Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/8789

Bill Overview

Title: Connecting Forever Families Act of 2022

Description: This bill authorizes additional funding for the Court Improvement Program, which supports state courts' role in achieving stable, permanent homes for children in foster care.

Sponsors: Rep. Moore, Blake D. [R-UT-1]

Target Audience

Population: Children currently in foster care

Estimated Size: 391098

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

student (California)

Age: 14 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I hope this policy helps because moving from one place to another is hard. I want to stay in one home.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 4
Year 2 6 4
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 7 5
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 8 5

foster parent (Texas)

Age: 36 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • If the process of adoption becomes smoother, we might consider adopting permanently.
  • The current process is daunting and lengthy.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 9 7

social worker (New York)

Age: 40 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Additional funding for courts can speed up placements, which is beneficial.
  • Processes are often delayed due to lack of resources in the legal system.

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 9 8
Year 20 9 8

lawyer (Minnesota)

Age: 47 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This bill could significantly improve the efficiency of court processes.
  • Many cases are currently delayed, causing stress to families involved.

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 9 8
Year 20 9 8

case worker (Virginia)

Age: 29 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Resource allocation could better streamline case handling to avoid backlogs.
  • We need more support for court-related bottlenecks.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 7 5
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 9 7

student (Florida)

Age: 10 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 8.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I like that my new home might be my forever home fast.
  • I don't want to move again.

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 8 5
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 8 6

foster parent (Ohio)

Age: 32 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 9.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • We have considered adoption, but we give up because the system is too complicated.
  • I hope with more efficiency, more kids find a permanent home.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 9 7

judge (Georgia)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • With increased funding, more judges can be hired to handle cases efficiently.
  • It got really hard to see delays as they affect children directly.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 9 8
Year 5 9 8
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 9 8

foster care program director (Illinois)

Age: 45 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Court efficiency often dictates our success in placing children in permanent homes.
  • I see this as a significant step in the right direction.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 9 7
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 9 8

retired (Oregon)

Age: 52 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This enhancement is overdue and can drastically reduce the number of kids in limbo.
  • I hope they roll this out efficiently and fairly.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 8 7

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $180000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $210000000)

Year 2: $180000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $210000000)

Year 3: $180000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $210000000)

Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Key Considerations