National Coalition for Child Protection Reform / 53 Skyhill Road (Suite 202) / Alexandria, Va., 22314 / info@nccpr.org / www.nccpr.org
FAMILY PRESERVATION AND ADOPTION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critics of family preservation claim that it makes it harder to free children for adoption. Once again, they are wrong.
Not only does family preservation not impede adoption, family preservation can speed the process of terminating parental rights when necessary.
The federal law that effectively abolished the reasonable efforts requirement, the so-called Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), also requires states to seek termination of parental rights for many children in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months. Yet in many jurisdictions it can take at least 12 months for a judge to decide if the initial placement was justified in the first place.
Thus, while some children in foster care do indeed need to be adopted, ASFA encourages the indiscriminate adoption of children without regard to whether they could have remained safely in their own, loving homes.
And this influx of new termination cases comes despite increasing evidence that the system can't cope with the thousands of children legally free for adoption right now.
After three years of modest increases in the raw number of annual adoptions, the number has remained stagnant at about 50,000 per year.[1]
This is all states can manage, even though the federal government offers them a huge financial incentive – bounties of $4,000 to $12,000 or more for every adoption over a baseline number -- and political and media pressure for adoption is enormous. In contrast, since 1983 the foster care population has more than doubled. The real message from the so-called surge in adoptions is that the problems of foster care can never be solved through adoption alone.
Furthermore, the figures include only finalized adoptions, not the number of cases in which parental rights were terminated, but no adoptive home was found.
In the early 1990s, NCCPR’s President, Prof. Martin Guggenheim of New York University Law School, examined two states which expedited termination proceedings. He found that as the number of children freed for adoption soared, the number of actual adoptions increased far more slowly. The result: A generation of legal orphans, who have no ties whatsoever to their birth parents, but aren't being placed for adoption either. Guggenheim found that, contrary to the unsupported rhetoric of critics of family preservation, the one reform taken most seriously since the 1970s has been termination of parental rights.[2] The study was prescient. Nationwide, every year since ASFA was passed, terminations have far outrun adoptions.[3] As a result, the number of children aging out of foster care with no permanent home has soared by 41 percent.[4]
Furthermore, although abuse in adoptive homes is rare – like abuse in birth parent homes – ASFA’s encouragement of quick-and-dirty, slipshod placements increases the risk of abuse. Even Children’s Rights, Inc., a group which favors ASFA and has been hostile to family preservation, says “… Congress should realize that far too many states … when they do, for example, raise their adoption numbers, are doing so by including many clearly inadequate families … along with the genuinely committed, loving families who want to make a home for these children, just to ‘succeed’ by boosting their numbers.” .[5]
Even if all the children now awaiting adoption could be placed, that doesn't mean the placements will last. Current efforts to plunge headlong into adoption are being undertaken in the absence of any reliable data about how often placements "disrupt" when parents who adopt a child - especially a "special needs" child - change their minds. But the evidence we do have is alarming. Even before the effects of the new law were felt, it was estimated that 10 to 25 percent of so-called “forever families” don’t turn out to be forever after all – the adoptive parents change their minds. [5] That number is only likely to increase as workers feel pressure to cash in on the bounties for adoptive placements handed out under ASFA - bounties which are paid whether the adoption actually lasts or not.
As adoptions level off, the pressure to increase them again – and cash in on the bounties – is likely to have another pernicious effect. It is likely to prompt agencies to target the children most in demand by prospective adoptive parents: healthy infants from poor families. Agencies will rationalize that the parents really are “unfit” even as they continue to turn their child welfare systems into the ultimate middle-class entitlement: Step right up, and take a poor person’s child for your very own.
For an example of such targeting, see The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette series, “When The Bough Breaks,” available online at http://www.post-gazette.com/newslinks/1999boughbreaks.asp and the burgeoning scandal in Kentucky where even an organization which once zealously supported a take-the-child-and-run approach has reversed itself and condemned what it calls “quick trigger adoptions.” [6]
Says the former head of Los Angeles County’s child welfare system: “What you have now is an incentive to initially remove the child, and an incentive to adopt them out. I think when you put those two together, there is a problem.” [7]
Family preservation not only does not impede adoption, it can expedite the process of termination of parental rights by allowing workers to find out more quickly when a family can’t be preserved – and giving judges the confidence to make a termination decision knowing that the agency really did try to keep the family together.
The argument that there are children trapped in foster care who should be adopted and the argument that there are children trapped in foster care who should be in their own homes are not mutually exclusive. There are children in foster care who should be exiting in both directions.
But the claim that family preservation impedes adoption is nonsense. So is the claim that it was extremely difficult to terminate parental rights before the law was changed. All that is needed is minimal competence on the part of child protective workers.
This was demonstrated by an American Bar Association project in Upstate New York. The ABA's National Center for Children and the Law taught lawyers and workers how to present a decent case in court. Without offering one iota of additional help to families before moving to terminate, the termination rate soared. [8]
We have always believed there is a place for efforts to increase the number of adoptions as part of child welfare reform. But long as the rush to cash in on adoption bounties causes a further neglect of efforts to keep families in their own homes, it will only make things worse.
Contrary to critics' claims, most people in child protection work are almost obsessed with a substitute care fantasy, in which children are rescued from their "evil" birth parents and placed in substitute settings, which, in the imagination of the workers, are always ideal. For most workers and most agencies, termination of parental rights is the dessert in the child welfare meal, family preservation is the broccoli. ASFA gives workers and agencies all the dessert they want without ensuring that they eat their broccoli first.
Updated November 23, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Between 1997 and 2000 adoptions of foster children increased from 31,030 to 51,000. They’ve stayed at about 50,000 per year ever since. (1997 to 2003: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Adoptions of Children with Public Child Welfare Agency Involvement By State FY 1995-FY 2003, available online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/ adoptchild03b.htm, 2004 to 2007: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Trends in Foster Care and Adoption, chart available online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/trends.htm)
2. Martin Guggenheim, "The Effects of Recent Trends to Accelerate the Termination of parental Rights of Children in Foster Care - An Empirical Analysis in Two States," Family Law Quarterly, p.139. Back to Text.
3. Trends, note 1, supra.
4. Jim Casey Youth Opportunities, Time for Reform: Aging Out and On Their Own, May, 2007, available online at http://www.kidsarewaiting.org/tools/reports/files/0006.pdf
5. Statement of Marcia Robinson Lowry, Executive Director, Children's Rights, Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the House Committee on Ways and Means, November 06, 2003. Back to Text.
6. National Adoption Information Clearinghouse Disruption and Dissolution, http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/s_disrup.cfm Back to Text.
7. Valarie Honeycutt Spears, “Report: State unjustly terminates parental rights for federal money,” Lexington Herald-Leader, April 16, 2006, and numerous other stories.
8. Troy Anderson, “Government Bonuses Accelerate Adoptions,” Daily News of Los Angeles, December 8, 2003.
9. Debra Ratterman of the ABA's National Legal Resource Center for Child Advocacy and Protection described the project at the 1991 Annual Conference of the New York State Citizens Coalition for Children. Back to Text.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Sunday, December 13, 2009
FAMILY PRESERVATION AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE
National Coalition for Child Protection Reform / 53 Skyhill Road (Suite 202) / Alexandria, Va., 22314 / info@nccpr.org / www.nccpr.org
FAMILY PRESERVATION AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They may be the parents most of us would most like to punish. Mothers who seem to care so little for their children that they'd rather get high than take care of them. Mothers who can't or won't kick their habit even while they're pregnant.
No one really knows how many there are. The huge numbers bandied about by child savers are guesses, and the child savers have a vested interest in guessing high. Furthermore, guesses about the extent of "substance abuse" by parents lump together everything from the parent who sells her child for crack to the parent who had her child taken for a week at birth because she smoked one marijuana cigarette to ease the pain of labor. [1]
Myths about those who abuse drugs -- and their children – die hard. Even though the apocalyptic claims about children born with cocaine in their systems – and their mothers – proved to be false, the same false claims are being made now in connection with another drug: methamphetamine.
But the problem cannot be minimized either. The problem of drug abuse, like the problem of child abuse, is serious and real. And there is an enormous temptation to punish addicted parents. But do we want to punish their children?
We favor providing Intensive Family Preservation Services and other help to some families with substance abuse problems. But not because it's another chance for the parent. We favor such programs because they may be the only chance for the child.
Consider the case of Alice Porter (not her real name) of Newark, New Jersey.
She was a drug-addicted single mother with a 12-year-old boy. The boy was angry, unruly, defiant, and hitting his mother. She was too overwhelmed by addiction to give him the order and stability he needed. One option would be to take the boy away because his mother doesn't "deserve" another chance.
But what would happen to an angry "acting out" 12-year-old in foster care? Probably foster home after foster home, as foster parents found they could not cope with him. Then group home after group home. The odds that he would have been adopted are slim. The odds that he would have been abused in foster care are excellent, (See Issue Paper 1). And the odds that he would emerge unable to love or trust anyone after all those placements are overwhelming.
But none of that happened. Alice Porter's family was referred to a family preservation program in Newark. The mother became active in Narcotics Anonymous. She built her skills, getting the education she needs to find employment. Her son joined Al-Ateen and did well in school. Because he stayed at home, he saw his mother fight -- and win -- her battle with addiction. "That's one less negative role model in his life," says family preservation worker Marcello Gomez. "He's learning he can have a positive lifestyle, drug free."[2]
But what about infants? Would they do better taken from parents who have abused drugs? Often, the answer there too, is no. After examining what really happens to such babies Time Magazine concluded: "Staying at home with an addicted mother who is actively participating in a rehabilitation program can, in many cases, be the more promising and safer route for the child [Emphasis added]."[3]
In a University of Florida study of children born with cocaine in their systems – children often stigmatized with the label “crack babies” -- one group was placed in foster care, another group with birth mothers able to care for them. After one year, the babies were tested using all the usual measures of infant development: rolling over, sitting up, reaching out. Consistently, the children placed with their birth mothers did better. For the foster children, the separation from their mothers was more toxic than the cocaine [4]. Why help addicted mothers? Because it is extremely difficult to take a swing at "bad mothers" without the blow landing on their children. And if we really believe all the rhetoric about putting the children’s needs first, then those needs must come before everything, including how we may feel about their parents.
That doesn’t mean we can simply leave children with addicted parents. It does mean that drug treatment for the parents, including inpatient programs where parents can live with their children, are almost always a better first choice than foster care for the children.
Not all cases work out like the case of Alice Porter. In some cases, a parent's addiction and lack of interest in treatment combine to create a situation that requires immediate removal of the child. But Intensive Family Preservation programs have developed their impressive record of safety while working with drug addicted parents. Michigan's program, for example, has an exemplary safety record, (See Issue Paper 1) even though 58 percent of the families it works with in Detroit have substance abuse problems. In the Newark program, 75 percent of families stayed together one year after the intervention. The fact that 25 percent did not indicates the care with which such families are approached and the willingness of family preservation workers to recommend removal of children when necessary.
An exhaustive 1999 report on child welfare and drug abuse found that, again contrary to the stereotype, "national treatment outcome studies clearly show that treatment can be effective."[5] [Emphasis added]. A federal report concluded that one-third of addicts recover on their first attempt and another third recover "after brief periods" of relapse.[6] And family preservation can increase the chances that treatment will work. And another federal study found that the chances of success increase dramatically when parents are allowed to keep their young children with them during inpatient treatment.[7]
But what about “meth”?
When use of crack cocaine was at its worst, so was the hype about what it did to children, and their parents.
The claim that children born with cocaine in their systems were doomed to become, in the words of one hyperventilating columnist, “a biological underclass” [8] was false. The claim that crack cocaine destroyed all maternal instincts was false. And the claim that addition to crack cocaine could not be treated was false.
But now the same false claims are being made about methamphetamine. In fact, methamphetamine addiction can be treated with just as much success and in the same time frame as addiction to crack cocaine and other substances.[9]
In part, there is a political motivation for the false claime about meth. There have been proposals to allow states to use billions of dollars now reserved for foster care for various prevention programs, including drug treatment. But the child savers want to hoard the money for foster care.
The child savers want us to believe that methamphetamine is virtually untreatable because they want us to believe the only option for their children is foster care. They want us to believe the only option is foster care in order to justify their demand that those billions of dollars be reserved for foster care, and nothing else.
Family preservation is not drug treatment. But Intensive Family Preservation Programs work with parents to determine which of the many forms of drug treatment is most likely to work, advocate to get them into treatment, and support them as they enter that treatment. They also prepare the family for the possibility of relapse, so even if that happens, the children remain safe. And perhaps most important, family preservation programs provide concrete services, so parents with substance abuse problems can marshal their energies and focus on freeing themselves from their addiction.
By providing such concrete help, Family Preservation programs provide something even more important: Hope. "A lot of our families are hopeless," Gomez says. "When you've been using for a long time, you think you'll never be able to get yourself together again." Often it is hopelessness that caused the addiction in the first place. "People get high for a lot of reasons," Gomez says. Sometimes, it may be a personal trauma. Often, it is the despair brought on by a life surrounded by seemingly intractable poverty.
Family preservation can't do it alone -- and the people who run such programs have never claimed that they can. There is an urgent need for a wide variety of substance abuse programs, particularly programs geared to the needs of mothers and children.
"They are doing [drugs] to anesthetize themselves," Gomez says. "They have a pain to deal with. We're always offering other options."
Updated January 1, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Brief for Defendant Appellant and Brief for Petitioner-Respondent, Nassau County (N.Y.) Department of Social Services v. Theresa Back to Text.
2. Personal Communication with Marcello Gomez, Clinical Supervisor for Family Preservation Programs at The Bridge, Inc., Irvington, N.J. Back to Text.
3. James Willwerth, "Should We Take Away Their Kids? Often The Best Way to Save the Child is to Save the Mother as Well," Time, May 13, 1991, p.62. Back to Text.
4. Kathleen Wobie, Marylou Behnke et. al., To Have and To Hold: A Descriptive Study of Custody Status Following Prenatal Exposure to Cocaine, paper presented at joint annual meeting of the American Pediatric Society and the Society for Pediatric Research, May 3, 1998. Back to Text.
5. National Center On Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, No Safe Haven: Children of Substance-Abusing Parents (New York: January, 1999). Back to Text.
6. Department of Health and Human Services, Blending Perspectives and Building Common Ground: A Report to Congress on Substance Abuse and Child Protection (Washington, DC: April, 1999) p.14. Back to Text.
7. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Benefits of Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for Pregnant and Parenting Women (Washington DC: September, 2001). Back to Text.
8. Mariah Blake: “The Damage Done: Crack Babies Talk Back,” Columbia Journalism Review, September/October 2004.
9. Richard A. Rawson, Ph.D, Challenges in Responding to the Spread of Methamphetamine Use in the US: Recommendations Concerning the Treatment of Individuals with Methamphetamine-Related Disorders (Los Angeles: UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, David Geffen School of Medicine). See also, Maia Szalavitz, The Media’s Meth Mania, (Aug. 4, 2005) and The Media Go Into ‘Crack Baby’ Mode Over Meth (August 10, 2005) both at www.stats.org.
FAMILY PRESERVATION AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They may be the parents most of us would most like to punish. Mothers who seem to care so little for their children that they'd rather get high than take care of them. Mothers who can't or won't kick their habit even while they're pregnant.
No one really knows how many there are. The huge numbers bandied about by child savers are guesses, and the child savers have a vested interest in guessing high. Furthermore, guesses about the extent of "substance abuse" by parents lump together everything from the parent who sells her child for crack to the parent who had her child taken for a week at birth because she smoked one marijuana cigarette to ease the pain of labor. [1]
Myths about those who abuse drugs -- and their children – die hard. Even though the apocalyptic claims about children born with cocaine in their systems – and their mothers – proved to be false, the same false claims are being made now in connection with another drug: methamphetamine.
But the problem cannot be minimized either. The problem of drug abuse, like the problem of child abuse, is serious and real. And there is an enormous temptation to punish addicted parents. But do we want to punish their children?
We favor providing Intensive Family Preservation Services and other help to some families with substance abuse problems. But not because it's another chance for the parent. We favor such programs because they may be the only chance for the child.
Consider the case of Alice Porter (not her real name) of Newark, New Jersey.
She was a drug-addicted single mother with a 12-year-old boy. The boy was angry, unruly, defiant, and hitting his mother. She was too overwhelmed by addiction to give him the order and stability he needed. One option would be to take the boy away because his mother doesn't "deserve" another chance.
But what would happen to an angry "acting out" 12-year-old in foster care? Probably foster home after foster home, as foster parents found they could not cope with him. Then group home after group home. The odds that he would have been adopted are slim. The odds that he would have been abused in foster care are excellent, (See Issue Paper 1). And the odds that he would emerge unable to love or trust anyone after all those placements are overwhelming.
But none of that happened. Alice Porter's family was referred to a family preservation program in Newark. The mother became active in Narcotics Anonymous. She built her skills, getting the education she needs to find employment. Her son joined Al-Ateen and did well in school. Because he stayed at home, he saw his mother fight -- and win -- her battle with addiction. "That's one less negative role model in his life," says family preservation worker Marcello Gomez. "He's learning he can have a positive lifestyle, drug free."[2]
But what about infants? Would they do better taken from parents who have abused drugs? Often, the answer there too, is no. After examining what really happens to such babies Time Magazine concluded: "Staying at home with an addicted mother who is actively participating in a rehabilitation program can, in many cases, be the more promising and safer route for the child [Emphasis added]."[3]
In a University of Florida study of children born with cocaine in their systems – children often stigmatized with the label “crack babies” -- one group was placed in foster care, another group with birth mothers able to care for them. After one year, the babies were tested using all the usual measures of infant development: rolling over, sitting up, reaching out. Consistently, the children placed with their birth mothers did better. For the foster children, the separation from their mothers was more toxic than the cocaine [4]. Why help addicted mothers? Because it is extremely difficult to take a swing at "bad mothers" without the blow landing on their children. And if we really believe all the rhetoric about putting the children’s needs first, then those needs must come before everything, including how we may feel about their parents.
That doesn’t mean we can simply leave children with addicted parents. It does mean that drug treatment for the parents, including inpatient programs where parents can live with their children, are almost always a better first choice than foster care for the children.
Not all cases work out like the case of Alice Porter. In some cases, a parent's addiction and lack of interest in treatment combine to create a situation that requires immediate removal of the child. But Intensive Family Preservation programs have developed their impressive record of safety while working with drug addicted parents. Michigan's program, for example, has an exemplary safety record, (See Issue Paper 1) even though 58 percent of the families it works with in Detroit have substance abuse problems. In the Newark program, 75 percent of families stayed together one year after the intervention. The fact that 25 percent did not indicates the care with which such families are approached and the willingness of family preservation workers to recommend removal of children when necessary.
An exhaustive 1999 report on child welfare and drug abuse found that, again contrary to the stereotype, "national treatment outcome studies clearly show that treatment can be effective."[5] [Emphasis added]. A federal report concluded that one-third of addicts recover on their first attempt and another third recover "after brief periods" of relapse.[6] And family preservation can increase the chances that treatment will work. And another federal study found that the chances of success increase dramatically when parents are allowed to keep their young children with them during inpatient treatment.[7]
But what about “meth”?
When use of crack cocaine was at its worst, so was the hype about what it did to children, and their parents.
The claim that children born with cocaine in their systems were doomed to become, in the words of one hyperventilating columnist, “a biological underclass” [8] was false. The claim that crack cocaine destroyed all maternal instincts was false. And the claim that addition to crack cocaine could not be treated was false.
But now the same false claims are being made about methamphetamine. In fact, methamphetamine addiction can be treated with just as much success and in the same time frame as addiction to crack cocaine and other substances.[9]
In part, there is a political motivation for the false claime about meth. There have been proposals to allow states to use billions of dollars now reserved for foster care for various prevention programs, including drug treatment. But the child savers want to hoard the money for foster care.
The child savers want us to believe that methamphetamine is virtually untreatable because they want us to believe the only option for their children is foster care. They want us to believe the only option is foster care in order to justify their demand that those billions of dollars be reserved for foster care, and nothing else.
Family preservation is not drug treatment. But Intensive Family Preservation Programs work with parents to determine which of the many forms of drug treatment is most likely to work, advocate to get them into treatment, and support them as they enter that treatment. They also prepare the family for the possibility of relapse, so even if that happens, the children remain safe. And perhaps most important, family preservation programs provide concrete services, so parents with substance abuse problems can marshal their energies and focus on freeing themselves from their addiction.
By providing such concrete help, Family Preservation programs provide something even more important: Hope. "A lot of our families are hopeless," Gomez says. "When you've been using for a long time, you think you'll never be able to get yourself together again." Often it is hopelessness that caused the addiction in the first place. "People get high for a lot of reasons," Gomez says. Sometimes, it may be a personal trauma. Often, it is the despair brought on by a life surrounded by seemingly intractable poverty.
Family preservation can't do it alone -- and the people who run such programs have never claimed that they can. There is an urgent need for a wide variety of substance abuse programs, particularly programs geared to the needs of mothers and children.
"They are doing [drugs] to anesthetize themselves," Gomez says. "They have a pain to deal with. We're always offering other options."
Updated January 1, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Brief for Defendant Appellant and Brief for Petitioner-Respondent, Nassau County (N.Y.) Department of Social Services v. Theresa Back to Text.
2. Personal Communication with Marcello Gomez, Clinical Supervisor for Family Preservation Programs at The Bridge, Inc., Irvington, N.J. Back to Text.
3. James Willwerth, "Should We Take Away Their Kids? Often The Best Way to Save the Child is to Save the Mother as Well," Time, May 13, 1991, p.62. Back to Text.
4. Kathleen Wobie, Marylou Behnke et. al., To Have and To Hold: A Descriptive Study of Custody Status Following Prenatal Exposure to Cocaine, paper presented at joint annual meeting of the American Pediatric Society and the Society for Pediatric Research, May 3, 1998. Back to Text.
5. National Center On Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, No Safe Haven: Children of Substance-Abusing Parents (New York: January, 1999). Back to Text.
6. Department of Health and Human Services, Blending Perspectives and Building Common Ground: A Report to Congress on Substance Abuse and Child Protection (Washington, DC: April, 1999) p.14. Back to Text.
7. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Benefits of Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for Pregnant and Parenting Women (Washington DC: September, 2001). Back to Text.
8. Mariah Blake: “The Damage Done: Crack Babies Talk Back,” Columbia Journalism Review, September/October 2004.
9. Richard A. Rawson, Ph.D, Challenges in Responding to the Spread of Methamphetamine Use in the US: Recommendations Concerning the Treatment of Individuals with Methamphetamine-Related Disorders (Los Angeles: UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, David Geffen School of Medicine). See also, Maia Szalavitz, The Media’s Meth Mania, (Aug. 4, 2005) and The Media Go Into ‘Crack Baby’ Mode Over Meth (August 10, 2005) both at www.stats.org.
DCYF/CPS-FINANCIAL INCENTIVES
National Coalition for Child Protection Reform / 53 Skyhill Road (Suite 202) / Alexandria, Va., 22314 / info@nccpr.org / www.nccpr.org
FINANCIAL INCENTIVES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among the most bizarre criticisms of family preservation is the allegation that it dominates federal funding priorities.
These attacks apparently are linked to passage of the Family Preservation and Family Support Act of 1993. That law has been wrongly characterized by critics, and some media, as providing $1 billion for family preservation.
The $1 billion was spread over five years -- and it was not just for family preservation. Far from it.
The law allows states to spend the money they get through this law on a huge array of services -- even foster care and adoption. A state can, if it so chooses, receive its entire allocation under this law and spend not one dime on family preservation [1]. The so-called “Adoption and Safe Families Act” (ASFA) – the 1997 law effectively abolishing "reasonable efforts" -- continues the Family Preservation and Family Support Act under a new name, “Promoting Safe and Stable Families,” but it dilutes the act still further by allowing even more of the money to be spent on adoption [2].
But even if all the money had been earmarked for family preservation, it still would have been dwarfed by the money available for what still is the best-funded child welfare "service" -- foster care.
Compared to the gigantic, open-ended entitlement for foster care, $1 billion spread over five years is barely noticeable. Before the 1993 law was enacted, the most conservative estimate indicated that the federal government spent at least eight times more on foster care than on services to keep children out of foster care [3]. Because foster care is an "entitlement," that is, for every eligible child states automatically get partial reimbursement, the ratio hasn’t improved. Indeed, in Fiscal Year 2002, the most recent for which data are available, the federal government spent at least nine dollars on foster care and three more dollars on adoption for every dollar spent to prevent foster care or speed reunification.[4].
States also can use other federal funding streams for a wide variety of social services, including child welfare. Unfortunately, there is evidence that states actually are using one of these funding streams to take dollars out of the pockets of impoverished families in order to pay for keeping their children in foster care.
The program is Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).
This program is the successor to Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). As such, it is specifically intended to provide support for impoverished families, either through direct assistance or programs to help them achieve self-sufficiency.
But in 2002, states used at least $1.2 billion in TANF money for foster care.[5]
Some of this money was, in fact, well spent – it went to kinship care programs to help extended family members care for their children. But it appears that hundreds of millions of dollars in TANF money is being spent on foster care with strangers.
For example, in Connecticut alone, more than $100 million in TANF funds has been diverted from providing low-income families with day care subsidies into foster care with strangers, and even child abuse investigations.
In other words, the money that could help an impoverished single parent keep her job and avoid a “lack of supervision” charge instead has been diverted to investigating that parent, taking away her children, and paying middle-class foster parents to take care of them.[6]
While this is perfectly legal, it is an unconscionable transfer of funds from America’s poor to subsidize child welfare agencies and pay middle-class strangers caring for foster children.
The funding bias in favor of foster care is one of the main reasons why so many children are needlessly placed.
Although family preservation is less expensive in total dollars, because of federal and state funding formulas, foster care may cost less for a state or locality making a placement. In Pennsylvania, for example, for every dollar a county spends on foster care, it gets an average of 85 cents back from the state and federal governments.[7]
The National Commission on Children found that children often are removed from their families "prematurely or unnecessarily" because federal aid formulas give states "a strong financial incentive" to do so rather than provide services to keep families together [8].
This does not mean that local governments "make money" on foster care. It does mean that foster care often costs them less than programs to keep children out of foster care.
And some private agencies do indeed make money on foster care. These agencies are paid for every day they keep a child in foster care. If they return a child home -- or get a child adopted -- the reimbursement stops. That creates a strong incentive to let children languish in foster care.
Since adoption generally takes longer than reunification, however, there also is an incentive for private agencies to press to change the “goal” in a child’s “case plan” from reunification to adoption.
In 1997, having realized the harm done by the foster care panic -- and under pressure from the Illinois Branch of the American Civil Liberties Union -- Illinois moved to change direction by changing financial incentives. Illinois now pays for permanence, rewarding private agencies financially for returning children to their own homes and for adoptions. The agencies are penalized for allowing children to languish in foster care.
As a result, the Illinois foster care population fell from more than 50,000 in 1997[9] to 16,788 as of November, 2007,[10] and as the foster care population has declined, child safety has improved.[11]
Unfortunately, at the federal level, the financial incentive to place children is increased by two other laws. Under the new federal welfare law, if a family is forced into poverty, no matter what the reason, they may not be able to get public assistance to help care for their own children (depending on how many years they have received such assistance), but as soon as their children are taken away, the foster care system may receive a never-ending subsidy to help foster parents cover the costs of caring for those children.
The second law, ASFA, includes bounties to states of up to $8,000 or more per child for every adoption they finalize over a baseline number. The bounty is paid when the adoption is finalized, so there is an incentive to place a child with little concern about whether the placement will really last. Indeed, if the adoption "disrupts" and the child is placed again, the state can collect another bounty.
Thus, states and private agencies now have financial incentives to keep children in foster care and financial incentives to place them for adoption - but no financial incentives to keep them in their own homes or return them there.
“What you have now is an incentive to initially remove the child and an incentive to adopt them out,” says David Sanders, former head of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, one of the nation’s largest child welfare systems. “I think when you put these two together, there is a problem.” [12]
As for parents, with these new laws in place, the federal government will help foster parents care for children, the federal government will help some adoptive parents care for children, and the federal government will help institutions care for children. About the only parents the federal government won't help indefinitely are birth parents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Martha Matthews, "HHS Issues Family Preservation & Support Program Instruction," Youth Law News 15 no.2 (March-April 1994) p.3. See also, Marc Katz, "New Legislation Pours $1 billion Into Family Preservation," Youth Law News 14, no.5 (September-October, 1993) p.8. Back to Text.
2. "Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, Sec. 305. Back to Text.
3. U.S. House of Representatives, Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, No Place to Call Home: Discarded Children in America (Washington DC: Jan. 12, 1990) p.163. Back to Text.
4. The Urban Institute estimates that states spent at least $3.8 billion in federal funds reserved exclusively for foster care, and at least another $1.25 billion on funds reserved exclusively for adoption. States spent $549 million from child welfare funding streams that can be used for prevention and family preservation. But these funds can be used for many other purposes as well. Based on the Urban Institute data, NCCPR estimates that no more than $400 million of that $549 million – and probably far less – actually went to prevention, family preservation or family reunification. (Cynthia Andrews Scarcella et. al, The Cost of Protecting Vulnerable Children IV (Washington DC, The Urban Institute) December 20, 2004, available online at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411115_VulnerableChildrenIV.pdf ). Back to Text.
5. Ibid.
6. Colin Poitras, “Child Care Funds Lacking,” Hartford Courant, March 25, 2006.
7. Barbara White Stack, "Relatives should get foster care pay, suit says," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Aug. 16, 2000, p.1. Back to Text.
8. National Commission on Children, Beyond Rhetoric: A New American Agenda for Children and Families, (Washington, DC: May, 1991) p.290 Back to Text.
9. Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, Children in Substitute Care: 1985 to Present, available online at http://www.state.il.us/dcfs/foster/index.shtml
10. Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, Division of Quality Assurance, Executive Statistical Summary, October, 2004, available online at http://www.state.il.us/DCFS/docs/execstat.pdf.
11. Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, Signs of Progress in Child Welfare Reform available online at http://www.state.il.us/dcfs/docs/SignsJan03.pdf
12. Troy Anderson, “Government Bonuses Accelerate Adoptions,” Daily News of Los Angeles, December 8, 2003.
Updated January 1, 2008
FINANCIAL INCENTIVES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among the most bizarre criticisms of family preservation is the allegation that it dominates federal funding priorities.
These attacks apparently are linked to passage of the Family Preservation and Family Support Act of 1993. That law has been wrongly characterized by critics, and some media, as providing $1 billion for family preservation.
The $1 billion was spread over five years -- and it was not just for family preservation. Far from it.
The law allows states to spend the money they get through this law on a huge array of services -- even foster care and adoption. A state can, if it so chooses, receive its entire allocation under this law and spend not one dime on family preservation [1]. The so-called “Adoption and Safe Families Act” (ASFA) – the 1997 law effectively abolishing "reasonable efforts" -- continues the Family Preservation and Family Support Act under a new name, “Promoting Safe and Stable Families,” but it dilutes the act still further by allowing even more of the money to be spent on adoption [2].
But even if all the money had been earmarked for family preservation, it still would have been dwarfed by the money available for what still is the best-funded child welfare "service" -- foster care.
Compared to the gigantic, open-ended entitlement for foster care, $1 billion spread over five years is barely noticeable. Before the 1993 law was enacted, the most conservative estimate indicated that the federal government spent at least eight times more on foster care than on services to keep children out of foster care [3]. Because foster care is an "entitlement," that is, for every eligible child states automatically get partial reimbursement, the ratio hasn’t improved. Indeed, in Fiscal Year 2002, the most recent for which data are available, the federal government spent at least nine dollars on foster care and three more dollars on adoption for every dollar spent to prevent foster care or speed reunification.[4].
States also can use other federal funding streams for a wide variety of social services, including child welfare. Unfortunately, there is evidence that states actually are using one of these funding streams to take dollars out of the pockets of impoverished families in order to pay for keeping their children in foster care.
The program is Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).
This program is the successor to Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). As such, it is specifically intended to provide support for impoverished families, either through direct assistance or programs to help them achieve self-sufficiency.
But in 2002, states used at least $1.2 billion in TANF money for foster care.[5]
Some of this money was, in fact, well spent – it went to kinship care programs to help extended family members care for their children. But it appears that hundreds of millions of dollars in TANF money is being spent on foster care with strangers.
For example, in Connecticut alone, more than $100 million in TANF funds has been diverted from providing low-income families with day care subsidies into foster care with strangers, and even child abuse investigations.
In other words, the money that could help an impoverished single parent keep her job and avoid a “lack of supervision” charge instead has been diverted to investigating that parent, taking away her children, and paying middle-class foster parents to take care of them.[6]
While this is perfectly legal, it is an unconscionable transfer of funds from America’s poor to subsidize child welfare agencies and pay middle-class strangers caring for foster children.
The funding bias in favor of foster care is one of the main reasons why so many children are needlessly placed.
Although family preservation is less expensive in total dollars, because of federal and state funding formulas, foster care may cost less for a state or locality making a placement. In Pennsylvania, for example, for every dollar a county spends on foster care, it gets an average of 85 cents back from the state and federal governments.[7]
The National Commission on Children found that children often are removed from their families "prematurely or unnecessarily" because federal aid formulas give states "a strong financial incentive" to do so rather than provide services to keep families together [8].
This does not mean that local governments "make money" on foster care. It does mean that foster care often costs them less than programs to keep children out of foster care.
And some private agencies do indeed make money on foster care. These agencies are paid for every day they keep a child in foster care. If they return a child home -- or get a child adopted -- the reimbursement stops. That creates a strong incentive to let children languish in foster care.
Since adoption generally takes longer than reunification, however, there also is an incentive for private agencies to press to change the “goal” in a child’s “case plan” from reunification to adoption.
In 1997, having realized the harm done by the foster care panic -- and under pressure from the Illinois Branch of the American Civil Liberties Union -- Illinois moved to change direction by changing financial incentives. Illinois now pays for permanence, rewarding private agencies financially for returning children to their own homes and for adoptions. The agencies are penalized for allowing children to languish in foster care.
As a result, the Illinois foster care population fell from more than 50,000 in 1997[9] to 16,788 as of November, 2007,[10] and as the foster care population has declined, child safety has improved.[11]
Unfortunately, at the federal level, the financial incentive to place children is increased by two other laws. Under the new federal welfare law, if a family is forced into poverty, no matter what the reason, they may not be able to get public assistance to help care for their own children (depending on how many years they have received such assistance), but as soon as their children are taken away, the foster care system may receive a never-ending subsidy to help foster parents cover the costs of caring for those children.
The second law, ASFA, includes bounties to states of up to $8,000 or more per child for every adoption they finalize over a baseline number. The bounty is paid when the adoption is finalized, so there is an incentive to place a child with little concern about whether the placement will really last. Indeed, if the adoption "disrupts" and the child is placed again, the state can collect another bounty.
Thus, states and private agencies now have financial incentives to keep children in foster care and financial incentives to place them for adoption - but no financial incentives to keep them in their own homes or return them there.
“What you have now is an incentive to initially remove the child and an incentive to adopt them out,” says David Sanders, former head of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, one of the nation’s largest child welfare systems. “I think when you put these two together, there is a problem.” [12]
As for parents, with these new laws in place, the federal government will help foster parents care for children, the federal government will help some adoptive parents care for children, and the federal government will help institutions care for children. About the only parents the federal government won't help indefinitely are birth parents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Martha Matthews, "HHS Issues Family Preservation & Support Program Instruction," Youth Law News 15 no.2 (March-April 1994) p.3. See also, Marc Katz, "New Legislation Pours $1 billion Into Family Preservation," Youth Law News 14, no.5 (September-October, 1993) p.8. Back to Text.
2. "Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, Sec. 305. Back to Text.
3. U.S. House of Representatives, Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, No Place to Call Home: Discarded Children in America (Washington DC: Jan. 12, 1990) p.163. Back to Text.
4. The Urban Institute estimates that states spent at least $3.8 billion in federal funds reserved exclusively for foster care, and at least another $1.25 billion on funds reserved exclusively for adoption. States spent $549 million from child welfare funding streams that can be used for prevention and family preservation. But these funds can be used for many other purposes as well. Based on the Urban Institute data, NCCPR estimates that no more than $400 million of that $549 million – and probably far less – actually went to prevention, family preservation or family reunification. (Cynthia Andrews Scarcella et. al, The Cost of Protecting Vulnerable Children IV (Washington DC, The Urban Institute) December 20, 2004, available online at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411115_VulnerableChildrenIV.pdf ). Back to Text.
5. Ibid.
6. Colin Poitras, “Child Care Funds Lacking,” Hartford Courant, March 25, 2006.
7. Barbara White Stack, "Relatives should get foster care pay, suit says," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Aug. 16, 2000, p.1. Back to Text.
8. National Commission on Children, Beyond Rhetoric: A New American Agenda for Children and Families, (Washington, DC: May, 1991) p.290 Back to Text.
9. Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, Children in Substitute Care: 1985 to Present, available online at http://www.state.il.us/dcfs/foster/index.shtml
10. Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, Division of Quality Assurance, Executive Statistical Summary, October, 2004, available online at http://www.state.il.us/DCFS/docs/execstat.pdf.
11. Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, Signs of Progress in Child Welfare Reform available online at http://www.state.il.us/dcfs/docs/SignsJan03.pdf
12. Troy Anderson, “Government Bonuses Accelerate Adoptions,” Daily News of Los Angeles, December 8, 2003.
Updated January 1, 2008
DOES FAMILY PRESERVATION WORK? (I'm sure it would if DCYF/CPS worked toward Family Preservation, but they don't.)
National Coalition for Child Protection Reform / 53 Skyhill Road (Suite 202) / Alexandria, Va., 22314 / info@nccpr.org / www.nccpr.org
DOES FAMILY PRESERVATION WORK?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family preservation is one of the most intensively-scrutinized programs in all of child welfare. Several studies -- and real world experience -- show that family preservation programs that follow the Homebuilders model safely prevent placement in foster care.
Michigan's Families First program sticks rigorously to the Homebuilders model. The Michigan program was evaluated by comparing children who received family preservation services to a "control group" that did not. After one year, among children who were referred because of abuse or neglect, the control group children were nearly twice as likely to be placed in foster care, as the Families First children. Thirty-six percent of children in the control group were placed, compared to only 19.4 percent of the Families First children. [1]
Another Michigan study went further. In this study, judges actually gave permission to researchers to "take back" some children they had just ordered into foster care and place them in Families First instead. One year later, 93 percent of these children still were in their own homes. [2] And Michigan's State Auditor concluded that the Families First program "has generally been effective in providing a safe alternative to the out-of-home placement of children who are at imminent risk of being removed from the home The program places a high priority on the safety of children." [3]
An experiment in Utah and Washington State also used a comparison group. After one year, 85.2 percent of the children in the comparison group were placed in foster care, compared to only 44.4 percent of the children who received intensive family preservation services.[4]
A study in California found that 55 percent of the control group children were placed, compared to only 26 percent of the children who received intensive family preservation services. [5]
A North Carolina study comparing 1,254 families receiving Intensive Family Preservation Services to more than 100,000 families who didn't found that "IFPS consistently resulted in fewer placements..."[6]
And still another study, in Minnesota, found that, in dealing with troubled adolescents, fully 90 percent of the control group children were placed, compared to only 56 percent of those who received intensive family preservation services.[7]
Some agencies are now using IFPS to help make sure children are safe when they are returned home after foster care. Here again, researchers are beginning to see impressive results. In a Utah study, 77.2 percent of children whose families received IFPS help after reunification were still safely with their birth parents after one year, compared with 49.1 percent in a control group.[8]
Critics ignore all of this evidence, preferring to cite a study done for the federal government which purports to find that IFPS is no better than conventional services. But though critics of family preservation claim that this study evaluated programs that followed the Homebuilders model, that's not true. In a rigorous critique of the study, Prof. Ray Kirk of the University of North Carolina School of Social Work notes that the so-called IFPS programs in this study actually diluted the Homebuilders model, providing service that was less intensive and less timely. At the same time, the "conventional" services sometimes were better than average. In at least one case, they may well have been just as intensive as the IFPS program - so it's hardly surprising that the researchers would find little difference between the two.
Furthermore, efforts to truly assign families at random to experimental and control groups sometimes were thwarted by workers in the field who felt this was unethical. Workers resisted assigning what they considered to be "high risk" families to control groups that would not receive help from IFPS programs. In addition, the study failed to target children who actually were at imminent risk of placement.
Given all these problems, writes Prof. Kirk, "a finding of 'no difference between treatment and experimental groups' is simply a non-finding from a failed study."[9]
Prof. Kirk's findings mirror those of an evaluation of earlier studies purporting to show that IFPS was ineffective. The evaluation found that these studies "did not adhere to rigorous methodological criteria."[10]
In contrast, according to Prof. Kirk, "there is a growing body of evidence that IFPS works, in that it is more effective than traditional services in preventing out-of-home placements of children in high-risk families."[11]
Prof. Kirk's assessment was confirmed by a detailed review of IFPS studies conducted by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy. According to this review:
"IFPS programs that adhere closely to the Homebuilders model significantly reduce out-of-home placements and subsequent abuse and neglect. We estimate that such programs produce $2.54 of benefits for each dollar of cost. Non-Homebuilders programs produce no significant effect on either outcome."[12]
Some critics argue that evaluations of family preservation programs are inherently flawed because they allegedly focus on placement prevention instead of child safety. But a placement can only be prevented if a child is believed to be safe. Placement prevention is a measure of safety.
Of course, the key words here are "believed to be." Children who have been through intensive family preservation programs are generally among the most closely monitored. But there are cases in which children are reabused and nobody finds out. And there are cases -- like Joseph Wallace -- in which the warnings of family preservation workers are ignored. No one can be absolutely certain that the child left at home is safe -- but no one can be absolutely certain that the child placed in foster care is safe either -- and family preservation has the better track record.
And, as discussed in Issue Paper 1, with safe, proven strategies to keep families together now widely used in Alabama, Pittsburgh, and elsewhere, the result is fewer foster care placements and safer children.
Indeed, the whole idea that family preservation -- and only family preservation -- should be required to prove itself over and over again reflects a double standard. After more than a century of experience, isn't it time that the advocates of foster care be held to account for the failure of their program?
Updated, April 24, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Carol Berquist, et. al., Evaluation of Michigan's Families First Program (Lansing Mich: University Associates, March, 1993). Back to Text.
2. Betty J. Blythe, Ph.D., Srinika Jayaratne, Ph.D, Michigan Families First Effectiveness Study: A Summary of Findings, Sept. 28, 1999, p.18. Back to Text.
3. State of Michigan, Office of the Auditor General, Performance Audit of the Families First of Michigan Program, July, 1998, pp. 2-4. Back to Text.
4. Mark W. Fraser, et. al., Families in Crisis: The Impact of Intensive Family Preservation Services (New York: Aldine De Gruyter, 1991), p.168. Back to Text.
5. S. Wood, S., K. Barton, C. Schroeder, "In-Home Treatment of Abusive Families: Cost and Placement at One Year." Psychotherapy Vol. 25 (1988) pp. 409-14, cited in Howard Bath and David Haapala, "Family Preservation Services: What Does the Outcome Research Really Tell Us," Social Services Review, September, 1994, Table A1, p.400. Back to Text.
6. R.S. Kirk, Tailoring Intensive Family Preservation Services for Family Reunification Cases: Research, Evaluation and Assessment, (www.nfpn.org/resourcess/articles/tailoring.html). Back to Text.
7. I.M. Schwartz, et. al., "Family Preservation Services as an Alternative to Out-of-Home Placement of Adolescents," in K. Wells and D.E. Biegel, eds., Family Preservation Services: Research and Evaluation (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1991) pp.33-46, cited in Bath and Happala, note 3, supra.Back to Text.
8. R.E. Lewis, et. al., "Examining family reunification services: A process analysis of a successful experiment," Research on Social Work Practice, 5, (3), 259-282, cited in Kirk, note 6, supra.Back to Text.
9. R.S. Kirk, A Critique of the "Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification Programs: Interim Report," May, 2001. Back to Text.
10. A. Heneghan, et. al., Evaluating intensive family preservation services: A methodological review. Pediatrics, 97(4), 535-542, cited in Kirk, note 6, supra.Back to Text.
11. Kirk, note 6, supra.Back to Text.
12. Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Intensive Family Preservation Programs: Program Fidelity Influences Effectiveness. February, 2006, available online at http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/06-02-3901.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOES FAMILY PRESERVATION WORK?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family preservation is one of the most intensively-scrutinized programs in all of child welfare. Several studies -- and real world experience -- show that family preservation programs that follow the Homebuilders model safely prevent placement in foster care.
Michigan's Families First program sticks rigorously to the Homebuilders model. The Michigan program was evaluated by comparing children who received family preservation services to a "control group" that did not. After one year, among children who were referred because of abuse or neglect, the control group children were nearly twice as likely to be placed in foster care, as the Families First children. Thirty-six percent of children in the control group were placed, compared to only 19.4 percent of the Families First children. [1]
Another Michigan study went further. In this study, judges actually gave permission to researchers to "take back" some children they had just ordered into foster care and place them in Families First instead. One year later, 93 percent of these children still were in their own homes. [2] And Michigan's State Auditor concluded that the Families First program "has generally been effective in providing a safe alternative to the out-of-home placement of children who are at imminent risk of being removed from the home The program places a high priority on the safety of children." [3]
An experiment in Utah and Washington State also used a comparison group. After one year, 85.2 percent of the children in the comparison group were placed in foster care, compared to only 44.4 percent of the children who received intensive family preservation services.[4]
A study in California found that 55 percent of the control group children were placed, compared to only 26 percent of the children who received intensive family preservation services. [5]
A North Carolina study comparing 1,254 families receiving Intensive Family Preservation Services to more than 100,000 families who didn't found that "IFPS consistently resulted in fewer placements..."[6]
And still another study, in Minnesota, found that, in dealing with troubled adolescents, fully 90 percent of the control group children were placed, compared to only 56 percent of those who received intensive family preservation services.[7]
Some agencies are now using IFPS to help make sure children are safe when they are returned home after foster care. Here again, researchers are beginning to see impressive results. In a Utah study, 77.2 percent of children whose families received IFPS help after reunification were still safely with their birth parents after one year, compared with 49.1 percent in a control group.[8]
Critics ignore all of this evidence, preferring to cite a study done for the federal government which purports to find that IFPS is no better than conventional services. But though critics of family preservation claim that this study evaluated programs that followed the Homebuilders model, that's not true. In a rigorous critique of the study, Prof. Ray Kirk of the University of North Carolina School of Social Work notes that the so-called IFPS programs in this study actually diluted the Homebuilders model, providing service that was less intensive and less timely. At the same time, the "conventional" services sometimes were better than average. In at least one case, they may well have been just as intensive as the IFPS program - so it's hardly surprising that the researchers would find little difference between the two.
Furthermore, efforts to truly assign families at random to experimental and control groups sometimes were thwarted by workers in the field who felt this was unethical. Workers resisted assigning what they considered to be "high risk" families to control groups that would not receive help from IFPS programs. In addition, the study failed to target children who actually were at imminent risk of placement.
Given all these problems, writes Prof. Kirk, "a finding of 'no difference between treatment and experimental groups' is simply a non-finding from a failed study."[9]
Prof. Kirk's findings mirror those of an evaluation of earlier studies purporting to show that IFPS was ineffective. The evaluation found that these studies "did not adhere to rigorous methodological criteria."[10]
In contrast, according to Prof. Kirk, "there is a growing body of evidence that IFPS works, in that it is more effective than traditional services in preventing out-of-home placements of children in high-risk families."[11]
Prof. Kirk's assessment was confirmed by a detailed review of IFPS studies conducted by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy. According to this review:
"IFPS programs that adhere closely to the Homebuilders model significantly reduce out-of-home placements and subsequent abuse and neglect. We estimate that such programs produce $2.54 of benefits for each dollar of cost. Non-Homebuilders programs produce no significant effect on either outcome."[12]
Some critics argue that evaluations of family preservation programs are inherently flawed because they allegedly focus on placement prevention instead of child safety. But a placement can only be prevented if a child is believed to be safe. Placement prevention is a measure of safety.
Of course, the key words here are "believed to be." Children who have been through intensive family preservation programs are generally among the most closely monitored. But there are cases in which children are reabused and nobody finds out. And there are cases -- like Joseph Wallace -- in which the warnings of family preservation workers are ignored. No one can be absolutely certain that the child left at home is safe -- but no one can be absolutely certain that the child placed in foster care is safe either -- and family preservation has the better track record.
And, as discussed in Issue Paper 1, with safe, proven strategies to keep families together now widely used in Alabama, Pittsburgh, and elsewhere, the result is fewer foster care placements and safer children.
Indeed, the whole idea that family preservation -- and only family preservation -- should be required to prove itself over and over again reflects a double standard. After more than a century of experience, isn't it time that the advocates of foster care be held to account for the failure of their program?
Updated, April 24, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Carol Berquist, et. al., Evaluation of Michigan's Families First Program (Lansing Mich: University Associates, March, 1993). Back to Text.
2. Betty J. Blythe, Ph.D., Srinika Jayaratne, Ph.D, Michigan Families First Effectiveness Study: A Summary of Findings, Sept. 28, 1999, p.18. Back to Text.
3. State of Michigan, Office of the Auditor General, Performance Audit of the Families First of Michigan Program, July, 1998, pp. 2-4. Back to Text.
4. Mark W. Fraser, et. al., Families in Crisis: The Impact of Intensive Family Preservation Services (New York: Aldine De Gruyter, 1991), p.168. Back to Text.
5. S. Wood, S., K. Barton, C. Schroeder, "In-Home Treatment of Abusive Families: Cost and Placement at One Year." Psychotherapy Vol. 25 (1988) pp. 409-14, cited in Howard Bath and David Haapala, "Family Preservation Services: What Does the Outcome Research Really Tell Us," Social Services Review, September, 1994, Table A1, p.400. Back to Text.
6. R.S. Kirk, Tailoring Intensive Family Preservation Services for Family Reunification Cases: Research, Evaluation and Assessment, (www.nfpn.org/resourcess/articles/tailoring.html). Back to Text.
7. I.M. Schwartz, et. al., "Family Preservation Services as an Alternative to Out-of-Home Placement of Adolescents," in K. Wells and D.E. Biegel, eds., Family Preservation Services: Research and Evaluation (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1991) pp.33-46, cited in Bath and Happala, note 3, supra.Back to Text.
8. R.E. Lewis, et. al., "Examining family reunification services: A process analysis of a successful experiment," Research on Social Work Practice, 5, (3), 259-282, cited in Kirk, note 6, supra.Back to Text.
9. R.S. Kirk, A Critique of the "Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification Programs: Interim Report," May, 2001. Back to Text.
10. A. Heneghan, et. al., Evaluating intensive family preservation services: A methodological review. Pediatrics, 97(4), 535-542, cited in Kirk, note 6, supra.Back to Text.
11. Kirk, note 6, supra.Back to Text.
12. Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Intensive Family Preservation Programs: Program Fidelity Influences Effectiveness. February, 2006, available online at http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/06-02-3901.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT IS "FAMILY PRESERVATION"? (It's too bad there's no such thing where DCYF/CPS is concerned)
National Coalition for Child Protection Reform / 53 Skyhill Road (Suite 202) / Alexandria, Va., 22314 / info@nccpr.org / www.nccpr.org
WHAT IS "FAMILY PRESERVATION"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family preservation does not mean what critics say it means.
The term "family preservation" has a very specific meaning. It refers to a systematic determination of those families in which children could remain in their homes or be returned home safely, and provision of the services needed to ensure that safety. The term refers to programs which rigorously follow a series of policies and procedures pioneered by the first such program, Homebuilders, in Washington State.
Among those policies and procedures:
· The intervention begins when the family is in crisis. A Homebuilders intervention is designed for families whose children otherwise face imminent removal to foster care.
· The intervention is short -- usually four to six weeks -- but extremely intense.
Family preservation has been falsely characterized as a "quick fix." In fact Homebuilders workers have caseloads of no more than three [1], so though they are with a family for no more than six weeks, they can spend several hours at a time with that family -- often equivalent to a year of conventional "counseling."
Furthermore, the end of the intervention does not mean the end of support for the family. The Homebuilders model requires that the family be linked to less intensive support after the intervention to maintain the gains made by the family.
· The worker spends her or his time in the family's home, so she can see the family in action -- and so the family doesn't have the added burden of going to the worker's office. The worker gives his or her home phone number to the family and is on call 24 hours a day.
· The worker begins with the problems the family identifies, rather than patronizing the family and dismissing their concerns.
· Workers are trained in several different approaches to helping families, so they don't become hostile to those families if their first attempts to help don't work.
· But perhaps most important, family preservation workers combine traditional counseling and parent education with a strong emphasis on providing "hard" services to ameliorate the worst aspects of poverty.
Family preservation workers help families find day care and job training, and get whatever special educational help the children may require. They teach practical skills and help with financial problems. They even do windows. Faced with a family living in a dirty home, a family preservation worker will not lecture the parents or demand that they spend weeks in therapy to deal with the deep psychological trauma of which the dirty home is "obviously" just a symptom. The family preservation worker will roll up her or his sleeves and help with the cleaning.
This has a number of benefits:
· First and foremost, poverty is the single best predictor of actual child maltreatment, and broad, vague laws make it easy to confuse poverty itself with "neglect" (See Issue Paper 6). A few hundred dollars in "flexible funds" for a security deposit on an apartment in a better neighborhood may be the most important "therapy" a family needs.
· Once basic survival needs are taken care of, a troubled parent can start to work on other problems. It's a lot easier to concentrate on how to be the best possible parent when you’re not worrying about where your next meal is coming from or whether your family is about to be evicted.
· By providing the concrete help a family says it needs, family preservation workers set themselves apart from many of the "helping" professionals parents have dealt with. They have proven they can deliver. Where everything had seemed hopeless, the family preservation worker has provided hope. That makes the parents more receptive to the worker's ideas for how the parents can do their part to make the family work.
What Family Preservation is not
In recent years, other safe, effective programs to keep families together have emerged, and they are discussed in NCCPR's publication Twelve Ways to do Child Welfare Right. But the child savers have given family preservation a new meaning: all purpose scapegoat. They have slapped the label onto any child abuse death anywhere under any circumstances.
Agencies have eagerly embraced this scapegoating, since it is far safer for them to blame a law or policy that supposedly mandates "family preservation" than to admit that a child died because of their own bungling or budget cuts (See Issue Papers 8 and 9).
Updated January 1, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Some critics of family preservation set up a straw man by first claiming that family preservation workers can have caseloads as high as six, and then saying such programs don't work. A program with a caseload of six is not a family preservation intervention. Back to Text.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT IS "FAMILY PRESERVATION"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family preservation does not mean what critics say it means.
The term "family preservation" has a very specific meaning. It refers to a systematic determination of those families in which children could remain in their homes or be returned home safely, and provision of the services needed to ensure that safety. The term refers to programs which rigorously follow a series of policies and procedures pioneered by the first such program, Homebuilders, in Washington State.
Among those policies and procedures:
· The intervention begins when the family is in crisis. A Homebuilders intervention is designed for families whose children otherwise face imminent removal to foster care.
· The intervention is short -- usually four to six weeks -- but extremely intense.
Family preservation has been falsely characterized as a "quick fix." In fact Homebuilders workers have caseloads of no more than three [1], so though they are with a family for no more than six weeks, they can spend several hours at a time with that family -- often equivalent to a year of conventional "counseling."
Furthermore, the end of the intervention does not mean the end of support for the family. The Homebuilders model requires that the family be linked to less intensive support after the intervention to maintain the gains made by the family.
· The worker spends her or his time in the family's home, so she can see the family in action -- and so the family doesn't have the added burden of going to the worker's office. The worker gives his or her home phone number to the family and is on call 24 hours a day.
· The worker begins with the problems the family identifies, rather than patronizing the family and dismissing their concerns.
· Workers are trained in several different approaches to helping families, so they don't become hostile to those families if their first attempts to help don't work.
· But perhaps most important, family preservation workers combine traditional counseling and parent education with a strong emphasis on providing "hard" services to ameliorate the worst aspects of poverty.
Family preservation workers help families find day care and job training, and get whatever special educational help the children may require. They teach practical skills and help with financial problems. They even do windows. Faced with a family living in a dirty home, a family preservation worker will not lecture the parents or demand that they spend weeks in therapy to deal with the deep psychological trauma of which the dirty home is "obviously" just a symptom. The family preservation worker will roll up her or his sleeves and help with the cleaning.
This has a number of benefits:
· First and foremost, poverty is the single best predictor of actual child maltreatment, and broad, vague laws make it easy to confuse poverty itself with "neglect" (See Issue Paper 6). A few hundred dollars in "flexible funds" for a security deposit on an apartment in a better neighborhood may be the most important "therapy" a family needs.
· Once basic survival needs are taken care of, a troubled parent can start to work on other problems. It's a lot easier to concentrate on how to be the best possible parent when you’re not worrying about where your next meal is coming from or whether your family is about to be evicted.
· By providing the concrete help a family says it needs, family preservation workers set themselves apart from many of the "helping" professionals parents have dealt with. They have proven they can deliver. Where everything had seemed hopeless, the family preservation worker has provided hope. That makes the parents more receptive to the worker's ideas for how the parents can do their part to make the family work.
What Family Preservation is not
In recent years, other safe, effective programs to keep families together have emerged, and they are discussed in NCCPR's publication Twelve Ways to do Child Welfare Right. But the child savers have given family preservation a new meaning: all purpose scapegoat. They have slapped the label onto any child abuse death anywhere under any circumstances.
Agencies have eagerly embraced this scapegoating, since it is far safer for them to blame a law or policy that supposedly mandates "family preservation" than to admit that a child died because of their own bungling or budget cuts (See Issue Papers 8 and 9).
Updated January 1, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Some critics of family preservation set up a straw man by first claiming that family preservation workers can have caseloads as high as six, and then saying such programs don't work. A program with a caseload of six is not a family preservation intervention. Back to Text.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE UNREASONABLE ASSAULT ON "REASONABLE EFFORTS"
National Coalition for Child Protection Reform / 53 Skyhill Road (Suite 202) / Alexandria, Va., 22314 / info@nccpr.org / www.nccpr.org
THE UNREASONABLE ASSAULT ON "REASONABLE EFFORTS"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Faced with overwhelming evidence of huge numbers of children needlessly placed in foster care -- and what foster care was doing to these children, Congress passed a law in 1980 that included a clause requiring states and localities to make "reasonable efforts" to keep families together.
Judges were supposed to certify that "reasonable efforts" had been made -- a process that simply involved checking a box on a form -- before the case was eligible for federal foster care funds.
There was nothing in that law that prevented agencies from moving swiftly to remove children from their homes -- and keep them out -- in the small minority of "horror story" cases. The law required "reasonable efforts" -- not ridiculous efforts. And everybody knows it.
By 1997, the debate over "reasonable efforts" had taken an Orwellian turn. Child savers began blaming it for their own failure to get children out of foster care. To make the case, they cited the increase in the foster care population since the early 1980s. But they avoided going back further than that - because had they done so, they would have had to admit that in the late 1970s, before "reasonable efforts" became law, there were at least as many children languishing in foster care, relative to the total child population, as there are today.
The real problem is the opposite: Rather than making reasonable efforts, agencies typically make little or no effort at all to keep families together. According to the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, many such judges "remain unaware of their obligation to determine if reasonable efforts to preserve families have been made. Other judges routinely 'rubber stamp' assertions by social service agencies. ..."[1]
A report released in March, 2000 by a team of leading national child welfare experts found that in New York City's family courts the question of whether reasonable efforts have been made is "very rarely addressed." The same report found that judges admit they often routinely approve requests to take away children even when they don't really believe the child savers have made an adequate case. The report concluded that "Such practice comes frighteningly close to abdicating the Court's basic responsibility to protect the rights of children and families."[2]
One study found that courts made no "reasonable efforts" determination in 44 percent of cases. Since all that is necessary to make such a determination is for a judge to check a box on a form, the figure undoubtedly underestimated the extent of the problem.[3]
A study of "lack of supervision" cases in New York City by the Child Welfare League of America found that in 52 percent of the cases studied, the service needed most was what one might expect -- day care or babysitting. But the "service" offered most often was foster care.[4] Where were the "reasonable efforts?"
Three separate studies since 1996 have found that 30 percent of America’s foster children could be safely in their own homes right now, if their birth parents had safe, affordable housing.[5] Where were the "reasonable efforts?"
In Washington D.C., where the foster care system has been taken over by the federal courts, the first receiver named by the court to run the agency found that between one-third and one-half of D.C.'s foster children could be returned to their parents right now -- if they just had a decent place to live.[6] Where were the "reasonable efforts?"
Even the Chicago Tribune, the newspaper that led the crusade that derailed family preservation for years in Illinois, eventually acknowledged that the "reasonable efforts" requirement was not enforced in that state. [7]
It wasn't enforced anywhere else either. The federal government never seriously enforced the reasonable efforts requirement and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that individuals couldn't even sue to have it enforced.[8]
Children do not languish in foster care because of reasonable efforts. Children languish in foster care because of the lack of reasonable efforts.
And none of this is surprising. All of the incentives -- for everyone from the frontline worker to the agency administrator -- pushed against making reasonable efforts.
Financial incentives: The National Commission on Children found that children often are removed from their families "prematurely or unnecessarily" because federal aid formulas give states "a strong financial incentive" to do so rather than provide services to keep families together.[9] (See Issue Paper 12).
Political incentives: No worker or administrator will ever be penalized for wrongly placing a child in foster care -- even if the child is abused there. But if a child is left at home and something goes wrong, workers may be fired, judges transferred, and all face the wrath of the media.
Personal incentives: When a worker sees a child living in poverty, the first instinct is often to "rescue" the child on the assumption that the child is bound to be "better off" in care. That child in that home is a reality before the worker's eyes. The dangers of foster care, physical and emotional, however real, are an abstraction the worker will never see.
But despite all these incentives and despite the mountain of evidence that the "reasonable efforts" clause was widely ignored, whenever a child "known to the system" died, someone was sure to blame "the law" -- by which they meant the "reasonable efforts" clause. Why? Because when a child dies, it's usually because workers are overwhelmed with too many cases; or they have little or no training, or paperwork got lost, or any one of dozens of similar problems, many of which require more money to solve and all of which reflect badly on the agencies themselves.
Thus, when asked "Why did this child die?" They can say either: "This child died because 'the law' made us do it" or "This child died because we screwed up." What are most agency administrators likely to say?
Sadly, the scapegoating of family preservation has been so successful that by the end of 1997, Congress had effectively repealed the "reasonable efforts" requirement. Backers of the new law say it only ends reasonable efforts in the most egregious cases. In fact, the law is filled with "catch-all" clauses that make it possible to avoid the requirement in almost every case. The law no longer requires reasonable efforts, but it does not prohibit them. It is up to states and localities to decide what to do next.
Updated January 1, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges et. al., Making Reasonable Efforts: Steps for Keeping Families Together. (New York: Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, 1987), p.8.Back to Text.
2. Special Child Welfare Advisory Panel, Advisory Report on Front Line and Supervisory Practice, March 9, 2000, pp. 47,48.Back to Text.
3. National Child Welfare Resource Center for Management and Administration, University of Southern Maine, Pilot Early Review Project, Preliminary Data Analysis, March 1989.Back to Text.
4. Mary Ann Jones, Parental Lack of Supervision: Nature and Consequences of a Major Child Neglect Problem (Washington: Child Welfare League of America, 1987) p.2.Back to Text.
5. Deborah S, Harburger with Ruth Anne White, “Reunifying Families, Cutting Costs: Housing – Child Welfare Partnerships for Permanent Supportive Housing Child Welfare, Vol. LXXXIII, #5 Sept./Oct. 2004, p.501. See also: Janita Poe and Peter Kendall “Cases of Neglect May Be Only Poverty in Disguise,” Chicago Tribune, Dec. 24, 1995, p.6.Back to Text.
6. Tamar Lewin, "Child Welfare Is Slow to Improve Despite Court Order," The New York Times, Dec. 30, 1995, p.6.Back to Text.
7. Andrew Gottesman, "System Overload: Juvenile Court Can Rarely Spare the Time to Care," Chicago Tribune, Dec. 22, 1993, p.1.Back to Text.
8. Suter v. Artist M., 112S.Ct. 1360, 1992.Back to Text.
9. National Commission on Children, Beyond Rhetoric: A New American Agenda for Children and Families, (Washington DC: May, 1991) p.290. Back to Text.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE UNREASONABLE ASSAULT ON "REASONABLE EFFORTS"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Faced with overwhelming evidence of huge numbers of children needlessly placed in foster care -- and what foster care was doing to these children, Congress passed a law in 1980 that included a clause requiring states and localities to make "reasonable efforts" to keep families together.
Judges were supposed to certify that "reasonable efforts" had been made -- a process that simply involved checking a box on a form -- before the case was eligible for federal foster care funds.
There was nothing in that law that prevented agencies from moving swiftly to remove children from their homes -- and keep them out -- in the small minority of "horror story" cases. The law required "reasonable efforts" -- not ridiculous efforts. And everybody knows it.
By 1997, the debate over "reasonable efforts" had taken an Orwellian turn. Child savers began blaming it for their own failure to get children out of foster care. To make the case, they cited the increase in the foster care population since the early 1980s. But they avoided going back further than that - because had they done so, they would have had to admit that in the late 1970s, before "reasonable efforts" became law, there were at least as many children languishing in foster care, relative to the total child population, as there are today.
The real problem is the opposite: Rather than making reasonable efforts, agencies typically make little or no effort at all to keep families together. According to the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, many such judges "remain unaware of their obligation to determine if reasonable efforts to preserve families have been made. Other judges routinely 'rubber stamp' assertions by social service agencies. ..."[1]
A report released in March, 2000 by a team of leading national child welfare experts found that in New York City's family courts the question of whether reasonable efforts have been made is "very rarely addressed." The same report found that judges admit they often routinely approve requests to take away children even when they don't really believe the child savers have made an adequate case. The report concluded that "Such practice comes frighteningly close to abdicating the Court's basic responsibility to protect the rights of children and families."[2]
One study found that courts made no "reasonable efforts" determination in 44 percent of cases. Since all that is necessary to make such a determination is for a judge to check a box on a form, the figure undoubtedly underestimated the extent of the problem.[3]
A study of "lack of supervision" cases in New York City by the Child Welfare League of America found that in 52 percent of the cases studied, the service needed most was what one might expect -- day care or babysitting. But the "service" offered most often was foster care.[4] Where were the "reasonable efforts?"
Three separate studies since 1996 have found that 30 percent of America’s foster children could be safely in their own homes right now, if their birth parents had safe, affordable housing.[5] Where were the "reasonable efforts?"
In Washington D.C., where the foster care system has been taken over by the federal courts, the first receiver named by the court to run the agency found that between one-third and one-half of D.C.'s foster children could be returned to their parents right now -- if they just had a decent place to live.[6] Where were the "reasonable efforts?"
Even the Chicago Tribune, the newspaper that led the crusade that derailed family preservation for years in Illinois, eventually acknowledged that the "reasonable efforts" requirement was not enforced in that state. [7]
It wasn't enforced anywhere else either. The federal government never seriously enforced the reasonable efforts requirement and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that individuals couldn't even sue to have it enforced.[8]
Children do not languish in foster care because of reasonable efforts. Children languish in foster care because of the lack of reasonable efforts.
And none of this is surprising. All of the incentives -- for everyone from the frontline worker to the agency administrator -- pushed against making reasonable efforts.
Financial incentives: The National Commission on Children found that children often are removed from their families "prematurely or unnecessarily" because federal aid formulas give states "a strong financial incentive" to do so rather than provide services to keep families together.[9] (See Issue Paper 12).
Political incentives: No worker or administrator will ever be penalized for wrongly placing a child in foster care -- even if the child is abused there. But if a child is left at home and something goes wrong, workers may be fired, judges transferred, and all face the wrath of the media.
Personal incentives: When a worker sees a child living in poverty, the first instinct is often to "rescue" the child on the assumption that the child is bound to be "better off" in care. That child in that home is a reality before the worker's eyes. The dangers of foster care, physical and emotional, however real, are an abstraction the worker will never see.
But despite all these incentives and despite the mountain of evidence that the "reasonable efforts" clause was widely ignored, whenever a child "known to the system" died, someone was sure to blame "the law" -- by which they meant the "reasonable efforts" clause. Why? Because when a child dies, it's usually because workers are overwhelmed with too many cases; or they have little or no training, or paperwork got lost, or any one of dozens of similar problems, many of which require more money to solve and all of which reflect badly on the agencies themselves.
Thus, when asked "Why did this child die?" They can say either: "This child died because 'the law' made us do it" or "This child died because we screwed up." What are most agency administrators likely to say?
Sadly, the scapegoating of family preservation has been so successful that by the end of 1997, Congress had effectively repealed the "reasonable efforts" requirement. Backers of the new law say it only ends reasonable efforts in the most egregious cases. In fact, the law is filled with "catch-all" clauses that make it possible to avoid the requirement in almost every case. The law no longer requires reasonable efforts, but it does not prohibit them. It is up to states and localities to decide what to do next.
Updated January 1, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges et. al., Making Reasonable Efforts: Steps for Keeping Families Together. (New York: Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, 1987), p.8.Back to Text.
2. Special Child Welfare Advisory Panel, Advisory Report on Front Line and Supervisory Practice, March 9, 2000, pp. 47,48.Back to Text.
3. National Child Welfare Resource Center for Management and Administration, University of Southern Maine, Pilot Early Review Project, Preliminary Data Analysis, March 1989.Back to Text.
4. Mary Ann Jones, Parental Lack of Supervision: Nature and Consequences of a Major Child Neglect Problem (Washington: Child Welfare League of America, 1987) p.2.Back to Text.
5. Deborah S, Harburger with Ruth Anne White, “Reunifying Families, Cutting Costs: Housing – Child Welfare Partnerships for Permanent Supportive Housing Child Welfare, Vol. LXXXIII, #5 Sept./Oct. 2004, p.501. See also: Janita Poe and Peter Kendall “Cases of Neglect May Be Only Poverty in Disguise,” Chicago Tribune, Dec. 24, 1995, p.6.Back to Text.
6. Tamar Lewin, "Child Welfare Is Slow to Improve Despite Court Order," The New York Times, Dec. 30, 1995, p.6.Back to Text.
7. Andrew Gottesman, "System Overload: Juvenile Court Can Rarely Spare the Time to Care," Chicago Tribune, Dec. 22, 1993, p.1.Back to Text.
8. Suter v. Artist M., 112S.Ct. 1360, 1992.Back to Text.
9. National Commission on Children, Beyond Rhetoric: A New American Agenda for Children and Families, (Washington DC: May, 1991) p.290. Back to Text.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHO IS IN "THE SYSTEM" -- AND WHY
National Coalition for Child Protection Reform / 53 Skyhill Road (Suite 202) / Alexandria, Va., 22314 / info@nccpr.org / www.nccpr.org
WHO IS IN "THE SYSTEM" -- AND WHY
Some parents are vicious. Some parents are sadistic. Some parents brutally beat, rape, torture, and murder their children.
Those cases get intensive public and media attention -- as they should.
But the typical foster child was not taken from a parent like that. Such cases represent a tiny fraction of the child protective services caseload.
Out of every 100 children investigated as possible victims of abuse, six are "substantiated" victims of all forms of physical abuse, from the most minor to the most severe, about three more are victims of sexual abuse. . Many of the rest are false allegations or cases in which a family's poverty has been confused with neglect.[1]
Far more common than a child who comes into care because he was beaten are children who come into foster care because the foodstamps ran out or because an illness went untreated after parents were kicked off Medicaid or because a single mother trying to stay off welfare could not provide adequate supervision while she worked. Indeed, the former director of intake for child protective services in Denver, Colorado acknowledges that some children are taken just because their parents are down on their luck, out of work, or unable to provide adequate shelter.[2]
CASE HISTORY: JAMES NORMAN
James Norman was a widower living in Chicago. He took enormous pride in his children, and in how he was raising them. But after he developed a heart condition, he was unable to work full time. Then he fell behind on his bills. Then the electricity to his apartment was cut off. Then the helping hand of child protective services struck.
A CPS worker found a messy home with food spoiling in the refrigerator because there was no electricity. Instead of offering help with housekeeping and utility bills, the worker immediately removed the Norman children.
James Norman took three buses and walked a mile at each end of the trip to visit his children. After nearly a year, Norman's lawyers had arranged the financial help that child protective services was supposed to provide, and a court hearing was scheduled to determine if James Norman's children finally could come home. But 12 days before the hearing, James Norman's heart finally gave out. He died at age 38. In the last years of his life, James Norman had a weak heart, but it took the child "protection" system to break it -- and to make orphans of the Norman children.
James Norman left a noble legacy. A class-action lawsuit leading to a settlement that provides emergency cash -- called "Norman money" -- and other help to families in danger of losing their children to foster care. "At least our example helped other people," says Norman's younger daughter, Jamie.[3]
Unfortunately, even that legacy was undercut during the Chicago Foster Care Panic (see Issue Paper 2). Terrified by the anti-family preservation crusaders, workers became afraid to use "Norman money" to try to keep families together. A court-appointed monitor found that the funds are "underutilized" and "the shockingly low rate of children going home in Cook County is alarming." [4]
·Three separate studies since 1996 have found that 30 percent of America’s foster children could be safely in their own homes right now, if their birth parents had safe, affordable housing.[5]
· A fourth study found that “in terms of reunification, even substance abuse is not as important a factor as income or housing in determining whether children will remain with their families.” [6]
· A study of "boarder babies" -- children who spend months in hospitals, found that the biggest single factor causing their forced hospital stays was lack of housing.[7]
· Families struggling to keep their children out of foster care are stymied by two major problems: homelessness and low public assistance grants, according to two New York City studies. [8]
· A study of "lack of supervision" cases in New York City by the Child Welfare League of America found that in 52 percent of the cases studied, the service needed most was what one might expect -- day care or babysitting.[9] But the "service" offered most often was foster care.
· Courts in New York City and Illinois have found that families are repeatedly kept apart solely because they lack decent housing.[10]
· In Genesee County, Michigan, which includes Flint, from 2000 to 2003 the foster-care population doubled – and even the head of the county child welfare office says one of the main reasons is they’re removing children from women forced to leave their children with unsuitable caretakers while they go to jobs they must take under the state’s welfare laws.[11]
· In California, homeless children were given emergency shelter only on condition that they be separated from their parents, until a successful lawsuit put an end to the practice.[12]
· The National Commission on Children found that children often are removed from their families "prematurely or unnecessarily" because federal aid formulas give states "a strong financial incentive" to do so rather than provide services to keep families together.[13]
And across the country, several people who have run child welfare systems have acknowledged that their own systems take away too many children.
· In Washington D.C., where the foster care system was run for several years by the federal courts, the first receiver named by the court to run the agency found that between one-third and one-half of D.C.'s foster children could be returned to their parents immediately -- if they just had a decent place to live. [14]
· A former District Administrator in Broward County Florida estimated that 35 percent of the children in that counties foster care system could have remained safely in their own homes had the right kinds of help been provided. [15]
· And the former head of one of the nation’s largest child welfare systems, Los Angeles County’s puts the figure at up to 50 percent. [16]
Compounding the problem: Child welfare workers sometimes are in denial about the importance of providing concrete help to families.
A study of cases in Milwaukee County, Wis. found that housing problems were a key cause of removal and a key barrier to reunification. But The researchers write that while birth parents “see housing as a major source of concern …child welfare workers are less attentive to this concern.”
They continue:
“Perhaps child welfare workers in Milwaukee are more focused on parental functioning and less attentive to concrete needs such as housing because of the principles guiding agency practice and the workers’ education and training. Alternatively workers … may tend to ignore housing as a problem rather than deal with the cognitive dissonance caused by the recognition that they cannot help their clients with this important need.” [17]
Just as not every parent is sadistic, not every parent is blameless, either. There is the broad range of cases in-between the extremes -- cases where a parent may well be partly to blame, but where intervening to preserve the family is still the best way to protect the child.
Updated January 1, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Child Maltreatment 2001. Available online at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm02 Back to Text.
2. James B. Meadow, "Homeless Alone" Rocky Mountain News, Jan. 13, 2000, p.4 Back to Text.
3. Information about the Norman case comes from: "Introductory Statement" and "Plaintiffs' Post-Trial Memorandum," Jaqueline Fields, James Norman et. al.v. Gordon Johnson, the report submitted by the worker who visited the Norman home, "DCFS Neglects Parents, Creates Tragedies," an unpublished essay by Norman's Lawyer, Rob Karwath, "DCFS Hit on Family Separation," Chicago Tribune, Jan. 19, 1990, p.2, Natalie Pardo, "Settlement Too Late for Norman," Chicago Reporter, January, 1995, p.8. Back to Text.
4. Jeanine Smith, Norman v. Ryder Fifth Monitoring Report, Dec. 31, 1993. Back to Text.
5. Deborah S, Harburger with Ruth Anne White, “Reunifying Families, Cutting Costs: Housing – Child Welfare Partnerships for Permanent Supportive Housing Child Welfare, Vol. LXXXIII, #5 Seot./Oct. 2004, p.501.
6. Ruth Anne White and Debra Rog, “Introduction,” Child Welfare, note 5, supra, p. 393.
7. City of New York Office of the Comptroller, Office of Policy Management, Whatever Happened to the Boarder Babies?, January, 1989, pp. 11-12. Back to Text.
8. Studies cited in Karen Benker and James Rempel, "Inexcusable Harm: the Effect of Institutionalization on Young Foster Children in New York City," City Health Report, (New York: Public Interest Health Consortium for New York City) May, 1989. Back to Text.
9. Mary Ann Jones, Parental Lack of Supervision: Nature and Consequences of a Major Child Neglect Problem (Washington: Child Welfare League of America, 1987), p.2. Back to Text.
10. New York: Decision of Justice Elliott Wilk, Cosentino v. Perales, 43236-85, New York State Supreme Court, New York County, April 27, 1988. Illinois: Rob Karwath, "DCFS Hit on Family Separation," Chicago Tribune, Jan. 19, 1990, Sec. 2, p.2. See also: Juanita Poe and Peter Kendall, "Cases of Neglect May be only Poverty in Disguise," Chicago Tribune, Dec. 24, 1995, p.1. Back to Text.
11. Ron Fonger, “Foster care number swells; welfare-to-work one reason: Official, Flint Journal, September 9, 2003.
12. Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Hansen v. McMahon, Superior Court, State of California, No.CA000974, April 22, 1986, p.1; California Department of Social Services, All County Letter No. 86-77 ordering an end to the practice. Back to Text.
13. National Commission on Children, Beyond Rhetoric: A New American Agenda for Children and Families, (Washington, DC: May, 991) p. 290. Back to Text.
14. Tamar Lewin, "Child Welfare Is Slow to Improve Despite Court Order," The New York Times, December 30, 1995, p.6. Back to Text.
15. Shana Gruskin, “DCF Administrator confident of transition” South Florida Sun-Sentinel, March 25, 2000, p. 8B.
16. Troy Anderson, “Ways to care for an ailing foster care system,” Daily News of Los Angeles, December 8, 2003.
17. Mark E. Courtney, et. al., “Housing Problems Experienced by Recipients of Child Welfare Services,” Child Welfare, note 5 supra., p.417.
WHO IS IN "THE SYSTEM" -- AND WHY
Some parents are vicious. Some parents are sadistic. Some parents brutally beat, rape, torture, and murder their children.
Those cases get intensive public and media attention -- as they should.
But the typical foster child was not taken from a parent like that. Such cases represent a tiny fraction of the child protective services caseload.
Out of every 100 children investigated as possible victims of abuse, six are "substantiated" victims of all forms of physical abuse, from the most minor to the most severe, about three more are victims of sexual abuse. . Many of the rest are false allegations or cases in which a family's poverty has been confused with neglect.[1]
Far more common than a child who comes into care because he was beaten are children who come into foster care because the foodstamps ran out or because an illness went untreated after parents were kicked off Medicaid or because a single mother trying to stay off welfare could not provide adequate supervision while she worked. Indeed, the former director of intake for child protective services in Denver, Colorado acknowledges that some children are taken just because their parents are down on their luck, out of work, or unable to provide adequate shelter.[2]
CASE HISTORY: JAMES NORMAN
James Norman was a widower living in Chicago. He took enormous pride in his children, and in how he was raising them. But after he developed a heart condition, he was unable to work full time. Then he fell behind on his bills. Then the electricity to his apartment was cut off. Then the helping hand of child protective services struck.
A CPS worker found a messy home with food spoiling in the refrigerator because there was no electricity. Instead of offering help with housekeeping and utility bills, the worker immediately removed the Norman children.
James Norman took three buses and walked a mile at each end of the trip to visit his children. After nearly a year, Norman's lawyers had arranged the financial help that child protective services was supposed to provide, and a court hearing was scheduled to determine if James Norman's children finally could come home. But 12 days before the hearing, James Norman's heart finally gave out. He died at age 38. In the last years of his life, James Norman had a weak heart, but it took the child "protection" system to break it -- and to make orphans of the Norman children.
James Norman left a noble legacy. A class-action lawsuit leading to a settlement that provides emergency cash -- called "Norman money" -- and other help to families in danger of losing their children to foster care. "At least our example helped other people," says Norman's younger daughter, Jamie.[3]
Unfortunately, even that legacy was undercut during the Chicago Foster Care Panic (see Issue Paper 2). Terrified by the anti-family preservation crusaders, workers became afraid to use "Norman money" to try to keep families together. A court-appointed monitor found that the funds are "underutilized" and "the shockingly low rate of children going home in Cook County is alarming." [4]
·Three separate studies since 1996 have found that 30 percent of America’s foster children could be safely in their own homes right now, if their birth parents had safe, affordable housing.[5]
· A fourth study found that “in terms of reunification, even substance abuse is not as important a factor as income or housing in determining whether children will remain with their families.” [6]
· A study of "boarder babies" -- children who spend months in hospitals, found that the biggest single factor causing their forced hospital stays was lack of housing.[7]
· Families struggling to keep their children out of foster care are stymied by two major problems: homelessness and low public assistance grants, according to two New York City studies. [8]
· A study of "lack of supervision" cases in New York City by the Child Welfare League of America found that in 52 percent of the cases studied, the service needed most was what one might expect -- day care or babysitting.[9] But the "service" offered most often was foster care.
· Courts in New York City and Illinois have found that families are repeatedly kept apart solely because they lack decent housing.[10]
· In Genesee County, Michigan, which includes Flint, from 2000 to 2003 the foster-care population doubled – and even the head of the county child welfare office says one of the main reasons is they’re removing children from women forced to leave their children with unsuitable caretakers while they go to jobs they must take under the state’s welfare laws.[11]
· In California, homeless children were given emergency shelter only on condition that they be separated from their parents, until a successful lawsuit put an end to the practice.[12]
· The National Commission on Children found that children often are removed from their families "prematurely or unnecessarily" because federal aid formulas give states "a strong financial incentive" to do so rather than provide services to keep families together.[13]
And across the country, several people who have run child welfare systems have acknowledged that their own systems take away too many children.
· In Washington D.C., where the foster care system was run for several years by the federal courts, the first receiver named by the court to run the agency found that between one-third and one-half of D.C.'s foster children could be returned to their parents immediately -- if they just had a decent place to live. [14]
· A former District Administrator in Broward County Florida estimated that 35 percent of the children in that counties foster care system could have remained safely in their own homes had the right kinds of help been provided. [15]
· And the former head of one of the nation’s largest child welfare systems, Los Angeles County’s puts the figure at up to 50 percent. [16]
Compounding the problem: Child welfare workers sometimes are in denial about the importance of providing concrete help to families.
A study of cases in Milwaukee County, Wis. found that housing problems were a key cause of removal and a key barrier to reunification. But The researchers write that while birth parents “see housing as a major source of concern …child welfare workers are less attentive to this concern.”
They continue:
“Perhaps child welfare workers in Milwaukee are more focused on parental functioning and less attentive to concrete needs such as housing because of the principles guiding agency practice and the workers’ education and training. Alternatively workers … may tend to ignore housing as a problem rather than deal with the cognitive dissonance caused by the recognition that they cannot help their clients with this important need.” [17]
Just as not every parent is sadistic, not every parent is blameless, either. There is the broad range of cases in-between the extremes -- cases where a parent may well be partly to blame, but where intervening to preserve the family is still the best way to protect the child.
Updated January 1, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Child Maltreatment 2001. Available online at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm02 Back to Text.
2. James B. Meadow, "Homeless Alone" Rocky Mountain News, Jan. 13, 2000, p.4 Back to Text.
3. Information about the Norman case comes from: "Introductory Statement" and "Plaintiffs' Post-Trial Memorandum," Jaqueline Fields, James Norman et. al.v. Gordon Johnson, the report submitted by the worker who visited the Norman home, "DCFS Neglects Parents, Creates Tragedies," an unpublished essay by Norman's Lawyer, Rob Karwath, "DCFS Hit on Family Separation," Chicago Tribune, Jan. 19, 1990, p.2, Natalie Pardo, "Settlement Too Late for Norman," Chicago Reporter, January, 1995, p.8. Back to Text.
4. Jeanine Smith, Norman v. Ryder Fifth Monitoring Report, Dec. 31, 1993. Back to Text.
5. Deborah S, Harburger with Ruth Anne White, “Reunifying Families, Cutting Costs: Housing – Child Welfare Partnerships for Permanent Supportive Housing Child Welfare, Vol. LXXXIII, #5 Seot./Oct. 2004, p.501.
6. Ruth Anne White and Debra Rog, “Introduction,” Child Welfare, note 5, supra, p. 393.
7. City of New York Office of the Comptroller, Office of Policy Management, Whatever Happened to the Boarder Babies?, January, 1989, pp. 11-12. Back to Text.
8. Studies cited in Karen Benker and James Rempel, "Inexcusable Harm: the Effect of Institutionalization on Young Foster Children in New York City," City Health Report, (New York: Public Interest Health Consortium for New York City) May, 1989. Back to Text.
9. Mary Ann Jones, Parental Lack of Supervision: Nature and Consequences of a Major Child Neglect Problem (Washington: Child Welfare League of America, 1987), p.2. Back to Text.
10. New York: Decision of Justice Elliott Wilk, Cosentino v. Perales, 43236-85, New York State Supreme Court, New York County, April 27, 1988. Illinois: Rob Karwath, "DCFS Hit on Family Separation," Chicago Tribune, Jan. 19, 1990, Sec. 2, p.2. See also: Juanita Poe and Peter Kendall, "Cases of Neglect May be only Poverty in Disguise," Chicago Tribune, Dec. 24, 1995, p.1. Back to Text.
11. Ron Fonger, “Foster care number swells; welfare-to-work one reason: Official, Flint Journal, September 9, 2003.
12. Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Hansen v. McMahon, Superior Court, State of California, No.CA000974, April 22, 1986, p.1; California Department of Social Services, All County Letter No. 86-77 ordering an end to the practice. Back to Text.
13. National Commission on Children, Beyond Rhetoric: A New American Agenda for Children and Families, (Washington, DC: May, 991) p. 290. Back to Text.
14. Tamar Lewin, "Child Welfare Is Slow to Improve Despite Court Order," The New York Times, December 30, 1995, p.6. Back to Text.
15. Shana Gruskin, “DCF Administrator confident of transition” South Florida Sun-Sentinel, March 25, 2000, p. 8B.
16. Troy Anderson, “Ways to care for an ailing foster care system,” Daily News of Los Angeles, December 8, 2003.
17. Mark E. Courtney, et. al., “Housing Problems Experienced by Recipients of Child Welfare Services,” Child Welfare, note 5 supra., p.417.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)