  [top]

Medicare Reform

On December 8, the President signed into law landmark legislation passed by Congress on November 25, that promises 40 million Americans on Medicare the first federal help in paying for prescription drugs. The drug benefits, to start in three years, are predicted to cost $400 billion over the first decade. The law also creates a new competition for Medicare patients from private health plans, increases federal payments to doctors and hospitals and ends the tradition of charging everyone in the program the same fees for the same services.

Other parts of the law create new tax breaks for seniors who voluntarily open special savings accounts for medical expenses. The legislation also takes steps to make low-cost generic medicine more readily available.

Starting in the spring of 2004 and ending by 2006, seniors will be able to purchase drug discount cards for $30 per year. Seniors with incomes below 135 percent of the federal poverty line ($12,123 in annual income for a senior living alone or $16,362 for a couple) will be able to get these discount cards free and will also receive a credit worth $600 embedded in the card (like a prepaid telephone card) to be used for Medicare purchases—although they will also owe a copay of 5 to 10 percent on each purchase.
There are no rules about the base prices from which these discounts will occur. Thus, the value of any discount will be significantly eroded as base prices escalate.

The Alliance is concerned that the legislation does not go far enough to help seniors afford the high cost of prescription drugs. Seniors with annual drug costs between $2,250 and $5,100 will be required to pay all of those costs out of their own pockets - a so-called "doughnut hole.” Further, the legislation prohibits Medicare from using its bargaining power to negotiate lower prices and stops seniors from re-importing much cheaper drugs from Canada and Mexico. Also of concern is a provision that does not allow people who obtain the new drug benefit to keep Medigap, a private supplemental insurance that provides more generous coverage than the law allows.

The Alliance will monitor legislation that is expected to be introduced by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) during the second session of the 108th Congress, that would repeal the ban on government negotiations to cut drug costs and its incentives to encourage competition from private health plans.  [top]

Medicaid Reform

Earlier this year, the Administration announced a proposal to provide a fixed allotment of funds to states that opt into a block grant program that combines Medicaid and State Children’s Health Insurance Program. States that choose this option may reduce coverage and or impose or increase cost sharing for families or individuals above minimum income levels and can receive more in federal funding up front but less in later years. A total of $12.7 billion is offered for all states through 2010 but states allotments in 2011-2013 will be reduced. Legislation is expected to be introduced in the House during this legislative session. The Alliance will fight this proposal, as advocates are concerned a block grant will result in loss of benefits or increased costs for millions of vulnerable people.  [top]

Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is the principal education law for children with disabilities. Part B of the law provides grants to states to implement services to preschool and school-aged children. Part C provides grants to states to implement statewide comprehensive early intervention service systems for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. Part D provides grants to create and support the special education infrastructure through research and dissemination, applying research findings to instructional practice, parental training, and effective personnel preparation and technical assistance. Currently, there are 50 bills in Congress related to the reauthorization of IDEA.

Any reauthorization of IDEA (P.L. 105-17, last amended in 1997) should include provisions specifically for children in foster care and juvenile justice facilities. Those provisions should require collaboration between the local education agency and the child welfare and juvenile justice systems, and where a child may need mental health and substance abuse services and supports, collaboration with mental health and substance abuse systems. It should help assure that infants and toddlers who enter foster care are automatically eligible for, and promptly receive, an evaluation and Individualized Family Services Plan under the Act’s early Intervention Program. Further, it should support expansion of school-based mental health and substance abuse services and support to aid school-age foster children in receiving screening, comprehensive assessment/evaluation, and treatment services and supports.

We will continue to work with Alliance members to clarify concerns relating to “inclusiveness” language in an amendment to IDEA (S. 1248) which could negatively impact residential providers.  [top]

Social Services Block Grant

The Social Services Restoration Act (S. 501/H.R. 956), either as a separate piece of legislation or as part of TANF reauthorization, would restore funding for this critical federal program by over $2 billion per year. Most states use these grants to provide services to thousand of vulnerable children and adults, to include mental health and substance abuse screening, assessment/evaluation, and treatment services. The Alliance will continue to support full funding for Title XX at $2.8 billion.  [top]

Seclusion and Restraint

On January 22, 2001, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services published an interim final rule (Federal Register, Vol.66, No. 14) pertaining to the use of restraint and seclusion in medical residential treatment facilities providing psychiatric services to individuals under age 21. Amended rules were issued on May 22, 2002, which superseded the January 22 regulation and clarified which facilities are covered, the definition of restraint, and broadened the requirements of who may order and conduct seclusion or restraint as well as added new reporting requirements

While the Alliance endorses the motivation to establish a national regulatory framework regarding restraint and seclusion, we take issue with some of the basic premises underlying its provisions. There is concern that regulations for community-based facilities could have a deleterious impact on the care and treatment of the most vulnerable young people in our communities and, in fact, may unintentionally result in fewer facilities being available to meet their needs. While the final regulations for community facilities have yet to be released by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration, the Alliance will continue to work on this issue until final regulations are issued. Our fact sheet on seclusion and restraint can be viewed at our website, www.alliance1.org. Go the Public Policy page and click on “Issue Briefs”.  [top]

Corporation for National and Community Service’s AmeriCorps Program

On July 3, the President signed into law S. 1276, (P.L. 108-45 ), the Strengthen AmeriCorps Program Act. The legislation focuses on resolving accounting problems within AmeriCorps and reviving the struggling agency. Introduced by Senators Christopher Bond (R-MO) and Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), with 13 co-sponsors, the legislation provides AmeriCorps the flexibility to offer more volunteer grants and proposes to settle an accounting dispute between the General Accounting Office (GAO) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) over the management of the National Service Trust, the agency that funds AmeriCorps volunteers and educational benefits. The GAO contends that AmeriCorps must set aside enough money in the Trust to cover the grants being awarded to every volunteer. OMB has said that AmeriCorps can set aside less, taking into account historical data on the number of volunteers who drop out. As the OMB proposes, the bill allows AmeriCorps to set aside less money for volunteer grants and the educational award. However, another provision was also added, requiring the CEO of the Corporation for National and Community Service to verify that there will be enough funding for the number of volunteer grants that must be awarded. The Alliance supports the AmeriCorps program and supports appropriations that allow for the President’s request for funding, which permits up to 75,000 AmeriCorps volunteers to be hired.  [top]

Earned Income Tax Credit

The EITC currently lifts more children out of poverty than any other social program or category of programs and has been found to be highly effective in spurring and enabling low-income people who are raising children to move from welfare to work. By establishing requirements that many filers may find difficult or impossible to meet, the IRS is discouraging eligible filers who receive notices from taking advantage of the benefits of the EITC, and is thus hurting working families and children across the country.

Under the plan the Internal Revenue Service announced earlier this year, all EITC filers who claim children – other than married parents or single female parents claiming their own children – ultimately would be subject to new pre-certification procedures as a condition of receiving the EITC. The affected group includes all grandparents, aunts, uncles, and other such relatives who are raising their grandchildren, nieces, nephews, as well as single fathers, stepparents, and foster parents raising their children.

The complicated and time-consuming proposed pre-certification requirements constitute a disincentive to adults who are caring for some of our nation’s most vulnerable children.

The proposed procedures ask filers for:

• Documents proving that the filer and the child or children claimed for the EITC lived together for more than six months during the year, or
   
• An affidavit from a third party, signed under penalty of perjury, attesting that the signer has “personal knowledge” or records showing that the filer and the child lived together at a specific address for more than half of the year.

Since finding documentary proof of a child’s residence can be difficult, many filers are likely to seek an affidavit instead. However, IRS rules would not allow neighbors or relatives to complete them. Other federal programs, in contrast, encourage use of neighbors as a source of third-party information. Individuals who have personal knowledge of the taxpayer’s living arrangements, such as neighbors, relatives who provide child care, and neighborhood pharmacists should be permitted to sign the affidavits.

The Alliance strongly urges the IRS to reconsider certain aspects of its pre-certification initiative. Specifically, we urge the IRS to define “child care provider” for the purpose of this initiative; to include relatives, neighbors, and pharmacists as legitimate third party individuals to confirm residence information of tax filer; and eliminate the penalty of perjury from the affidavit. Low income individuals and families should not be subjected to more stringent requirements that constitute a barrier to their use of the EITC. The Alliance and its agencies are committed to disseminating information on the EITC to ensure that all those eligible can utilize it.  [top]
 

Public Policy Page