Witnesses urge special commission as foster-care liability insurance market collapses

Boston — Advocates for foster-care providers told the Joint Committee on Children, Families, and Persons with Disabilities on Oct. 26 that a national contraction in foster-care liability insurance is driving premiums up, cutting coverage and threatening the ability of community providers to keep serving children under contract with the Department of Children and Families (DCF).

"A nationwide crisis has emerged specific to foster care liability insurance, severely shrinking the marketplace for foster care beds and programs across the country," Rachel Guatney, executive director of the Children's League of Massachusetts, said in testimony supporting House bill H197, which would establish a special commission to study the problem.

The commission would review why carriers are exiting the market, how coverage and underwriting requirements have changed, and recommend state-level responses to preserve community-based comprehensive foster care, witnesses said. Providers warned the committee that without fixes, nonprofit agencies will return DCF contracts and children could be placed in more costly or restrictive settings.

Provider leaders described steep, recent cost increases and coverage losses. "Within the past two years, we have been subject to a 200% cost increase with only a quarter of the coverage that we previously carried," Robert Koster, director of foster care programs at Justice Resource Institute, told the committee. He said the last long‑time carrier serving Massachusetts foster-care programs has signaled it will stop providing that coverage.

Imani Sinnerine, vice president of child and family programs at Hopewell, the state's largest community-based comprehensive foster-care provider, said her agency received a non‑renewal notice and was forced to buy coverage in a secondary market that charged five times the prior premium. Hopewell said it currently serves 131 youth among roughly 1,000 children placed in community contracted comprehensive foster care across the state.

Witnesses described additional insurer requirements layered on top of state licensing and supervision, for example more frequent site visits or extra vetting of foster homes, which they said increases administrative burdens and operating costs. Some providers reported links between foster‑care liability pricing and homeowners or property insurance that foster parents must maintain.

Proponents asked the committee to report H197 favorably and authorize a time‑limited commission to gather data from insurers, brokers, DCF and providers and recommend statutory, budgetary or programmatic responses to stabilize coverage.

The witnesses said they would file written testimony and endorsements. The committee did not take a vote at the hearing.

Funding and regulatory solutions, as well as the commission's scope and timetable, remain to be decided if the committee advances the bill.