Understanding the Foster Care Executive Order: What It Gets Right and What Remains Uncertain
- Curtis Campogni
- 6 days ago
- 14 min read
Jump to Section:
Before diving into Executive Order 14359, I want to acknowledge something. Several people reached out asking for my thoughts, and I intentionally took a little extra time before responding.
As someone advocating for improvements in Florida’s foster care system and as a father of two adopted children, I felt it was important not to react emotionally or celebrate or minimize anything too quickly.
I wanted to understand precisely what this Executive Order (EO) says, what it does not say, and what it could mean for the children and families who are living the realities behind these policies.
Further, even though this EO has limitations, its presence alone helps rekindle a conversation about one of the systems in our country that, nationwide, is known to be underserved and underfunded. Many public systems, such as education, health care, child care, social services, and law enforcement, have areas that require significant improvement, support, and oversight. But children in the foster care system are among the most vulnerable people in our country, and they are often exposed to trauma long before they reach their teenage years.
These children, at no fault of their own, are placed in situations where harm occurs before the system even begins to intervene. For that reason, I am both encouraged and grateful that this Executive Order shines a much-needed light on a system that has operated in the shadows for far too long.
Still, the purpose of this blog is not to celebrate the Executive Order, but to critically analyze what type of actionable change it may spark. There are also questions I cannot fully answer at this time, so much of my review is based on research and my interpretation of the EO itself. That means I may get parts of this wrong or adjust my perspective as more information becomes available. I welcome anyone with experience in these areas to reach out, continue the conversation, and help ensure that this Executive Order becomes more than a symbolic gesture. The goal is for it to mark a real shift in how we support children in Florida and across the country.
A breakdown of Executive Order 14359
Section 1: Purpose and Policy
The Executive Order opens by asserting that some jurisdictions and organizations discourage or prohibit qualified families from fostering or adopting because of their religious beliefs or their views about biological truth. Whether this occurs in other states is beyond the scope of this blog, but publicly available information does not show clear evidence of this happening in Florida. In fact, Florida’s statutes tend to protect religiously based child placement agencies.
Section 1 also highlights issues that are very real in Florida, including overburdened caseworkers and outdated systems. Both concerns are accurate. Caseworkers in Florida are often assigned double-digit caseloads and are asked to take on responsibilities that pull them away from the core work of providing meaningful case management.
For example, they may be transporting a youth to a visit instead of placing referrals, completing documentation, following up with providers, connecting families to additional resources, or offering the leadership and coordination the case requires.
Section 1 does not outline how this burden will be reduced, but it does imply that updated systems may ease some administrative or technological barriers that currently make simple tasks more time-consuming. Examples include the case reporting system going down, delays caused by outdated platforms, or the overall difficulty of entering case notes or finding important information quickly.
Section 1 also touches on the “uncertain futures” that youth transitioning out of care often experience when they do not have consistent support systems in place. This includes support in education, career development, mental health, and the ability to form and sustain healthy relationships.
Speaking specifically to Florida, and especially to Central Florida, our state is often considered resource-rich when it comes to workforce boards, employment programs, and behavioral health services. The challenge is not a lack of resources but a lack of coordination. Cross-agency and cross-program collaboration remains inconsistent, which makes it difficult for youth to access the right supports at the right time.
Florida, like many other states, is trying to meet the needs of multiple populations such as individuals experiencing homelessness, justice-involved youth, veterans, people with disabilities, and families in crisis. Without a clear system that can identify needs early and connect young people to the appropriate services, children and young adults will continue to fall through the gaps. This is one area where modernizing our information systems could make a meaningful difference, because improved technology has the potential to strengthen coordination and reduce the fragmentation that leaves youth unsupported.
Section 2: Modernizing the Child Welfare System
This is the section with the most potential for impact. It contains four major directives.
Section 2(a)(i) calls for improved data collection, faster publication, and greater transparency. This is an area where Florida has a clear need. State systems in general are fragmented, outdated, and often unable to communicate with one another. The Executive Order specifically highlights improving the collection of data related to child well-being and safety, eliminating duplicative or unnecessary reporting requirements, and expanding and expediting the publication of child welfare data.
These priorities are important, especially the expansion of public reporting. If gaps in the data are not visible and updated consistently, Florida will always be behind the eight ball when it comes to identifying systemic problems. We will remain reactive rather than innovative.
There is also an argument that the issue is not the collection of data itself, but the ability to aggregate and categorize that data across systems. Child welfare does not operate in a vacuum. A child in foster care interacts with courts, schools, behavioral health providers, medical providers, and community agencies. Each system often collects its own data, but Florida lacks an effective way to integrate these sources into a complete picture of a child’s experience.
For example, consider a youth who has been in foster care for sixteen months. Can the state easily pull a report that shows the efforts made to reunify, the barriers encountered, the efforts toward adoption, the referrals submitted, the timeliness of services, and how that sixteen-month length of stay compares to another child in a different part of the state?
Without this type of integrated data, it becomes difficult to understand what is causing delays, where accountability should fall, and how to prevent future stagnation.
This is why modernization cannot be seen as a technical upgrade alone. It is a foundational requirement for making informed, child-centered decisions in real time.
Section 2(a)(ii) encourages the modernization of state information systems and the use of more effective platforms. I support this goal, but modernization requires resources. The Executive Order does not provide funding, which means Florida would need to manage procurement, vendor selection, platform development, testing, and statewide training using existing dollars. This becomes a significant barrier because modernizing a child welfare system is not simply installing new software. It is a multi-year process that requires technical expertise, ongoing maintenance, and substantial staff time to implement correctly. Without dedicated funding attached to the Executive Order, Florida would be forced to absorb the costs, which makes long term modernization difficult to achieve.
Third, Section 2(a)(iii) encourages the use of predictive analytics and artificial intelligence to improve caregiver recruitment, caregiver and child matching, and funding efficiency. AI can help by identifying bottlenecks, flagging delays, and creating real time alerts. As someone who wrote a bill to track contested adoptions and has argued that technology can simplify that process, I support this section. Still, how predictive analytics would be applied needs to be clearly defined.
For example, predictive analytics can be helpful when it is used to illuminate patterns that already exist, such as identifying counties with growing caregiver shortages, so recruitment efforts can be directed where they are most needed. It can also help match children with caregivers who have a history of stability with similar needs, which may reduce placement disruptions. Predictive tools can also highlight areas where caseloads are rising or where services are not reaching youth, which can guide where funding or staffing should be increased.
These same tools can be harmful if used without guardrails or transparency. Recruitment could become biased if algorithms favor certain caregiver profiles simply because they appear more often in historical data. Matching could become rigid or overly technical if automated scores begin outweighing human judgment, trauma history, cultural context, or a child’s own preferences. Funding could become skewed if predictive models recommend investing in one service model over another based on incomplete or non evidence based indicators rather than actual outcomes.
Predictive analytics should help the system see what is happening, not dictate decisions. It can support better planning and earlier intervention, but it must never replace professional judgment or the individual needs of children and families.
On a personal level, if the decisions surrounding my own children’s adoption had been placed solely in the hands of predictive analysis, I would have been deeply concerned about its ability to recognize the crucial nuances involved in each child’s story. Children are individuals with histories, relationships, and needs that cannot be reduced to patterns in a data set. Technology can support the work, but it can never replace the human judgment, empathy, and lived understanding required when a child’s future is at stake.
Fourth, Section 2(a)(iv) directs the government to publish annual scorecards that evaluate outcomes such as placement stability, time in care, caregiver recruitment, and permanency. These metrics matter because they create visibility, encourage accountability, and highlight where progress is or is not being made.
The section also references reducing unnecessary entries into foster care, decreasing the time between reports of maltreatment and investigations, reducing child injuries and fatalities caused by neglect or abuse, increasing caregiver recruitment and retention, and improving caregiver and child matching.
Of all the areas tied to modernization, this may be the most powerful because it speaks directly to the primary needs of foster care. Scorecards can help bring clarity to the factors that shape a child’s experience, especially when the data shows trends in placement disruptions, length of stay, and permanency timelines. When the Executive Order notes the need to reduce placement disruptions, decrease the average time that children spend in foster care, and accelerate permanent placement, it aligns directly with the bill I wrote regarding placement disruptions and timely permanency.
These are the areas that matter most to children because they reflect stability, safety, and the ability to move forward with their lives.
While no Executive Order can repair an entire system, an order that highlights specific areas of improvement provides an opportunity to bring focus, consistency, and urgency to issues that have long needed attention. A clear scorecard offers a roadmap for conversations about what needs to change, where responsibility lies, and how we can track progress over time. It allows us to address system reform with clarity and shared understanding.
Section 3: Fostering the Future Initiative
Section 3 focuses on youth who are transitioning out of care, and this is an area I strongly support.
Section 3(a) directs the creation of partnerships across workforce agencies, academic institutions, and private organizations. Florida is well-positioned for this. We have strong workforce boards and community providers. With proper investment, we can meaningfully support young adults who age out without stable housing or long term support.
Section 3(b) calls for the development of an online platform to connect youth with resources such as housing, education, employment, and mentoring. This is an excellent idea, and it is something many of us used to hope for when working with justice-involved youth who often struggled to find consistent, reliable information in one place. A centralized resource hub could make critical supports easier to locate and could help young adults navigate some of the most difficult transitions in their lives. Still, the Executive Order does not outline a funding source to build, maintain, or update a platform of this size. Without sustained financial support and coordination across agencies, the idea risks becoming another promising concept without the infrastructure needed to make it fully operational.
Section 3(c) instructs the federal government to develop a strategy for reallocating unspent funds that states return from programs designed to support youth transitioning out of care. Nationally, these often include Chafee or ETV dollars that go unused, not because the need is low, but because systems can be overwhelmed, understaffed, or slowed by administrative requirements. I have not found clear, public, Florida specific evidence that the state is currently returning unspent Chafee or ETV funds, but the fact that any state returns transition funds at all is a sign of capacity challenges rather than a lack of eligible youth.
Redirecting these dollars is helpful, but it does not address the underlying structural issues that make it difficult for states to distribute the funds effectively in the first place.
Sections 3(d) and 3(e) both highlight potentially helpful opportunities for youth transitioning out of foster care. Section 3(d) calls for increased flexibility in Education and Training Vouchers so youth can use them for short-term, career-focused, credential-awarding programs. This is a positive shift because many young adults who age out of care need fast, workforce-aligned pathways rather than four-year degrees.
Section 3(e) encourages states to make greater use of educational scholarships funded through tax credited donations, specifically to benefit children in foster care. Both ideas have value, but their impact depends entirely on funding and implementation. The Executive Order does not provide new dollars, so it is difficult to determine how much flexibility Florida would actually have or how many youth would benefit. Increasing tax credited donation opportunities for children in foster care could inspire new nonprofit efforts or scholarship granting organizations to focus on this demographic, but that would require private sector participation and state level structure.
The concepts are strong, but without additional investment or guidance, their effectiveness in Florida remains uncertain.
Section 4 and Section 5: Partnerships and Implementation
Section 4 focuses on expanding partnerships with faith based organizations, which is consistent with Florida’s existing practices. Florida already collaborates extensively with faith-based child placing agencies and community partners, so this section does not introduce new requirements or create meaningful change for our state. It simply reinforces work that is already taking place.
Section 5 contains the general provisions that appear in most Executive Orders. One line is worth noting. It states that the Department of Health and Human Services must cover the cost of publishing the order. This refers only to the administrative cost of publication, not to program funding. None of the reforms described in the order come with new federal dollars attached.
It is also important to note that whenever federal guidance highlights one category of partner, such as faith based organizations, states must remain aware of the potential for unintentional bias in how opportunities, funding, or collaborations are distributed. The Executive Order does not instruct states to prioritize one type of agency over another, but without clear guardrails, agencies that interpret this section too narrowly could create preferential treatment. Florida should ensure that partnerships remain open, balanced, and focused on the best interests of children, regardless of whether an organization is faith-based or non-faith-based.
Conclusion: What’s Amazing, What’s Good, What’s Concerning, and What’s Unknown
What’s Amazing: The most powerful part of this Executive Order is the language aimed at decreasing the average amount of time children spend in foster care and accelerating permanent placement. These goals go directly to the heart of what matters most for children: stability, safety, and belonging. The EO’s emphasis on modernizing data systems, improving transparency, and publishing annual scorecards could bring long overdue visibility to the factors that keep children in care for extended periods. Better data can help expose delays, highlight trends, and identify the real contributors to prolonged stays in care, including placement disruptions. For children whose lives have been held in limbo, this renewed focus on permanency is promising and deeply needed.
What’s Good: The EO also places real value on improving the transition to adulthood for youth aging out of foster care. Expanding access to education, workforce programs, and credential-based training reflects a growing understanding that these young adults deserve structured, well-supported pathways into independence. Modernized systems, resource platforms, and stronger workforce partnerships could help ensure that youth are not left without direction or support at one of the most vulnerable stages of their lives. These are steps in the right direction.
What’s Concerning: What is missing is any acknowledgment of the psychological, relational, and emotional impact that being in foster care has on a child. The impact of trauma varies widely from child to child, but it is a factor that cannot be overlooked. Children do not simply “stay” in foster care; they endure instability, grief, loss, and trauma throughout it. The EO includes a single reference to “relational success,” but it does not address the severity of what it means for a child to be removed from their family, to move between placements, or to navigate a system that often changes around them. Without addressing trauma, mental health, anxiety, attachment challenges, and the long-term impacts of instability, we risk focusing on education and employment success without recognizing the emotional work required to make that success possible.
It is also concerning that the EO does not address the rising number of children entering care. Florida has seen increased entries into the system, driven by many factors including mental health crises, substance misuse, domestic violence, and a lack of early intervention. Predictive analytics may help identify patterns, but they cannot provide therapy, stabilization, relational support, or family preservation. Data can flag a need, but it cannot meet it. Until we address the root causes that bring children into care, we will continue to treat symptoms instead of strengthening families before crisis occurs.
Finally, the Executive Order would benefit from acknowledging the need for stronger support systems for foster parents, pre-adoptive parents, and caseworkers. These groups carry the emotional and practical weight of the adoption process, and when they are not adequately supported, it affects their ability to support the children in their care. Strengthening the well-being of the adults who serve children is essential to improving the experience and outcomes of the children themselves.
What’s Unknown: The biggest unknown is how any of this will be funded. Executive Orders cannot create or mandate federal funding. Only Congress can appropriate new dollars or expand existing programs. Without financial investment, states like Florida will be expected to modernize systems, create partnerships, build platforms, and expand services using the dollars they already have; dollars that are stretched thin across multiple populations including individuals experiencing homelessness, veterans, people with disabilities, and families in crisis.
A President can use an Executive Order to push for action by:
Directing agencies to submit legislative proposals to Congress
Requiring federal reports that highlight funding gaps
Designating the issue as a national priority
Ordering agencies to use existing funds to their maximum legal extent
Creating task forces that recommend specific appropriations
A President could designate parts of the foster care crisis as a national emergency, which would elevate the issue, increase public and legislative pressure, and allow certain federal agencies to redirect or accelerate existing funds. It would not create new funding by itself, but it could loosen some administrative barriers, shift federal attention, and signal to Congress that this issue requires immediate investment.
A national emergency declaration would also increase visibility and could make it politically difficult for Congress to ignore calls for dedicated child welfare reform dollars. A national emergency declaration would not bypass Congress, but it would elevate the urgency.
Final Thought
Executive Orders can spotlight a problem. They can establish national priorities and begin long overdue conversations. But they cannot transform a system without state-level commitment, congressional investment, and community demand. Florida has the partners, the programs, the workforce boards, the courts, and the community capacity to build a stronger, more transparent, more child-centered foster care system. My hope, and the hope of many children and families, is that this Executive Order becomes a true step forward rather than just an acknowledgment of what needs to be fixed.
About the Author
Curtis Campogni is the founder of Speak4MC, a trainer, author, and advocate dedicated to strengthening child welfare, workforce development, and juvenile justice systems. He is the author of C.A.P.E. Conversations: How Superheroes Communicate with the Child Welfare System, C.A.P.E. Conversations: A Roadmap to Communicating with the Child Welfare System: Part 1, and the creator of the C.A.P.E.™ approach, a communication framework used by professionals across Florida and beyond.
Curtis serves as the Florida State Representative for the Southeastern Employment and Training Association (SETA) and Vice Chair of Florida’s Circuit 6 Juvenile Justice Advisory Board. Over the course of his career, he has trained thousands of professionals, collaborated with agencies serving foster youth, and developed practical tools to support families, caregivers, and frontline staff.
As a father through adoption, Curtis brings both professional insight and lived experience to his work. He writes and speaks on issues of permanency, contested adoptions, family communication, and trauma-informed leadership. Above all, Curtis believes that systems improve when people work together — when communities share stories, question assumptions, and insist on solutions rooted in empathy and transparency.
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and are intended for educational and informational purposes. They do not represent the views, positions, or policies of any agency, organization, or professional entity with which the author collaborates or is affiliated.
This analysis is based on publicly available information and the author’s interpretation of the Executive Order at the time of writing. Readers are encouraged to review the full text of the Executive Order, seek additional perspectives, and draw their own conclusions. The goal of this content is to promote dialogue, support system improvement, and highlight opportunities to strengthen outcomes for children and families.
Nothing in this blog should be construed as legal advice, official guidance, or a formal policy recommendation on behalf of any public or private agency. Any errors or misinterpretations are unintentional, and the author welcomes continued conversation to refine understanding and improve accuracy.
Comments