President Donald J. Trump, alongside First Lady Melania Trump, recently signed the “Fostering the Future” executive order, aimed at improving child-welfare outcomes. The order issues a call to modernize the child-welfare system by updating regulations, improving the use and timeliness of child-welfare data, and expanding the use of tech solutions like predictive analytics. It also puts special emphasis on ensuring that older foster youth know what benefits are available to them and seeks to simplify access to these services.
The executive order renews America’s commitment to preventing children’s entry into foster care by keeping them safe with their own families, and, when that is not possible, to ensuring that the foster-care system is ready to serve kids in need.
Finally, a reason to check your email.
Sign up for our free newsletter today.
Today’s foster-care system is hampered by a shortage of licensed foster homes—roughly 57 licensed homes for every 100 children entering care, with recent reports suggesting that this number has dropped to just 55. The consequences are heartbreaking: children sleeping in offices or short-term rentals, the overuse of congregate (group) care, and emergency placements that prioritize availability rather than fit. These expensive arrangements can undermine the stability every child deserves.
As a former state child-welfare agency leader and now head of the Administration for Children and Families, I’ve been in dozens of rooms with state directors, legislators, advocates, and frontline workers. No state official or stakeholder has ever told me that he has too many licensed foster homes.
A root cause of this problem is a misunderstanding of two distinct concepts central to foster care: licensing and placement. Licensing is the gateway; placement is the match. For too long, federal and state policies have conflated the two, slamming the door on qualified, loving families who want to be licensed but are excluded due to fear of an imperfect match. In the words of the order: “Some jurisdictions and organizations maintain policies that discourage or prohibit qualified families from serving children in need as foster and adoptive parents because of their sincerely-held religious beliefs or adherence to basic biological truths.”
Licensure is the process that approves a household to care for a foster child. A family volunteers, submits an application, undergoes background checks and home inspections, completes training, and ultimately receives a time-limited license. Along the way, families clarify their preferences: how many children they can take in and of what ages, and other considerations such as the family’s religious beliefs or moral convictions. The family’s licensure establishes that a family is safe and willing to serve. It does not guarantee a placement, and it does not determine which child, if any, will join the home. Rather, it ensures that the system has as many safe, prepared homes as possible available for later matching.
Only a small fraction of families raises their hand to be foster parents. Nonetheless, the barriers to fostering are significant: coordinating weekday caseworker visits; attending court hearings; supporting visits with birth parents; absorbing increased household expenses for food, transportation, and clothing; and navigating systems that can feel opaque or adversarial. These obstacles make it even more important that licensing be simple, fast, and welcoming, with requirements limited only to what is essential to ensure safety.
Most states are now working toward a shared goal of reducing unnecessary burdens in licensing for both kin and non-relatives, streamlining paperwork, shortening timelines, focusing training on what matters, and eliminating superfluous requirements. Casting the widest possible net for prospective foster families is not only good practice but also a federal requirement. Federal law requires that states describe and conduct diligent recruitment of potential foster families because without a wide array of licensed homes, sound matching isn’t possible.
Matching is a separate process. It is the moment when a child-welfare agency—with the ongoing oversight of courts—identifies which specific home will be the best fit for a child entering state custody. A caseworker weighs the child’s unique needs, preferences, history, and relationships. The caseworker looks to identify licensed homes that align with these needs and with the foster family’s stated preferences and demonstrated strengths. Courts review these decisions for safety and appropriateness. Guardians ad litem and court-appointed special advocates amplify the child’s voice and best interests to ensure the match supports continuity and well-being.
Placement is meant to be precise. When we get the match right, children experience fewer moves, less trauma, and a shorter path to permanency. But when licensing and placement are conflated, children’s safety suffers. States that intentionally limit who can be licensed based on assumptions about which types of homes certain children need shrink the pool of licensed homes before matching ever begins.
Constraining licensing means constraining placement—and stability. The chain breaks at its first link. If we want to improve child-welfare outcomes, we must strengthen this entire chain.
That starts with clarity. Licensing should be broad, simple, and welcoming. The goal is to bring as many safe, loving families into the system as possible, from all walks of life. Then placement should be individualized and data-informed. The goal is to match the right child to the right family at the right time to enhance placement stability.
When states understand and honor the distinction between licensing and placement, they can excel at both. They can open the door wider to families ready to serve and simultaneously make better, more informed placement decisions.
In short: we should license broadly, match carefully.
When that happens, we will move closer to ACF’s vision: homes waiting for children, not children waiting for homes. By optimizing the distinct roles of licensing and placement, we can build a system that ensures a home for every child.
Photo: kieferpix / iStock / Getty Images Plus
City Journal is a publication of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (MI), a leading free-market think tank. Are you interested in supporting the magazine? As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, donations in support of MI and City Journal are fully tax-deductible as provided by law (EIN #13-2912529).
Source link
