With less than a month left before the 87th Texas legislative session ends, I wanted to update you on what is going on with child protection.
The Legislature is tackling many significant issues: pandemic response, health coverage, ERCOT reform, and more. But one major issue that is largely flying under the radar this session is CPS reform. This blog will highlight some of the very significant proposals under consideration, how to strengthen some of them, and why we’re particularly considered about one harmful bill.
Good Child Protection Policies with Momentum
The most significant opportunity to keep kids safe with their families and out of foster care this session is through smart investment in implementation of the 2018 federal Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA).
Texas received $33.9 million in federal funding through the Family First Transition Act (FFTA) to help our state implement the FFPSA, which restructured how the federal government funds state child welfare systems by prioritizing prevention services to keep children out of foster care.
The Senate budget allocated a small amount of FFTA funds to Nurse-Family Partnership. The House budget, on the other hand, through Rider 38, directed $24 million in FFTA funding to be used for the following prevention strategies:
$8.9M to fund prevention services coordinated through CPS;
$9.8M to fund pilots for prevention services outlined in HB 3041 by Chair James Frank (see below);
$5.2M for the Nurse-Family Partnership home visiting program.
HB 3041 by Chair Frank would establish two pilot programs in courts handling CPS cases around the state. After CPS investigates a case and decides the case needs court intervention, children may become eligible for these pilots. In these pilots, courts would decide whether to connect families with prevention services while a child stays with their biological parents instead of removing the child and placing that child in foster care. These prevention services include those eligible for federal funding through the FFPSA.
We support these pilots but are concerned that certain families may be inadvertently excluded from receiving prevention services as an alternative to removal. Under FFPSA, “foster care candidacy” determines eligibility for prevention services. The bill’s proposed definition of foster care candidacy is narrower than any other state’s definition and narrower than the definition proposed in the DFPS strategic plan. Therefore, we recommend designating priority populations for these pilots rather than defining candidacy in statute so Texas may adjust as we learn more about leveraging this new funding during the pilot period. Alternatively, courts should be required to document any case where the definition was a barrier to offering prevention services instead of removing a child from their parents and placing them in foster care.
Our Recommendation:
Budget Conferees should adopt House Rider 38 but amend it to ensure that any unexpended balances may be used to support other options to expand prevention services for children at imminent risk of entering foster care.
Support HB 3041, but amend the bill to designate priority populations instead of defining foster care candidacy in statute and adjust Rider 38 accordingly.
HB 567 takes several positive steps forward for family preservation, but implementation will need to be monitored closely to avoid unintended consequences.
HB 567 by Chair Frank passed the Senate on April 29 and has been signed by both the House and the Senate. This bill includes many important procedural guardrails for CPS and court-ordered services cases, creates urgency around reunifying children with their parents, and more. We appreciate Chair Frank’s goal to ensure children are only in foster care if it is absolutely necessary.
However, in a low-removal state like Texas, one change raises some questions about whether children will be left in unsafe situations. Under current law, CPS determines whether a child is neglected by evaluating whether the child is exposed to a “substantial risk” of physical or mental harm. Under HB 567, CPS will instead determine whether the child is in “immediate danger.” Therefore, it will be important to pay attention to how CPS interprets and implements this new definition of neglect; effective implementation can help avoid unintended consequences.
Our Recommendation:
Ensure CPS understands the legislative intent behind HB 567 and implements the bill accordingly.
Two good bills and two good budget riders will help ensure children in foster care have safe, nurturing homes.
Data indicate Texas does not have enough foster homes to serve older youth, kids in rural communities, or kids with complex needs. However, we have little information about the availability of foster homes for trafficking survivors, pregnant and parenting youth, and other special populations. The FFPSA restricted reimbursement for foster care facilities serving large groups of children except for a few high-quality or highly specialized foster care placements. Texans Care for Children recommended identifying gaps and developing capacity for the populations that the federal government will continue to provide under the FFPSA. All or part of this recommendation has been incorporated in several places:
Chair Kolkhort’s omnibus CPS bill, SB 1896, along with many other significant policy changes;
Rider 29 in the Senate budget, which primarily focuses on improving foster care capacity for survivors of human trafficking and youth who are at risk of being trafficked, but extends to other populations exempted from the new FFPSA funding restrictions, such as pregnant and parenting youth and young adults; and
Rider 43 in the House budget, which focuses on improving capacity for pregnant and parenting youth in foster care.
SB 1575 by Chair Kolkhorst is another Texans Care for Children priority. This bill will help bring Texas into compliance with new requirements set out by the FFPSA for local courts and CPS. Complying with these new requirements will strengthen advocacy for children in foster care with behavioral challenges by requiring caseworkers, CASAs, guardians ad litem, attorneys ad litem, and judges to thoroughly evaluate children’s treatment needs and monitor whether the treatment a child is receiving effectively meets their needs.
Our Recommendations:
Support SB 1896, which was referred to the House Human Services Committee on April 30.
Support SB 1575, which was placed on the Local/Uncontested Calendar in the Senate for May 5; its companion, HB 4476 by Chair Oliverson, was heard in the House Human Services Committee on April 20.
Budget conferees should support Rider 29 in the Senate Budget and Rider 43 in the House Budget.
We are very concerned about SB 1646, which targets families of transgender children.
SB 1646 by Senator Charles Perry defines facilitating certain medically recommended practices for transgender youth as abuse, which could traumatize families by increasing removals and negatively affect children who are already at higher risk of entering foster care and experiencing harm while in the state’s care.
In recent years, Texas leaders have focused on keeping children with loving parents and reducing the harm that children in foster care experience. Transgender youth should not be the exception to that goal. LGBTQ+ youth are already three times more likely to enter foster care than their peers, too often because they are misunderstood and rejected by their families. LGBTQ+ youth in foster care tend to experience more instability and are less likely to be reunited with their biological family, adopted, or placed in kinship care. They also experience higher rates of PTSD, depression, homelessness, and physical or sexual victimization.
LGBTQ+ youth who are rejected by their families are much more likely to attempt suicide. But if a child is accepted by their family, they are eight times less likely to attempt suicide and have rates of attempted suicide that are comparable to their non-LGBTQ+ peers. We understand why parents may feel confused about what is best for a child who has gender dysphoria. But we should be supporting families in taking on a nurturing and caring role in managing a child’s feelings about their gender.
Our recommendation:
Oppose SB 1646, which was referred to the House Public Health Committee on May 3.