House Bill 1453 (2004) brought about a number of changes in the way child welfare cases are processed and approached in the State of Missouri. These statutory changes affect not only the children and families involved, but also the judges, clerks, juvenile officers, Children's Division caseworkers, CASAs and attorneys handling child abuse and neglect cases.
In child abuse and neglect cases, a reunification plan for putting the child(ren) back in the care of the parent(s) is developed in tandem with an alternative permanent placement plan for the child in a process termed concurrent planning. Concurrent planning is a tenet of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 enacted in Missouri in 2004 (HB 1453). The goal of concurrent planning is to avoid multiple placements of a child in the child welfare system, thereby reducing the level of uncertainty in the child's life as well as the emotional risks posed by multiple placements. In concurrent planning, the role of those in the child welfare system is to simultaneously work toward placing a child back with the parent while recognizing that reunification efforts are not always successful. Rather than placing the child in a foster care setting where permanency is not an option, the child is placed with a foster family that is willing to work toward reunification and serve as a permanent home should the reunification fail. The dual and seemingly contradictory goals of concurrent planning make it a difficult concept to implement for both child abuse and neglect(CA/N) caseworkers and juvenile courts. Since 2004 when these changes went into effect, child welfare workers have experienced varying degrees of success in identifying and placing children in foster care settings that could become permanent homes in the future. Additionally, theconflicting nature of the goals of concurrent planning have led to confusion for some in terms of when the alternative placement plan should begin, how the plan should be discussed with biological parents, and the role of the juvenile court in assuring a concurrent plan is in place.
Powerpoint presentation concerning the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act prepared for the Institute of Public Policy at the Harry S. Truman School of Public Affairs at the University of Missouri-Columbia. Data representations include grapshs, charts, and maps.
"07-2005." ; The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) set in place restrictions on many forms of assistance, including cash grants or Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). Specifically, these new federal guidelines limited assistance for certain categories of immigrants, most notably those who entered the country after the federal welfare bill was signed in August of 1996. Most of these immigrants were required to have a five year minimum waiting period before they were eligible for cash assistance. However, as with most provisions, states had some ability to modify federal regulations. In Missouri, several groups of non-citizens are allowed to receive TANF. First, non-citizens who were in the country prior to August 22, 1996, and who otherwise meet criteria, maintained their eligibility. Additionally, certain groups who entered the country after August 22, 1996, were also classified as eligible. These included: refugees, asylees, and trafficking victims. According to a report by the Urban Institute, Missouri has a rather extensive safety net system still in place for immigrants, and is ranked among the top quarter of all states (Tumlim, Zimmerman, and Ost 1999). Given these changes, it is important to understand the situation of non-citizens with regard to the safety net in Missouri. How many non-citizens are receiving benefits? Where do they live in Missouri? In this brief, we assess patterns of cash assistance for non-citizens from 1999 to 2003. We find that, overall, noncitizens represent a very small percentage of the caseload, less than five percent at the peak in early 1999. Additionally, cases headed by non-citizens have declined substantially over the time studied, both in terms of raw numbers and relative to cases headed by citizens. The reason for the decline can not be known with certainty, but increased rates of naturalization have played a role. Finally, the non-citizen cases are not spread evenly across the state, but are concentrated in several counties, particularly those that have experienced recent increases in immigration. ; Includes bibliographical references
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity and Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 dramatically altered the social safety net. The federal legislation ended cash assistance as an entitlement program, shifted the funding stream to state block grants, and introduced time limits for individuals receiving cash assistance. According to federal guidelines, persons may not receive cash assistance for more than 60 months. Although states possess the option of implementing shorter time limits, Missouri, like many other states, adopted the federal guidelines of 60 months. Other states varied on both the length of a periodic time limit and the lifetime limit. Arizona, for example, does not have a lifetime limit but does not allow for more than 24 months of cash assistance within a 60 month period of time. Because of these variations in guidelines, the largest number of cases closed due to time limits are concentrated in states with shorter time limits such as Connecticut (21 months), Idaho (24 months), and Utah (36 months). Missouri's welfare plan was signed into law on July 1, 1997 and because of that time limits were first exhausted in July, 2002. This brief provides specific information regarding caseload trends in Missouri, including the length of time cases have been receiving benefits, the number of cases reaching the time limits, and the geographic distribution of case closures in Missouri. ; Includes bibliographical refereces
Missouri adopted term limits in 1992 but the limits did not take full effect until 2003 in the House and will take full effect in the Senate in 2005. Missouri's limit is a lifetime limit of eight years in each chamber, for a total of sixteen years. Initially the limit applied to partial terms for those elected in a special election but the amendment was revised in 2002 to exclude from the circulation service of less then one-half a term (i.e. one year in the House or two years in the Senate). The amendment can be found in article III, section 8 of the Missouri Constitution. In January 2003, no member of the House had served more than six consecutive years and in January 2005, no member of the Senate will have served more than six consecutive years. Those who have written about term limits do not agree about the probable effects and researchers have found that the effects of term limits vary significantly from state to state (see attached bibliography). This report draws on legislative data compiled by the Missouri Secretary of State, a legislative survey, and interviews to examine the impact of term limits on legislative leaders, new member learning and specialization, the role of legislative staff, and evolving lobbyingstrategies. ; Includes bibliographical references
Domestic violence is increasingly recognized as a serious social problem in Missouri. Protection orders are designed to offer individuals some level of safety, but nationally it is estimated that a quarter of such orders are not followed and enforcement is inconsistent. Noncompliant batterers typically increase the level of threats, coercive tactics and violence, and often the victims must relocate to hide from the abuser. These relocated victims need protection in new communities, but frequently they run into difficulties because of different legal jurisdictions across county and state lines. The Full Faith and Credit provisions of the Federal Violence Against Women Act of 1994 offer remedies to this problem, but states (including Missouri) have experienced considerable difficulties in implementation of the provisions of this act. Such problems include lack of coordination among jurisdictions, low levels of understanding about the law, scarce government resources for addressing impediments, and failure to enforce protection orders.