Bill Overview
Title: CARE Act
Description: This bill provides incentive payments to states, under certain circumstances, for children who are successfully reunified with their biological families.
Sponsors: Rep. Gonzales, Tony [R-TX-23]
Target Audience
Population: Children in foster care eligible for reunification with their biological families
Estimated Size: 200000
- The bill focuses on children in foster care who are candidates for reunification with their biological families.
- A significant number of children are placed in foster care each year globally due to various reasons, including neglect and abuse.
- The aim of reunification is to return the child to a safe and supportive family environment, which can involve extensive processes depending on the legal and social systems of each state or country.
Reasoning
- The policy targets a specific subset of the population—children in foster care estimated at 400,000 in the US, with about 200,000 being potential candidates for reunification. The policy's impact is primarily direct on the children and their families, but it can also have indirect effects on foster families and state child welfare systems.
- Given budgetary constraints, the initial focus will likely be on the most feasible cases of reunification, which could lead to quick positive impacts on wellbeing for some, while others might see little immediate change.
- The varying individual circumstances of families and local policies will create a diverse set of outcomes in terms of wellbeing.
- Social workers, families, and children each hold different perspectives that influence their understanding and opinion on the policy.
Simulated Interviews
Foster Care Social Worker (New York, NY)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe the CARE Act will provide the much-needed support to families trying to get back together.
- Reunification is complex, but financial incentives can help us extend resources and services.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Biological Father (Dallas, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Anything that helps us get our daughter back is a positive.
- We lack resources to expedite the reunification process. This could change that.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Foster Parent (Sacramento, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried this might rush reunifications that aren't in the best interest of the children.
- The policy needs to ensure that the reunifications supported are genuinely safe.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Policy Analyst (Lincoln, NE)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The data is crucial to effective policy tweaking and avoiding mishaps.
- Long-term support is vital even after the initial reunification.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
High School Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 16 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this means I can go back home sooner and stay there.
- I trust my parents are working hard to get me back.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired Social Worker (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Incentives should complement a foundation of solid support systems.
- I worry that budgets might not meet the actual needs as they arise.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Biological Mother (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could be a chance to get regular visits and quicker reunification.
- It's a challenging system; this might ease some burdens.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Family Attorney (Denver, CO)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will alter how state cases are handled, potentially expediting reunifications significantly.
- Incentives should align with both financial oversight and family support services.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
State Child Welfare Officer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Implementation needs strict monitoring to ensure safety and success.
- Short-term gains need balancing with long-term stability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Community Organizer (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 48 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The stigma around reunification must be addressed beyond financial incentives.
- Community support can bridge the gaps left by policy limitations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $300000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $450000000)
Year 2: $315000000 (Low: $210000000, High: $472500000)
Year 3: $330750000 (Low: $220500000, High: $496125000)
Year 5: $382031250 (Low: $255750000, High: $575593125)
Year 10: $490914140 (Low: $328395616, High: $739798658)
Year 100: $12805164461 (Low: $8569776307, High: $19461224846)
Key Considerations
- Incentive alignment across states may vary, affecting the program's overall success.
- Administrative capacity to efficiently manage and support the reunification process.
- Potential challenges in ensuring long-term familial stability post-reunification.