[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                          STRENGTHENING CHILD WELFARE 
                        AND PROTECTING AMERICA'S CHILDREN

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             JUNE 26, 2024

                               __________

                          Serial No. 118-FC29

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means
         
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
57-158                  WASHINGTON : 2025                  
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------    
                      COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

                    JASON SMITH, Missouri, Chairman
                    
VERN BUCHANAN, Florida               RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska               LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania             MIKE THOMPSON, California
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona            JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
DARIN LaHOOD, Illinois               EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
BRAD WENSTRUP, Ohio                  BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
JODEY ARRINGTON, Texas               DANNY DAVIS, Illinois
DREW FERGUSON, Georgia               LINDA SANCHEZ, California
RON ESTES, Kansas                    TERRI SEWELL, Alabama
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania          SUZAN DelBENE, Washington
KEVIN HERN, Oklahoma                 JUDY CHU, California
CAROL MILLER, West Virginia          GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin
GREG MURPHY, North Carolina          DAN KILDEE, Michigan
DAVID KUSTOFF, Tennessee             DON BEYER, Virginia
BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania      DWIGHT EVANS, Pennsylvania
GREG STEUBE, Florida                 BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York             JIMMY PANETTA, California
MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota        JIMMY GOMEZ, California
BLAKE MOORE, Utah
MICHELLE STEEL, California
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas
RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York
MIKE CAREY, Ohio
                       Mark Roman, Staff Director
                 Brandon Casey, Minority Chief Counsel
                         
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
Hon. Jason Smith, Missouri, Chairman.............................     1
Hon. Richard Neal, Massachusetts, Ranking Member.................     2
Advisory of June 26, 2024 announcing the hearing.................     V

                               WITNESSES

Paris Hilton, Lived-Experience Advocate and CEO, 11:11 Media.....     4
Rob Geen, Bipartisan Policy Center Fellow, Chair of Board of 
  Trustees, Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption..................     9
Tori Hope Petersen, Author, Speaker and Advocate.................    15
Alexis Mansfield, Senior Advisor, Children & Families & 
  Relationship Safety, Women's Justice Institute.................    21

                    MEMBER QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

Member Questions for the Record to and Responses from Alexis 
  Mansfield, Senior Advisor, Children & Families and Relationship 
  Safety, Women's Justice Institute..............................    99

                   PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Public Submissions...............................................   101
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


 
                      STRENGTHENING CHILD WELFARE
                   AND PROTECTING AMERICA'S CHILDREN

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 2024

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Ways and Means,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in Room 
1100, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jason T. Smith 
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
    Chairman SMITH. The committee will come to order.
    Families form the bedrock of a strong society, and it is 
crucial to have systems in place that support children in 
moments of crisis and keep families intact whenever possible.
    The Ways and Means Committee has jurisdiction over several 
child welfare programs, including Title IV-B of the Social 
Security Act. This program provides critical resources to 
states with the mission of preventing child abuse and neglect, 
supporting family reunification, and promoting adoption for 
children in foster care. The last time Congress reformed these 
programs in any significant way was in 2008, and the 
authorization lapsed in the fiscal year 2021.
    Over the past year this committee has proactively conducted 
a top-to-bottom review. We have held more hearings on the 
subject than the last eight congressional sessions combined. We 
have heard from people engaged in the child welfare system day 
in and day out, including caseworkers, state administrators, 
and former foster youth.
    From our review, it is clear that the child welfare system 
faces a number of challenges, including relatives that take 
care of children, also known as kinship care. They need more 
help and support. Almost one in three social workers leaves 
every year, leading to a severe case worker shortage. 
Bureaucratic red tape from Washington gets in the way of 
caseworkers caring for children. Families have slow hearings 
with family courts and lack access to lawyers. Unfair barriers 
facing Native American tribes trying to keep their families 
together. And trauma and mental health issues experienced by 
older foster youth. In addition, too many families experiencing 
poverty are wrongly accused of child neglect, when what they 
really need is community support.
    Poverty should not be the sole reason a child is removed 
from their home. One particular case from Washington County, 
Missouri sticks with me. A mom and four kids were living in a 
shed with no central heat, no refrigeration, no running water, 
no beds, and little food. Those children went into custody 
because of these concerning conditions and hygiene difficulties 
that would obviously accompany problems of this type. Three 
years passed between the time the children were removed from 
their home and the time the court deemed mom's living 
arrangements insufficient. Even though she had made substantive 
improvements to both her housing and transportation situation, 
the court deemed a one-bedroom apartment ``too small,'' and a 
three-bedroom house with her boyfriend's children ``too 
cramped.'' This resulted in termination of her parental rights.
    In Missouri, the state estimates it costs $30,000 per year 
to have a child in foster care. This particular case cost the 
taxpayers $360,000. Spending even a fraction of those funds at 
the front end could have provided this family with adequate 
housing, laundry, and bathroom facilities, and assistance in 
obtaining and maintaining employment. It also would have kept 
the children with their mother and spared them the trauma 
caused by separation.
    I am committed to addressing this issue, and appreciate the 
support and collaboration of my friend, Representative Gwen 
Moore.
    In some cases we know living with one's family is not 
possible, and we should work to ensure services provided to 
foster children meet their unique needs and protect them from 
abuse and neglect.
    For the 19,000 children who age out of foster care each 
year, we must pursue solutions that support these older youth 
in successfully transitioning into adulthood. A bipartisan 
coalition of Republican and Democrat members on this committee 
have introduced 16 bills aimed at enhancing and strengthening 
IV-B and supporting community-based organizations dedicated to 
improving outcomes for American children and families.
    We also look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. A 
few months ago, I had the great pleasure of meeting with one of 
our witnesses, Ms. Paris Hilton. She shared an incredible story 
of suffering physical and psychological abuse at a congregate 
care facility as a teenager. What happened to her should never 
happen to any child in America. Since that difficult experience 
Paris has used her platform to shine a spotlight on abuse in 
the child welfare system. Standing with her are many foster 
youth who have also experienced abuse and trauma at a moment 
when they needed love and support most.
    I am grateful to each and every one of our witnesses for 
joining us today. I eagerly anticipate working with members of 
this committee on both sides of the aisle on Title IV-B. This 
reauthorization is crucial to strengthening child welfare and 
protecting America's children.
    I am pleased to recognize the ranking member, Mr. Neal, for 
his opening statement.
    Mr. NEAL. Thank you. Chairman, and I want to thank you for 
calling today's hearing. And as I look out at the audience 
today, I think it is safe to say that this is the first time in 
my congressional experience that it would look as though the 
average age of Congress was about 25. [Laughter.]
    As we look ahead to the reauthorization of Title IV-B, we 
must work together on comprehensive action to help our nation's 
young people in times of turbulence. All youth deserve a safe, 
stable environment that will allow them to learn and fully 
experience life. We hope and believe that most youth can find 
that within their own families, sometimes with a little extra 
help. For those where foster care is the only option, we have a 
special responsibility to protect them from abuse and further 
turmoil, and also to deliver supports that will let them set 
out on a path to success and limit the time they spend in the 
care of others.
    I want to thank all of those who have shared their lived 
experiences with us today, including our panelists, and 
particularly say thanks to you for being with us today, knowing 
your own schedules. Learning directly from the source allows us 
to better safeguard our nation's youth, keep them safe, and 
strengthen their families.
    I am thrilled that many consensus bills have recently been 
introduced in this space. Our Worker and Family Support 
Subcommittee ranking member, Danny Davis, is working with his 
counterpart, Chairman LaHood, to lead legislation to deepen the 
relationships between foster children and their incarcerated 
parents. We know how important strong parent-child 
relationships are to success, and strengthening these 
relationships will help to sow the seeds of unity for tomorrow.
    Social Security Subcommittee ranking member Mr. Larson 
wants to expand the use of child welfare funds for family 
resources, along with Congressman Carey.
    Let me say to our panelists and others today, I know 
something about Social Security survivor benefits. But for 
those benefits, I don't know what my sisters and I would have 
done with the goodwill and graciousness of an aunt and a 
grandmother who took us in.
    Vice Ranking Member Chu is spearheading an effort today to 
protect Native American children, keeping them with their 
tribes whenever possible, and ensuring states are following the 
requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act.
    Congressmen Kildee and Feenstra are working to expand the 
availability of evidence-based interventions to keep children 
out of foster care, which is complemented by legislation that 
is led by Congresswoman Moore and Congressman Adrian Smith to 
ensure child welfare agencies are guided by lived experiences.
    Centering our work around these most affected is so 
critical, and it is how we create meaningful policy. 
Congresswoman Moore worked with our chairman on legislation to 
prevent separation of families when they find themselves in a 
crisis largely due to poverty.
    Congressman Panetta and Steube teamed up to better 
understand what is happening at youth residential programs and 
safeguard them from abuse.
    Finally, Congresswoman Chu and Congressman Blake Moore are 
leading a bill to invest in court improvement programs, 
allowing family courts to better work with the foster care 
system, and easing that burden on all.
    I know there are other bipartisan collaborations still in 
progress, and I look forward to those further strengthening our 
work. I thank all of the members of our leadership and their 
commitment to our nation's future. Our children are just that. 
And by investing in this success, we are building a collective 
opportunity that we owe to our most vulnerable citizens not 
only to help them to survive, but we want them to thrive.
    Mr. NEAL. With that, let me yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Chairman SMITH. Thank you. I will now introduce each of our 
witnesses.
    The first witness will be Ms. Paris Hilton, a lived-
experience advocate and CEO of 11:11 Media.
    We have Mr. Rob Geen, who is a Bipartisan Policy Center 
fellow and the chair of the Board of Trustees for the Dave 
Thomas Foundation for Adoption.
    We have Tori Hope Petersen, who is an author, speaker, and 
advocate.
    And we have Alexis Mansfield, a senior advisor for children 
and families and relationship safety at the Women's Justice 
Institute.
    Thank you all for joining us today. Your written statements 
will be made part of the hearing record, and you each have five 
minutes to deliver remarks.
    We will start with you, Ms. Hilton.

 STATEMENT OF PARIS HILTON, LIVED-EXPERIENCE ADVOCATE AND CEO, 
                          11:11 MEDIA

    Ms. HILTON. Thank you. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Neal, 
and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to 
be here today to discuss how to improve care for the nearly 
400,000 children that are living in the foster care system as 
we speak.
    While my experience was not through the foster care system, 
I know from personal experience the harm that is caused by 
being placed in youth residential treatment facilities. When I 
was 16 years old I was ripped from my bed in the middle of the 
night and transported across state lines to the first of four 
youth residential treatment facilities. These programs promised 
healing, growth, and support, but instead did not allow me to 
speak or move freely or even look out a window for two years. I 
was force-fed medications and sexually abused by the staff. I 
was violently restrained and dragged down hallways, stripped 
naked, and thrown into solitary confinement.
    My parents were completely deceived, lied to, and 
manipulated by this for-profit industry about the inhumane 
treatment I was experiencing. So can you only imagine the 
experience for youth who are placed by the state and don't have 
people regularly checking in on them.
    I attended facilities with foster and adopted youth, and I 
heard their testimony that they feel like they were forgotten, 
being shipped from facility to facility their whole childhoods.
    Today residential facilities are continuing to warehouse 
over 50,000 foster youth and an unknown number of adopted youth 
in lock-down facilities, innocent kids who have not committed 
crimes, kids whose parents didn't have resources to support 
them, kids whose parents passed away, kids who have already 
experienced trauma. This $23 billion-a-year industry sees this 
population as dollar signs, and operates without meaningful 
oversight.
    It costs approximately $800 to $1,000 per day to place a 
foster youth in a facility, significantly more expensive than 
serving them in their own communities. What is more important, 
protecting business profits or protecting foster youth lives?
    Sixteen-year-old Cornelius Fredericks was placed in a 
facility because his mom tragically died and his dad was in 
prison. His life ended after being tackled and violently 
restrained by eight staff members for nearly ten minutes after 
innocently throwing a sandwich in the cafeteria. They killed 
him on the floor of the lunchroom in front of dozens of other 
children. Emergency services had been called 300 times in the 
year leading up to his death, with 56 violations substantiated 
by the state. The state could have prevented this.
    Ja'Ceon Terry's life ended at just seven years old. In his 
final hours he was publicly shamed, verbally abused, left in 
his room alone for nearly six hours, and physically restrained 
by staff members until he lost consciousness. When first 
responders arrived there was vomit in his mouth and throat, 
running down his cheeks and onto the floor.
    Why can't we as a society see that these kids are hurting? 
They need love and kindness, not beatings and restraints.
    As a mom, these stories break my heart. When your child is 
born, your heart is full of love, of all hopes and dreams you 
have for them. I assure you that these were not the dreams that 
were envisioned for Cornelius, Ja'Ceon, and thousands more who 
have suffered immensely.
    I am here to be the voice for the children whose voices 
can't be heard. While this committee has responsibility to move 
bipartisan solutions forward to protect them, I strongly 
advocate for the reauthorization of Title IV-B. Families need 
resources and support so they don't need to come into the child 
welfare system in the first place.
    For children who do end up in foster care, we cannot allow 
them to grow up in facilities. The treatment these kids have 
had to endure is criminal. These kids deserve to grow up in 
safe, family-centered environments.
    I will not stop until America's youth is safe. I have 
helped pass nine state laws on this issue. I am strongly 
advocating for the Federal bipartisan Stop Institutional Child 
Abuse Act. I supported the Senate Finance Committee Report, 
``Warehouses of Neglect,'' that validates everything those with 
lived experience have been saying.
    And I recently went to Jamaica to support and find 
appropriate placements for American adopted youth who had been 
raped, waterboarded with a hose, and held in solitary 
confinement in a facility internationally. Their parents had 
adopted them when they were young, promised them a better life, 
and then shipped them off to an international facility to be 
warehoused there until they turned 18. How could we let this 
happen to them?
    Progress isn't an option anymore. It is a life or death 
responsibility. If you are a child in the system, hear my 
words: I see you, I believe you. I know what you are going 
through, and I won't give up on you. You are important. Your 
future is important. And you deserve every opportunity to be 
safe and supported.
    Congress, please join me in creating a world where all 
children have a right to family, love, education, and the 
support they need.
    Thank you for your time, and I am happy to answer any of 
your questions.
    [The statement of Ms. Hilton follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Hilton.
    Mr. Geen, you are now recognized.

 STATEMENT OF ROB GEEN, BIPARTISAN POLICY CENTER FELLOW, CHAIR 
   OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES, DAVE THOMAS FOUNDATION FOR ADOPTION

    Mr. GEEN. Thank you. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Neal, 
and distinguished members of the committee, as has been 
mentioned, I am currently a fellow at the Bipartisan Policy 
Center and chair of the board of trustees at the Dave Thomas 
Foundation for Adoption.
    Over the past 35 years I have worked in research, 
philanthropy, and advocacy to advance data-driven reforms to 
improve our nation's child welfare system. During this entire 
period, bipartisanship has been a defining feature of Federal 
child welfare legislation.
    In 1993 Congress created Title IV-B, subpart 2, now known 
as the MaryLee Allen Promoting Safe and Stable Families 
programs. While it is a relatively small program compared to 
the Title IV-E entitlement that supports foster care and 
adoption, IV-B has been a critical source of flexible funding 
available to states and tribes, enabling them to craft 
innovations that address the specific circumstances in their 
own communities. Compared to Title IV-E, states and tribes can 
use IV-B funds to serve a broader range of children, youth, and 
families with a wider variety of services. In this way, IV-B 
serves as a critical complement to Title IV-E funding. Title 
IV-B also includes dedicated funding for key functions of the 
child welfare system, including the Court Improvement Program.
    However, two decades of steady erosion to the program's 
funding has limited the impact that Title IV-B can now have. 
With my time I would like to share several findings from an 
intensive, 50-state landscape analysis conducted by the 
Bipartisan Policy Center's Child Welfare Initiative.
    An overarching finding from our research is that, while 
polarizing rhetoric often overshadows discussions of common 
ground, there are, in fact, many areas of agreement. For 
example, there is overwhelming support for the vision of the 
Family First Prevention Services Act. There is recognition that 
high-quality, short-term therapeutic residential interventions 
are needed for a small number of children.
    There is also strong support for redoubling efforts to 
prevent child abuse and neglect and invest in family 
preservation services.
    At the same time, there are frustrations in the field over 
the implementation of Family First. Many states are struggling 
to increase capacity of alternatives to residential settings as 
they seek to eliminate the use of non-therapeutic group homes. 
There is insufficient community-based service capacity to meet 
the high needs of youth in the system, especially effective 
mental health services.
    States and tribes are running into barriers in taking full 
advantage of the prevention funding available as a result of 
Family First. This includes concerns about the Prevention 
Services Clearinghouse and how funding can be used to meet the 
concrete needs of families.
    There is widespread concern that child welfare is becoming 
a catch-all system, being asked to make up for the failures of 
other systems, resulting in children and families being 
inappropriately involved with child welfare authorities. States 
are starting to address this by clarifying their definitions of 
neglect, making improvements in mandatory reporting and 
investigations, and enhancing legal representation for both 
children and parents.
    There is widespread recognition of the challenges states 
and tribes face in maintaining a qualified workforce. There is 
considerable appreciation for the positive progress achieved in 
supporting kinship families, and yet recognition that there is 
far more work we need to do to make sure that all kin can 
adequately care for children.
    There is a strong desire to improve the outcomes for older 
youth involved in the system, and frustration with the 
persistent challenges we face in meeting the basic needs of 
youth aging out of foster care at age 18.
    Other topics that garnered significant interest and 
widespread support include strengthening the Indian Child 
Welfare Act; reducing the administrative burden that 
accompanies Federal funding, especially for tribes, while also 
improving system oversight and accountability; creating more 
flexible funding options that allow states and tribes to meet 
unique community needs; and finally, continuing to expand the 
evidence base for child welfare interventions.
    I will end by recognizing the numerous bills introduced by 
members of this committee that seek to address many of the 
challenges I have just listed. I want to thank you for your 
continued commitment to keeping children safe and supporting 
families, and I will be happy to answer any questions you might 
have.
    [The statement of Mr. Geen follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman SMITH. Thank you, sir.
    Mrs. Petersen, you are now recognized.

 STATEMENT OF TORI HOPE PETERSEN, AUTHOR, SPEAKER, AND ADVOCATE

    Ms. PETERSEN. Good morning. I am grateful to be here, and I 
am thankful to Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Neal, and the 
members of the committee for convening this hearing on 
reauthorizing Title IV-B.
    I went into the foster care system twice in my life due to 
the physical and emotional abuse I endured. I hoped that going 
into the foster care system would allow me to escape the chaos 
of my first family, but instead I entered into a different form 
of chaos when I entered the system, and I moved through 12 
different homes during my time in care.
    Eventually, I moved in with a foster mom who took me to 
church regularly, and I was reunited with a woman named Tanya, 
who, when I lived with my mom, would come and pick me up when 
situations would become volatile. Tanya worked for a non-profit 
that mentored kids coming from hard places, and she became a 
mentor to me. The leadership of my church allowed me 
opportunities and encouraged me to share my story. By 
witnessing their love for me and other kids in the foster care 
system, I began to believe that Jesus might love me, too, and I 
gained a confidence that I didn't have before.
    At the same time, I was running track in high school, and 
my track coach became my father figure. After I aged out of the 
foster care system, he invited me into his home, and under his 
training I became a five-time state champion in track, which 
allowed me to go to college on a full scholarship and become a 
part of the three percent of former foster youth to obtain a 
bachelor's degree when I graduated from Hillsdale College in 
2018.
    Now I am an author and public speaker. I share my story to 
help organizations raise funds to serve vulnerable children. I 
help communities and churches become equipped to fulfill the 
call of James 1:27, which is to care for the orphan and the 
widow. And my greatest honor is that I am a wife and a mom. I 
have two biological children, an adopted adult son. My husband 
and I are kinship providers for my biological sibling, and we 
are also foster parents.
    As I look back on my experience, I see the crucial role my 
community, non-profits, and church played to bring me to where 
I am today. And I believe that I wouldn't be where I am without 
them. It has been over 10 years since I aged out of the foster 
care system, and there was not as much government assistance as 
there is today for youth coming out of care. Outside of being 
on food stamps for about six months, I received no financial 
support or government assistance after I aged out.
    This experience taught me the value of hard work. I earned 
and saved money by working in a factory, in a diner as a 
waitress, and through various internships from organizations in 
my church. Handouts in the form of checks made me feel more 
like a charity case, but having a community of people believing 
in me enough to empower me, give me purposeful jobs, and mentor 
me to gain the skills needed to live a prosperous life is what 
has helped me break generational cycles of poverty, abuse, 
neglect, homelessness, and so on.
    Over the past couple of years my husband and I have 
mentored a handful of former foster youth by volunteering for a 
local non-profit. We witnessed them live off of free housing 
and stipends given to them while not maintaining work. We see 
these young adults continually fall out of these programs and 
into homelessness because these resources are not long-term 
solutions to the problems these youth face. Real relationships, 
connectedness, and love are.
    As the famous quote states, ``Give a man a fish and you 
feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a 
lifetime.'' More plainly, we could offer youth housing or we 
could invest in them being taught the skills to acquire housing 
themselves, which could result in them having an investment to 
offer future generations, in turn breaking generational cycles 
of poverty.
    When I was in foster care I remember receiving a duffel bag 
of hair products I couldn't use, a teddy bear I was too old 
for, and many other products that went untouched. Now, when a 
foster child moves into our home, we receive two duffel bags 
full of useless products. While the emphasis of this movement 
started with a pure intention of not letting any foster child 
carry their belongings around in a garbage bag, I feel it is 
now an over-saturated movement to make the giver feel like they 
have done their part.
    We are here because our part is not done. I point to this 
illustration because it is a perfect example of how society 
treats foster youth as a whole: throw money at kids rather than 
invest time to nurture relationships with them; isolate young 
adults in free housing, rather than welcoming them in, or at 
least showing them how to obtain housing with roommate, like 
most young adults do, so they are not so alone.
    These kids are all of our kids, and we justify treating 
them like they are not by handing them bags, clothes, products, 
and not our presence. While it is Title IV-E that offers youth 
and foster care these tangible resources and addresses these 
issues, it is crucial that we address Title IV-E alongside 
Title IV-B because right now it seems that the system is giving 
young adults basic necessities that they need to survive, but 
when we invest in them to have strong and authentic 
relationships in their communities, we give them what they need 
to thrive.
    I was fortunate enough to form relationships with community 
members like my track coach, Tanya, and others from my church. 
And over time, they became the people who filled the role of my 
family. What they have given me, taught me, and how they have 
guided me has been invaluable. If we want young adults to learn 
self-governance, they need to be taught skills for their 
adulthood, and they also need caring adults to continue to 
guide them into adulthood.
    It is important that Federal funding streams like Title IV-
B are updated to meet the current challenges in the child 
welfare system. A special emphasis should be placed on 
community relationships and the role they play in helping youth 
gain the valuable skills they need for adulthood.
    If you are a child or youth coming from a hard place, I 
hope you hear that you are deserving of love, and there is a 
beautiful purpose and plan for your life.
    I want to especially express gratitude to Chairman Smith 
for offering me the opportunity to advocate for youth in this 
way, in finding value in my lived experience as a former foster 
youth but, more importantly, as a child of God. Thank you.
    [The statement of Mrs. Petersen follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman SMITH. Thank you so much.
    Ms. Mansfield, you are now recognized.

  STATEMENT OF ALEXIS MANSFIELD, SENIOR ADVISOR, CHILDREN AND 
  FAMILIES AND RELATIONSHIP SAFETY, WOMEN'S JUSTICE INSTITUTE

    Ms. MANSFIELD. Thank you. My name is Alexis Mansfield, and 
I am the senior advisor at the Women's Justice Institute on 
issues related to children and families. I would like to thank 
Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Neal, and the members of the 
committee for the opportunity to testify about how to 
strengthen the child welfare system and protect America's 
children.
    I would also like to thank Representatives Davis and LaHood 
for introducing H.R. 8799, the PARENT Act.
    The Women's Justice Institute, or WJI, is a national think-
and-do tank based in Chicago that works to address women's mass 
incarceration.
    In addition, I am the director of the Incarcerated 
Survivors Program at Ascend Justice, a civil legal aid 
organization focused on survivors of domestic violence and 
parents impacted by the child welfare system. I also sit on the 
Commission on Children of Incarcerated Parents and the Illinois 
Department of Corrections Adult Advisory Board.
    Before I was a lawyer, I was a teacher in the Chicago 
public school system for eight years. One time, about halfway 
through the school year, the principal came into my classroom 
with a little six-year-old boy, and told me that he was my 
student now because he had been kicked out of the other two 
classrooms. That first day I met with him privately and I 
asked, ``What do you need?''
    He replied, ``I want to write my mom.'' He explained that 
his mom was in prison, and that his last teacher had told him 
that he couldn't send letters to her because she was a bad 
person. I told him he could write. He could draw whatever he 
wanted to send to her. From that moment on, he changed 
completely. Knowing what I know now, I would not have just let 
him write her, I would have found a way to engage her in his 
education. But the fact remains, what he truly needed was his 
mom, and this is a pattern I see again and again with children.
    In 2016 I co-founded the Reunification Ride with several 
other organizations. This monthly program, which is now housed 
at the WJI, brings children of incarcerated mothers to visit 
them in child-friendly settings to bond as families and to be 
together with other children sharing the same experiences. We 
sometimes have to skip a month, as we rely on private funding 
and crowd sourcing, and we don't always have enough money to 
go. But usually, once a month, approximately 40 children and 
caregivers make the journey three hours each way from Chicago, 
and sometimes even Indiana or Michigan. Hundreds of families 
have participated. We work with the Department of Corrections 
to create child-friendly processes and environments. This year 
we also assisted in creating a Father's Day program at the 
neighboring men's prison for over 60 children.
    When we arrive and walk from the prison gatehouse to the 
gym, the kids start to walk a little bit faster and faster. And 
by the time we get to the gym, several of the children are in 
all-out runs. They jump and leap onto their mothers, holding 
them tight in their arms. I remember the time that one 10-year-
old girl, who had not seen her mother in person in several 
years, came with us. Within five minutes of seeing each other 
she had whispered to her mom that she was being abused. We were 
able to get her moved to a safe home within days.
    In Illinois we have several model programs that promote 
critical bonds between children and their incarcerated parents. 
Unfortunately, children in foster care are excluded from almost 
all programs. For example, with the Reunification Ride, 
caseworkers from the Department of Children and Family Services 
will contact us, explaining they have no way of transporting 
children or staff to bring them, and will ask us if we will 
instead. We have to say no, because we have been unable to find 
a single private insurance company that will allow us to have 
foster youth participate.
    We also have two rare important programs at Decatur 
Correctional Center. One is called the Moms and Babies Program, 
where newer pregnant mothers can live with their babies, and 
the other is a housing unit called the Reunification Wing, 
where children are able to spend full days with their mothers. 
Children in the foster care system are not allowed to 
participate in either program, despite the fact that foster 
youth are more likely to not live with relatives and to not 
have not be able to visit without support.
    Ensuring visits between foster youth and their incarcerated 
parents supports individual court decisions that in-person 
visitation for the child and their parent is appropriate and 
beneficial for the child. The majority of parents are in jail 
or prison because of charges completely unrelated to their 
children, and their children need and deserve a chance for 
healthy bonding. Certainly, we do not want foster youth to feel 
punished by being denied these opportunities.
    There are many ways for systems to collaborate, including 
improved supplemental visitation options, ensuring incarcerated 
parents can access abuse hotlines, aligning service plans with 
available programing, and increasing access to legal services. 
Funding and incentives for collaboration between corrections 
systems, child welfare systems, and private organizations is 
vital for children to bond for family reunification and to 
ensure that children are protected from harm.
    Studies have shown that nurturing these bonds also reduces 
recidivism and represents a critical opportunity to prevent 
intergenerational incarceration.
    This bill is an excellent way to demonstrate how we can 
give foster youth and their incarcerated parents meaningful 
opportunities to bond and promote healthy relationships. Thank 
you all for supporting families.
    [The statement of Ms. Mansfield follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman SMITH. Thank each of you for your testimony. We 
will start with the question-and-answer session.
    Ms. Hilton, you have personal experience with congregate 
care facilities, and you have been a champion for individuals 
impacted by their experiences in those care environments, 
especially teenagers. As you know, this committee is currently 
working on reauthorizing the child welfare programs and looking 
at how we can ensure additional resources are available to 
foster youth and children in need, with a focus on keeping them 
in their homes and united with their families.
    Based on your experiences, is that a priority you believe 
we should be focused on?
    And what reforms do you think we should be considering to 
achieve these goals?
    Ms. HILTON. Thank you for the question, Chairman Smith, and 
thank you so much for visiting the facilities.
    I want to applaud the committee for taking the time to 
consider how to improve the foster care system. These youth 
don't have a voice and anyone checking in on them, on their 
well-being.
    Locking kids in facilities is harmful and, from my own 
experience, has caused me severe post-traumatic stress disorder 
and trauma that I will have for the rest of my life. We need to 
reauthorize Title IV-B and invest in kinship care placement 
with a relative, as youth should be with family or adults who 
know and love them.
    I would also like to see the Stop Institutional Child Abuse 
Act passed, as we need more transparency of what is happening 
in treatment facilities serving foster youth. The cost of 
treatment is five times more in a facility than community-based 
services. It is a completely ineffective use of funds, and it 
hurts the kids and the--costs the taxpayers more.
    Chairman SMITH. Thank you.
    Mr. Geen, I think we can all agree that no child should be 
left in a home where they are suffering through neglect or 
abuse. At the same time, I hope that we all can agree that 
keeping children in their homes with their parents is the best 
course of action, so long as the child's well-being is not 
threatened.
    Unfortunately, in Missouri and other states, a large 
percentage of cases where children are being removed from homes 
due to neglect are situations where the primary factor is 
poverty, not actual neglect or abuse on the part of the 
parents. Rather than resorting to removing children from their 
homes and their parents, what changes might we make to Title 
IV-B to address this situation?
    And how might we go about collecting better data to help 
those potential reforms?
    Mr. GEEN. I very much appreciate the question, particularly 
about data, because I do think we need to be data-driven in our 
decisions about how to use concrete needs--funding for concrete 
needs to support families.
    As I mentioned in my testimony, states are looking at their 
definitions of child neglect. And yet policy is only so far in 
addressing the problem. When a caseworker or a mandated 
reporter or a judge has a family in front of them, they have a 
difficult determination in is this family just suffering from 
material deprivation, or do they need child welfare 
intervention? So figuring out how Title IV-B can be a resource 
for concrete services is key.
    I will mention outside of Title IV-B, looking at the IV-E 
prevention clearinghouse, there are many folks who will suggest 
that concrete needs need to be supported when they are 
delivered as part of a larger, evidence-based program, and that 
is something to consider, as well.
    Chairman SMITH. Thank you.
    Mrs. Petersen, yours is an inspiring story, and one that 
speaks to the important role community-based organizations play 
in our child welfare system. Based on your experience as a 
foster youth and now as an advocate for foster care reform, 
what changes do you see as needed to make sure that government 
is a helpful partner and not a harmful hindrance to the many 
private organizations working throughout our communities today 
to support those in need in foster care, including faith-based 
organizations?
    Ms. PETERSEN. I believe we must have youth advisory boards 
and include those with lived experience to speak in policy if 
we want to see the child welfare system be improved.
    As a foster child and as a foster mom, I have felt unheard 
by local caseworkers who have a lot of power locally because, 
really, the rules you make here are oftentimes not followed by 
caseworkers there. An example of this would be in 2014 the 
Normalcy Act passed, saying that youth in foster care can have 
the same privileges as youth who do not live in foster care. 
Yet I am still advocating and fighting for my teen foster 
daughter the same way I had to advocate for myself to have 
normalcy when I was in care 10 years ago.
    As a youth I did once have a representative advocate for me 
at a local level, and it was very effective. The county saw 
that they didn't have--hold all the power, and they had to be 
held accountable for their actions. While I know 
representatives have so many issues that they have to balance, 
holding local meetings with counties where foster youth and 
foster parents speak about their experience and what they need 
help changing in their counties would make a world of 
difference. What we are doing here needs to be grassroots, and 
we need representatives present for effective change.
    Chairman SMITH. Thank you. I want to thank all our 
witnesses.
    There are two votes that have been called on the floor. The 
committee will recess immediately following the ranking 
member's questions, so I would encourage any members--they will 
be closing the board, they said, within 20 minutes. So I would 
encourage you to get there and then get back as soon as 
possible after two votes, and we will continue.
    The ranking member.
    Mr. NEAL. Thank you.
    And Ms. Hilton, one of the things that we have learned from 
the committee is that, when we listen to people telling us 
about their own experiences, it can be very helpful and 
certainly enhance better policies for people like them. So I 
was honored recently to receive the Fostering Visionary Change 
Award from the National Foster Youth Initiative. They were 
really surprised when I told my own story. And I pointed out in 
reference to the testimony that has been so capably offered 
this morning that no social service agency ever checked on us. 
We just moved in with an aunt and a grandmother.
    But I want to reiterate the genius Mr. Roosevelt's survivor 
benefits initiative from Social Security, because that helped 
keep us together.
    And in reference to Mrs. Petersen's comments, both the 
people that I have just talked about with great reverence were 
very religious, and they just saw this not as an opportunity to 
do this or do that, as much as it was you are just supposed to 
do it, and they accepted that responsibility. So the value of 
your experience and Ms. Hilton's experience this morning--I 
want to give you a couple of minutes each, if you could, to 
talk about that as you have enhanced and advocated for those 
who fall outside the protection sometimes of the system.
    Ms. Hilton or Mrs. Petersen.
    Ms. MANSFIELD. Thank you for that question. I think, for 
children of incarcerated parents, that is especially an 
important question to consider.
    Parental incarceration is an adverse childhood experience, 
or an ACE, just by having a parent who is incarcerated. And it 
is often necessary for family members to step in through 
informal kinship care, not through any system.
    And you are correct, one of the big challenges that 
children of incarcerated parents face is that there is nobody 
tracking them, there is no hub to consider their needs. They 
are very siloed in different systems.
    And one of the unique factors between incarceration of men 
and women is what happens to their children when they are 
incarcerated. It is an ACE, no matter who is incarcerated of 
the parents. But when a father is incarcerated, approximately 
90 percent of the time their children go to the children's 
mother, and they remain in the family. And when a mother is 
incarcerated, the children go to the father about 25 percent of 
the time, and 75 percent of the time they are with somebody who 
is not one of their parents. About 10 to 15 percent of the time 
for mothers, that is foster care, and about 3 percent of the 
time for fathers that is foster care.
    But what happens to that other 60 percent of children? You 
are correct that a huge number of them are in informal care, 
and the services just do not exist. Even basic legal services 
like creating guardianships so whoever is caring for the child 
can take them to the doctor, so that they can access benefits, 
so that they can know what they are entitled to. And so that is 
a really important factor, and I appreciate you bringing that 
up.
    Ms. PETERSEN. One of the reasons I think it is so crucial 
that we lean on the church for this is because the value of 
Christian faith is hospitality. After I emancipated, people did 
not just give me clothes or come and furnish my apartment and 
peace out. They let me live with them so I wasn't homeless, so 
I wasn't alone, so I had a family. And so I had an example of 
how to build a life for my family.
    When we grow up in dysfunction, it can be easy to know that 
we don't want that, but we often don't know how to get what we 
do want for our own family because we haven't had it modeled 
for us. I had people who let me into their home who I could 
learn from firsthand, who modeled to me what a good family was 
so I could have it myself.
    Above all else, I believe that we need radical hospitality.
    Mr. GEEN. Ranking Member Neal, your story is so instructive 
because the vast majority of children who are living with 
relatives are doing so outside of the child welfare system. And 
our entire safety net, including all the programs under your 
jurisdiction, were designed with nuclear families in mind. And 
so kinship caregivers often struggle to get basic assistance 
that they need to care for children.
    I will also note that we tend to think of kinship care just 
as a placement resource, versus an opportunity to prevent 
placement in the first place. Relatives can be wrapped around 
birth parents when they are struggling to prevent placement.
    Ms. HILTON. I think it is so important to listen to youth 
voices about foster care. It is so crucial because the ones who 
have experienced it are the ones who have a seat--who should 
have a seat at the table. They know the best, and I hope that 
everyone here prioritizes people with lived experience, as they 
are the true experts.
    Chairman SMITH. Thank you. The committee will recess until 
immediately following the last vote of the series. Thank you.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman SMITH. The Committee will come to order.
    I now recognize Mr. Buchanan from Florida.
    Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 
opportunity, and I want to also thank our witnesses. I know Ms. 
Hilton has been in my office, a lot of other offices up here on 
the Hill.
    So you are relentless, and I always--I am a grandfather of 
10 children age nine and under. And so--but I read 20--the 
country is made up of--25 percent are kids, but they make up 
100 percent of the future. So exactly. Your work and the 
committee's work is huge. I thought I would just ask you, what 
are the things you said you have been involved with?
    Nine different states. Are the biggest potential impacts 
that we can help you and others to get the best return for the 
taxpayer, but have the biggest impact in terms of our kids in 
the country--I know there are a lot of needs, and it is very 
easy to get pushed in one direction or another. But what would 
be your couple of big things that we can make a big difference 
in and weigh in on?
    Ms. HILTON. Thank you so much. I appreciate your kind 
words, and I appreciate your question.
    And I am working at both the Federal and state level to 
enact change. At the Federal level I want to see Title IV-B 
reauthorized, and I want to see the Stop Institutional Child 
Abuse Act passed to provide transparency and data collection.
    At the state level I have helped to outlaw abusive 
practices like restraint and seclusion, increased licensing 
requirements with unannounced site visits, required proper 
reporting and increased private communication with families and 
their child so they can report abuse if it is occurring.
    All of this helps to reform these facilities, and I will 
not stop until all youth are safe.
    Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you.
    Mr. Geen, let me ask you. Obviously, you have been involved 
for a lot of years. As you look out there, what more can we--
you know, weigh in again, as I mentioned with her, on the 
biggest takeaways for us today in terms of policies or 
practices or things that have made a difference in various 
states or here in Washington.
    Mr. GEEN. So I think the biggest thing that we can do is 
invest in the alternatives to what we know is not good for 
children, which is residential treatment when it is 
unnecessary. So we need to start by investing in keeping 
families together.
    And then, for the relatively small number of children who 
do need to be removed, we need to invest in family, which 
includes kinship caregivers and non-kin family foster care.
    Mr. BUCHANAN. Mrs. Petersen, you have an incredible story. 
All of you do. And you said you had a mentor, but you must have 
had other people that were supportive that made a difference in 
your life along the way. And then I was going to ask you is, 
how does your faith make a difference in terms of you getting 
through this process?
    Ms. PETERSEN. I think that my faith gives me purpose to 
continue. You know, so many youth in foster care struggle with 
mental health issues, and faith is not this Band-Aid that slaps 
on and heals all, but I do believe that faith gives me a 
purpose to continue and to persevere when my mental health has 
been hard, when the trauma comes back, and when the effects of 
foster care play out in adulthood.
    Yes, I think a continuous purpose is what my faith offers 
me.
    Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Chairman SMITH. Mr. Doggett.
    Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Certainly, the stories that you have told today are 
compelling, and they focus new attention on this problem. And 
the work you are doing as advocates, the work you are doing, 
Ms. Mansfield, very touching, the impact that you are having.
    Unfortunately, the stories you are telling may be unique, 
but they are not new to this committee. We have heard about 
these problems for years, and the question is what we will do 
about them and what kind of resources we will devote to solving 
problems that the committee has left unsolved in the past.
    So much of the abuse, I believe, results primarily from the 
failure of states like my home state of Texas to provide either 
adequate funding or appropriate oversight and enforcement of 
the foster care system, residential treatment facilities, and 
other youth-based settings. Texas has a truly disgraceful 
distinction of one of the highest rates of child abuse and 
neglect fatalities in the country. Children die because the 
state is negligent and indifferent to their needs.
    What little oversight we have in Texas today is mostly the 
result of the work of United States District Judge Janis Jack, 
who has sought reform over the determined obstruction of the 
Abbott Administration and, before that, the Perry 
Administration. For over a decade, Judge Jack has penalized 
Texas for violating the constitutional rights of foster 
children to be free from unreasonable risk of harm. Thanks to 
continued interference by the Fifth Circuit, who is responsible 
for so many other wrong decisions, Judge Jack's work has been 
more limited than she would have liked it to be to hold Texas 
accountable for weakened time restrictions again and again.
    Appointed court monitors have reported little improvement 
in the foster care system, despite 13 years of ongoing 
litigation and supervision. Earlier this year she ordered a 
$100,000-per-day fine against the State of Texas for routinely 
neglecting to adequately investigate and respond to allegations 
of abuse and neglect. In one outrageous example identified 
during a compliance hearing just this past December, the State 
of Texas failed to remove and prosecute a staff member accused 
of raping a young girl under his care at a residential 
facility. The girl had remained exposed to the worker for over 
a year until she was dumped into an emergency room alone, with 
her jaw broken in two places.
    So the saddest part of your stories, I believe, is that 
they keep reoccurring, these kind of incidents, when states 
fail to do the job. And while the principal responsibility 
rests with the states, this committee could do much more. When 
I personally served about a decade ago as the ranking member of 
what was then called the Human Resources Subcommittee, I 
strongly advocated for much stronger Federal funding to ensure 
the safety of these children. Foster parents need more support, 
particularly when caring for the special needs of children, and 
we must strengthen our caseworker workforce to increase the 
visits and the counseling.
    Ultimately, robust investments were never approved in the 
committee, following a long Republican tradition on the 
committee to insist that any improvements in the investments in 
the foster care system must be at the expense of other children 
under the jurisdiction of what was then the Human Resources 
Subcommittee. Even a proposal that I advanced that wouldn't 
have raised taxes but would simply have required the filing of 
a tax form for alimony payments and generated $2 billion to 
protect our children was rejected. And the State of Texas 
ultimately obstructed even the Republican approach that was 
later advanced.
    We know that in more recent times states, because of 
pandemic funding that we provided, have done some creative 
things. In Saint Petersburg, Florida, the Youth Opportunity 
Grants for youth that are aging out, in Madison, Wisconsin, 
more housing for foster children.
    I would just like to ask Mr. Geen: With limited resources, 
with the battle we will have over them again, of the many 
things that you and the other witnesses have identified, where 
can we do the most good with the limited amount of money that 
is likely to be available?
    Mr. GEEN. Thank you for the question, Congressman. You are 
asking an essential question for this committee, which is, how 
do you turn around a system in decline or not functioning 
without investing in the alternatives to what you are doing 
now? It is impossible to dismantle one part of the system 
without at the same time increasing the supply of alternatives.
    You mentioned two areas of incredible need for investment. 
One, the workforce. Nothing can be done without a quality 
workforce. Every reform that you want to see requires that we 
have a strong workforce, and part of that strong workforce must 
include foster parents, kin and non-kin foster parents. One of 
the outcomes that is most critical for children is stability 
and care. It is not good to remove a child, we should be doing 
much more to prevent it. But when a child is placed in a foster 
home and they have stability, all of the outcomes we care about 
are better. So how do we support kin and non-kin foster parents 
to give kids that stability?
    Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you. Thanks to all the witnesses.
    I yield back.
    Chairman SMITH. Thank you.
    Mr. Smith.
    Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and, 
certainly, thank you to our entire panel here for compelling 
perspectives and the experience and insights that you bring. 
This could very well be one of the most important hearings we 
have for a long time.
    I was honored to chair the Human Resources Subcommittee 
that was just mentioned, and we were able to complete the work 
on the bipartisan Family First Prevention Services Act of 2018. 
It has been a while ago already, but even though we did that, I 
think it is important to note that when it comes to child 
welfare, we haven't done enough. I would argue we haven't even 
done anything, in many respects, since many of the children 
currently in foster care were even born. So there is much that 
we need to do.
    I certainly appreciate the perspective that in pointing out 
the need to listen to those with lived experience, and I am 
very happy to introduce with my colleague, Representative Gwen 
Moore, the Youth and Family Engagement and Child Welfare Act. 
We just introduced that this week. This is something that I 
think is part of the solution moving forward, and I certainly 
appreciate, I think, a bipartisan approach on that, and 
bipartisan hearings such as we are having right now.
    Ms. Petersen--Mrs. Petersen, excuse me--I really appreciate 
you sharing your perspective, and certainly your reflection on 
your faith-based perspective as it is, and that you can speak 
from your lived experience. And so, you know, we want to 
empower more youth to give us their perspective. I think it is 
important that we at the Federal level of government do not 
become overly prescriptive for state governments and end up 
tying their hands, rather than having an expectation of states 
doing positive things, and then replicating that perhaps one 
state to another.
    But I am just wondering if you could reflect a little bit 
on how we have foster care and kids in foster care, adolescents 
who then age out. And given the fact that I believe our country 
has more opportunity than any other country in the world, it is 
inexcusable that we have foster care youth aging out and not 
linking with that opportunity that we know exists across 
America, but for some reason we are not linking up here.
    What do you think we can do to have a--have better results, 
shall we say?
    Ms. PETERSEN. Yes, thank you for your work and on this 
policy.
    One of the things that I do in my work is that I take 
former foster youth and youth who have just come from hard 
places on trips with me. I am a public speaker, as I mentioned, 
and I bring them to speaking engagements with me, because I 
believe that they need to see other people who have had 
backgrounds like them be successful. Foster care is so 
isolating, so these kids need more opportunities, they need 
more exposure. They need to see other people who have grown up 
like them do what they could possibly do. They need to see what 
is possible beyond their experience and care, and if they could 
have relationships in the process, form those relationships in 
the process, that is what is going to change their lives.
    Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Okay, thank you.
    Mr. GEEN. I am wondering if you could perhaps add some 
perspective here, as well, of how--you know, what is most 
appropriate for the Federal level to not go too far, as way too 
often happens, and yet have the expectation that states produce 
positive results?
    So let me make two comments about the aging out question 
that you asked.
    The first is the majority of young people who age out of 
care come in as teenagers. We have this feeling that they come 
in as babies and they spend long periods of time in care, but 
that is not actually true. And so we have adolescents coming 
into care, and many of them are not coming in for abuse and 
neglect, they are coming because of conflicts with parents, 
they are coming in because parents are desperate to find 
services and supports to meet that young person's needs. And so 
the best way to prevent children from ever aging out is to 
prevent them from ever coming into care. And that is central to 
what Title IV-B is trying to do.
    On the opposite end of the spectrum, many states have 
extended foster care beyond the age of 18, and have that option 
in Federal law. Unfortunately, many states have not taken up 
that option. And even in states that have, a small percentage 
of young people decide to stay in care. And that is because 
foster care doesn't sound all that good. So how do we create a 
post-18 option for young people that is still in foster care, 
but treats them like adults rather than children?
    Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Just briefly, is there a state that 
stands out to you as best practices in that state?
    Mr. GEEN. I will look at that and get back to you.
    Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Chairman SMITH. Thank you.
    Mr. Thompson.
    Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's 
hearing, and thank you to all the witnesses from--for being 
here.
    You know, this might be the best example of all of the 
wonderful people throughout all of our districts that are doing 
great work that is incredibly beneficial. This panel of 
witnesses is absolutely fantastic. So thank you all for what 
you are doing.
    Title IV-B of the Social Security Act provides significant 
federal funding to target the root causes of the mistreatment 
of children, and provide critical services to help kids and 
families in need. These funds help states provide a lifeline to 
kids and to families who have experienced or are in imminent 
risk of experiencing foster care problems, and to help support 
community-based services for struggling families. From hiring 
and training caseworkers, contracting with non-profits to 
provide prevention services, and improving family court 
services, this funding makes a real difference in the lives of 
children.
    According to the--my home state, California--which is the 
answer, Mr. Geen, to your question--according to the 
legislative analysts in California, the average monthly 
caseload for our state's child welfare system is overwhelming. 
Everything from in-person investigations, maintenance support, 
reunification services, and permanent placement.
    In my district there are over 1,200 children currently 
living in foster care, and 800 families involved in dependency 
court cases, and many counties are struggling to find beds and 
services for transition-aged youth. So I look forward to this 
reauthorization in a bipartisan way so we can provide the 
critical resources for our most at-risk constituents.
    And Ms. Hilton, I want to thank you for your compelling and 
courageous testimony today, and the work that you have been 
doing not only to highlight the problems that you face, but the 
problems that many others face on a day-to-day basis. It is 
terribly troubling, and we need to do everything we can to 
change that.
    And what do you think that this committee can do in our 
reauthorization legislation that would best help not only 
making these facilities more transparent, but ensuring that, if 
children are at these facilities, they receive the proper care 
and services that they need?
    Ms. HILTON. Well, thank you so much. I really appreciate 
what you just said, and I think it is just important for there 
to be oversight and regulation. People need to know that they 
are being watched.
    What I experienced in these places was inhumane, and it is 
something that will affect me for the rest of my life. And 
after speaking to thousands of survivors who have been through 
the same experiences, I think it is just important to listen to 
survivors because we have the lived experience.
    And I just want to say again I am so grateful to be sitting 
here in front of all of you who could help make a difference in 
so many children's lives. And I think it is just continuing to 
do that and to pass this.
    Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you.
    Ms. HILTON. Thank you.
    Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Geen, you mentioned the capacity issue, 
and this is an issue--I can't imagine it being satisfactory in 
anybody else's district. It is certainly not in mine. What do 
we need to do to increase that capacity?
    It seems--and we just lost a great facility in my district, 
and we--and that was not enough. We needed four or five more 
just in that one community.
    Mr. GEEN. So let's be clear. If the testimony of those with 
lived experience doesn't move you, the research is clear: 
children do best in families, clearly.
    There will always be a need for children to have different 
forms of care, and we have to invest in them. That means that 
there will be children going into foster care. It also means 
that, for a very small number of children, they will require a 
short-term intervention that may be residential-based. It is 
not a placement, it is not a place for a child to stay for a 
long time. But we need those very limited facilities to be 
exceptionally high-quality, to be therapeutic, to be involving 
family in those children. The purpose of that intervention is 
for the child to go home and succeed in a family, so we need to 
cover the landscape of the continuum that is needed.
    Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, and I think that--you said it 
best. This is about success for these kids. Mr. Buchanan was 
spot on when he said this is our future, and we can do a lot to 
help.
    So thank you all very much, and I yield back.
    Chairman SMITH. Thank you.
    Mr. Kelly.
    Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding 
the hearing.
    First of all, Ms. Hilton, I first read about your story in 
Vanity Fair. I don't usually read that magazine, my wife does. 
And she says, ``You have got to read this story, and you won't 
believe what happened to her.'' Your very presence here--
believe me, we have a lot of briefings here, but we don't get 
this type of a crowd, and we certainly don't get that many 
people who come in and--from the media and want to get 
pictures. You telling what happened to you in your life and 
what happened is absolutely incredible, and opens up a whole 
new vision for the rest of us to say, you know, if she has the 
courage to stand up and talk about this and relate what she 
went through, certainly we should look at our own lives and our 
own communities and say, why can't we also look at that and 
make sure? So I can't tell you how much I appreciate what you 
were able to do and why you did it. And I know it was selfless, 
but I know it has had a great impact. So thank you so much.
    Ms. HILTON. Thank you so much. I have tears in my eyes. And 
tell your wife thank you so much, as well. And it is an honor 
and a pleasure to be able to do this for the children who have 
no voice, and be the hero that I needed when I was a little 
girl, terrified in these places. And it is just so 
heartbreaking to know that there is hundreds of thousands of 
children that are in these places right now. And for so many 
years, nobody has been believed or listened to, so I feel that 
maybe God put me through this and gave me this special gift so 
one day I could use it to help others not go through what I 
did, and really turn my pain into a purpose.
    And thank you all for coming today, and everyone, because 
this is so important for the world to know what is happening, 
and the children in there to know that we are all here today to 
help make a difference in their lives.
    Mr. KELLY. Well, you are making a difference in a lot of 
people's lives.
    Ms. HILTON. Thank you.
    Mr. KELLY. So I got to tell you now, my wife is one of 
nine, I am one of five. We have been blessed with four children 
and 10 grandchildren. And there is nothing in the world more 
valuable to us than those kids.
    Ms. HILTON. Yes.
    Mr. KELLY. So thank you for what you are advocating for.
    Now, just real quickly, Mrs. Petersen, I think your story 
is absolutely incredible. In a place that talks about all the 
time in God We Trust, as long as you don't keep saying that 
because God is not allowed to be discussed anymore in the 
public forum, which I think is absolutely the worst thing that 
could happen to America, we have been so blessed for so long, 
and sometimes just take it for granted that we are always going 
to be that way.
    Your story is absolutely incredible. What I never will 
understand is why faith-based organizations are held in a 
different manner than other ones, saying no, no, no, you cannot 
talk about the church, you cannot talk about Christianity, you 
cannot talk about faith-based issues, you cannot, you cannot, 
you cannot, and every night we pray that our kids and our 
grandkids will have a future. So your story, I thought, was 
really incredible. Why, with the story that you have, and 
coming out of the college that you have--had come from, why do 
you think people don't want to hear your story because you are 
talking about the force of faith in your life that absolutely 
transformed it?
    I think your story is incredible, and I want to thank you 
for being here, all of you. Thank you for being here. I don't 
understand why it has taken this long to get to this point, 
because there is nothing in our lives more important than our 
kids. So if you could, I was just fascinated by what you said.
    Ms. PETERSEN. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Glory to God for 
what He has done in my life. And I do--I have felt at times 
that I have--my voice has not been welcomed because of my 
faith. I have felt at times that I have been pushed out of 
spaces that look a lot like this because I love Jesus, and I 
want to tell people about him.
    James 1:27 calls Christians to care for the orphan and the 
widow. Then the next scripture is James 2:1, and it urges us to 
not show favoritism when a poor man comes to our home. So we 
are given the command, right, to care for the orphan and the 
widow, and then we are given the instruction to not show 
favoritism. And it says that we must put them in the same place 
that we would the rich man, and this is what we are supposed to 
do.
    So if a child ages out without a family to call their own, 
like I did, communities, they need to step up like mine did. 
And I would just urge anyone listening to this, community-based 
organizations, people of faith, if there is a kid that you know 
in foster care, no matter what they have been through, believe 
in them as much as you would your own child. Fill the roles 
they are missing out in their life.
    My community is not perfect. They didn't fill every aspect 
that a mother and father should and could. They will never be 
able to make up for what I did not have as a child, but they 
have given me people I know I can lean on. They have shown me a 
God that I know that I can lean on. And we need more 
communities and churches who will open their doors and their 
living rooms and go out of their ways for kids in care.
    Mr. KELLY. Well, thank you so much for being here today. 
And my colleague, Mr. Schweikert, he should be on this panel. I 
got to tell you, I have been with him, I have been with his 
family, I have been with his kids. It is absolutely the 
difference in their lives going--and thank you so much for 
never walking away from your faith and never being able to say 
I am not going to practice it.
    I was in Normandy a couple of weeks ago, you know, with all 
of those guys--98, 99, 100. There are no atheists in foxholes. 
Thank you so much for being here.
    Chairman SMITH. Mr. Larson.
    Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 
especially thank the panelists, as well, for your insights 
today.
    I want to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Neal, 
and focus a little bit on Social Security first. There are 2.7 
million children who are Social Security recipients. And Mr. 
Geen, you remarked that most of the children receiving care are 
not infants. They come because of a deceased parent. Yet here 
we are, talking about what we need to do.
    How about the fact that Congress hasn't voted to enhance 
Social Security in more than 53 years? Is there anyone on this 
panel who doesn't think that enhancing Social Security so it 
doesn't reflect what it was providing in terms of benefits in 
1971 shouldn't be enhanced to take care of the very children 
you are talking about in terms of making sure they have the 
adequate resources?
    Ms. Hilton, I will start with you.
    Ms. HILTON. Thank you, Mr. Larson. Yes, I think it is 
extremely important, the point that you are making, and the 
fact that it has not been changed in over 50 years is 
ridiculous, especially with everything that is--inflation, 
everything that has been happening. It is a whole different 
world now. So these need to be addressed and changed, I one 
hundred percent agree with that.
    Mr. LARSON. Thank you.
    Mr. Geen.
    Mr. GEEN. So I recognize the hearing today is about Title 
IV-B----
    Mr. LARSON. Yes.
    Mr. GEEN [continuing]. And Title IV-B is a relatively small 
program. It is a critical resource because of its flexibility 
and the ability to test and pilot programs that can then be 
funded with other programs.
    But your question raises the key concern that I have of 
understanding IV-B within the larger infrastructure of Federal 
funding. So we can't look at any individual program without 
understanding how does it interact with Title IV-E, TANF funds, 
the Social Services Block Grant, and other supports.
    Mr. LARSON. Thank you. I couldn't agree with you more.
    Mrs. Petersen.
    Ms. PETERSEN. I feel like I don't understand the way that 
this works enough to answer it. And one of the things that I 
have really admired about people in my life is when they say, 
``I don't know'', so I am going to say I don't know. Thank you.
    Mr. LARSON. Ms. Mansfield.
    Ms. MANSFIELD. Yes, I would absolutely support 
enhancements. I believe it is really critical for some of the 
reasons that we mentioned before, as well, that the majority of 
children are in kinship care, and for children of incarcerated 
parents in particular, they are in informal kinship care, where 
they are not getting payments as foster care givers.
    And we already know that kinship care payments, even for 
children in foster care, are often under what somebody might 
receive for a non-relative placement. And so it is really 
important to support those families, but also to support 
families before they get involved in the foster care system. 
And having those access to resources is just critical.
    I know we mentioned other services like TANF. Well, TANF 
child-only grants can support caregivers of children of 
incarcerated parents who are not involved in the foster care 
system, but they are incredibly hard to access. And it is 
typically about $115 a month, which, for anyone who has cared 
for a child, does not go very far. And we are also talking 
about the majority of these caregivers being grandparents who 
are already stretched financially and are now caring for their 
grandchildren, which can be a real challenge.
    An additional thing to look at would be child care, both 
for the caregivers----
    Mr. LARSON. I am glad you mentioned that----
    Ms. MANSFIELD. Thank you.
    Mr. LARSON [continuing]. Because that was my next question 
for everyone: Are you familiar with family resource centers?
    The chairman will be happy to know that a native of 
Missouri, Dr. Edward Zigler, God rest his soul, the father of 
Head Start, said, ``Look, we ought to wake up and utilize what 
we have in abundance: schools.'' And so he authored family 
resource centers as a source for families, and also a physical 
place, too, that exists already that could be expanded upon and 
utilized and further professionalized.
    What is your sense? Do you think Ed Zigler was on the right 
track with family resource centers?
    We will start----
    Ms. MANSFIELD. Absolutely. I mean, I was going to say we 
need child care and family resource centers not just for 
children who are with caregivers, but we also need it for 
families, and particularly for my clients during reentry 
periods, where they have all of these different things upon 
them but also need to have access to those resources.
    Mr. LARSON. Train parents, as well.
    Ms. MANSFIELD. Yes, and providing the resources that they 
need so we can have healthy families.
    Mr. GEEN. Yes to family resource centers. They are funded 
in part by Title IV-B dollars. And also other similar types of 
mechanisms that are designed specifically for the communities, 
which gets to, again, the flexibility of this program. 
Missouri, Indiana, California can design their own types of 
interventions in their community. Many of them look like family 
resource centers.
    Mr. LARSON. Anyone else?
    Thank you.
    Chairman SMITH. Thank you.
    Mr. Schweikert.
    Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Two years ago this week, all of a sudden I 
am getting these text messages that--from my office, saying 
there is a social worker who needs me to call her. Okay, I 
immediately assume I have a family member that needs bail 
money. I call the social worker and the first words out of the 
mouth was, ``Are you going to come pick it up?''
    Pick up what? Apparently, the birth mother of the little 
girl we had adopted six years earlier had walked into the 
hospital, no prenatal care, substance abuse, and had a little 
boy. The little boy was very small, and going through 
withdrawals. So this is him exactly two years ago, and one of 
the greatest things that is ever happened in our lives.
    But before we were able to walk out of that hospital with 
him, it turns out an adoption agency worker had gotten the 
birth mother to sign a piece of paper. Now, remember, the birth 
mother just said, ``Hey, the Schweickerts had adopted my little 
girl. You know, this is the brother. Wouldn't that be nice if 
they could be together?'' We were told we had to sign a piece 
of paper for $40,000 before we were allowed to walk out the 
door with the baby, because the baby belonged to the adoption 
services. How does a middle class family ever adopt with these 
types of costs?
    Ms. Hilton actually said something that was brilliant. It 
is about the money. How many others here have gone through the 
certification to be a foster parent? My wife and I spent years 
and years and years trying to adopt, and it is stunning. It is 
maybe a combination of fertility rates have collapsed, but we 
spent years and a couple heartbreaking--I mean just almost 
devastating--failed adoptions.
    As you start to look at IV-B, I know there is flexibility 
in it, but I would encourage the policymakers here--Mr. Geen, 
you are going to have some of the expertise in this--something 
that is actually much more unified, and then here is my point 
of heresy.
    Thirty years ago there was a national movement to fixate on 
family reunification. Having gone through the foster classes, 
having actually looked at the numbers, maybe our priority needs 
also to be the child and the child's welfare and the child's 
future.
    When you have people like my wife and I, we have done okay 
in life. I have really bad choices in career paths, but--and 
yet----
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. SCHWEIKERT. But my point is, if you are really trying 
to find a unified theory of everything from the adoption side 
to the foster care side to those who have parents who--
incarceration--stop doing it in silos. And the priority, 
number-one priority of our society needs to be those kids. We 
don't have a lot of them. We have schools closing all over the 
country because there are not enough children.
    I love the Dave Thomas organization. They do incredibly 
moral work. I am adopted, all my siblings are adopted. My 
little boy is third-generation adopted, so is my little girl. 
Am I off my rocker thinking two things? Unified approach, so it 
is more than just IV-B, but it is also maybe we need to step up 
the prioritization of protecting the child and its future from 
even some of the others? And I know that is heresy in the 
common folklore.
    Mr. GEEN. So I say this representing the Dave Thomas 
Foundation for Adoption. When we consider what is best for 
children, for the vast majority of children reunification is 
what is best.
    We also need to invest in high-quality adoption. The 
Wendy's Wonderful Kids program, which is a signature initiative 
of the Dave Thomas Foundation, has led to 14,000--more than 
14,000 children achieving permanency that would not have done 
so without. Seven hundred of those kids--this was their last 
chance of finding a home--were reunified. They were never 
actually given a chance of reunification sufficient so that 
when they were ready to be adopted there was still the 
opportunity to reunify them.
    So I think we don't want to play adoption against 
reunification. And you are right, we do need a unifying 
framework. What is in the best interest of children?
    Mr. SCHWEIKERT. We are up against time. How often--how 
common is our family's experience of you are not allowed to 
take the child home unless you have the cash?
    Mr. GEEN. So what you are talking about is largely private 
adoption, rather than----
    Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Yes, it was a private adoption service.
    Mr. GEEN [continuing]. Public adoption. What I am referring 
to is----
    Mr. SCHWEIKERT. My understanding is they had people 
stalking the maternity wards in the different hospitals, 
getting people to sign that piece of paper. So they technically 
had the----
    Mr. GEEN. I will follow Tori's lead and say I am not an 
expert on international adoption or private adoption.
    Mr. SCHWEIKERT. No, this was in Phoenix, in Phoenix, 
Arizona.
    Mr. GEEN. Yes, private adoption and public adoption of 
children that are in the foster care system are managed under 
very different policy structures and the like. So your 
experience I don't have anything to add to.
    Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your tolerance 
on the time. I yield back.
    Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Schweikert.
    Mr. Blumenauer.
    Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find this 
hearing very meaningful.
    I have 190 days left in Congress, so I have been spending 
time on issues that bring people together rather than divide 
them. And I am struck that that is the majority of things 
before us. They may not make the headlines, it may not be MSNBC 
and Fox News and talk shows. But these are things that affect 
real people. They don't cost money.
    One of the themes that you have made is investing up front 
actually saves so much that it pays for itself. We spend a lot 
of time around here--and you will see it today on the floor, 
and you will see it later in the week--beating each other up on 
things to get a--you know, to get a moment's headline, get a 
zinger in. These things aren't going to get enacted into law, 
they are not going to make a difference to the American people. 
It is a distraction, it is a sideshow. What you are talking 
about here is not a distraction. It is not a sideshow. And it 
is presented in a compelling way that even a Member of Congress 
ought to be able to understand the wisdom of what you are 
saying.
    Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful in the next 190 days that you 
will join me on kind of a little tour. Congressman Wenstrup 
understands what I am talking about. We are looking, in a 
sense--it is legacy for all of us. And what you have presented 
today is part of what can be a legacy for any Member of 
Congress, regardless of party, regardless of where they live, 
regardless of what committee they are on.
    I would love to think what would happen if we spent the 
month of July just talking about the things that we actually 
agree on, talking about things that are common sense and tug at 
the heartstrings, as you have presented. That if we spent 
morning caucus and conference meetings instead of maneuvering 
and thinking about scoring points and the presidential 
elections, it is--that is beyond, I think, the ken of most 
people. These are things that will mobilize support for the 
political process. They will bring people together. It won't 
cost money, it will save massive amounts of money.
    I work with an organization in Oregon called Friends of 
Children that was started by a friend of mine who had a tough 
upbringing, and he has willed 30 programs around the country, 
and they pick kids who are going to fail, that have no chance 
of going forward. They take the worst of the worst. They bring 
them together. They give them a full-time mentor that stays 
with them until they graduate from high school, starting at age 
four.
    I have got another friend who is working on the focus of 
the first 1,000 days of life. If we do a better job of focusing 
on those first 1,000 days before people are damaged and we are 
playing catch up.
    And these are the things that I hope that you will inspire 
us to think about, and each in our own way focus on things that 
bring people together, that don't cost money, that aren't part 
of a game that doesn't get anybody anywhere and change any 
lives. These do.
    Now, it may not have as much political zing as some of the 
stuff that occupies our time, but these are real people. This 
is real progress. And I think, in the long run, people who 
focus on that--actually, it might even be better politics.
    So I deeply appreciate your coming together and focusing 
this in a way that I think anybody can appreciate, and that we 
all have an opportunity in our own way to be able to work in 
advancing these things you have challenged us to think about. 
We know what to do. We know it will not cost anything. It will 
save money, and it will bring people together, rather than 
divide them. I think that ought to be our mission, and I hope 
you inspire us to do that.
    Mr. SMITH of Nebraska [presiding]. Thank you.
    Mr. LaHood.
    Mr. LaHOOD. Oh, sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me thank 
the witnesses today for your valuable testimony and your 
compelling examples here today.
    Mrs. Petersen, I want to particularly thank you for sharing 
your life journey. You are really a shining example of success 
and perseverance, and I appreciate your passion and courage.
    We are having this hearing today as we consider reforms to 
Title IV-B, which, of course, is an important child welfare 
program that provides flexibility funding to states and tribes. 
As the chairman of the Work and Welfare Subcommittee, I take 
very seriously our responsibility to ensure we have a strong 
safety net for nearly 370,000 children in foster care who have 
experienced the trauma and hardships of abuse and neglect.
    This Congress, the Work and Welfare Subcommittee has taken 
a deep dive into current challenges facing child welfare, 
continuing the decades-long tradition of doing so in a 
bipartisan basis. Last week I was proud to co-lead the 
introduction of the PARENTS Act with my fellow Illinoisan, 
Ranking Member Congressman Danny Davis, a bill aimed at finding 
ways to better nurture the relationship between foster children 
and their incarcerated parents.
    Our subcommittee has held two child welfare hearings this 
particular Congress. In September of last year, we heard from 
witnesses about ways to modernize Title IV-B, and in January 
this subcommittee held a hearing on improving support for the 
19,000 youth aging out of foster care each year. Witnesses at 
these hearings included state officials, leaders from 
community-based organizations, and former foster youth who 
shared recommendations on ways to improve the system moving 
forward. And this full committee hearing today signals 
important progress in our ability to work together to 
reauthorize Title IV-B of this Congress.
    Mrs. Petersen, one of the policies that I focused on on our 
subcommittee is embracing the stories of those that have 
experienced transformational change from the power of 
employment brought to their lives by a job. The focus has been 
not just about the job, but the dignity of work. I appreciate 
your perspective on how we can encourage and promote this 
dignity for all vulnerable populations, including foster youth.
    As you know, only about 55 percent of foster youth are in 
full-time employment past the age of 18.
    In your opinion, why is the percentage so low, and how can 
we improve barriers to full-time employment for foster youth?
    Ms. PETERSEN. Thank you for your kind words, and thank you 
for your work. It sounds very powerful.
    I think this percentage is so low for two reasons. The 
first is that foster youth usually do not receive as many 
opportunities as their peers who are not foster children. That 
can be because foster youth tend to be stigmatized as troubled 
children, which makes it harder for them to gain employment as 
young people, or because foster youth usually move from home to 
home unexpectedly. This causes this to--causes them to miss out 
on opportunities like sports tryouts, or makes them have to 
leave jobs unexpectedly, which then makes them less hirable 
when they go to get another job.
    There is also the piece that I briefly mentioned in my 
statement. One of the young men my husband and I were mentoring 
as a part of this non-profit, he was a former foster youth, and 
he was living off of free housing and getting a weekly stipend 
from Chafee funds. And those offering him these resources told 
him he would continue to receive the resources as long as he 
worked 20 hours a week, and he wasn't doing any higher 
education outside of--he wasn't--no higher education, just 
work. So what programs like this teach young people is that 
part-time work is sustainable for life, and they can live off 
of government resources.
    The young man did get removed from the program because he 
wasn't meeting the requirements of working 20 hours a week, and 
he then fell into homelessness. But just a couple of months 
later he gained full-time employment. He is now paying for his 
own housing. His mental health is doing much better because he 
can't sleep all day because he has to go to work.
    And my husband and I see this pattern in young people again 
and again and again. And the point is not that we shouldn't 
help, but that there is a point when helping hurts. And it is 
our responsibility, as the helper, to figure out where that 
point is.
    When resources are excessive, they can become enabling to 
young adults and communities, because communities are then 
given permission to not invest their time and energy and love 
into these youth. So we need to find that fine line of giving 
young adults what they need to survive in an empowering way, 
rather than an enabling way.
    Mr. LaHOOD. Well, Mrs. Petersen, that is a great example of 
what we are focused on, on the importance of employment and the 
dignity of work. And we are grateful to have you here today. 
Thank you.
    And I yield back.
    Ms. PETERSEN. Thank you.
    Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. 
Pascrell.
    Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First of all, you have all been first-class witnesses, and 
I thank you for your courage. It takes courage to say what you 
said. You hear a lot of stuff around here which passes for 
courage. To me, courage means not only say it, but you do it. 
That is a tough transition, isn't it, at times?
    Our job--I thought our job was to protect the least of 
these among us, our seniors and our children. We didn't do a 
very good job on the first thing. I mean, you saw what happened 
during the pandemic in those nursing homes. We don't know half 
the story. We never got it.
    In New Jersey I personally listen to the advocates for 
Children of New Jersey, which has advocated for kids and 
families since--for 177 years. This is not a partisan issue. 
This is a humanitarian cause for all of us. If we agree with 
that, we are halfway home.
    Each of our witnesses can offer testimony on children who 
navigate the foster care issue and then thrive. Thrive.
    Of course, we must always be concerned about fraud and 
guard against Wall Street vultures snatching public funds to 
line their pockets to do what we are talking about today. 
Private equity is definitely not hot, and already has a 
troubling track record in new services. We cannot allow the 
private equity octopus to reach its tentacles in child 
services.
    So Ms. Hilton, thank you for your comment that this $23 
billion industry sees children as dollar signs. You wrote that 
and said it. We are sending youth a signal that profit is more 
important than their lives. Very well stated. Just unpack 
briefly for us why the for-profit industry is so dangerous here 
in what we are talking about.
    Ms. HILTON. Thank you so much for that. And it is so 
dangerous because they are caring more about profit than the 
safety of children, and that means that they are trying to 
spend as little money as possible, and the type of employees 
that they are hiring are people that are not being checked 
through. They are people that should be nowhere near children. 
And just the entire situation, there is no education in these 
places. The food quality, the living conditions, there is mold 
and blood on the walls. It is horrifying, just what these 
places are like. They are worse than some dog kennels that are 
out there. It is just--it is terrifying.
    And all of these private equity companies are seeing that 
this is such a profitable industry, so they are caring more 
about the bottom line than children's lives.
    Mr. PASCRELL. So what you are saying, really, is there is a 
vacuum here of service. We are trying to fill that vacuum, yet 
other people are vacuuming up the money when they say that will 
be helpful here.
    Ms. HILTON. Yes.
    Mr. PASCRELL. This is dangerous to me.
    Ms. HILTON. Extremely.
    Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Geen, can you expand on how we can 
strengthen the pipeline for a qualified workforce? Another big 
problem with senior housing and nursing homes: qualified 
workers. You can't get them. Who is going to protect our 
children?
    Mr. GEEN. So as I said earlier, I do think that workforce 
is such a critical issue because any reform you want to do is 
dependent on having a qualified workforce.
    I will say I believe the problem is less a recruitment than 
a retention problem. Our workers take two years to learn their 
jobs, from their mouths. And many of them quit within those 
first two years.
    Mr. PASCRELL. Why?
    Mr. GEEN. They quit for many reasons. One--and we will get 
into this--is the administrative burden. It is the paperwork 
that they are asked to fill out when they went to school to 
learn how to take care of families and to engage families and 
children. And instead they are working on paperwork.
    There are lots of opportunities to get workers past the 
period where they are just new and learning their jobs. One of 
the challenges is the loan forgiveness program that currently 
exists for social workers. You have to be in your job for 10 
years. Very few actually last that long. If we changed the 
duration of time that that was available, we would get people 
sticking it out past a year-and-a-half, two years, to the point 
that they now know how to do their jobs. They can become 
effective supervisors. And once they are at that point, they 
are much more likely to make that job a career.
    Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, it is a practical 
recommendation. Could we put it under review for the committee?
    Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. You will want to talk to the full 
committee chairman about that, but----
    Mr. PASCRELL. You are the chairman right now. [Laughter.]
    Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Well, I appreciate this hearing, and 
I think it is very productive, and we will get a lot of work 
done as a result.
    Mr. PASCRELL. Okay, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Dr. Wenstrup, you are now recognized 
for five minutes.
    Mr. WENSTRUP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is something 
that is very passionate to me, and I think it is vital that we 
learn from programs that have found some success.
    You know, but what is success? You just mentioned it is not 
paperwork. It is not getting paperwork done. That is not 
success. And often we vote for bills that sound real good, they 
have a really nice-sounding title, but they don't really bring 
the success that we should be looking at and what we are 
talking about today.
    You talked about succeeding in a family, and I want to add 
to that. Succeeding in a family, even if you never had one 
growing up, that is where success comes in, in my opinion.
    You know, and there is a difference between government 
oversight and a non-profit oversight, because the things I have 
been involved in, you know, when you are a donor to that non-
profit, you take a role in oversight because you care, and 
there is volunteer oversight that is involved. And those are 
the right motives for what we are trying to do, you know, we 
visit, we get to know the children. We look for evidence-based 
solutions and, again, with a different definition of success, 
rather than it just being paperwork. And the idea that--moving 
from one chaos to another is just so heart wrenching.
    You know, I have been a lot of things. I have been a big 
brother. Gosh, I have always been looking for opportunities for 
people that would not normally have them. And what we are 
talking about is an opportunity for a loving, caring, 
developing, and stable environment, especially for those that 
rarely get that opportunity. And my wife and I, we have a 10-
year-old son and a six-year-old adopted daughter. It is one of 
the most beautiful things we have been able to do.
    But I want to talk about the agency we used. So the woman 
who runs it, she is an attorney. She is an adopted mother of 
two. And she decided to become an adoption professional. And I 
have a letter from her that I will like to submit for the for 
the record here today.
    Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7158A.021
    
    Mr. WENSTRUP. They talk about voluntary surrenders of 
children from their biological parents and making the best 
connection. In every situation they say we place the best 
interest of the child at the center of our decisions. And we 
see our role as a lifelong commitment to the children we have 
placed and the adoptive families that we have served. There is 
no aging out. There is no aging out. And we have a relationship 
with the birth mother. What child doesn't want more people 
loving them?
    So there are a lot of different situations that exist. We 
have to have flexibility. You have to gear it towards the 
child, the child's needs, and what is going to work best for 
everyone involved.
    I am involved with something in Cincinnati, I have for 30 
years or so, Boys Hope Girls Hope. And this is a program that--
it is a combination of what we talk about. You still have the 
family involved, and yet we get a better environment. And so 
parents say, I want my child in this program, and basically we 
call it a scholarship.
    And as early as fourth grade, because the home situation is 
not good, the child lives in a home where they are mentored, 
where they are safe, where they are stable, where they are 
developed, and they go to good schools. And this is all 
private. And we see them through high school, college, and they 
come back. It is part of a family, and their families are 
involved. There is the Thanksgiving party, the Christmas party. 
They go home on the weekends. But we have turned this into a 
scholarship, and these kids are proud. There are opportunities 
all over the place. And yes, it is faith-based, but we don't 
proselytize. You don't make someone join your religion or 
anything like that. But it is those Christian values, Judeo-
Christian values that are in place that make the difference.
    I see you nodding. First of all, I am so proud you are from 
Ohio. Thanks for being my neighbor. But I just want to say, 
what are some of the things you would recommend to states, if 
they have flexibility with the dollars they get, to enhance 
successful programs, and maybe specifically through Title IV-B?
    Ms. PETERSEN. I would love to see organizations do more job 
shadowing for youth, bringing them along. Like I said earlier, 
foster youth need more opportunities. They need to be shown 
what they are capable of. And so I would love to see more job 
shadowing from organizations.
    And something that my church did was they invested in me 
before I aged out of the system. So I think that we talk about 
the foster care system and how to support youth a lot, like, 
once they age out. And that is actually a very reactive 
solution. These children deserve us to be proactive for them. 
And so we need to be serving them and reaching them before they 
age out of the system.
    And so one of the things that my church did was they 
actually covered for me--they paid for me to go through this 
financial budgeting program. They prepared me. So by the time 
that I was aged out, I had had money saved up. By the time that 
I was aged out, I knew what a budget was, I knew what 
investment was, and I knew how to manage my life as an adult 
because of the work that was done before I was an adult.
    Mr. WENSTRUP. Well, I would like just to finish with a 
quote I heard from a caregiver 100 years ago or more: ``There 
are no bad children, only bad environments, bad training, bad 
example, bad thinking.''
    With that I yield back.
    Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. 
Davis.
    Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I certainly thank 
Chairman Smith for holding this hearing, and all of the 
witnesses for sharing your experiences as well as your 
expertise.
    Ms. Hilton, let me especially thank you for sharing your 
experiences and raising the issues in residential care 
settings. And I would certainly like to work with you to try 
and help reduce and alleviate them.
    I also want to thank you, Mr. Geen and Mrs. Petersen.
    Ms. Mansfield, let me thank you for being here and for the 
amazing work that you do for our children in Illinois. You and 
I have both experienced how it feels to bring children to visit 
their incarcerated parents, and it is amazing to watch those 
families be reunited. As a matter of fact, I and a coalition of 
community agencies just returned on Saturday from visiting the 
Sheridan facility as part of Fatherhood Week and Fatherhood 
Day, and it was off the charts.
    But as you know, Chairman LaHood and I have introduced 
legislation to authorize new demonstration projects to identify 
and implement best practices in helping foster youth develop 
and maintain meaningful relationships with their incarcerated 
parents. Can you tell us more about why connecting with their 
parents who are incarcerated is especially important for foster 
youth, even though they are not going to be able to live with 
them for a while?
    Ms. MANSFIELD. Thank you for that question, Congressman 
Davis, and thank you in particular for your continuous support 
of families impacted by parental incarceration.
    For many years, I was, as I said, a teacher in your 
district for eight years, and I know the amazing work that you 
have done for families.
    You know, as we talked about before, parental incarceration 
is an adverse childhood experience, as is being in foster care. 
And so for any child having that separation from a parent can 
be traumatic, and can have very long-lasting impact, but 
particularly for children who are not with a biological family 
member. And that is where foster care and incarceration can 
really intersect, that when a parent is incarcerated, typically 
children are with family members, but it is far less likely 
when that child then is in foster care. And so it is really 
important for children in foster care to have someone connected 
to them that they can feel like they can rely on. And they are 
even more in need of those connections.
    There is often an element of self-blame that goes along 
with children who are experiencing either parental 
incarceration or who are in foster care. They often feel like 
maybe this is part of their fault, in particular for children 
of incarcerated mothers who are involved in the foster care 
system because we know that foster care cases--that indications 
of parents about 30 percent of the time also indicate a parent 
who is experiencing abuse, that a lot of times it is because 
the parent is themself the victim of domestic violence that the 
children are then taken away, and then the children can blame 
themselves for what happened.
    And so leading children to these experiences and giving 
them the reassurances that their parents are okay, that they 
might have been being harmed but now they are okay, or their 
parent doesn't blame them, that they are not abandoned, that 
they are still loved is really important, and it can predict 
success long term, not just for the children but for the 
parents, as well.
    Mr. DAVIS. Let me ask you, given your knowledge of these 
programs and your history of engagement, should this grant 
program be developed? What kind of activities would you like to 
see take place?
    Ms. MANSFIELD. I could give you a very long list of the 
activities that we would like to do, from small things to big 
things.
    I can share that I just--we just did a Father's Day program 
recently, where face painting was the number-one thing that 
kids wanted to do. It was very exciting. But what I really want 
to see are some of the activities that we already do, but with 
increased frequency and span. What we do right now, if we are 
just looking at this one program, we do it monthly when we can. 
But even then, there is a wait list, and that is just from 
coming from one region of one state and going to a state 
facility, not even looking at the Federal facility.
    We need to expand these programs to everywhere. We need to 
make them available, especially as we look at the benefits of 
having community-based, smaller facilities closer to 
communities. We need to be able to provide those opportunities 
for everyone.
    I would like to see opportunities for older children. We 
have been talking a lot about youth aging out of care. Children 
don't stop being children when they hit 18, and a lot of the 
programs that exist right now, they are for a very limited age 
range. Some of these summer camps, for example, for children in 
foster care or children of incarcerated parents, they might be, 
like, 8 to 12 years old. We need to expand that. Our program 
does not have an age limit. We have 27-year-olds who go to see 
their parents sometimes, and they will cry more than a small 
child because they still need their parents.
    So I would like to see those types of activities, and I 
would also like to see supportive activities like parenting 
classes, therapy, and groups for children and for parents to be 
able to experience things together and to be able to talk 
through their feelings and what they are experiencing.
    Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much. Our time has expired.
    And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Thank you, Mr. Davis. I now 
recognize Mr. Arrington for five minutes.
    Mr. ARRINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you to our witnesses for your passion and your 
commitment to being a voice for America's most vulnerable, 
probably the true forgotten people in this country. Thanks for 
giving them voice. Thanks for remembering them and helping us 
to remember that we need to put our very best forward to 
improve this system. Government can't do everything, but what 
we do ought to be effective, and people ought to be 
accountable, and we ought to have the highest standards, and 
that is what I am hearing from each and every one of you. And 
so thank you again. God bless you. Paris may be known more than 
any of you, but you are all stars, every one of you, okay?
    Now, Ms. Hilton, you talked about the several pieces of 
legislation that you have worked on throughout the country in 
various states. And so--and you mentioned that you had some 
folks checking on you that saved you from further abuse in the 
system. And you said, ``Can you imagine what it would be like 
if you didn't have parents and family who were checking on 
you?'' So let's talk about how we check on these vulnerable 
people in this system at the state level, and then I will get 
to the role of the federal government.
    What is your experience in terms of the best practices 
around checking, oversight, and accountability? Just give me a 
few ideas that we could consider as best practices throughout 
the many states in this great country.
    Ms. HILTON. Well, for me, all of my outside contact was 
completely controlled, and they would always have a staff 
member sitting right next to me. So if I said even one negative 
thing about the facility, they immediately would hang up the 
phone, and then I would be punished and either physically 
beaten or thrown into solitary confinement, and then they would 
take away my phone privileges and not let me speak to my 
parents, so they had no idea what was happening because they 
were continually being lied and manipulated by the staff that 
were trained to do that.
    And there were other children in there, there were foster 
children, and they had nobody to call, no one to talk to. So 
all of the kids in these places, they are not able to speak to 
their families without someone sitting right next to them, so 
it is really difficult to be able to tell anyone what is 
happening in the outside world. And then a lot of these kids 
are not believed because these places tell the parents, oh, 
they are going to be lying, they are manipulating you, they 
want to go home.
    So it is--I think it is really important that children are 
able to speak to their families without someone sitting 
directly next to them, or they can have unmonitored phone calls 
with their family. And if they don't have a family member, that 
they should have someone on the outside world that they could 
talk to. Because otherwise, these children are in there and 
they have no voice, no one believes them, and it is extremely 
isolating. And it is extremely traumatic, and that is why I 
want to continue advocating for the Stop Institutional Child 
Abuse Act, as well, because children need to have the right to 
speak to someone to tell them what is happening.
    Mr. ARRINGTON. Thank you.
    Ms. HILTON. Thank you.
    Mr. ARRINGTON. And thanks for sharing your story today.
    Ms. HILTON. Thank you.
    Mr. ARRINGTON. Mrs. Petersen, I am very encouraged and 
inspired by your boldness, your unabashed pride and joy for the 
love of your life which is Jesus, our Savior. And I just love 
when I hear somebody sharing how their Heavenly Father 
intervened. Not the system, not a program, but the God of all 
creation who knows your name and touched your heart and changed 
your life.
    Ms. PETERSEN. Yes.
    Mr. ARRINGTON. And by the way, that is the story of every 
Christian sinner saved by grace. Amen?
    Ms. PETERSEN. Yes, amen.
    Mr. ARRINGTON. Okay, I will get off my--that is a--I got 
that Baptist boy still trapped.
    Ms. PETERSEN. You do, yes.
    Mr. ARRINGTON. I let him out every now and then at these 
hearings. But you brought him out today.
    But I want to--this is maybe a little bit of a tangent, but 
I want you to speak to this because you mentioned the verse in 
James. And when I think about that verse, pure religion, a 
religion that is pure and undefiled, is----
    Ms. PETERSEN. Care for the orphans and the widows.
    Mr. ARRINGTON. Those that care for the orphan and widow. I 
always took that as the mission of the church, and I find 
that--or I observe that over time the church has ceded to the 
state, that instead of the tithe that goes to the church, and 
the church that has that connectivity that you mentioned, that 
relationship, meeting those deeper needs--that is how it used 
to be. And I feel like the church has moved away from that, and 
now we pay taxes to the state, and now the state is doing all 
this work, and I am not sure they can ever do it quite like the 
church used to do it. And is that a philosophy that you could--
that you share, or that you could at least just opine on 
briefly?
    And then I will yield, I am--my time has expired. But Mr. 
Chairman, if you will let her just answer that question.
    Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Proceed.
    Ms. PETERSEN. Yes, I think--as I look back on my 
experience, I know that I--my experience in my community and at 
my church was unique. They lived out what they preached. They 
lived out what Christians are meant to live out. And I don't 
think, unfortunately, that we always see that.
    But I remember, you know, looking at my congregation and 
seeing all the adopted children. I remember on--we didn't 
call--we don't call Orphan Sunday Orphan Sunday, we call it the 
Long Sunday, because that is what it should be. And we had this 
language in our church specifically for kids in foster care 
because we cared about them. My church did trainings around 
trauma because when the kids came in, they wanted to be able to 
care for them. And so I know that this experience is very 
unique, but I hope that what people hear today is that more 
churches need to pick up the mantle and carry this out.
    And I would just love to also echo Paris for a bit when she 
was talking about those visits. I just think it is a really 
important point because us, as foster parents, when our 
caseworkers come to visit our teen daughter, they don't ask to 
talk to her by herself. When I was in foster care there was so 
little accountability. I saw abuse in foster care, I was abused 
in foster care, and no one asked me, ``Can I talk to you by 
yourself?'' You know, they asked the questions to the foster 
parent, and it is very easy to say all of the right things. It 
is a lot harder if--I think that it would--we would benefit a 
lot--abuse would be minimal, limited, few if homes were 
actually observed, rather than just visits were, ``Let's sit 
down and talk,'' because we can make up a lot of things. We can 
say what is--what they want to hear. But it is a lot harder to 
show them that you are not living and caring for kids with 
integrity if you are not.
    Mr. ARRINGTON. Thank you very much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Thank you. I now recognize Ms. 
Sewell for five minutes.
    Ms. SEWELL. Thank you so much. I want to thank all of our 
witnesses today, especially those who gave such heartfelt 
testimonials of your own personal experience.
    Before I came to Congress, I didn't know much about the 
foster care system, but I have to tell you my classmate and a 
former colleague of ours, Karen Bass, took it on as her cause 
celebre, and she started the Congressional Foster Care Caucus, 
of which I am a member. And every year for the last seven years 
we have a shadow day, where we have a foster youth shadow us. 
And I have learned so much from my foster youth that have 
shadowed me for that day. It is a day long, and it is on the 
Senate side and the House side. For those members who are not 
signed up to have a shadow, a foster youth to shadow, I would 
recommend the program, and I would recommend the Caucus.
    I know that Title IV-B is not perfect, and we know that it 
is up for reauthorization. So I wanted to ask both Mrs. 
Petersen as well as Ms. Hilton, what one big reform would you 
like to see?
    And yes, that is my question. If you had to just sum it up 
to one thing that you would like to reform in section IV-B.
    Now, I know, Mrs. Petersen, you also talked about IV-E.
    Ms. PETERSEN. Yes.
    Ms. SEWELL. So I will just say section 4.
    Ms. PETERSEN. Yes, I would love to see more--other--outside 
of what I have already spoken about, to add to that is that I 
would just love to see more services in terms of mental health 
because, when I was in the foster care system, one of the--as a 
child, one of the things that I found really difficult was to 
attach to my foster parents.
    And now, as a foster parent, I know what is considered to 
be attachment theory. And so it is about the different ways 
that parents attach to their children and children attach to 
parents. And as a foster parent what I have learned, and what 
is kind of taboo to say, is that when you are a foster parent 
this attachment doesn't always happen instantaneously. You have 
to really work at it, and it is for the child and for the 
parent.
    And so what happens is that children receive this big gap 
in connectedness, this big gap in attachment. But that 
attachment--someone referred the first 1,000 days, right, like 
of life. The attachment in those first 1,000 days is 
absolutely----
    Ms. SEWELL. Critical.
    Ms. PETERSEN. Crucial.
    Ms. SEWELL. Yes.
    Ms. PETERSEN. Critical to the development of children, no 
matter what age they are.
    Ms. SEWELL. Right.
    Ms. PETERSEN. And so I would love to see----
    Ms. SEWELL. That is a good point.
    Ms. PETERSEN [continuing]. Just more education on 
attachment theory. How do we do it well? How do we continue to 
work at it when it doesn't come naturally? And how do we 
reverse, you know, that trauma that comes from the 
disconnectedness?
    Ms. SEWELL. Thanks. If you had a magic wand and could do 
one reform for Title IV, what would it be?
    Ms. HILTON. My wish would be that children would not be put 
into facilities in the first place. I think it should be about 
community-based care, and children shouldn't be put in places 
and be more traumatized than when they came out, so I think 
that that is just crucial. And having family-based care and 
just not having them even get into the system in the first 
place.
    Ms. SEWELL. Thank you.
    Ms. HILTON. It is so important.
    Ms. SEWELL. Ms. Mansfield, can you talk a--I know you know 
about the government programs for incarcerated persons with 
children in the foster care system. Can you talk about some of 
the private--public-private partnerships that you know about 
that also help?
    Ms. MANSFIELD. Yes, thank you, Congresswoman.
    There are some programs, but they are few and far between. 
There just are not very many. But I have seen the benefit of 
public-private partnerships, certainly. Like at the Women's 
Justice Institute, we have a grant through Cook County Health 
that is funded by SAMHSA.
    Ms. SEWELL. Yes.
    Ms. MANSFIELD. And that grant allows us to provide client 
care coordination for women leaving jail or prison with 
substance use disorders. And the program is led by a formerly 
incarcerated woman, and all of our client care coordinators are 
also formerly incarcerated, and this wouldn't be possible 
without those public-private partnerships. And it allows us to 
move really quickly in response to needs, but also to make use 
of Cook County Health's--like, their expertise and their 
resources. And I think that that is possible when we are 
speaking about these types of partnerships, as well.
    I mentioned that the Reunification Ride is one example of a 
program. I cannot have foster children participate because we 
cannot find private insurance that allows foster children to 
take part. And if we could leverage the public resources, we 
could use that insurance that is available. We could be under 
that auspice, and then foster children would be able to 
participate.
    And I think that we also can meet some of those staffing 
shortages that are occurring in the Department of Corrections 
and departments of Children and Family Services or other child 
welfare agencies, where there are staff shortages and also that 
turnover that was mentioned before. And so, as a private 
organization, we can help to have these programs in those non-
profits. In addition, we can have the expertise that is needed 
for things like child welfare to have the child development 
angle, all of those things.
    And also, just the last thing is these programs often don't 
exist or they exist in very limited ways because we don't have 
the funding, and we don't have the assurance that it is going 
to continue. And one of the most damaging things to children is 
when they have one visit and they don't know when the next is 
going to be. And we don't want to have where we scrape together 
enough money to get there one time, and then we can't come back 
like we see with so many different programs.
    And so those are some of the powers that could happen with 
this.
    Ms. SEWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing us to exceed 
our time. Thank you.
    Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Thank you. I now recognize Dr. 
Ferguson for five minutes.
    Mr. FERGUSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to echo a chorus of thank yous to each of you for 
coming today. I know sometimes witnesses may wonder if their 
presence here matters. And whether it is in this hearing room 
or whether you are coming to our congressional offices, you 
being able to tell that story to us matters. So thank you for 
doing that. Thank you for helping us do the right thing on 
behalf of this country.
    Yes, your stories, in which--particularly Mrs. Petersen and 
Ms. Hilton--in which the way you tell them, the grace with 
which you present them, probably belies a lot of the pain and 
the hurt that preceded you being here today. So thank you for 
having the courage to do it, and thank you for being so candid 
with us. I want to start with a couple of questions here.
    And Mrs. Petersen, I will start with you. You have talked a 
lot today in your testimony and also in response to questions 
about this cliff that so many people hit when they turn 18, and 
then there is an expectation of work and productivity and 
leading life. And you have spoken very eloquently about how 
important it is to have that work and those steps going 
forward.
    I was particularly interested in the piece that you talked 
about with your own experience of understanding a budget and 
understanding, you know, how to move forward. I think that is 
really important when you look at trying to break the cycles of 
poverty. But I would--tell me your thoughts on not only 
teaching that to our foster children but, in many cases, to the 
parent, to the foster parents that are there, as well. Because 
all too often, many of our foster families, you know, suffer 
from lack of financial knowledge and financial resources, as 
well. I would be happy if you could comment on not only the 
need to--financial literacy with foster youth, but the families 
that are taking care of them.
    Ms. PETERSEN. Yes, well, first I want to say thank you for 
acknowledging that telling our stories is hard. But I also want 
to say that, you know, being able to do this is so healing. 
When you see that the worst parts of your life, and the worst 
things that you have been through, and all your pain might be 
able to be used for some kind of good, it is a very healing 
experience. So thank you.
    Yes, in terms of foster parents needing financial literacy, 
I haven't seen that or necessarily experienced that, so that is 
something that is needed. But what I--you know, we know that 30 
to 50 percent of foster parents quit within the first year. It 
is so hard to retain foster parents, and that is because of all 
of the things that are required of us.
    I love being a foster parent, but it is actually the--
probably the most frustrating thing that I have ever done, and 
it has actually completely changed my perspective of my foster 
parents. I think I used to be a lot harder on them, and now I 
realize that I think they did actually quite well with what 
they had, considering everything that they--all the red tape 
and all the requirements that they had to meet. And I know 
those things are for liability and accountability, and they 
very much are needed, but I say all this because I think when 
we are talking about what do we need to support youth as they 
age out of care, we need to meet them, again, before they are 
aging out, and we need more foster parents. My husband and I 
have to say no to a foster placement every week----
    Mr. FERGUSON. Thank you, Mrs. Petersen.
    Ms. PETERSEN. And it is devastating, but we can't do it 
all.
    Mr. FERGUSON. Thank you. I am going to--if I could, because 
I have got a--I want to move on to another question.
    Ms. Hilton, I have--you know, it is--something that 
concerns me greatly is the mental health of our youth in 
general, but it is also very challenging in the foster care 
program. And there seems to be a major problem with just over-
prescribing psychotropic drugs, and just saying, here is a 
handful of pills. Can you share with the committee your 
experience with that?
    And do you think that that is a problem in our system 
today, and what you think you should do to correct that, or 
what we should do to correct that?
    Ms. HILTON. I think it is a huge problem. Before I went to 
Provo Canyon School, the only medication I had ever taken was a 
Tylenol or an Advil for a headache. I had never been on any 
medications that they prescribed, which weren't even prescribed 
by a doctor.
    And every morning, every lunch, every afternoon they would 
give us all a cup full of pills. I had no idea what they were. 
All I know is that I would feel dizzy, I would feel--my memory 
would be gone. It was almost like they were just trying to make 
everyone like zombies. It was just very concerning. And I think 
that they are definitely abusing that power, where they are 
just giving children medication that they don't need. And I 
think that is something that really needs to be looked into 
because I think----
    Mr. FERGUSON. Well, one answer--and Mr. Chairman, if I--if 
you could indulge me here for just a few seconds, we have a--
one of our colleagues, Mrs. Steel, has a bill that addresses 
this on foster youth mental health support, and it really does 
try to address some of these standards. So I would like to 
commend my colleague from California for taking up--taking this 
up, and we need to be supportive of her bill.
    Again, thank you all for being here. Thank you for telling 
the stories and helping us be better at what we do up here.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Ms. PETERSEN. Thank you.
    Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Thank you, Dr. Ferguson. And 
pursuant to committee practice, we will now move to two to one 
questioning. So I will recognize Mr. Smucker, followed by Ms. 
Chu.
    Mr. SMUCKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 
chairman holding this hearing today.
    And I would like to, as others have mentioned, thank the 
witnesses for traveling here to share your stories and share 
your experiences with the child welfare system. And I will say 
again what others have said. We can all agree that one of the 
most meaningful aspects of our work in this committee is the 
opportunity to work on legislation to help more kids in the 
child welfare system.
    The changes that we are talking about today won't just 
impact those who have been directly involved with Child 
Protective Services, but also any child, family, or individual 
that is in danger of entering the child welfare system. Over 
the years we have reformed our programs to engage with families 
before children need to be removed from their homes, and we all 
know that leads to much better outcomes all around.
    Certainly, every child deserves a safe and loving home, and 
here on this committee we have an opportunity to advance 
legislation that can help make this a reality for more 
children.
    Mrs. Petersen, I want to talk briefly about a bill that I 
have introduced. We know that kinship care providers play an 
essential role in caring for children, and they do so many 
times without access to resources that they wish they had. The 
bill that I have introduced that hopefully gets included in a 
package we do here, the Empowering Kinship Caregivers and Youth 
Act, clarifies that kinship caregivers are eligible for 
services under Title IV-B, and I just wonder if you could talk 
a little bit about that.
    I know you have had access to services and supports and 
maybe supports that you didn't receive, and just talk about the 
importance of kinship care being eligible for coverage.
    Ms. PETERSEN. Yes, that bill sounds like a very important 
one. Thank you for working on that.
    Our family has never received any resources or assistance 
from the government for the kinship care that we provide. When 
my sibling started living with us, we tried to reach out to 
human services to officially become kinship caregivers and get 
access to those resources. But we weren't considered a priority 
because they knew my sibling was safe and already living with 
us. We never received a response, a court date, not a paper to 
sign, and our other options would be to hire a lawyer to serve 
papers to get their attention. But I wasn't willing to give 
human services any more of my time because I gave them enough 
of that as a youth.
    My husband and I were in our mid-twenties when we took in 
my sibling, still very much establishing our lives, and it 
wasn't easy, especially in the beginning, but we knew we would 
make it work, like many kinship care providers do, no matter 
what. My sibling did graduate high school this year, and will 
be headed to college in the fall.
    And the greatest injustice to us not receiving those 
services from the county and being ignored is that--it was 
actually to my sibling because, though she has lived with us 
for years now, if the county would have documented her in our 
care the way they should have, she would be receiving financial 
assistance with college. But because we were ignored, my 
sibling does not qualify for the financial help that she should 
be receiving for college, and we didn't realize that would be a 
consequence that she would face when we didn't put up a fight.
    Mr. SMUCKER. Thank you. I am going to go to one additional 
question for Mr. Geen.
    I have heard--and I want to get your thoughts on this--
certainly, we want accountability for child welfare agencies in 
our communities and states. But I have also heard the 
paperwork, the federal reporting requirements are burdensome, 
they are tedious. And I have introduced another bill which 
would call for an evaluation of the requirements and reporting 
for the Title IV-B dollars with a goal of reducing that burden 
by at least 15 percent.
    If we were successful--first, do you agree that that is an 
issue?
    And then, if we were successful in reducing paperwork by 
that amount, how could they use that time to better support the 
individuals in our communities?
    Mr. GEEN. So the administrative burden you talk about is a 
theme that we heard a lot of during our landscape assessment. 
And that burden not only affects workers' ability to spend time 
with families, it affects their morale and the likelihood of 
them turning over.
    But the biggest complaint we heard about the administrative 
burden is that it is largely unrelated to accountability. So 
much of what we collect are process measures that feel like 
checking boxes, rather than truly holding agencies accountable 
for outcomes. So there certainly seems like there is an 
opportunity to both reduce administrative burden and focus on 
accountability more, recognizing that our data systems right 
now don't do a good job of always tracking the outcomes that we 
experience.
    Mr. SMUCKER. Thank you for that answer. I hope we can take 
this opportunity to streamline that, and ensure that the 
accountability still exists but we can eliminate some of those 
tedious requirements. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman SMITH [presiding]. Thank you.
    Ms. Chu.
    Ms. CHU. Ms. Hilton, I want to thank you for using your 
high visibility to give voice to the voiceless. By doing that 
you are going to help so many thousands of youth that would 
otherwise be forgotten. And I was very moved by your testimony. 
I could not believe the horrific conditions that you faced in 
those facilities.
    And I want to thank you for saying that you believe that 
Title IV-B should be reauthorized. There is a debate in this 
committee on whether the funding should just remain the same, 
or whether it should be increased. It has remained flat since 
2006. So people who are using Title IV-B have to really scrape 
by. So what do you think about the funding of Title IV-B? 
Should it be increased so that we can make a difference in 
preventing children and families from coming into contact with 
the child welfare system?
    Ms. HILTON. Thank you so much. And yes, I do believe that 
they should be increased, and I think that community-based 
supports and resources are vitally needed, which is why we 
should support the Title IV-B reauthorization.
    And we know that community-based prevention support helps 
families before they even come in contact with the child 
welfare system, and that will keep children out of facilities. 
So yes.
    Ms. CHU. Thank you for that.
    Ms. HILTON. Thank you.
    Ms. CHU. Mr. Geen, I wanted to have you make some comments 
about the Indian Child Welfare Act, or what we call ICWA. This 
requires Native American children to be placed first with 
extended family and then with tribes so that they don't lose 
their cultural identity. And that was passed in 1973. In 1994 
Congress added a Title IV-B plan requirement, directing states 
to develop an ICWA implementation plan in consultation with the 
tribes.
    But 30 years later, native children continue to be 
disproportionately represented in the foster care system, with 
higher rates of injury and longer lengths of stay. In fact, in 
California they are 4.5 times more likely to enter care than 
their counterparts, despite being a smaller portion of the 
population. And that is because, despite the requirement under 
Title IV-B, federal oversight of states' compliance with this 
requirement is unclear and not always exercised. And that is 
why I have introduced a bipartisan bill, the Strengthening 
Tribal Families Act, along with Representative Don Bacon, to 
direct HHS to assess how state child welfare agencies are 
implementing federal protections for tribal children, as laid 
out in Title IV-B.
    Can you talk about how this would help states and improve 
outcomes for tribal children and families?
    Mr. GEEN. So I don't claim to be a tribal expert, but I 
will say over the past year and a half we looked at legislation 
in all 50 states and what was introduced, and it was striking 
to see how many states have introduced legislation protecting 
and strengthening the Indian Child Welfare Act bills on both 
Republican and Democratic dockets.
    There is no doubt that, if you talk to tribes, they will 
talk about the need to strengthen ICWA. The field generally 
looks at ICWA as best practice not just for Indian children, 
but for all children. And so it is certainly something that is 
needed.
    Ms. CHU. And I would like to go back to Title IV-B, Mr. 
Geen. There are improvements that could be made in this 
reauthorization. In fact, I have got a couple of bills, the 
Helping Hands for Families Act, which I am sponsoring with 
Congressmember Carol Miller, which would allow states to use 
Title IV-B to access online portals that connect families with 
local resources, as well as the Court Improvement Program 
Enhancement Act, which I am co-leading with Congressmember 
Blake Moore, which would provide additional resources to allow 
court proceedings to take place virtually.
    And there are also problems with workers and burnout. There 
is, in fact, a tremendous burnout problem with workers, which 
also could be addressed with Title IV-B. Could you address 
these issues?
    Mr. GEEN. Let me tackle the court improvement first, and 
that is that I see the court improvement program as one of the 
real successes of the Title IV-B program. IV-B provides both 
the flexibility that states need, but also it provides the 
opportunity for Congress to have set-asides for key issues that 
have been under-invested in. And if you take a look at the 
success of the court improvement program, you see how it is 
impacting the quality of hearings every day in the United 
States.
    The courts certainly learned during the COVID crisis about 
remote hearings, and yet they are also not a panacea. We do 
need to make sure that, if we use those type of remote 
hearings, they are done in a quality way, and it requires the 
training of judges and other court personnel to make sure that 
children and parents' rights are protected.
    Ms. CHU. Thank you, I yield back.
    Chairman SMITH. Mr. Estes is recognized.
    Mr. ESTES. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 
all our witnesses for being here today and for all the work 
that you do to help youth and their opportunity that they have.
    And thank you, Ms. Hilton, for all of your work with the 
Stop Institutional Child Abuse Act.
    And it is great for us in this hearing today to be able to 
talk about the committee's continuing effort to build a society 
and a culture that values life. These hearings--and through 
legislation we are uncovering ways we, as a society, can better 
support children, parents, and families.
    I want to start by sharing a little bit of a story about a 
family in my 4th congressional district in Kansas. My 
constituent, Bruce, is a loving grandfather who happens to be 
blind. When Bruce's son lost custody of his children, Bruce 
stepped in to care for his grandchild--or grandchildren. These 
children became some of the more than 2.5 million children 
across the country who are cared for by family members and 
grandparents, which is a great advantage. Placing children in 
kinship care reduces trauma, and provides a higher chance of 
reunification with parents.
    As Bruce sought custody with his grandchildren, however, he 
encountered significant difficulties, one due to his age and--
but also his blindness, even though he was well equipped to 
lovingly care for his grandchildren. These unnecessary hurdles 
to kinship care--that the kinship care process added to the 
uncertainty of Bruce grandchildren--Bruce's grandchildren were 
already dealing with. Thankfully, in the end, Bruce was able to 
gain custody of his children.
    I am glad Bruce and his family reached this positive 
outcome, but I know about other grandparents or aunts and 
uncles or siblings in similar situation for whom things have 
turned out differently, those who didn't know how to advocate 
for themselves and their young, vulnerable family members in 
order to help keep them and help care for their family. Bruce's 
story underscores the burdens to kinship care that we should 
examine and correct, and that is why we are here today with our 
panel of witnesses to discuss how we can improve the kinship 
care process.
    When a child is no longer able to be in the care of his or 
her parents, every effort should be made to keep the child 
within the family, assuming those relatives are well disposed 
to care for the children. Mrs. Petersen, I know you have direct 
experience with the foster care children, and you have covered 
a lot of things today, as well as dealing with the kinship care 
process. Can you describe the challenges you faced in going 
through the kinship care process?
    Ms. PETERSEN. Yes. As I stated before, just being ignored, 
not having access to resources, not being made a priority 
because they knew my sister was safe. It definitely has been an 
uphill battle to advocate for our family but, more importantly, 
to advocate for her. I do think that kinship families are 
often--kinship providers are looked at as lower priority than 
foster parents and adoptive parents, and that can be really 
challenging.
    Mr. ESTES. Well, and thank you for sharing your personal 
story with us today and all the details.
    And it is an issue that in my home state of Kansas we have 
run into a lot over the last several years in terms of how do 
we make sure that we do the best job that we can for the 
children in our care.
    I mean, I know at times different barriers come from a good 
place, wanting to make sure that we protect and ensure the 
well-being of children, but too often they end up causing more 
problems and lead to adverse outcomes. Mr. Geen, how do we 
strike that balance between ensuring the safety and well-being 
of children without putting in place unnecessary barriers for 
things like kinship care when this is the best option for the 
children?
    Mr. GEEN. It is the best option, and I do think research 
clearly shows that children are safer in kinship care, and 
their well-being is better in kinship care.
    The question is the licensing process. Fortunately, HHS has 
new regulations out that give states flexibility in designing 
kin-specific licensing standards, and hopefully states will 
take advantage of that.
    When there is a concern that a kin can't care for a child, 
as in your example, what can be put into the home to make it 
safe? Rather than just say it is not acceptable, work with the 
kinship caregiver. If they don't have the right space or don't 
have the right equipment, then provide that, rather than cancel 
them out as an option.
    Mr. ESTES. Yes, and thank you. And thank you for all the 
panelists.
    Ms. Mansfield, did you want to add to that?
    Ms. MANSFIELD. Would you mind if I added something to that?
    Mr. ESTES. Yes, please. Go ahead.
    Ms. MANSFIELD. I just wanted to add that one of the 
challenges that I often see is--for the families that we work 
with and for our own staff, which is at the Women's Justice 
Institute, mainly formerly incarcerated--that criminal records 
can be a huge issue, that somebody--a grandparent might have 
had a conviction 20, 30 years ago, and now they are not allowed 
to be a kinship placement for their grandchildren, or somebody 
for their sibling, something completely unrelated to the 
children. We put these barriers in the way, and then the 
kinship caregivers don't seek to get assistance because they 
are scared the children will be removed from them because of 
these unnecessary barriers, looking at somebody's record 
instead of their ability to care for a child.
    Mr. ESTES. Yes, and thank you all for what you have 
covered. You covered a wide variety of issues that deal with 
how do we best care for children.
    And with that I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman SMITH. Thank you.
    Mrs. Miller.
    Mrs. MILLER. Thank you, Chairman Smith.
    And I want to thank all four of you, as we say at home, all 
y'all. Your stories, your information, and your feedback is so 
important to us to help--I am not sure we are solving this as 
cracking open such a huge, huge issue.
    I am a wife, a mother, and a grandmother, which is really 
cool. But my boys were in lots and lots of sports, and I never 
knew how many feet would be underneath my table at dinner. 
Many, many nights there were a lot of extra feet. I had a 
couple rules. One was no hat on your head, you had to wear a 
shirt, and you had to say grace. And so I have always had an 
empathy for children who may have just been hungry, but the 
social welfare that we have for our kids, the system, is so 
important to me, and I am encouraged that our committee is 
willing to take the necessary steps to discuss what needs to 
happen.
    Many children entering the child welfare system have an 
urgent material need that can be addressed without direct 
government intervention. In West Virginia, where I am from, 53 
percent of our foster children are cared for by relatives, 
often older grandparents like me, who are retired, and they 
struggle to afford unexpected expenses, things like car seats, 
you know, formula, things that haven't been in their venue for 
a while. And given the rural nature of my state, accessing so 
many of these much-needed resources can be very challenging.
    I introduced H.R. 476, the Helping Hands Family Act, with 
Representative Chu, as she mentioned earlier, to be able to use 
the electronic services and tools that connect families to the 
essential services that support them online. Mr. Geen, do you 
believe that providing more flexibility in how Title IV-B 
services are delivered could better serve the families, 
particularly in rural areas like West Virginia?
    Mr. GEEN. So there is no doubt in my mind that the type of 
coordination and navigation you are talking about is essential, 
essential for the birth parents, essential for the kinship 
caregivers.
    My understanding or my read of Title IV-B would say that it 
is already something that is allowable. So clarifying that with 
HHS might be a first step.
    Mrs. MILLER. Thank you for that. I think flexibility within 
Title IV-B is hugely important.
    Another policy that I have worked on with my colleagues 
would be providing additional flexibility within the Court 
Improvement Program. The Court Improvement Program helps courts 
conduct hearings on child abuse and neglect in a timely manner, 
and provides training to judges with trauma-informed care. This 
will ensure that children who enter these courts have the 
support that they so desperately need.
    Along with Representatives Blake and Chu, I introduced the 
Court Improvement Program Enhancement Act, and it will allow 
CIP funds to be used towards improving technology support for 
remote hearings, and allow state courts to use the CIP funds to 
improve parent, family, and youth engagement in their child 
welfare proceedings.
    Once again, Mr. Geen, can you speak to the importance of 
ensuring that everyone involved, like in child welfare 
proceedings, is appropriately trained, and how more remote 
hearing flexibilities would allow for a better overall outcome?
    Mr. GEEN. Yes, I think that child welfare system as a whole 
learned a lot during COVID. The courts, absolutely. And many 
courts experimented with remote hearings. And my reading of the 
experience is that it was mixed. They definitely appreciated 
the opportunity, and it is a vital component moving forward, 
but it is not a catch-all. It is not a silver bullet. Just 
because we have a remote hearing doesn't make it a high-quality 
hearing.
    And so we need to keep a close eye on what those hearings 
look like, and make sure that everyone involved is trained to 
use the technology in a way that we are treating families 
fairly. But as an option, absolutely.
    Mrs. MILLER. Thank you so much.
    I would like to turn to you, Ms. Hilton, now. First and 
foremost, thank you for using your platform and personal story 
to bring attention to such troubling experiences that so many 
youth are actually facing in our foster and residential 
treatment homes. It is critical that we keep the well-being of 
children at the forefront of all these discussions, and you 
have been tireless in turning your personal trauma into 
advocacy on the behalf of troubled youth.
    And we hear a lot about the increase in mental health 
disorders in youth, including disorders like ADHD, depression, 
anxiety, suicide. In my home state of West Virginia, we also 
struggle with high rates of substance disorder children, and 
have been fighting the opioid epidemic for years and years and 
years. And far too many young children are struggling with 
mental health and unable to get the support they need. Parents 
are often at a loss as to how to help their children, and they 
don't really know how to access.
    How do you think we can improve the support we give to 
teens and youth to help them cope, and to have a healthy 
transition into adulthood, especially when you are talking 
about foster youth who have already had so much trauma?
    Ms. HILTON. Well, thank you so much, and I am grateful that 
we are having this discussion to figure out what kids need.
    I think that the first step is asking the youth. We should 
prioritize lived experience voices to ensure that we truly 
understand what could help them, and then figure out how to do 
that.
    I believe youth need access to mental health in their 
communities, mentorship, and community. We do have a mental 
health crisis for our kids, and it scares me for my own 
children. I am confident that we can bolster support for 
children and their parents in the community, and will prevent 
trauma by removing children and placing them in facilities, as 
no child should spend their childhood in a facility.
    Mrs. MILLER. Thank you so much for your testimony.
    Ms. HILTON. Thank you.
    Mrs. MILLER. I yield back.
    Chairman SMITH. Thank you.
    Ms. Moore.
    Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Well, you all look a lot different 
down here than you did up there. [Laughter.]
    Thank you so very, very much.
    Let me start out by just thanking all of the people who are 
foster parents, including Ms. Hope Petersen here, all the 
people who make sacrifices to try to prevent abuse and neglect 
of our children, and just to be grateful that we have a safety 
net of some type.
    That being said, I just also want to just introduce myself 
further. I am the chair of the Congressional Caucus on Foster 
Youth, and I am so happy to learn that there are numbers of 
Members who want to join and participate and want to get the 
education from foster youth. It was a real epiphany for me when 
I had my first foster youth, and they did turn us on to the 
notion that we have to dig into mental health, that we need 
navigators as people age out. So I think that has really been 
impactful.
    And they, you know, they come on the Hill. And while they 
are foster kids, for one day they become the teachers and 
professors.
    That being said, I have really appreciated all four of you 
for your testimony today, and we have talked a whole lot about 
prevention, about focusing on family unification, avoiding 
congregate care. I guess the thing that concerns me the most is 
that, as I sort of look at--you know, I am just sort of 
figuring out how much we spend on this, maybe something between 
the states and the federal government, over $40 billion on 
foster care and foster programs. And still, that turns out to 
not be enough in certain categories.
    And one of the things that I am observing--and maybe Mr. 
Geen and Ms. Mansfield, you can help me walk through it--I 
will--just as an example of the federal child welfare funding 
by purpose, you know, I am looking at $11 billion that the 
Congressional Research Service prepared this memo, and that is 
not the state match, this is the federal funding, you know, 
almost $5 billion spent on foster care free money, another 
almost $5 billion on adoption and guardianship assistance. And 
so when we--I can't see that well--so when we start talking 
about prevention services, we are talking about $182 million, 
or Chafee services for older and former foster youth to help 
them walk through, help them transition, we are still only 
talking about $187 million.
    So my question to the two of you is, if we are aspirational 
about wanting to prevent congregate care, to prevent kids from 
getting in foster care in the first place, how do we dismantle, 
as it were, the huge amounts of money that is being spent to 
have this system which involves taking kids away from parents?
    Mr. Geen, yes.
    Mr. GEEN. So I think this is an issue that our field has 
been struggling with for years. There is a recognition that we 
are spending far too much money after the fact, and not enough 
before. I will provide example of Wendy's Wonderful Kids, which 
I have mentioned before.
    By providing some upfront investment to increase the 
capacity of a public agency, the foundation dollars allows the 
state to move from the status quo to best practice. And then 
over time, the state then takes up that responsibility 
themselves without the private dollars. There needs to be a way 
for states to have the flexibility to turn their system around. 
If so much money is focused on the foster care and adoption 
side and very little on prevention, where are the resources for 
them to make that shift?
    I will note that the Bipartisan Policy Center has formed a 
work group focused on financing and accountability to tackle 
problems exactly like this.
    Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Ms. Mansfield.
    Ms. MANSFIELD. Yes, I would echo that, but I would also 
just say if we spent the same amount that we spent in stipends 
and support for foster care families, especially for non-
relative families to invest in families before involvement or 
in intact family services, we would prevent so much. And 
instead, there is this judgment given that we can't fund 
families to keep them together. But that really would be a way 
to prevent so much.
    Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Amen belongs right there. Just let 
me say something to Mrs. Hope Petersen and to Ms. Hilton.
    Ms. Hilton, I met you before in Katherine Clark's office, 
and I have had an epiphany about congregate care for people who 
are not poor. We are talking basically today about poor, poor, 
poor children, and you were not poor. But, you know, when there 
is a fracture or a break in the family, predators are easily--
easy to get in when there is a breakdown, because they have the 
authority. And I am so sorry that this has happened to you, and 
I empathize with you. And, you know, I am just delighted that 
you are using your voice.
    Ms. Tori, you were in 12 foster homes. I mean, it is a 
miracle, a sociological miracle you are. And I just don't think 
you should have depended on good luck, somebody just happened 
to come by and help you. Thank God that they were. But, I mean, 
that is part of the breakdown of our system, that we just have 
to--excuse me for using your name--we just have to hope that 
somebody is going to find you and take care of you. We can't--
our kids deserve something better than hope, you know.
    And so with that, Mr. Chairman, I almost made it to ranking 
member today. But that being said, I yield back.
    Chairman SMITH. You spoke the length of a ranking member, 
so thank you, Ms. Moore.
    Mr. Kustoff.
    Mr. KUSTOFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the 
witnesses for appearing today.
    Ms. Hilton, if I could to you, could you talk more about 
your bill, the Stop Institutional Child Abuse Act, and maybe 
specifically why you think it will make meaningful reforms to 
congregate care?
    Ms. HILTON. The most important thing about the Stop 
Institutional Child Abuse Act is about transparency and 
accountability, and people need to know what is happening 
behind closed doors.
    Mr. KUSTOFF. And you believe, if it passes, if the bill 
passes, that it will achieve that means to an end?
    Ms. HILTON. I think it is the first steps to it. I just 
think it is so important for people to know that--people to be 
held accountable for what they are doing, and for there to be 
transparency. These are our children. This is our future. And 
there needs to be checks and balances on what is happening to 
these, the most vulnerable people in the world.
    Mr. KUSTOFF. Thank you. Thank you for sharing your story 
today.
    Ms. HILTON. Thank you.
    Mr. KUSTOFF. Mrs. Petersen, thank you also for sharing your 
story.
    Mr. Geen, if I could with you, we know in the past few 
years that the rate of congregate care has declined. Some of 
this is due to the Family First Act. Now, despite declines, 
there is a national shortage of foster homes. In your opinion, 
how do we balance the two?
    Mr. GEEN. There has been a steady decline in the number of 
children in group settings, which is a good thing. We know that 
far too many children are placed in residential settings, not 
because that is the type of therapeutic intervention they need, 
but it is the only place to place a child.
    And so it is not a question of balancing, it is a question 
of doing right by children. Children need to be in families. If 
they need an intervention to allow them to be successful in a 
family, then residential treatment that is high-quality, that 
is therapeutic, that involves the family is an option.
    We are facing right now, as you note, a crisis in finding 
enough places. I think that is twofold. One is we don't invest 
in enough with kinship care, as we have mentioned. And two, we 
have a foster parent retention problem. I don't call it a 
recruitment problem because the data clearly show there are 
lots of people interested in becoming foster parents.
    One person has talked about the sacrifice of foster 
parents. They don't see it as a foster parent--as a sacrifice. 
They see it as a joy. They get frustrated during their time as 
foster parents, and tend to quit. And it is not about money. 
Frankly, it is largely about the support they get. And I have 
listened to foster parents talk to me about how they gave up on 
themselves, not the children, that they would see children and 
they thought, ``I should be doing a better job because so and 
so isn't doing well,'' and what they really needed was a 
dedicated worker to listen to them on a Friday night cry 
because their child that they were caring for wasn't doing as 
well as they wanted that child to do. They didn't want to give 
up on foster parenting. And so we do need to do a much better 
job on retaining the foster parents we have.
    Mr. KUSTOFF. Thank you very much. Thank you for everybody's 
testimony.
    And Mr. Chairman, I will yield back my time.
    Chairman SMITH. Thank you.
    Mr. Fitzpatrick.
    Mr. FITZPATRICK. Thank you, Chairman Smith.
    We all know our children represent roughly 22 percent of 
our population, but 100 percent of our future. I thank you all 
for being here today to be a voice for them.
    It is no mystery that our nation is facing critical 
shortages of foster homes. This has led to children, as we have 
heard today, in dangerous situations, often sleeping in unsafe 
places, including hotel rooms and caseworker offices. And as we 
have discussed at this hearing, any youth treatment facility 
and congregate care program receiving Federal child welfare 
funds must be meeting the standards of a qualified residential 
treatment program.
    In addition to concerns of shortages of care options, we 
must grapple with findings and finding safe and secure 
placements for children with severe trauma and behavioral 
issues. No child should fear sleeping in a hotel room or in an 
office space. We have a role to play in ensuring that our kids 
are not missing crucial components of their development.
    I want to start with Mrs. Petersen.
    In your testimony you mentioned that programs like Title 
IV-B provide crucial support to both children and their 
families. You have experienced this, both as a foster child 
yourself in the foster care system, and now caring for children 
in the foster care system. How can programs like Title IV-B be 
improved to provide the services to help families avoid the 
foster care system?
    Ms. PETERSEN. What we have witnessed, especially--we are 
from a rural area--is that not every caseworker and county 
believes and understands that children remaining with their 
biological family, if safe and if possible, is the best option. 
It can be really easy to villainize biological parents.
    And so, even when it is possible, they will remove the 
child. My mom, as an adult, despite what she did to me, I 
believe deserved compassion because, as--I believe you said 
this, but often times it is the parents that have experienced 
abuse or that are being abused. And so if we can treat them 
with the same care that we would treat the child, and give them 
the same resources that we would a child in terms of therapy 
and help and care, children could often remain with their 
biological families.
    Mr. FITZPATRICK. And Ms. Hilton, I want to talk about 
community-based organizations. Oftentimes, unfortunately, the 
federal government, the state government misses these signs and 
signals that they should be catching. And oftentimes, at the 
community level, groups are able to address specific issues 
that otherwise are missed by our government agencies.
    As a leading advocate in this space, as you have been--and 
thank you for talking to our Problem Solvers Caucus last year, 
by the way, on your bill--how can community organizations and 
stakeholders be emboldened to be larger voices in addressing 
problems in the child welfare system and work with the federal 
government to implement change?
    Ms. HILTON. I just want to first thank you for being a 
sponsor of the Stop Institutional Child Abuse Act. I really 
appreciate you.
    And the community organizations that are on the ground 
working with impacted individuals, they are so important, and 
we should work with them to ensure that we get the policies 
right.
    Mr. FITZPATRICK. Thank you, Ms. Hilton.
    Lastly, Mr. Geen, we are currently facing a shortage of 
foster homes and youth treatment facilities not meeting 
appropriate Federal standards. Can you speak to the issue of 
the shortage itself, and the impact on our foster youth and 
children, specifically those kids with behavioral issues?
    Mr. GEEN. So clearly, children sleeping in hospitals, 
hotels, or emergency rooms for weeks on end is not right. It is 
not right. And yet, let me be very clear. The answer is not 
more residential beds. We need to meet the needs of children in 
family-based settings. That may include therapeutic foster 
homes, it may include additional training for foster parents in 
meeting the mental health needs of children, but it cannot mean 
placing a child who doesn't need that level of restriction in 
that type of facility.
    Mr. FITZPATRICK. Thank you, Mr. Geen, and thank you, all of 
you, for being a voice for the voiceless. I do appreciate it. 
And----
    Ms. MANSFIELD. Could I just add one thing?
    Mr. FITZPATRICK. Sure.
    Ms. MANSFIELD. I just wanted to add that I have worked with 
many families where the parents had to make the choice--because 
they could not afford the appropriate level of care for their 
child--to reach out and access the child welfare system to say, 
``We can no longer care for our child. We can't afford the 
treatment that they need.''
    And so there have been some states which have taken the 
action of making it that you do not have to place a child in 
foster care for a family to use the resources of foster care, 
and that then allows for more children to stay while they are 
accessing those resources in their biological home.
    Mr. FITZPATRICK. Thank you for adding that, Ms. Mansfield. 
We appreciate it.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE [presiding]. The chair now recognizes the 
gentlelady from California, Representative Sanchez, for five 
minutes.
    Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you. And I want to, first and foremost, 
thank all of our panelists for your testimony today.
    And Ms. Hilton, when I met you last year I was impressed by 
your courage in speaking out in the face of the horrific 
circumstances that you experienced, and the fact that you are 
using your platform to be a voice for those--for some of those 
who are the most vulnerable in our society.
    As the mom to a teenager, I am horrified to hear of the 
abuse that many children go through in the name of ``protecting 
them,'' so I do appreciate you taking the time today in 
emphasizing, in particular, the importance of reauthorizing the 
Title IV-B program, which, I have to say, has not seen an 
increase in funding since 2006. So reauthorizing Title IV-B is 
a bipartisan effort. You have heard there is plenty of support 
on this dais for that. But even modest improvements to this 
program can make a huge difference for at-risk youth, and 
surely we can all agree here that we need to do better by the 
children who are put in our care.
    But doing better by these kids isn't free. We need to 
increase the funding towards safe and quality programs that 
ensure children's safety, and we need to be funding programs 
that stop children from entering foster care in the first 
place. So things like investing in community-based prevention 
and protection services, and ways in which we can help keep 
kids with their parents or their extended family members or 
even just within their own communities, I think, is really 
critical.
    I just want to know--Ms. Hilton, I will start with you--
would you agree that providing increased funding for programs 
that help keep kids out of foster care and ensure that they can 
remain with their families would be a better benefit to these 
kids?
    Ms. HILTON. Yes, I do agree with that. I believe that we 
need to keep children safe in their own homes and with their 
families as much as possible, and I believe that we should 
reauthorize Title IV-B to provide necessary funding to help 
bolster community resources and to help keep families together.
    Ms. SANCHEZ. Is there anybody on the dais that doesn't 
think that an increase in funding would be helpful?
    Mr. GEEN. I will just note that you were being kind in 
saying that the funding level has remained the same, because 
after inflation, as I think I mentioned in my written 
testimony, it has a 14 percent less buying power than it did 
back then.
    Ms. SANCHEZ. Correct, you are correct. So I think you are 
all in agreement that, not only is it critical to renew the 
program, but to really put our money where our mouth is when it 
comes to child well-being.
    Ms. Mansfield, I want to come to you because you mentioned 
the huge role that poverty plays in the removal of children 
from their families, and I think you stated that 75 percent of 
the children who are in the foster care system, due to a 
finding of neglect, very highly correlates to poverty. Is that 
right?
    Ms. MANSFIELD. Yes, to poverty as well as to substance use 
disorders and drug dependencies.
    Ms. SANCHEZ. So, you know, would increasing funding to 
things like, you know, SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program, or WIC, the Women, Infants, and Children 
nutritional assistance programs, or even programs like Head 
Start, would those go--you know, do anything in terms of 
reducing the numbers of kids from poor backgrounds that end up 
in the system?
    Ms. MANSFIELD. Absolutely, as well as increasing funds for 
child care so that people can actually work and have safe care 
for their children, and especially when something happens and 
they might have to miss work and not to have to rely on people 
who then might put them in danger of the child welfare system 
becoming involved, as well as programs like TANF.
    Ms. SANCHEZ. Amen, sister. As a working mom, I totally feel 
that.
    It is just interesting to me that we can all agree that 
keeping kids out of the foster system is the better result, and 
yet we are not willing to make the investments in the programs 
that are going to keep those kids out of the foster care 
system.
    And before I--my time is expired, I would be remiss in 
failing to mention the huge disparities that face children in 
the foster care system, because we see Black and Latino 
children heavily over-represented in the foster care system. 
And in fact, in--over the past five years, the rate of Latino 
children in foster care in this country has risen by more than 
five percent. So, you know, we need to look at the fact that 
these issues don't happen in a vacuum. The racial disparities 
in our justice system, our foster care system, and our economy, 
they are all interconnected, and they sort of create this 
perfect storm, which causes parents who can't economically 
support their kids to have to surrender them into the system.
    I really believe in early interventions, again, to try to 
keep kids from ending up in the foster care system in the first 
place.
    And I want to thank the chairman for her indulgence, and I 
yield back.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Thank you. The chair now recognizes the 
gentleman from Florida, Greg Steube.
    Mr. STEUBE. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Hilton, thank you for sharing your experience with us 
today. Your testimony is extremely powerful and moving. What 
happened to you and countless other children is unacceptable, 
and is a moral failing in our country. And we must do better.
    The Ways and Means Committee has jurisdiction over child 
welfare programs, and it is our responsibility to ensure that 
all children in care receive the highest quality care, and that 
taxpayer dollars do not support abusive practices. The 2022 GAO 
report on residential facilities highlighted the need for 
improved information sharing, data collection, and best 
practices between states and residential treatment facilities.
    We have heard horrific accounts from survivors about their 
time in congregate care facilities across the country. At the 
same time, we know that there are many facilities in many of 
our districts that do crucial work that provide necessary 
services. I hope that we can work together to both root out 
abuse and better enhance youth facilities that do good work.
    However, it is clear better federal guidance and 
information sharing is needed to root out abuse and keep 
America's youth safe. Congress has the power to act, and we 
must exercise our authority to ensure better oversight and 
accountability of residential youth programs receiving Federal 
funding.
    Your advocacy has brought these issues to the forefront, 
and that is why I have introduced a bipartisan bill with Mr. 
Panetta of California. Our bill, H.R. 8817, aims to increase 
transparency for residential treatment facilities by developing 
guidance on best practices for Federal agencies and states. The 
guidance will focus on collecting data and sharing information 
related to youth well-being and residential treatment 
facilities, improving data on maltreatment, and enhancing 
oversight of youth residential programs that receive federal 
funding.
    My first question, Ms. Hilton, is, do you think it is 
important that federal agencies work with each other to address 
these issues?
    Ms. HILTON. Thank you. It is so great to see you again, and 
thank you for your dedication on this issue by introducing that 
bill. All the survivors and I are so grateful to you for taking 
action on this issue.
    And I believe that interagency collaboration is very 
important. These facilities treat foster youth, kids in the 
juvenile justice system, youth with disabilities, and youth 
with mental health issues. I think all the agencies must work 
together to address the abuse and neglect that is happening, 
and we can't fix the issue if we don't look at it as a whole.
    Mr. STEUBE. I know you have worked with state legislatures 
to pass legislation for enhanced oversight of youth residential 
facilities. Can you share any examples of states that have 
implemented particularly effective reforms?
    Ms. HILTON. I know, with Utah, that we have made a lot of 
progress with children being able to speak to their families 
without someone sitting right next to them. Also with medical 
restraints, that is another issue that we have been--resolved 
almost.
    And yes, I think it is just important that we continue 
using our voices so that we can pass this bill.
    Mr. STEUBE. Mrs. Petersen, would you like to add to that, 
other states where you have seen reforms that have made 
effective changes?
    Ms. PETERSEN. I am not familiar with any necessary 
policies, but I do believe that it is crucial that children are 
able to talk to parents, able to talk to caseworkers about the 
situation in their homes, what their foster parents are doing, 
what is happening in the residential facility that they are 
living in, confidentiality, and alone so that they can tell 
them if anything is happening that is dangerous.
    Mr. STEUBE. In the time I have remaining, Mr. Geen, is 
there anything you would like to add?
    Mr. GEEN. So when you talk about accountability, I would 
like to point out the data that we tend to lack on the children 
who experience group settings. One is, who are these children? 
What are the conditions that led them to these facilities in 
the first place? We have this assumption that these children 
have severe mental health needs, and yet research shows that a 
large percent of them have no diagnosis whatsoever. We tend to 
think of kids going into group settings after bouncing around 
from foster home to foster home. Most children who spend time 
in a group setting do so their first night in foster care. They 
were never given the chance to succeed in a family.
    We know that high-quality residential care can usually be 
delivered within 90 days. Within 90 days is generally the 
intervention that needs to take place, and yet the average 
length of stay in many places is 9 months or more. So we need 
to understand what is actually happening, in addition to the 
horrific abuse that you have heard about from things. So it is 
all of that.
    Mr. STEUBE. Thank you for all the witnesses that are here 
today. I yield back.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from 
New York, Claudia Tenney.
    Ms. TENNEY. Thank you, chairman, and also thank you to the 
ranking member.
    And thank you to the witnesses for your really heartfelt 
testimony and your compassionate view of this really important 
issue. And it is long overdue that we update Title IV-B in 
order to combat the many problems our nation's child welfare 
system faces today, and you have highlighted a lot of those. I 
really appreciate that. You know, reauthorizing this program 
will allow us to prevent future abuse and neglect, ultimately 
mitigating the substantial long-term abuse that you have all 
outlined today, and the costs of current child welfare 
programs.
    So I come from the state of New York, where there are over 
25,000 children in foster care. Our child care system is 
plagued with all the problems this committee and all of you 
have outlined and aim to address in trying to fix this with 
this reauthorization. High costs, homelessness, challenges 
entering the workforce when they completed foster care, and a 
lack of legal representation, which is something that really 
hits home to me.
    When I was a full-time practicing lawyer, I did a lot of 
pro bono work for the Legal Aid Society in upstate New York, 
and I worked with families for free on child custody, 
visitation, abuse and neglect, adoption cases. It is very 
complex. I had an issue--a district and a region that was big 
cities, medium-sized cities, rural areas, suburban areas, and 
it was all the same issue coming up. And I really appreciate 
that.
    And I wanted to first ask Mr. Geen, because I know this is 
what--I know it is a huge issue. The Administration of the 
Children and Families Division within HHS has recently 
finalized a rule allowing states to use their Title IV-E funds 
to cover legal fees for children and parents involved in these 
child welfare cases. In response to this rule I introduced H.R. 
8810, the Ensuring Legal Representation for Child Welfare Act, 
which calls on the states to outline their approaches to 
providing legal representation and supporting families. The 
legislation aims to bolster state planning and encourage 
strategies that enhance family support.
    Could you tell us how legal representation for children and 
parents, typically those with legal representation, tend to 
have better outcomes within the child welfare system and 
compare those to without?
    And I know there are a lot of--I love the Legal Aid Society 
and our ability to give pro bono work, but sometimes it really 
just helps that we have people that are assigned to these 
cases.
    Mr. GEEN. So I appreciate you raising the issue of legal 
representation.
    In my opening remarks I talked a little bit about the 
polarizing rhetoric that sometimes gets in the way of 
bipartisan solutions. And this is an area where I hear some 
folks talking about parents' rights and other people talking 
about children's rights as if they are somehow in conflict. Yet 
people in the field know that both are required to move a case 
forward. And the earlier in the process that families are 
engaged with legal representation, the more likely it is that 
they are going to have successful outcomes and that the cases 
will move forward expeditiously.
    Ms. TENNEY. Well, great. Thank you so much for that.
    And I wanted to say thank you to Ms. Hilton for doing--
being such a leader on this issue. And it was really a, you 
know, a unique opportunity for me to see you and how well you 
have done. And albeit it was a Zoom call, but with your 
adorable son, he was--you are just a loving mother. I have to 
say that this experience for you must have impacted you so 
greatly, as you have described.
    But I want to--you talked a little bit with my colleague 
about how, you know, the bill provides transparency, and you 
mentioned that Utah is providing some reforms. But what 
specifically do you think we could do to add mental health and 
counseling support?
    And how do we--how can we incorporate that in the bill, 
along with trying to meet the goals that are already in this 
reauthorization?
    Ms. HILTON. Well, thank you. I enjoyed our Zoom call, and I 
love your jacket. The sparkles are amazing. [Laughter.]
    Ms. TENNEY. I had a little bling here for today.
    Ms. HILTON. Yes. I want to find out who made it later.
    But I think the most important thing is they need access to 
therapy counseling, mentorship, and other community-based 
programs. And I think it is also important to not label these 
kids as troubled or bad. I think it makes these children feel 
like they aren't believed, and that is something that is 
important for them to not feel that way.
    And yes, I think it is just about showing kindness and love 
and compassion and support, and giving these kids life skills 
that they can use in life because otherwise we are just setting 
them up to fail.
    Ms. TENNEY. Did you have access to any of this therapy or 
anything when you were in your situation?
    Ms. HILTON. No. And, you know, I was only sent there 
because I was getting bad grades, I was just ditching classes, 
I had--I have ADHD, and that was something that they weren't 
really talking about back then. So somebody recommended that I 
go to these schools. My parents had no idea. They just thought 
it was going to be a normal boarding school. And when I got 
there, there was no therapy. We would just constantly be torn 
down, abused, screamed at, yelled at, no education whatsoever. 
I learned nothing there except trauma.
    Ms. TENNEY. I think my time has run out, but I want to say 
thank you to you and everyone. You all were terrific. I wish I 
could have answered--asked you all a question, but this is a 
great hearing, and I thank you to the chairman and I yield 
back.
    Ms. HILTON. Thank you.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. The chairman now recognizes the gentlelady 
from Washington, Representative DelBene, for five minutes.
    Ms. DelBENE. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to all of 
our witnesses. Thank you for taking the time to join us.
    In 2021 Democrats expanded the Child Tax Credit through the 
American Rescue Plan. And not only did this historic piece of 
legislation slash the U.S. poverty rate nearly in half in just 
six months, but it also enabled parents to pay for essentials 
like housing, groceries, daycare. And as a result, parents no 
longer had to fear losing their kids to the foster system due 
to economic adversity.
    Ms. Hilton, I was--during your time advocating for children 
and families, I assume you have met former foster youth who 
have expressed that they would have been helped by economic 
support, or that that would have helped them avoid being in 
foster care. Is that true?
    And if so, do you have any stories to share?
    Ms. HILTON. Yes, definitely. I have talked to so many 
survivors, and that is what they needed. They needed to have 
that support, and they didn't. And it is just so heartbreaking 
to know that these kids didn't belong in these type of places 
just because they lost--maybe their parents did something 
that--they weren't able to take care of them, or one of their 
family members died and it just was--it was really 
heartbreaking just to always hear these stories of them not 
getting any support whatsoever, and then being these innocent 
kids who were then sent to these places and just being exposed 
to so many things that no child should ever have to witness. 
And if they would have just had that support, maybe things 
could have been different for them.
    Ms. DelBENE. Thank you. Mr. Geen, from your experience with 
the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption--and I know 
Congresswoman Sanchez brought this up, too--how important is 
securing financial stability for the well-being of families who 
are at risk of entering the foster care system?
    Mr. GEEN. So there is a growing body--and I would call it 
probably a robust body now--of research that clearly shows that 
additional financial assistance reduces the risk of child 
maltreatment, and that is on the front end of the spectrum.
    Once children are involved in the child welfare system, 
financial resources are needed to keep kids out of the system 
and also to make sure that they are cared for while they are in 
the system.
    Ms. DelBENE. And what role do you think financial support 
measures like the Child Tax Credit play in preventing kids from 
entering foster care?
    And what are the consequences when these kinds of benefits 
expire?
    Mr. GEEN. So as I said, I think the research is now pretty 
clear that giving families additional financial assistance 
reduces maltreatment. If children aren't maltreated, they are 
much less likely to end up in the foster care system. So there 
is a direct link there.
    Ms. DelBENE. Yes, we have lots of data on the expanded 
Child Tax Credit and the benefit.
    And again, to kind of follow up to something Congresswoman 
Sanchez was saying, if we invest now and prevent kids from 
being in these situations, not only do we have better outcomes 
for our kids, we save a lot of money along the way, too. So we 
can make smart investments, help families, help kids have great 
outcomes, and be fiscally responsible at the same time.
    You know, I am from the state of Washington, and the 
Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families 
relies on IV-B funding to provide critical community services, 
including family preservation, family reunification, family 
support, and adoption promotion support. Unfortunately, the 
allocated IV-B grant amounts are often exceeded by the need.
    Mr. Geen, again, knowing that the intent of IV-B is to 
support more upfront and family-focused efforts, how can 
Congress ensure that states are receiving the necessary IV-B 
grants in the amounts that they require to be successful?
    Mr. GEEN. So I think that we have to understand how Title 
IV-B interacts with other funding streams. IV-B is a very small 
amount of overall investment from the Federal Government.
    I think part of the question is how can IV-B be a pipeline 
for the development of programs that then can be funded through 
the prevention side of Title IV-E. So we think--we need to 
think about these programs together.
    Ms. DelBENE. Thank you. And as Congress looks to 
reauthorize IV-B, what barriers must Congress remove to help 
states and tribes take advantage of the preventative funding 
made available by the Family First Prevention Services Act?
    Mr. GEEN. Yes. So as I mentioned, there is tremendous 
support for the concept, the vision of Family First. People 
want to believe in prevention, and they are running into real 
challenges.
    The clearinghouse, for one. The definitions in the 
clearinghouse of what it means to be supported, well supported, 
promising, are not consistent with other rigorous databases. So 
we can't just take programs that have already been proven to be 
successful in other databases, and then bring them into the 
clearinghouse.
    You mentioned the tribes. A lot of the evaluation criteria 
within the IV-E prevention program are really not aligned with 
the way that tribes operate. So there is work to be done.
    And then I have also mentioned the idea of how to provide 
concrete supports, getting to your financial assistance 
question. How can we provide that as part of IV-E? There is a 
concern among some that we don't want child welfare to become a 
parallel financial assistance system. We don't want there to be 
an incentive to come into child welfare. We are already 
concerned that too many families are being referred.
    At the same time, there are some opportunities with 
limited--time-limited funds to keep families together and out 
of child welfare that doesn't serve as a magnet. So how can we 
use the IV-E prevention program for that?
    Ms. DelBENE. Thank you.
    I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. I will remind the members that there is a 
five minute time limit.
    The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma, 
Representative Hern.
    Mr. HERN. I thank the chair, I thank the witnesses for 
being here today, and I really appreciate it very much.
    I have spoken many times on this committee about the 
circumstances in my early life which led me to run for 
Congress. Growing up in the environment that I did, it took 
hard work, education, and the right opportunities for me to 
make it to this point in my life. I am not confident today, 
where we stand now, that a child growing up today in a similar 
or other uncertain circumstances would have the same 
opportunity or ability to achieve the American dream.
    In 2021 in Oklahoma, over 7,000 children were in foster 
care, and over 13,000 children were the victims of 
maltreatment. The vast majority of these cases were neglect. 
Child welfare programs funded through Title IV-B give states 
the flexibility they need to help their vulnerable children, 
ideally before they have to enter the foster care system.
    I appreciate the witnesses being here today to testify so 
that we can make the necessary changes to ensure we are ready 
and reaching as many children as possible.
    One way to do this is by reducing the regulatory burden so 
that Title IV-B funding recipients can spend more time helping 
children and families, and less time waiting through the red 
tape. Right now, child welfare payments are made to tribes 
through two different funding allocations. One of these goes 
through states, rather than directly to the tribal grantees, an 
outdated and fragmented system that needs to be updated. In 
Oklahoma, the larger tribes are already paid directly, while 
the state must contract with each smaller tribe individually. 
This process involves determining which tribes are eligible, 
creating contracts with eligible tribes based on the scope of 
their child welfare work, facilitating tribes' claims, and 
issuing reimbursement.
    The current process is slow and burdensome for both 
parties, while impacted children are waiting on much-needed 
help. This is why I am working on legislation to modernize this 
funding structure by allowing Indian tribes to be paid directly 
without decreasing funds to the states.
    Mr. Geen, you mentioned in your testimony that there is a 
widespread support for reducing the administrative burden 
associated with Federal funding, particularly for tribes. Can 
you give us a little more information on that, and what you 
think about the administrative burden as it is impacting 
states' and tribes' ability to provide aid to impacted 
children?
    Mr. GEEN. Absolutely. I have heard tribes tell me that they 
have declined federal resources because the amount of work it 
takes to get it is more than the value of the grants. If the 
administrative burden was related to ensuring that we 
understood how funds were being spent and holding states 
accountable, it would be one thing. But as I have mentioned 
before, to a large extent, many of the reporting requirements 
we have are nothing more than an exercise of checking a box.
    And so we do need to talk about accountability. We do need 
to make sure that children are doing well, and that federal 
resources are being spent effectively. But the burden that we 
are placing on states is not achieving that, and it is coming 
at a cost of taking time away from doing the work that we have 
to do with children and families.
    Mr. HERN. I appreciate that response. What do you see as 
the policy solution to alleviate the burden?
    And do you think allowing direct funding to tribes would 
help mitigate this problem?
    Mr. GEEN. I have certainly heard from tribal experts that 
that is something they are seeking, so I will defer to their 
knowledge and suggest that that seems to be in line with what 
they want.
    Mr. HERN. So you don't have any direct solutions at this 
moment to share.
    Mr. GEEN. Again, I would take a look at all of the 
reporting requirements and say, what is this getting us? Is 
this really assuring us that we are doing well by these 
children, or is it making us feel good that we are getting a 
report or something signed that suggests something is being 
done?
    Mr. HERN. I appreciate your response. It makes me think of 
a particular Member of Congress that often asks us about the 
work we do here. Are we doing good or are we just feeling good? 
So I really appreciate it.
    I yield back, thank you.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from 
Utah, Representative Moore, for five minutes.
    Mr. MOORE of Utah. Thank you. Thank you to Chairman Smith 
and Ranking Member Neal for holding this important hearing 
today. Being able to come together to discuss Title IV-B 
funding is not always the most, you know, headline-capturing 
work that we do here, but it is crucial. This funding 
provides--it is an essential component providing funding to 
state courts to enhance their connection with child welfare 
systems, for effective case management, and supporting timely 
hearings for children in foster care.
    Alongside Representative Miller and Representative Chu, I 
introduced the Bipartisan Court Improvement Program Enhancement 
Act to promote modernization efforts, including the utilization 
of technology for remote hearings and best practices.
    Mr. Geen, I appreciate the work that you do and your 
connection to the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption. I got a 
chance to meet him my senior year in high school. My life was 
never the same after that. So thank you for working on such an 
important thing. And I assume, with your celebrity status and 
social media presence, that is why we are experiencing such a 
high volume of participation and audience today. [Laughter.]
    Mr. MOORE of Utah. Can you elaborate--back to this court 
improvement program--why it is such a critical element for 
Title IV-B reauthorization, and how modernization and 
technological advancements can further improve outcomes for 
children in foster care?
    Mr. GEEN. Yes, and I will reiterate a couple of the things 
I said earlier.
    We focused on the flexibility of IV-B, and it is absolutely 
essential. And yet there are some set-asides. And Congress has 
made some really intelligent choices about areas that have 
suffered from under-investment and lack of attention, and the 
court improvement program is one of them. It is a relatively 
small amount of money, but it is a critical resource to improve 
the quality of the hearings that take place every single day.
    When you talk about the technological innovations--I have 
mentioned this before--the states learned a lot during COVID. 
They were forced into a different situation, and they had to 
figure out how to continue to hold hearings in an environment 
of COVID and safety procedures, and so they experimented a lot. 
And I think that there is a lot to be learned from that period 
of time.
    Court organizations that have looked at those remote 
hearings have suggested there are some very, very good 
positives coming out of it, but it is not a universal positive. 
You still need to hold those hearings in a quality fashion. And 
so investing in the training and understanding of how to use 
the technology in an effective way seems like a good 
investment.
    Mr. MOORE of Utah. Thank you. The work that the Dave Thomas 
Foundation for Adoption and other folks that are trying to find 
your forever families--Mrs. Petersen, part of your testimony 
was really touching, just to hear your struggle and to be able 
to find that stability in your life. I mean, the negative 
impacts that take place from timing out of foster care are 
catastrophic for our communities and for the individual, 
obviously. So just thank you for your work on that.
    Ms. Hilton, great to see you again. Thank you for the work 
that you do, the advocacy work that you do not only in my state 
of Utah, but here at the Federal level, as well. We have had a 
few chances to meet. From your perspective and interactions 
with former foster youth, how can Federal and state governments 
better collaborate with community organizations and other 
stakeholders in our communities to improve outcomes for 
children and families in the system?
    Ms. HILTON. Thank you. So good to see you again, as well.
    And I think it is important for people to work together and 
figure out ways where they can make the biggest difference. And 
I think it is important for there to be transparency so that 
people know what is happening in both places.
    Mr. MOORE of Utah. Excellent. And as I was mentioning 
earlier, this isn't the most headline-grabbing topic, Title IV-
B funding, but your presence and advocacy also does lend a hand 
to helping us, you know, get this out there more. So thank you 
for your voice in this.
    And lastly, Mrs. Petersen, as I mentioned your story 
earlier, is there anything you would like to add with the 
involvement?
    As I talk about state and federal government and local 
community, religious organizations also play a big role. And is 
there anything that we need to do to make sure that they have a 
place and a voice in this--the outcomes here, as well?
    Ms. PETERSEN. Yes. I would just like to mention the small 
percentage of youth who are like me, who couldn't go back with 
their biological parents. I endured years and years of abuse 
and years of trying reunification in which it didn't work. And 
I was labeled unadoptable. And I just believe that no child 
should be labeled that, that every child is adoptable. And it 
is why it is so crucial that communities, churches, and 
organizations come together so that children can be in 
families.
    Mr. MOORE of Utah. Thank you so much.
    I yield back.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. The chair now recognizes the gentleman, 
Representative Kildee, for five minutes.
    Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the 
chairman and ranking member for holding this really important 
hearing. It is really important to me, personally.
    A long time ago, my first job, my first real job, was 
working in the child welfare system and working in an agency 
that, Donald M. Whaley Children's Center in my hometown of 
Flint, which for 98 years now has been doing an extraordinary 
job of treating and dealing with the challenges for our most 
at-risk kids in our society.
    And I think one of the things that I take away from this 
hearing, despite the fact there was, I think, really important 
critique of some of the residential settings--and certainly the 
life experience of Ms. Hilton points to that--it is important 
that we recognize that the entirety of the system should be 
pointed at bringing kids back to a permanent, loving, stable 
home. Often that means reforming our foster system. Often that 
does mean also ensuring that, when residential treatment is 
required--and we have to acknowledge that there are conditions 
where it is required--that it is done so at the highest 
possible level, with the greatest possible scrutiny, with ample 
funding to make sure that that care is delivered in a way that 
as soon as possible puts that child in a position to be in a 
safe and loving home.
    The entire system needs that attention. I have been happy 
to work with my friend, Congressman Feenstra, on legislation to 
deal with some of that. Our Strengthening Evidence Based 
Prevention Services Act, which is legislation that would 
support families, reduce the number of kids that are in foster 
care, is a really important step.
    Back in 2018 also, this committee spearheaded efforts, the 
Family First Prevention Services Act signed into law. That 
fundamentally reoriented our child welfare system to keep more 
kids safely in their homes whenever that is possible. It did 
that by providing Federal funds to states to offer those 
prevention services that we have been talking about. Our bill 
would expand access to those services across the country by 
creating a new grant program to help fill the gaps--and Mr. 
Geen, you mentioned this in your opening testimony--to help 
fill the gaps in the research, in the data that we need to see 
what really does work.
    So I wonder, Mr. Geen, if you might, in your--in the few 
minutes, talk a little bit about how investing in that 
additional research and evaluation would help us overcome some 
of the barriers to the utilization, the effective utilization, 
of these funds.
    Mr. GEEN. There is a frustration amongst the states at the 
slow progress of programs being approved for Title IV-E 
prevention funding. There is a need to figure out, how can we 
speed that process up? How do we invest in the research 
necessary to turn promising approaches, practice-based evidence 
into research? And there are opportunities to look at other 
databases of effective programs and figure out how can we make 
them available for child welfare.
    If I might, I do want to comment on your conversation about 
residential treatment, because I have said this, and I believe 
high-quality residential treatment is lifesaving for the 
children who need it. It is a twofold problem. One is we need 
to make sure it is only being used when it is absolutely 
necessary, but when it is used it does need to be of 
exceptional high quality.
    There are people who will grimace related to the QRTP, or 
Qualified Residential Treatment Program standards, but I will 
tell you that I feel like they are below the minimum level of 
what I would consider if I had to place one of my children. So 
as we look at those standards, consider what those actually do. 
It is really a very, very low bar.
    Mr. KILDEE. I really appreciate you making that point. My 
work experience told me that, is that meeting the minimum 
standards is not good enough for our kids. We have to have 
organizations, agencies that have as their aspiration, as their 
sole goal to try to lift these kids out of the circumstance 
they may be in and get them into a permanent, loving family 
home and not see it--again, as Ms. Hilton referenced in her 
testimony--not see it as a business to churn these kids as if 
they are a product in a material system. These are human 
beings. Their aspirations are the same as everyone else. Their 
potential is enormous.
    I meet kids--of course, they are not kids anymore--
occasionally I will meet someone who I think is older than I 
am, and suddenly I realize it was a child that I may have 
worked with decades ago, and they recall the smallest acts of 
kindness that some of us just take for granted as something 
that we do every day out of hand. The smallest acts of kindness 
are remembered.
    Unfortunately, the other side of the coin is also true. 
They can be hurt by some of the most callous acts of people who 
don't see them in their basic humanity. So I appreciate this 
panel, I really appreciate the work you are doing.
    I am sorry for going a few seconds over, and I yield back.
    Chairman SMITH. Thank you.
    Mrs. Steel.
    Mrs. STEEL. Finally, it is my turn. And thank you very 
much, Chairman Smith, for hosting this hearing. And thank you 
very much for all witnesses staying how many hours here. So I 
really appreciate it.
    But this is a really important issue that--I have worked 
with foster and other at-risk youth in California, and I have 
been seeing these kids.
    And thank you, Mrs. Petersen, that you were talking about 
that. You know, we really have to do the work before, you know, 
age out of the system, because I saw a lot of kids when they 
hit 18, and a lot of kids joining gang members, or they become 
homeless people in California. So I saw that.
    And thank you, Mr. Geen, that, you know, family setting is 
much better than group homes because when I was serving one--
the commissioner on Children and Family Center, you know, I saw 
a 12-year-old was having her second baby. So, you know what? It 
was really shocking to me that, you know, how we are going to 
really solve this problem.
    So thank you for all coming today. We really have to fix 
this system.
    And as Congressman Ferguson mentioned, I recently 
introduced the Foster Youth Mental Health Support Act. And my 
bill would create more consistent access to crucial mental 
health services for children and teenagers in foster system. 
Many children who have experienced time in foster care system 
have complex trauma from their removals and changing placements 
and, sadly, many children do not get access to mental health 
resources.
    So Mrs. Petersen, from your experience in foster care and 
as a mother caring for children with complex trauma, what kind 
of mental health challenges do children in foster care 
experience?
    Ms. PETERSEN. In my first foster home there was abuse that 
happened, and I reported it and I was placed in a residential 
facility. And I see now--I always look back on that experience 
and I think, wow, I really needed the therapy that was offered 
to me. But when I look back on that, I also realized that I 
could have used that therapy in a family setting. It was when I 
was in a family setting that all of the things that were taught 
to me and that were spoken over me in therapy, that I was 
loved, that I was important, that I was chosen, like, those 
things were spoken over me, but I didn't believe them until a 
family showed them to me.
    And so I think that is why it is so important. We have to 
have the mental health services, but we also have to have the 
family setting that proves to children who they truly are.
    Mrs. STEEL. Thank you. And Mr. Geen, you highlighted in 
your testimony that bipartisanship has long been a hallmark of 
federal child welfare legislation. Could you discuss how 
maintaining bipartisan support is critical for the success of 
child welfare initiatives and ensuring that children have safe, 
stable families, and to improve our nation's child welfare 
system, especially if we want effective mental health services?
    Mr. GEEN. I am going to answer that, I just want to add on 
to what Tori said about mental health, which is when we talk 
about mental health, we often talk about--and I hate to use 
these words because I don't like it--but ``fixing children, 
rather than giving them what they need, and giving their 
caregivers what they need. So we need to help parents care for 
kids. So that is also a part of it.
    To your question about bipartisanship, first I will say 
that this very committee has demonstrated that, both 
historically with legislation through Family First and through 
the series of hearings that you have had over a year, the 
importance of bipartisanship.
    I was very much struck during the landscape assessment we 
did as part of the Bipartisan Policy Center project, how often 
there was commonality in a diagnosis of what was wrong with the 
system and the solutions. And yet it was the language that 
people were using that made discussions hard.
    I will also note the wide variation that we have in states 
and communities. You are going to pass legislation which will 
then have to be implemented. It will have to be implemented in 
a host of different environments. It is absolutely essential 
that you get all of those different perspectives as part of the 
legislative process to ensure that when it goes out into the 
field to be implemented, that it will meet the local needs.
    Mrs. STEEL. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman SMITH. Ms. Van Duyne.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Today's hearing has given us the opportunity to highlight 
the important work that this committee is doing to ensure child 
welfare agencies and those in the foster care system have the 
resources and the tools that are needed to provide care to 
those most vulnerable. The reauthorization of Title IV-B 
provides an opportunity to discuss ways in which we can 
introduce program efficiency and modernize child support 
programs.
    During our hearing last November on strengthening child 
support enforcement, one of our witnesses, Ms. Turetsky, cited 
the State Department's passport denial program, which prohibits 
passport renewal or replacement for parents who owe more than 
$2,500 in child support, as one of the most effective 
mechanisms that the federal government has to enforce past-due 
support obligations. That is why I introduced the Ensuring 
Children Receive Support Act to expand this effective program 
by not only prohibiting renewal of a passport, but by requiring 
that the passport also be revoked.
    We need outside-the-box ideas to ensure our children have 
the resources they need and deserve, and this serves as a prime 
example of the type of effective child welfare program that we 
should aim to advance as we move forward with reauthorization. 
We need to be elevating policies and programs like the passport 
denial program that are proven to work effectively.
    Mr. Geen, given your experience, what are some key 
strategies or policies that you believe could help improve the 
overall quality of child welfare services?
    We have heard from some of our members on the other side of 
the aisle that it is about money, that we need more funds. I 
can't tell you how often I am in office, and everybody who 
comes into my office, We need more money. I would remind the 
panelists and the members here that a lot of times, when we 
throw more money at a problem, it increases the cost while 
decreasing the care and decreasing the quality. I can give you 
examples in health care. I can give you examples in education 
where that is the case. It is not always about the money.
    Tell me how we can more effectively help the industry, and 
how we can be more supportive without just throwing more money 
at it.
    Mr. GEEN. So I will start with I agree with you that it is 
not just about the money, it is how that money is spent. And so 
one of the questions is--we talked earlier about the 
disproportionate amount of Federal funds that are allocated for 
foster care and adoption. And you are reauthorizing a program 
that is four percent of Federal funds for child welfare. How do 
we figure out more--a way to be able to incentivize the 
performance of states to achieve the outcomes we want for kids, 
and still be able to maintain the level of Federal investment?
    Today, if you prevent a child from going into foster care, 
you actually lose the Federal investment on the foster care 
side by spending prevention money. So that is not how 
caseworkers think. They don't, like, make a decision based on 
whether they are getting Federal reimbursement. But the ability 
to keep a child out of foster care is based on what else is out 
there. And part of the challenge is, as we try to reduce 
something we have to increase something else.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Yes, I appreciate----
    Mr. GEEN. That is where the new money is actually needed. 
It is not a permanent increase. It is an ability to shift what 
you are doing from the status quo to best practice.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. All right, thank you.
    Earlier this year, an alarming article highlighted Texas's 
expenditure of over $250 million on housing foster children in 
unsafe, unregulated facilities following the termination of 
parental rights. Federal court documents and testimonies 
revealed that these facilities often lacked essential services, 
including basic necessities such as readily available food and 
consistent supervision, crucial for the state's most vulnerable 
foster children. Astonishingly, the budget documented allocated 
no funds for mental health treatment, despite extensive 
documentation these youths have high mental health needs and 
exhibit aggression.
    This situation highlights a challenge that states across 
the country are grappling with the shortage of placements for 
foster care with mental health needs. Texas ranks among the top 
states for kids in foster care, with more than 31,000 children 
in the system, most of whom suffer neglect, drug abuse by a 
parent, and physical abuse. The further mistreatment and lack 
of proper care for these kids is inexcusable.
    Ms. Hilton, from your experience, what are the outcomes for 
youth placed in these kinds of facilities?
    Ms. HILTON. Thank you for highlighting that article, and it 
is so concerning, what foster youth have experienced. The 
outcomes for this youth are horrible, and children are being 
abused and dying in these kind of facilities, and just 
surviving is the best-case scenario.
    I feel grateful where I am in life after my experience, but 
most don't end up having access to education and they end up 
homeless, having trauma, and a high percentage commit suicide 
because they don't know how to deal with the experience. The 
government is paying for this abuse, and we must stop it.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Thank you very much, Ms. Hilton.
    And I yield back.
    Ms. HILTON. Thank you.
    Chairman SMITH. Mr. Beyer.
    Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
    And I thank all of you for hanging in for four hours 
already. You are patient and brave.
    And I also want to comment that I have been really thrilled 
to listen to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle with the 
compassion, the concern that they have expressed for this 
issue.
    Also, Mrs. Petersen, I heartily approve of your faith-based 
approach to this. I know this is Christianity, but it is also 
Judaism, and Islam, and others. I see tons of faith-based non-
profits in the areas I represent committed to trying to lift up 
everyone. The challenge, of course, for us, as leaders in 
government, is that the faith-based things are not enough in 
our current society. You also have to figure out how do we use 
government to address this constructively.
    Ms. Hilton, thank you, too, for your bravery to mention 
your own traumatic experiences with seclusion and restraint 
when you were in those facilities.
    The horrible truth is that so many families are left in the 
dark about this. When I got here 10 years ago I inherited a 
bill called the Keeping All Families Safe Act, and we have been 
working on it for 10 years unsuccessfully. But it is 
recognizing that there are at least 22 states that have 
absolutely no guidelines, laws, rules about seclusion and 
restraint in schools or in other facilities. Many states that 
do have it, they are insufficient.
    Can you--in terms of your own experience, how harmful was 
it to you, or how harmful do you see it for other children to 
be inappropriately secluded and restrained, and the long-term 
consequences?
    Ms. HILTON. From personal experience, it was extremely 
traumatic. And just experiencing that on a daily basis, seeing 
my other peers being restrained and just for no reason, it was 
just--the power was abused all the time by the staff members. 
And restraint and seclusion are extremely dangerous, and they 
create life-long trauma.
    Restraints and seclusion have also led to numerous child 
deaths in these facilities. Cornelius Fredericks, he was 
restrained until he couldn't breathe, and died at 16 years old. 
A 12-year-old in a North Carolina facility just yesterday, his 
death was confirmed a homicide for staff locking him in a 
restraint and seclusion tent overnight until he couldn't 
breathe.
    And restraint and seclusion are not therapeutic. Ask anyone 
who has experienced it. And I believe that Congress should do 
more to protect youth from these practices.
    Mr. BEYER. It is very helpful to have you say that and to 
speak up firmly.
    You know, the office--the U.S. Department of Education's 
Office of Civil Rights is responsible for collecting all the 
data, and they suggest 2,300 times per school day, on average, 
upwards of 102,000 students per academic year are subject to 
the seclusion and restraint. Sadly, we tend to underfund that 
agency, so we are pushing hard to make sure that it has the 
resources it needs to do that.
    How important do you think it is to be able to measure 
this, to have the federal government have those statistics on 
the states and schools?
    Ms. HILTON. It is extremely important. We need to know what 
is happening inside the walls of these facilities, as the 
industry is not transparent. Staff are often taking the easy 
route of restraining or secluding a child instead of actually 
helping them, and this causes the child to have trauma, and we 
must provide them with treatment and not subject them to harm.
    Mr. BEYER. Yes. Mr. Geen and Ms. Mansfield, I am not sure 
who is the best answer to this. Years ago I was a Big Brother 
for a young man named Clifford, who was a foster child living 
in a home that was desperately poor. It was very clear that 
they took him in because of the cash that came with him. Not 
that it was a lot of cash, but it was enough to help feed the 
other three children in the household. And yet we hear from 
Mrs. Petersen today--and I have heard scores of times--that the 
typical foster child experience is to move from home to home to 
home. And yet, Mr. Geen, you talked about that the problem is 
retention, that recruitment.
    How do we deal with the fact--or what is to account for the 
fact that so many foster children have bad experience after bad 
experience--Mrs. Petersen, 12 different places--and yet we 
apparently have a surplus of people that want to be responsible 
foster parents? This doesn't make sense to me.
    Mr. GEEN. Well, let me start by saying that your experience 
with a foster parent ``doing it for the money,'' is an 
incredibly rare exception. The vast majority of foster parents 
spend far more on their children than they receive from 
government agencies.
    The reason that I say it is a retention problem and not a 
recruitment problem is the number of people who start inquiring 
and get involved in foster parenting. If we held on to them, we 
would have enough homes for every single child in care. Foster 
parents tend to give up when they don't think they are doing a 
particularly good job. What they need most is not money. Yes, 
they do need financial assistance. Many of them are challenged 
financially. What they need most is support from their peers 
and from someone who will listen to them and help them care for 
the child that has been placed in their home.
    Mr. BEYER. My time is up, but at some point I would love to 
hear from Mrs. Petersen why she gave up on them or why they 
gave up on you.
    Chairman SMITH. Mr. Feenstra.
    Mr. FEENSTRA. Thank you.
    Thank you, Ms. Hilton, for coming forward and telling your 
story, writing the book and your memoir.
    And Mrs. Petersen, thank you. That is a bold step. We are 
all created in God's image, and we are all children of God. We 
always have to remember that. So thank you.
    In 2018 Congress passed the Family First Prevention 
Services Act, one of the largest child welfare reforms in state 
history. The bill represented a shift in how we approach child 
welfare, recognizing that children do best when they grow up in 
a family and in their communities. That is so big. We started 
to focus more on helping strengthen families by responding to 
the root causes that were splintering them apart and leaving 
children in the foster care program. The goal of prevention is 
to help families stay together, and the importance of this has 
only grown as the foster care program seems to increasingly get 
strained because of maximum capacity.
    Mr. Geen, you highlighted the successes of the progress of 
the Family First Prevention Services Act in your opening 
statement. However, there are still barriers in the full 
implementation. It is crucial to have a wide variety of 
evidence-based programs available in the clearinghouse. 
Representative Kildee and I introduced the Strengthening 
Evidence Based Prevention Services Act to establish a new 
competitive grant program aimed at supporting prevention 
programs through research and evaluations which are required to 
receive federal support.
    So my question is this, Mr. Geen, do you believe that there 
is a need for a more diverse array of programs in this 
clearinghouse?
    Mr. GEEN. So as a recovering researcher, I certainly 
support evidence-based policy and evidence-based funding 
decisions. At the same time, there is absolutely no doubt in my 
mind that states need a broader array of programs to invest in.
    What we don't want to happen, and what I fear could happen 
is a state looks at the clearinghouse and says, this is what is 
well supported, so this is what we are going to pay for and 
invest in, without an understanding of whether these programs 
actually meet the needs of children and families in their 
community.
    And so there is absolutely a need to expand the variety of 
the programs so that each state and community and tribe can 
look at their own circumstances and find out what works for 
them.
    Mr. FEENSTRA. And what barriers--so I agree, you and I 
agree on this, but--so what are the barriers? Why aren't we 
doing this?
    Mr. GEEN. So I think there are a number of things. One, it 
gets down to the way the legislation was written.
    Mr. FEENSTRA. Yes.
    Mr. GEEN. And the words that we use for ``promising 
practice,'' ``well supported,'' and ``supported.'' There was a 
period of time when Congress had a temporary authorization to 
allow states to get reimbursement if 50 percent of their 
programs were either supported or well supported. Now we are 
back to what the traditional legislation says, which is it has 
to be 50 percent of well supported. This is why I worry about 
states just looking at those well supported programs without 
the knowledge of what do they actually need in their community.
    Mr. FEENSTRA. Yes, yes. So--exactly right. So we have 50 
states. How do we manage this, partnering then with the states 
and their programs?
    Mr. GEEN. So I will say there is progress being made, which 
is good. We are seeing states investing more in prevention 
through IV-E. There are growing numbers of programs being 
approved by the clearinghouse.
    I do think reauthorization of IV-B plays an important role 
here. States can use IV-B to test a program that is not yet 
approved on the clearinghouse. They can test it. They can say, 
yes, this meets our needs, and then hopefully it will get 
through the approval process.
    I do think that approval process needs to be sped up.
    Mr. FEENSTRA. Yes, thank you. Thank you so much for that.
    Mrs. Petersen, I have just got a question after Mr.--
Congressman Kildee noted. So if you had to look back, okay, you 
look back and you were in, what, 12 homes or something like 
that? What was the root cause, I mean, of these families and 
changing homes and all this stuff?
    I mean, do you have any solutions to say, all right, we 
don't want this for other children what happened to you?
    Ms. PETERSEN. Yes. My time in care I was--so the second 
time I went into care, I was in care as a teenager. And we know 
that teenagers, it is hard to find placements for them more so 
than it is young children. Teenagers in foster care are 
stigmatized and viewed very unfairly. I was a 4.0 student, I 
was a good athlete, and it was hard for me to find placement, 
and it was hard for me to retain placement because people--
foster parents want to adopt little children, and so little 
children would come into the home and then I would be moved to 
the next home.
    And there were also--there is a lot of rules in the foster 
care system, revolving youth in foster care. And the Normalcy 
Act passed, which I mentioned earlier, after I had emancipated. 
But a lot of those rules I didn't follow, and I would be kicked 
out of homes. Those rules were rules that my peers did not 
follow because they weren't putting me in danger, they were 
just--I wanted to have a normal experience as a teenager, as 
any teenager would.
    And so I was either usually moved out because the family 
was establishing their family through adoption, or because of 
rules that I didn't follow.
    Mr. FEENSTRA. Thank you. Thank you for that.
    Ms. PETERSEN. Thank you.
    Mr. FEENSTRA. We need solutions, and I yield back.
    Chairman SMITH. Mr. Carey.
    Mr. CAREY. I want to thank the chair and, as a point of 
personal privilege today, my mother and father were divorced 
when I was probably no more than three or four months old, but 
today is my mother's birthday. So I am not sure how many people 
are watching C-SPAN, but I know that she is.
    So happy birthday, Mother. [Laughter.]
    Mr. CAREY. Listen, I just want to tell you, this is some of 
the bipartisan stuff that many of us got elected to Congress to 
actually do. Many of us don't like to shout at the rain all 
day. We want to find solutions. And I wish that many of you 
could join us for our lunch in between.
    You know, I was with my dear colleague on the Democratic 
side, Beyer, and Schweikert, and we had a great discussion 
about this issue, not for the cameras. But I just want you to 
know that there are people in Congress, whether they are 
Republican, whether they are Democrat, whether they are 
independent, that really want to keep this country moving 
forward. And this is a big issue that we do have bipartisan 
support.
    So to that end, Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank you for 
having this hearing. I want to thank the ranking member, as 
well. But I also want to thank the witnesses for being here 
today to discuss this critical need to reauthorize the IV-B of 
the Social Security Tax Act.
    Last week, alongside my dear friend, Representative Larson, 
I introduced the Promoting Community Based Prevention Services 
Act. This legislation will allow states greater flexibility in 
their allocations of funds to family resource centers. When 
parents feel supported, families thrive. And that is why I am 
proud to help guarantee these resources can be available in 
every community across the country for every family that might 
need them.
    Ms. Hilton, I do want to say you have got a tremendous 
team, and I see some of them behind you today. They work 
extremely hard. They are in our offices a lot, talking about 
the issues that are very important to you and all credit to 
your team on that.
    Family First requires the Qualified Residential Treatment 
Programs, or the QRTPs, to have a licensed clinical staff 
available 24/7. Based on your advocacy and the experience, are 
these staffing requirements being met consistently and 
effectively?
    Ms. HILTON. Thank you. My team and I love working with you 
and your team. And happy birthday to your mom, as well.
    Mr. CAREY. Thank you.
    Ms. HILTON. And I appreciate the committee's work on Family 
First. I am not a policy expert, but based on my lived 
experience, the staff are untrained and unfit to work with 
children.
    Licensed staff is important, but the floor staff, the 
people who do the overnight shifts and the hard work, they need 
to be looked at, as well. These facilities keep staffing costs 
as low as possible to increase the bottom line. In my case, 
many staff enjoyed abusing the children because they knew they 
could get away with it. They would take kids to rooms without 
cameras, beat them up, and physically and sexually abuse them.
    There is a lot of sexual abuse that happens. I just heard a 
situation right now where a 12-year-old foster youth is 
pregnant because she was sexually abused by staff. I think we 
need stronger oversight over who works with children, as 
children are dying at the hands of these staff.
    Mr. CAREY. And really, kind of as a follow-up to that, what 
further training or education requirements should be imposed on 
staff in these facilities to better support and protect our 
youth, in your opinion?
    Ms. HILTON. I think that there needs to be checks on these 
people, and background checks, as well, and they need to be 
trained in how to deal with children.
    And I think that you guys could speak better on that for--
--
    Mr. CAREY. Well, that is all right. I am about down to a 
minute, and I appreciate your testimony.
    Mrs. Petersen, I did want to talk to you.
    But Mr. Geen, I wanted to touch upon something because your 
opening testimony--all of you mentioned the young people that 
are in foster care that are--through the adoption process 
today, and that help is on the way, and that we want to--we 
want them to be--we want them to know that there is something 
on the other side. And to that end, your founder, Mr. Thompson, 
he is--Thomas--has been a legend in--not only in Columbus and 
the 15th congressional district, but across the world.
    And what I want people to know today. I know his daughter, 
Lori, is a dear friend of mine. His granddaughter, Ally, is a 
good friend of mine. But what he was able to do, given his 
situation--and if you look at the franchisees with the Wendy's 
Corporation across the country--because of what he did, he 
created more than 200,000 jobs. Every life matters. And I want 
everybody who is listening and watching today to know that.
    And I appreciate all of you coming in here today. It means 
a lot.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman SMITH. Thank you.
    Mr. Panetta.
    Mr. PANETTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
    Ladies and gentleman, thanks for being here. And of course, 
thanks to Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Neal for having 
this hearing on not just an important issue, as obviously, you 
understand, but also you are hearing--we understand that. What 
I mean by that, this is a bipartisan issue which--I want to 
echo the sentiments of my colleague, Mr. Carey, as to when it 
comes down to these types of issues, you know, good governing 
isn't sexy sometimes. But let me tell you, good governing is 
good politics in my book. And so I appreciate you being a part 
of the--this good governing that you are seeing right here 
today.
    However, as you have testified, though, you know, we want 
to make sure that we can do everything we can to ensure the 
well-being of our foster youth. There was a 2022 Government 
Accountability Office report that, unfortunately, revealed that 
there are an absolutely alarming amount of instances of 
maltreatment and abuse in federally-funded youth residential 
treatment centers. And in that report the GAO recommended 
certain steps that need to be taken to address the abuse, but 
also how federal agencies can support local agencies and also 
make sure that there is better oversight.
    That is why I am working and partnering with my colleague, 
Greg Steube on this committee, on the bipartisan H.R. 8817, a 
bill that would mandate relevant federal agencies to collect 
the appropriate data, collaborate to develop guidance and best 
practices for those states receiving Title IV-B funds, and 
report on how we can improve the well-being of youth in 
residential treatment facilities.
    The goal of this bill is to provide proper oversight for 
those youth residential programs that receive federal funding, 
and we have consulted with a number of federal agencies on our 
bill. And the agencies that would be mandated to share this 
information and collaborate include HHS, Department of 
Education, the Administration for Children and Families, the 
Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Department of 
Justice, and--I quote--``other policy experts.''
    Mr. Geen, my first question to you. Who should those other 
policy experts be, in your opinion? And are there any agencies 
that we should be consulting with on this matter?
    Mr. GEEN. So I would be remiss if I didn't answer this 
question looking at the people next to me. One of the folks who 
needs to be--or the category of folks that needs to be involved 
are people who have lived experience in the system. They need 
to have a voice into making sure that what is being developed 
is sound.
    Let me also say that we absolutely need to be able to 
collect data on the abuses in these facilities. That is not 
enough. Would you place your child in a facility that you knew 
didn't abuse them? Well, that is the minimum you possibly need. 
You want to look at quality. You want to make sure that they 
are not taking in young people who don't need to be there. You 
want to make sure they are not holding on to young people for 
longer periods of time than they need the intervention, right? 
What difference does it make? They will continue to get paid. 
You want to make sure, as another one of your colleagues 
mentioned, there is not the abuse of psychotropic drugs or 
policy pharmacy use.
    So as we look into this accountability, it goes far beyond 
just saying they are not abusing kids.
    Mr. PANETTA. Understood, and that is exactly why in that 
bill we want these agencies to come up with best practices for 
the states that are receiving these types of funds.
    Let me take it one step further, though, Mr. Geen. 
Obviously, we have a direct role overseeing funds that place 
children in these settings, but we don't have the same power of 
the purse when it comes to private facilities and private 
insurance. Can you talk to us about the leverage that can be 
used over private facilities that are not paid through the 
Title IV-B program?
    Mr. GEEN. It is my understanding--and again, there are 
people on this panel who may know differently than I--that many 
of these private institutions are serving kids from multiple 
different populations. Some are caring for foster kids, 
juvenile justice kids, truant kids, the rest. And so I think 
having all of those agencies at the table to talk about their 
use would be important, and could advise you.
    Mr. PANETTA. With 30 seconds left, would anybody want to 
add to that answer as to what type of leverage we could use 
over private industries and private residential treatment 
facilities?
    Mr. GEEN. Let me just add one thing, because this has come 
up over and over again. Private institutions aren't by nature 
evil. There are private facilities that are probably doing good 
work. There are non-profit facilities that are doing work that 
is at least abusive, if not more. And so, while I appreciate 
the question, I want to make sure that we look at the totality, 
and not focus on one or the other.
    Mr. PANETTA. Absolutely, and that is why I focused on both, 
basically, those facilities that are receiving Federal funds 
and private facilities, as well, and obviously, making sure 
that we come up with solutions to ensure the proper oversight 
on both. Thank you. Thanks to all of you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman SMITH. Thank you.
    Ms. Malliotakis.
    Ms. MALLIOTAKIS. Thank you very much. I want to thank you 
all for being here. It has been, obviously, a very difficult, 
heartbreaking hearing, but very important that we put the 
spotlight on these atrocities that are happening, and that we 
work together for solutions to end the abuse of these children.
    You know, I represent New York City, and in New York City, 
sadly, there have been a number of instances over the last few 
years of children that were killed. They were killed either in 
their home by their parent because their cases fell through the 
cracks. We had one child, a three-year-old, who was beaten by 
their father. ACS knew about it, but he was taken away and then 
put back into the home, which was a homeless shelter, and he 
ended up being beaten to death. Another three-year-old who was 
in a foster care facility--a foster home, ended up with a drug 
overdose and died.
    How do we work with these local agencies? What can the 
federal government do to have more accountability for these 
local agencies? Because it is a balancing act, right? We had 
this whole hearing about how we don't want to unnecessarily 
take children from their homes if we can help rectify the 
situation. But then, on the other hand, you have these children 
that are falling through the cracks. They know there is an 
issue, but they leave them there and then they ended up dead.
    Do you have any thoughts, any of you--Mr. Geen, in 
particular--about what we can do as a federal government to try 
to hold some accountability for our local partners?
    Mr. GEEN. So I will start by saying that a single child 
death involved in the system is a tragedy. And we also can 
learn from those instances and localities, do child death 
reviews, and use the information from those reviews to talk 
about how could we prevent this in the future.
    At the same time, we don't want to make the problem seem 
larger than it is. The child fatality issue is an important 
one, but we don't want to expand it to make it--we think that 
it is larger than it actually is.
    Ms. MALLIOTAKIS. Okay. I still think that we need to have 
more accountability measures to find out why those children 
fell through the cracks, why they were neglected. Was it a 
staffing issue or is it something that is a little bit----
    Mr. GEEN. And recognizing the impossible decision that we 
are putting upon--and I will be stereotypic--a 20-something-
year-old new case worker making a decision with very limited 
information--it is unfortunate, a tragedy that children die. It 
is impossible to make that best decision. Removing the child 
harms them, causes them trauma. It is often not the best 
scenario. And so we don't want to overreact to a child death, 
as well. Making policy based on a small number of incidents 
usually lead to outcomes that do more harm than good.
    Ms. MALLIOTAKIS. Well, thank you.
    And I am proud to sponsor the bill being advocated for by 
you, Ms. Hilton, the Stop Institutionalized Child Abuse Act. I 
think it is a really great step. I know that you have had some 
success in passing this legislation on the state level. Can you 
talk a little bit about the changes that you have seen 
happening in the States as a result of this--similar 
legislation?
    Ms. HILTON. Yes, we have helped pass nine state laws, but 
that is not enough. It needs to be on a federal level.
    But the positive part about it is that people know that 
they are being watched, but abuse is still happening, and 
children are still dying in the name of treatment. So that is 
why the Stop Institutional Child Abuse Act is so important. And 
thank you for supporting it, I really appreciate that.
    Ms. MALLIOTAKIS. Today NBC came out with an article that 
says the states fail to track abuse in foster care facilities 
housing thousands of children, and this was based on a U.S. 
Health and Human Resources Office of Inspector General report. 
We talked about transparency, the need to report these 
instances of abuse, and for states to share the information 
because if you have state--one facility operating in one state 
and they are operating in other states, and those states are 
still contracting with that same company, that is an issue.
    What other transparency measures would you like to see that 
could help us with the accountability and oversight component?
    [No response.]
    Ms. MALLIOTAKIS. Well, I have another question if you want 
to--let me get this question, and then you can expand, because 
I am running out of time.
    The topic of Social Security benefits being garnished by 
states for foster care has been a growing issue, and we know 
that a small portion of forced foster youth are eligible for 
SSI benefits, sometimes inheritance from their parents who 
passed away. And this can be particularly helpful for them when 
they--as, you know, as they work to prepare to transition from 
foster care, maybe give them some--a basis to start with. And I 
am concerned about the lack of transparency of that issue in 
these SSI benefits being taken by the states. Could you comment 
on that, and if that is something we should look to reform?
    Mr. GEEN. Sure, and I think transparency in that is 
essential. I also think it is an incredibly complex issue.
    Children often come into care without SSI benefits, and 
they get SSI benefits because the state agency applies on their 
behalf. They then use that money to reimburse themselves for a 
portion of the cost.
    There is a concern, at least among some, that if states are 
told they are not going to be able to use any of that SSI 
money, they won't go through the trouble of applying for SSI 
for children. So we want to make sure that children who would 
be eligible are going to be found eligible. And if the child 
welfare agency doesn't do it, they may wind up leaving care 
still without SSI benefits.
    In addition, if a child had SSI benefits with a parent, the 
parent could use a portion of the SSI benefits to care for the 
child. So there probably is some middle ground here between the 
idea of you are not allowed to use any of the SSI funds for any 
state purpose versus we get to take all of it and you don't get 
anything. And so I think that it is a complex discussion that 
is worthy of further debate.
    Ms. MALLIOTAKIS. Yes, I think certainly the committee 
should examine it further, and we would love to work with you 
more on how we can come to a good, equal ground on that. Thank 
you.
    Chairman SMITH. Last, but certainly not least, Mr. Gomez.
    Mr. GOMEZ. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    First, let me thank all of you for being here on this 
important topic.
    Ms. Hilton, I am happy to have a fellow Angeleno here. I am 
proud to represent Los Angeles in Washington. And just thank 
you for sharing your story.
    When I was getting briefed by my staff about the hearing 
and about the issues, they told me about your story and I was 
thinking about how much time you must have spent. And I was 
thinking months, not years. So just to hear the fact that you 
were in this facility for two years is just astonishing to me, 
especially, like, knowing--I have--I know some people that were 
in the California Youth Authority for less time. So it is mind 
boggling that somebody can be held. So--and at the same time, 
they told me about how your advocacy has been very thoughtful, 
and has been moving the ball forward. So thank you so much.
    And I am a new parent. I have a 22-month-old toddler, I 
have the scars to prove it, physical scars from him trying to 
bite me once in a while. But we are--I know that we are trying 
to do more here, and that is why one of the things I did was I 
started the Dads Caucus, so that dads would actually do more at 
home to help raise children, but also for dads to do more here 
in the halls of Congress to fight for family-friendly policies 
that really help kids and families everywhere.
    And in your testimony, Ms. Hilton, you mentioned that 
families need resources and support so they don't need to come 
into the child welfare system in the first place. Could you 
elaborate on the need for more federal resources for children?
    Ms. HILTON. I think it is really important because a lot of 
the things that are happening to these children is because they 
don't have the funds, and then they are going to be going into 
the system because of that. And sometimes their families can't 
afford to take care of them, and it is just heartbreaking that 
because of that reason that they would be taken away and then 
locked away in these facilities and being abused. So I just 
think it is important for that to be taken care of before, so 
that they will never have to go into the system and be put 
through this abuse.
    Mr. GOMEZ. And I agree with you. A lot of what we want to 
try to prevent is to prevent these children from entering into 
the foster system in the first place, to have smart policies, a 
national paid family leave program so people can take the time 
off to care for a kid.
    The Child Tax Credit, we did pass a bipartisan bill here 
that did--that is not what we would have written as Democrats, 
but it was still a good bill. We moved it forward.
    Affordable child care, because families--too many families 
are struggling, and we have to think about how does--how do 
parents--how do we help parents make it a little bit easier on 
them to raise those kids?
    And as a new dad, I kind of realize we do a lot in how we 
influence how a child is raised. It is almost like what you put 
in is what you get back. And making it easier for them, 
parents, to do that is crucial. And we are going to keep 
fighting for those.
    Also, one question--one issue on the foster care system is 
when it comes to LGBTQ youth. Because what I have read in 
certain reports is that LGBTQ youth represent about--represent 
about 30 percent of all children in the foster care system. 
Five percent are considered--identify as transgender. What can 
we do to support those children? Because those are often the 
ones that don't end up being--ever finding a home, living on 
the streets, and then often being put in terrible situations.
    Ms. Mansfield.
    Ms. MANSFIELD. I am not sure that I have the answer to 
that, unfortunately. But I will speak from my own experience 
growing up with foster siblings, that my brother originally 
could not be placed because they identified that he should not 
be in a home environment because of his sexual orientation. And 
no child should be labeled like that or not be placed in a home 
environment because of that. It is a huge issue, and I wish I 
had the solutions to it. I do not.
    But I appreciate you bringing that up because it is 
something that comes up frequently, both for children in foster 
care as well as those children who then become adults and often 
become the incarcerated mothers that I work with, as well.
    Mr. GOMEZ. Thank you.
    My time is up. I just want to thank the chairman. Although 
we don't always see eye to eye on solutions, we do believe that 
there is a problem that we have to be--that has to be dealt 
with.
    So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman SMITH. Thank you.
    I want to thank each and every one of you for spending the 
time on this important hearing. Hearing your powerful 
testimony, it definitely is making a difference.
    Please be advised that members have two weeks to submit 
written questions to be answered later in writing. Those 
questions and your answers will be made part of the formal 
hearing record today.
    With that, the committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 2:37 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]      

                    MEMBER QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

      
   [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  

      

                   PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

      
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
   
                                [all]