D.Heimpel
The Price of a Sentence – Newsweek
Please read the following story, which appears on Newsweek.com.
Over the last two weeks I started hearing some chatter from California advocates and administrators about the Golden State’s plans to recoup $60 million from the Federal Government in foster care payment.
In 2008, Congress passed, and Bush signed, the Fostering Connections to Success and Increased Adoptions Act. One of the laws most notable provisions was the extension of foster care to age 21. Another was federal funding for subsidized guardianship: payments to kin who take care of relatives that would otherwise end up in the foster care system.
This is where things get crazy. In the regulations given out at the end of Bush’s tenure, a stipulation was written in that states could only get funds for subsidized guardianship after the date of Fostering Connections being passed, Oct. 2008. In a state like CA and 26 others and the District of Columbia, which already have subsidized guardianship programs, this one sentence means that all the kids in kin care before that date are ineligible. In CA that means $60 million annually.
California is so desperate for that money that Child Protective Services is actually serious about moving kids who are in kin care back into straight foster care and then back out their family so that those kids are eligible for the Federal IVE funds. This would likely be a paper move, but disruptive none the less. Because of this one sentence it is fiscally responsible for California to go through this enormous task of moving kids back into the system just so that they can be eligible for funds. Further, in CA, where the budget is buckling the state is planning to use that $60 million to pay for legislation that would extend care to 21.
So the shining provision of Fostering Connections, extension of care, is in jeopardy all because of one sentence in the regulations.
Now, some members of congress are mobilizing to have those regulations change. The next phase will be their letters to Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families Assistant Secretary Carmen Nazario. The guidance is non-binding, so if enough pressure is applied Nazario could rescind it. That would free up hundreds of millions of federal dollars across 27 states and better the lives of tens if not hundreds of thousands of foster kids.
With one sixth of the nation’s foster care population in California, what happens there sets the tone for the nation. If the guidelines are changed and the $60 million flows into the Golden State, then it has a real viable chance at extending foster care to age 21 despite the buckling budget. That will be a catalyst for sweeping implementation of the Fostering Connections and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 – the most robust foster care reform of the past decade if not generation.
If you want to get involved the best thing would be to write to your Senator or Congressional Representative asking them to demand the guidance be rescinded.
http://dheimpel.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/the-price-of-a-sentence-newsweek/
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
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
A CHILD ABUSE INDUSTRY?
A CHILD ABUSE INDUSTRY?
As a practicing lawyer and a former legislative analyst, I have viewed as many disturbing trends as my broader research on the international scene. Our children and our rights to our children are all important and increasingly efforts are being made to separate those of us with strong religious and political beliefs from our children. Our raising our children up is increasingly being referred to as "radicalization" and "indoctrination." This applies particularly to home and religious schoolers.
I have found an amazingly dedicated blogger, Beverly Tran, who has single handedly uncovered, researched in depth and had the courage to speak on amazing money and power issues in these areas.
This is an area of the law likely to personally affect us at any time, particularly as the Alliance of Civilizations agenda advances in tandem with the powers of the state to remove children from loving parents on all too often flimsy pretenses.
In 1986 I was asked to be the keynote speaker at a Dallas, Texas convention on "the Abuse of Child Abuse laws." Having been in the system as long as I have, I have seen both sides of the issue. I have seen real abused children and indifferent workers. Equally, I have seen overzealous workers disliking religious preferences of parents and seeking to remove children on the flimsiest of pretenses. I have also seen blatant disregard of existing family ties in a rush to place children with non-related foster parents who are paid large adoption subsidies.
Tomorrow night, Michigander, Beverly Tran, analyst and expositor par excellence has agreed to join me on MY PERSPECTIVE and share valuable information that all of you need to survive similar systems in your own regions. Join us on www.themicroeffect.com at 8 p.m. Eastern time, 7 p.m. Central time, 6 p.m. Mountain time and 5 p.m. Pacific time. Alaskan listeners should be able to reach us at 4 p.m.
Stay tuned!
Constance
# posted by Constance Cumbey : 10:06 PM
Thursday, December 10, 2009
As a practicing lawyer and a former legislative analyst, I have viewed as many disturbing trends as my broader research on the international scene. Our children and our rights to our children are all important and increasingly efforts are being made to separate those of us with strong religious and political beliefs from our children. Our raising our children up is increasingly being referred to as "radicalization" and "indoctrination." This applies particularly to home and religious schoolers.
I have found an amazingly dedicated blogger, Beverly Tran, who has single handedly uncovered, researched in depth and had the courage to speak on amazing money and power issues in these areas.
This is an area of the law likely to personally affect us at any time, particularly as the Alliance of Civilizations agenda advances in tandem with the powers of the state to remove children from loving parents on all too often flimsy pretenses.
In 1986 I was asked to be the keynote speaker at a Dallas, Texas convention on "the Abuse of Child Abuse laws." Having been in the system as long as I have, I have seen both sides of the issue. I have seen real abused children and indifferent workers. Equally, I have seen overzealous workers disliking religious preferences of parents and seeking to remove children on the flimsiest of pretenses. I have also seen blatant disregard of existing family ties in a rush to place children with non-related foster parents who are paid large adoption subsidies.
Tomorrow night, Michigander, Beverly Tran, analyst and expositor par excellence has agreed to join me on MY PERSPECTIVE and share valuable information that all of you need to survive similar systems in your own regions. Join us on www.themicroeffect.com at 8 p.m. Eastern time, 7 p.m. Central time, 6 p.m. Mountain time and 5 p.m. Pacific time. Alaskan listeners should be able to reach us at 4 p.m.
Stay tuned!
Constance
# posted by Constance Cumbey : 10:06 PM
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Concerns Over Children's Services Raised
Video
•Subsidized Childcare May Be In Jeopardy
Concerns Over Children's Services Raised
Cuts Proposed For Early-Education Services
POSTED: 12:00 pm EST December 14, 2009
UPDATED: 5:40 pm EST December 14, 2009
facebookdel.icio.usbuzzdiggreddit›› Email›› PrintHARTFORD, Conn. -- Concerns are being raised over children’s services in the state budget.
Early child-care and education advocates spoke out against the proposed cuts in Hartford on Monday. They urged the governor to not balance the budget at the expense of young children and their families.
Several agencies, including the Boys And Girls Club and the Head Start programs across the state joined Rep. Toni Harding from the Human Services Committee on Monday. The group is urging the governor to not cut services for children, specifically subsidized child care, saying if parents don’t have it, they can’t work.
“We are looking at a loss of 5,000 jobs in the area of child care,” said Walker.
Walker said the cuts to kids in the areas of education, family services and after-school programs total more than $47 million.
“If the cuts go through, which is about $4 million for state-funded centers, there will be a lot of families affected, and we would have to cut slots, which would impact the workforce,” said Mary Cecchinato, of Torrington Child Care Center.
"Gov. Rell is proposing cuts to state government bureaucracy and is not making cuts to direct care," said Rell spokesman Adam Liegeot. "The bigger question is what alternative equivalent spending cuts are these program advocates and legislative Democrats proposing?"
Democrats planned to caucus at 1:30 p.m. to come up with alternatives to the cuts. E-mail news tips to Eyewitness News, or dial: 866-289-0333.
http://www.wfsb.com/politics/21961249/detail.html
•Subsidized Childcare May Be In Jeopardy
Concerns Over Children's Services Raised
Cuts Proposed For Early-Education Services
POSTED: 12:00 pm EST December 14, 2009
UPDATED: 5:40 pm EST December 14, 2009
facebookdel.icio.usbuzzdiggreddit›› Email›› PrintHARTFORD, Conn. -- Concerns are being raised over children’s services in the state budget.
Early child-care and education advocates spoke out against the proposed cuts in Hartford on Monday. They urged the governor to not balance the budget at the expense of young children and their families.
Several agencies, including the Boys And Girls Club and the Head Start programs across the state joined Rep. Toni Harding from the Human Services Committee on Monday. The group is urging the governor to not cut services for children, specifically subsidized child care, saying if parents don’t have it, they can’t work.
“We are looking at a loss of 5,000 jobs in the area of child care,” said Walker.
Walker said the cuts to kids in the areas of education, family services and after-school programs total more than $47 million.
“If the cuts go through, which is about $4 million for state-funded centers, there will be a lot of families affected, and we would have to cut slots, which would impact the workforce,” said Mary Cecchinato, of Torrington Child Care Center.
"Gov. Rell is proposing cuts to state government bureaucracy and is not making cuts to direct care," said Rell spokesman Adam Liegeot. "The bigger question is what alternative equivalent spending cuts are these program advocates and legislative Democrats proposing?"
Democrats planned to caucus at 1:30 p.m. to come up with alternatives to the cuts. E-mail news tips to Eyewitness News, or dial: 866-289-0333.
http://www.wfsb.com/politics/21961249/detail.html
Barbaric’ family courts behind ‘state sponsored kidnap’ – Bob Geldof
‘Barbaric’ family courts behind ‘state sponsored kidnap’ – Bob Geldof
Bob Geldof has launched an outspoken attack on the family courts system accusing it of routinely allowing “state sponsored kidnap” of vulnerable children.
By John Bingham
Published: 4:56PM GMT 07 Dec 2009
Bob Geldof Photo: Stephen Lock The singer and anti-poverty campaigner described the current child custody laws as “barbaric and abusive” and dismissed the system as a “disgraceful mess”.
He claimed that children’s futures are being decided on the basis of “mumbo jumbo” and “social engineering” with devastating long-term consequences for society.
Related Articles
Judge condemns councils for funding row that left foster parents with 'poison fruit'
Mother taken to court for refusing to allow daughter to have swine flu vaccination
Family courts prepare to open doors Mr Geldof, who fought for custody of his three daughters from his former wife Paula Yates, also alleged that British courts “consistently” show bias against men by handing custody to mothers.
His comments come in the foreword to a new report which draws together a clutch of recent research on the psychological effects of break-up on children.
The paper, published by The Custody Minefield, an internet legal advice service, and supported by Families Need fathers, the campaign group, calls for a change in the law on relocation cases in which separated parents apply for permission to move elsewhere.
It calls for the current guidelines to be changed to include an explicit ban on decisions favouring mothers on grounds of gender.
The report lists a raft of academic research which it says shows that children with no paternal influence are more likely to have behavioural problems, lower exam results, mental health problems, and even lower IQs.
It follows a recent study which found that up to a third of children whose parents separate lost touch with their father permanently.
“In the near future the family law under which we endure will be seen as barbaric, criminally damaging, abusive, neglectful, harmful to society, the family, the parents and the children in whose name it purports to act,” wrote Mr Geldof.
“It is beyond scrutiny or criticism and like a secret society its members – the judges, lawyers, social and child ‘care’ agencies behave like any closed vested interest and protect each others’ backs.”
He described the system as: "A farrago of cod professionalism and faux concern largely predicated on nonsensical social guff, mumbo-jumbo and psychobabble.
“Dangling at the other end of this are the lives of thousands of British children and their families.”
In a reference to the famed wisdom of the Biblical King Solomon, he added: “Rather than Solomon-like resolving our tragically human disputes with understanding, compassion and logical pragmatism, the courts have consistently acted against society’s interest through the application of prejudice, gender bias and awful impartial cruelty.”
Presented with two women who both claimed to be the mother of a baby, Solomon is said to have suggested cutting the child in half. One of them immediately begged him to give the baby to her rival, demonstrating that she was the true mother.
A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice said: "We are creating a family court system that is transparent, accountable, and inspires public confidence in its good work, whilst still protecting the privacy of children and families involved.
"That is why we have allowed greater media access to family courts which will lead to greater trust. We have also increased access to out of court family mediation by putting information about divorce, relationship breakdown and the family courts, and a link to the Family Mediation Helpline website, on the DirectGov website.
"It is for the court to consider the evidence put before them in each individual case. However, the child's welfare will always be the court's paramount consideration."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/6753273/Barbaric-family-courts-behind-state-sponsored-kidnap---Bob-Geldof.html
Bob Geldof has launched an outspoken attack on the family courts system accusing it of routinely allowing “state sponsored kidnap” of vulnerable children.
By John Bingham
Published: 4:56PM GMT 07 Dec 2009
Bob Geldof Photo: Stephen Lock The singer and anti-poverty campaigner described the current child custody laws as “barbaric and abusive” and dismissed the system as a “disgraceful mess”.
He claimed that children’s futures are being decided on the basis of “mumbo jumbo” and “social engineering” with devastating long-term consequences for society.
Related Articles
Judge condemns councils for funding row that left foster parents with 'poison fruit'
Mother taken to court for refusing to allow daughter to have swine flu vaccination
Family courts prepare to open doors Mr Geldof, who fought for custody of his three daughters from his former wife Paula Yates, also alleged that British courts “consistently” show bias against men by handing custody to mothers.
His comments come in the foreword to a new report which draws together a clutch of recent research on the psychological effects of break-up on children.
The paper, published by The Custody Minefield, an internet legal advice service, and supported by Families Need fathers, the campaign group, calls for a change in the law on relocation cases in which separated parents apply for permission to move elsewhere.
It calls for the current guidelines to be changed to include an explicit ban on decisions favouring mothers on grounds of gender.
The report lists a raft of academic research which it says shows that children with no paternal influence are more likely to have behavioural problems, lower exam results, mental health problems, and even lower IQs.
It follows a recent study which found that up to a third of children whose parents separate lost touch with their father permanently.
“In the near future the family law under which we endure will be seen as barbaric, criminally damaging, abusive, neglectful, harmful to society, the family, the parents and the children in whose name it purports to act,” wrote Mr Geldof.
“It is beyond scrutiny or criticism and like a secret society its members – the judges, lawyers, social and child ‘care’ agencies behave like any closed vested interest and protect each others’ backs.”
He described the system as: "A farrago of cod professionalism and faux concern largely predicated on nonsensical social guff, mumbo-jumbo and psychobabble.
“Dangling at the other end of this are the lives of thousands of British children and their families.”
In a reference to the famed wisdom of the Biblical King Solomon, he added: “Rather than Solomon-like resolving our tragically human disputes with understanding, compassion and logical pragmatism, the courts have consistently acted against society’s interest through the application of prejudice, gender bias and awful impartial cruelty.”
Presented with two women who both claimed to be the mother of a baby, Solomon is said to have suggested cutting the child in half. One of them immediately begged him to give the baby to her rival, demonstrating that she was the true mother.
A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice said: "We are creating a family court system that is transparent, accountable, and inspires public confidence in its good work, whilst still protecting the privacy of children and families involved.
"That is why we have allowed greater media access to family courts which will lead to greater trust. We have also increased access to out of court family mediation by putting information about divorce, relationship breakdown and the family courts, and a link to the Family Mediation Helpline website, on the DirectGov website.
"It is for the court to consider the evidence put before them in each individual case. However, the child's welfare will always be the court's paramount consideration."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/6753273/Barbaric-family-courts-behind-state-sponsored-kidnap---Bob-Geldof.html
Sunday, December 13, 2009
A Child Welfare Timeline
A Child Welfare Timeline
1961: Congress allows AFDC payments to follow a child into foster care. Previously, such payments were made only to children in their own homes. This makes foster care much cheaper for states and localities. The foster care population starts to increase sharply. [1]
LATE 1970s: The foster care population reaches 503,000. [2] As a proportion of the total child population, that’s about as high as it is now. Congress becomes concerned about large numbers of children languishing in foster care, and removal of children whose poverty is confused with child “neglect.”
1980: Congress passes one of the last initiatives of the Carter Administration, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980.
THE MYTH: The claim is now made that this law promoted “family preservation at all costs” that it made family preservation “the overriding goal” that it forced states to return children to dangerous homes and led to children languishing in foster care because agencies were forced to give parents “too many chances.”
THE REALITY: The words “family preservation” do not even appear in this law. In fact, this law is the first law to encourage permanence in both directions – returning children home and getting them adopted. It is the first federal law to attempt to set any time limits on how long children could stay in foster care (18 months), and the first to offer federal aid for subsidized adoption. It also required “reasonable efforts” – and nothing more – to keep families together.
Both legislative history and guidance from the federal Department of Health and Human Services make clear that “reasonable efforts” are never to be made if it would mean a child has to stay in or return to a dangerous home. [3]
But the law does have one crucial flaw: It does nothing to change the way child welfare services are financed. Foster care reimbursement remains an open-ended federal entitlement for states and localities. Far less is available to prevent foster care, and those funds are “capped.” (See NCCPR Issue Paper #12).
EARLY 1980s: The law works. This first federal effort to deal with foster care by encouraging permanence – including, but not restricted to keeping families together -- cuts the foster care population by more than half – to 243,000.[4]
But by now the Reagan Administration is in office. They hate the law because it’s seen as unnecessary federal interference in state and local decisions. They pull back proposed regulations to enforce it.[5] That sends a signal to the states: You can go back to business as usual. Since the financial incentives were never changed, business as usual – placing more and more children in foster care – is the easier course of action.
Once again, children are taken from homes that are safe or could be made safe with the right kind of services. Once taken, the children are filed away and forgotten as overwhelmed workers rush on to the next case. The “reasonable efforts” requirement is ignored. Children again languish in foster care – not because of “reasonable efforts” but because of the lack of reasonable efforts. So the foster care population begins to rise again. The increase doesn’t stop until 1999.
1992: The U.S. Supreme Court rules that individuals cannot sue to have the “reasonable efforts” requirement enforced. [6]
1992: Congress begins talking about putting serious money into family preservation. It passes the Family Preservation and Support Act. President Bush vetoes it. It passes again in 1993 and President Clinton signs it.
THE MYTH: In subsequent years this law would be described as “spending $1 billion on family preservation.”
THE REALITY: The $1 billion is over five years, and it’s for a huge range of child welfare services – including foster care, adoption, and even things like after school recreation programs. None of the money has to be spent on family preservation, and very little actually has been. (The legislation was reauthorized – and renamed – in 1997 and 2002. It’s now the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Act).
But even the prospect of putting federal money into family preservation scares a child welfare establishment that is invested – literally and figuratively -- in foster care. They begin attacking family preservation at every opportunity. Any death of any child “known to the system” is blamed on “family preservation” even if the child was nowhere near a real family preservation program – and even when it was a family preservation worker who warned that the child was in danger in the first place. Ignored, amid all the hype, is the fact that real family preservation programs actually have a better track record for safety than foster care. (See NCCPR Issue Paper #1).
1997: The twin myths – that family preservation supposedly is unsafe and leads to children languishing in foster care – lead Congress to pass the so-called Adoption and Safe Families Act. This law blows huge holes in what little was left of “reasonable efforts.” Backers claim it makes exceptions only for extreme cases but, in fact, the law is filled with broad, vague “catch-all” clauses that effectively make reasonable efforts optional in every case. The law also demands that, with limited exceptions, states seek termination of parental rights whenever a child has been in foster care for 15 of the previous 22 months – even if the child should not have been taken away in the first place. Even more important than any specific provision is the general message to the states: You’ve been doing too much to keep families together, you need to take away more children.
2008: Small increases in adoptions occur until 2000, but then the increases stop.[7] The average annual increase in adoptions attributable to ASFA equals less than 2.5 percent of the number of children in foster care on any given day.[8] The small increase in adoptions is outweighed by the children coming into care because ASFA encourages so many more children to be taken in the first place. As a result, during a time when crime went down and child abuse itself went down, and despite the fact that many foster children "aged out" of the system without ever finding a permanent home, the total number of children in foster care on any given day actually increased until 1999.[9] It wasn't until 2003 that this number finally fell below where it was when ASFA became law - six years earlier.[10]
Worse, until 2006, the number of children taken from their parents over the course of a year increased every year but two since ASFA passed, with a record 307,000 children torn from their homes in 2005.[11] Because ASFA was built on a foundation of false premises, it has backfired.
Updated October 23, 2008
[1] Marguerite Rosenthal and James A. Louis, “The Law’s Evolving Role in Child Abuse and Neglect,” in Leroy Pelton, ed., The Social Context of Child Abuse and Neglect (New York: Human Sciences Press, 1985, pp. 62-64.
[2] Leroy Pelton, For Reasons of Poverty: A Critical Analysis of the Public Child Welfare System in the United States (New York: Praeger, 1989), Chart, p.6
[3] Testimony of MaryLee Allen, Director, Child Welfare and Mental Health division Children's Defense Fund, before the House Ways and Means Committee Human resources subcommittee, April 8, 1997.
[4] Pelton, note 2, Supra.
[5] Allen, note 3, Supra.
[6] Suter v. Artist M., 112 S. Ct. 1360 (1992)
[7] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Trends in Foster Care and Adoption, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/trends.htm For data before 2000 see U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Foster Care FY1999-FY2004 Entries, Exits, and Numbers of Children In Care on the Last Day of Each Federal Fiscal Year, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/statistics/entryexit2004.htm
[8] Penelope L. Maza, Adoption Data Update, presentation to Child Welfare and Mental Health Coalition, Washington, DC, May 13, 2003.
[9] HHS, note 7, supra.
[10] Ibid.
[11] ibid.
1961: Congress allows AFDC payments to follow a child into foster care. Previously, such payments were made only to children in their own homes. This makes foster care much cheaper for states and localities. The foster care population starts to increase sharply. [1]
LATE 1970s: The foster care population reaches 503,000. [2] As a proportion of the total child population, that’s about as high as it is now. Congress becomes concerned about large numbers of children languishing in foster care, and removal of children whose poverty is confused with child “neglect.”
1980: Congress passes one of the last initiatives of the Carter Administration, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980.
THE MYTH: The claim is now made that this law promoted “family preservation at all costs” that it made family preservation “the overriding goal” that it forced states to return children to dangerous homes and led to children languishing in foster care because agencies were forced to give parents “too many chances.”
THE REALITY: The words “family preservation” do not even appear in this law. In fact, this law is the first law to encourage permanence in both directions – returning children home and getting them adopted. It is the first federal law to attempt to set any time limits on how long children could stay in foster care (18 months), and the first to offer federal aid for subsidized adoption. It also required “reasonable efforts” – and nothing more – to keep families together.
Both legislative history and guidance from the federal Department of Health and Human Services make clear that “reasonable efforts” are never to be made if it would mean a child has to stay in or return to a dangerous home. [3]
But the law does have one crucial flaw: It does nothing to change the way child welfare services are financed. Foster care reimbursement remains an open-ended federal entitlement for states and localities. Far less is available to prevent foster care, and those funds are “capped.” (See NCCPR Issue Paper #12).
EARLY 1980s: The law works. This first federal effort to deal with foster care by encouraging permanence – including, but not restricted to keeping families together -- cuts the foster care population by more than half – to 243,000.[4]
But by now the Reagan Administration is in office. They hate the law because it’s seen as unnecessary federal interference in state and local decisions. They pull back proposed regulations to enforce it.[5] That sends a signal to the states: You can go back to business as usual. Since the financial incentives were never changed, business as usual – placing more and more children in foster care – is the easier course of action.
Once again, children are taken from homes that are safe or could be made safe with the right kind of services. Once taken, the children are filed away and forgotten as overwhelmed workers rush on to the next case. The “reasonable efforts” requirement is ignored. Children again languish in foster care – not because of “reasonable efforts” but because of the lack of reasonable efforts. So the foster care population begins to rise again. The increase doesn’t stop until 1999.
1992: The U.S. Supreme Court rules that individuals cannot sue to have the “reasonable efforts” requirement enforced. [6]
1992: Congress begins talking about putting serious money into family preservation. It passes the Family Preservation and Support Act. President Bush vetoes it. It passes again in 1993 and President Clinton signs it.
THE MYTH: In subsequent years this law would be described as “spending $1 billion on family preservation.”
THE REALITY: The $1 billion is over five years, and it’s for a huge range of child welfare services – including foster care, adoption, and even things like after school recreation programs. None of the money has to be spent on family preservation, and very little actually has been. (The legislation was reauthorized – and renamed – in 1997 and 2002. It’s now the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Act).
But even the prospect of putting federal money into family preservation scares a child welfare establishment that is invested – literally and figuratively -- in foster care. They begin attacking family preservation at every opportunity. Any death of any child “known to the system” is blamed on “family preservation” even if the child was nowhere near a real family preservation program – and even when it was a family preservation worker who warned that the child was in danger in the first place. Ignored, amid all the hype, is the fact that real family preservation programs actually have a better track record for safety than foster care. (See NCCPR Issue Paper #1).
1997: The twin myths – that family preservation supposedly is unsafe and leads to children languishing in foster care – lead Congress to pass the so-called Adoption and Safe Families Act. This law blows huge holes in what little was left of “reasonable efforts.” Backers claim it makes exceptions only for extreme cases but, in fact, the law is filled with broad, vague “catch-all” clauses that effectively make reasonable efforts optional in every case. The law also demands that, with limited exceptions, states seek termination of parental rights whenever a child has been in foster care for 15 of the previous 22 months – even if the child should not have been taken away in the first place. Even more important than any specific provision is the general message to the states: You’ve been doing too much to keep families together, you need to take away more children.
2008: Small increases in adoptions occur until 2000, but then the increases stop.[7] The average annual increase in adoptions attributable to ASFA equals less than 2.5 percent of the number of children in foster care on any given day.[8] The small increase in adoptions is outweighed by the children coming into care because ASFA encourages so many more children to be taken in the first place. As a result, during a time when crime went down and child abuse itself went down, and despite the fact that many foster children "aged out" of the system without ever finding a permanent home, the total number of children in foster care on any given day actually increased until 1999.[9] It wasn't until 2003 that this number finally fell below where it was when ASFA became law - six years earlier.[10]
Worse, until 2006, the number of children taken from their parents over the course of a year increased every year but two since ASFA passed, with a record 307,000 children torn from their homes in 2005.[11] Because ASFA was built on a foundation of false premises, it has backfired.
Updated October 23, 2008
[1] Marguerite Rosenthal and James A. Louis, “The Law’s Evolving Role in Child Abuse and Neglect,” in Leroy Pelton, ed., The Social Context of Child Abuse and Neglect (New York: Human Sciences Press, 1985, pp. 62-64.
[2] Leroy Pelton, For Reasons of Poverty: A Critical Analysis of the Public Child Welfare System in the United States (New York: Praeger, 1989), Chart, p.6
[3] Testimony of MaryLee Allen, Director, Child Welfare and Mental Health division Children's Defense Fund, before the House Ways and Means Committee Human resources subcommittee, April 8, 1997.
[4] Pelton, note 2, Supra.
[5] Allen, note 3, Supra.
[6] Suter v. Artist M., 112 S. Ct. 1360 (1992)
[7] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Trends in Foster Care and Adoption, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/trends.htm For data before 2000 see U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Foster Care FY1999-FY2004 Entries, Exits, and Numbers of Children In Care on the Last Day of Each Federal Fiscal Year, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/statistics/entryexit2004.htm
[8] Penelope L. Maza, Adoption Data Update, presentation to Child Welfare and Mental Health Coalition, Washington, DC, May 13, 2003.
[9] HHS, note 7, supra.
[10] Ibid.
[11] ibid.
Twelve Ways to do Child Welfare Right-Successful Alternatives to Taking Children from their Parents
Twelve Ways to do Child Welfare Right
Successful Alternatives to
Taking Children from their Parents
At the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, we often are asked what can be done to prevent the trauma of foster care by safely keeping children with their own families. There are many options, and we’ve listed some below. None of the alternatives described below will work in every case or should be tried in every case. Contrary to the way advocates of placement prevention often are stereotyped, we do not believe in “family preservation at all costs” or that “every family can be saved.” But these alternatives can keep many children now needlessly taken from their parents safely in their own homes. Similarly, even communities that have turned their child welfare systems into national models still have serious problems, and often much progress still needs to be made. All of the things that go wrong in the worst child welfare systems also go wrong in the best – but they go wrong less often. These recommendations deal primarily with curbing wrongful removal by improving services. But at least as important is bolstering due process for families. For those recommendations, see NCCPR’s Due Process Agenda.
1. Doing nothing. There are, in fact, cases in which the investigated family is entirely innocent and perfectly capable of taking good care of their children without any “help” from a child welfare agency. In such cases, the best thing the child protective services worker can do is apologize, shut the door, and go away.
2. Basic, concrete help. Sometimes it may take something as simple as emergency cash for a security deposit, a rent subsidy, or a place in a day care center (to avoid a “lack of supervision” charge) to keep a family together. Indeed, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development has a special program, called the Family Unification Program, in which Section 8 vouchers are reserved for families where housing is the issue keeping a family apart or threatening its breakup. Localities must apply for these subsidies. By doing so, they effectively acknowledge what they typically deny: that they do, in fact, tear apart families due to lack of housing. CONTACT: Ruth White, Executive Director National Center for Housing and Child Welfare (866) 790-6766, info@nchcw.org, www.nchcw.org. Ms. White also is a member of the NCCPR Board of Directors.
3. Intensive Family Preservation Services programs. The first such program, Homebuilders, in Washington State, was established in the mid-1970s. The largest replication is in Michigan, where the program is called Families First. The very term “family preservation” was invented specifically to apply to this type of program, which has a better track record for safety than foster care. The basics concerning how these programs work – and what must be included for a program to be a real “family preservation” program -- are in NCCPR Issue Papers 10 and 11. Issue Paper 11 lists studies proving the programs’ effectiveness. CONTACTS: Charlotte Booth, executive director, Homebuilders (253) 874-3630, info@institutefamily.org, Susan Kelly, former director, Families First (734) 547-9164, skelly@casey.org
4. The Alabama “System of Care.” This is one of the most successful child welfare reforms in the country. The reforms are the result of a consent decree growing out of a lawsuit brought by the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. The consent decree requires the state to rebuild its entire system from the bottom up, with an emphasis on keeping families together. The rate at which children are taken from their homes is among the lowest in the country, and re-abuse of children left in their own homes has been cut sharply. An independent monitor appointed by the court has found that children are safer now than before the changes. CONTACTS: Ira Burnim, Legal Director, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law (202) 467-5730, ext. 129. Mr. Burnim also is a member of the NCCPR Board of Directors. The Bazelon Center also has published a book about the Alabama reforms. Paul Vincent, Child Welfare Policy and Practice Group, Montgomery, Ala. (334) 264-8300. Mr. Vincent ran the child protection system in Alabama when the lawsuit was filed. He worked closely with the plaintiffs to develop and implement the reform plan. Ivor Groves, independent, court-appointed monitor, (850) 422-8900.
5. Family to Family. This is a multi-faceted program developed by the Annie E. Casey Foundation (which also helps to fund NCCPR). One element of the program, Team Decisionmaking often is confused with the entire program, which has many more elements. The program is described at the Casey website http://www.aecf.org/Home/MajorInitiatives/Family%20to%20Family.aspx A comprehensive outside evaluation of the program, found that it led to fewer placements, shorter placements, and less bouncing of children from foster home to foster home – with no compromise of safety. CONTACT: Gretchen Test, Annie E. Casey Foundation (410) 547-6600.
6. Community/Neighborhood Partnerships for Child Protection. These partnerships, overseen by the Center for the Study of Social Policy in Washington, are similar to the Family to Family projects. They mobilize formal and informal networks of helpers to prevent maltreatment and avoid needless foster care placement. Partnerships in Florida’s Duval County, St. Louis, Mo. and Georgia have reduced placements and improved safety. CONTACT: Marno Batterson, Center for the Study of Social Policy, (641) 792-5918, marno.batterson@cssp.org.
7. The turnaround in Pittsburgh. In the mid-1990s, the child welfare system in Pittsburgh and surrounding Allegheny County, Pa. was typically mediocre, or worse. Foster care placements were soaring and those in charge insisted every one of those placements was necessary. New leadership changed all that. Since 1997, the foster care population has been cut dramatically. When children must be placed, nearly half of all placements are with relatives and siblings are kept together 82 percent of the time.
They’ve done it by tripling the budget for primary prevention, more than doubling the budget for family preservation, embracing innovations like Family to Family and adding elements of their own, such as housing counselors in every child welfare office so families aren’t destroyed because of housing problems. And children are safer. Reabuse of children left in their own homes has declined and there has been a significant and sustained decline in child abuse fatalities. CONTACT: Karen Blumen, Allegheny County Department of Human Services, Office of Community Relations (412) 350-5707.
8. Reform in El Paso County, Colorado. By recognizing the crucial role of poverty in child maltreatment, El Paso County reversed steady increases in its foster care population. The number of children in foster care declined significantly – and the rate of reabuse of children left in their own homes fell below the state and national averages, according to an independent evaluation by the Center for Law and Social Policy. CONTACT: Barbara Drake, El Paso County Department of Human Services, (719) 444-5532.
9. The Bridge Builders, Bronx, New York. Combine the giving and guidance of ten foundations with the knowledge and enthusiasm of eight community-based agencies, add extensive involvement of neighborhood residents in outreach, service delivery and governance, then partner with the child protective services agency and what do you get? A significant reduction in the number of children taken from their homes, with no compromise of safety, in a neighborhood that is among those losing more children to foster care than any other in New York City. That’s the record of the Bridge Builders Initiative in the Highbridge section of The Bronx. (NCCPR received a grant to assist the Bridge Builders with media work). CONTACTS: Joe Jenkins, executive director, (718) 681-2222; Jenkinsj@highbridgelife.org, John Rios, Jewish Child Care Association of New York, co-chair Bridge Builders Executive Committee, riosj@jccany.org
10. The transformation in Maine. After a little girl named Logan Marr was taken needlessly from her mother only to be killed by a foster mother who formerly worked for the child welfare agency, the people of Maine refused to settle for pat answers about background checks and licensing standards. They zeroed in on the fact that Maine had one of the highest proportions of children in the country trapped in foster care. The combination of grassroots demands for change from below and new leadership at the top led to a dramatic reduction in the number of children taken away over the course of a year. And while the state still has a long way to go in using kinship care, the proportion of children placed with relatives has more than doubled. It’s all been done without compromising safety, earning the support of the state’s independent child welfare ombudsman. CONTACTS: Dean Crocker, Vice President for Programs, Maine Children's Alliance, (207) 623-1868 ext. 212, dcrocker@mekids.org; Mary Callahan, founder Maine Alliance for DHS Accountability and Reform, (207) 353-4223, maryec_98@yahoo.com
11.Changing financial incentives. While not a program per se, making this change spurs private child welfare agencies to come up with all sorts of innovations. This is clear from the experience in Illinois. Until the late 1990s, Illinois reimbursed private child welfare agencies the way other states typically do: They were paid for each day they kept a child in foster care. Thus, agencies were rewarded for letting children languish in foster care and punished for achieving permanence.
Now those incentives have been reversed, in part because of pressure from the Illinois Branch of the ACLU, which won a lawsuit against the child welfare system. Today, private agencies in Illinois are rewarded both for adoptions (which often are conversions of kinship placements to subsidized guardianships) and for returning children safely to their own homes. They are penalized for prolonged stays in foster care. As soon as the incentives changed, the “intractable” became tractable, the “dysfunctional” became functional, and the foster care population plummeted. And children are safer. Today, Illinois takes away children at one of the lowest rates in the country. Independent, court-appointed monitors have found that child safety has improved. CONTACT: Ben Wolf, Illinois Branch, ACLU, (312) 201-9740, ext. 420, bwolf@aclu-il.org
12. Due process of law. Even the best programs are no substitute for due process. That means court hearings in child welfare cases should be open. But that also means it’s urgent for accused parents to have meaningful legal representation from well-trained attorneys with low caseloads and solid support staff. It’s not a matter of getting “bad” parents off, it’s a matter of challenging case records that often are rife with error, countering cookie-cutter “service plans” that provide no services and ensuring that families get the help they need. A pilot project to provide such representation in some counties in Washington State has had such success in safely keeping families together that even the Attorney General’s office, which represents the child welfare agency in these cases, favors expanding it. FURTHER INFORMATION AND CONTACTS are available from the Washington State Office of Public Defense at this website: http://www.opd.wa.gov/Parents%20Representation%20Program.htm And for additional due process recommendations, see NCCPR’s Due Process Agenda.
Updated, December 3, 2008 http://www.nccpr.org/index_files/Page410.html
Successful Alternatives to
Taking Children from their Parents
At the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, we often are asked what can be done to prevent the trauma of foster care by safely keeping children with their own families. There are many options, and we’ve listed some below. None of the alternatives described below will work in every case or should be tried in every case. Contrary to the way advocates of placement prevention often are stereotyped, we do not believe in “family preservation at all costs” or that “every family can be saved.” But these alternatives can keep many children now needlessly taken from their parents safely in their own homes. Similarly, even communities that have turned their child welfare systems into national models still have serious problems, and often much progress still needs to be made. All of the things that go wrong in the worst child welfare systems also go wrong in the best – but they go wrong less often. These recommendations deal primarily with curbing wrongful removal by improving services. But at least as important is bolstering due process for families. For those recommendations, see NCCPR’s Due Process Agenda.
1. Doing nothing. There are, in fact, cases in which the investigated family is entirely innocent and perfectly capable of taking good care of their children without any “help” from a child welfare agency. In such cases, the best thing the child protective services worker can do is apologize, shut the door, and go away.
2. Basic, concrete help. Sometimes it may take something as simple as emergency cash for a security deposit, a rent subsidy, or a place in a day care center (to avoid a “lack of supervision” charge) to keep a family together. Indeed, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development has a special program, called the Family Unification Program, in which Section 8 vouchers are reserved for families where housing is the issue keeping a family apart or threatening its breakup. Localities must apply for these subsidies. By doing so, they effectively acknowledge what they typically deny: that they do, in fact, tear apart families due to lack of housing. CONTACT: Ruth White, Executive Director National Center for Housing and Child Welfare (866) 790-6766, info@nchcw.org, www.nchcw.org. Ms. White also is a member of the NCCPR Board of Directors.
3. Intensive Family Preservation Services programs. The first such program, Homebuilders, in Washington State, was established in the mid-1970s. The largest replication is in Michigan, where the program is called Families First. The very term “family preservation” was invented specifically to apply to this type of program, which has a better track record for safety than foster care. The basics concerning how these programs work – and what must be included for a program to be a real “family preservation” program -- are in NCCPR Issue Papers 10 and 11. Issue Paper 11 lists studies proving the programs’ effectiveness. CONTACTS: Charlotte Booth, executive director, Homebuilders (253) 874-3630, info@institutefamily.org, Susan Kelly, former director, Families First (734) 547-9164, skelly@casey.org
4. The Alabama “System of Care.” This is one of the most successful child welfare reforms in the country. The reforms are the result of a consent decree growing out of a lawsuit brought by the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. The consent decree requires the state to rebuild its entire system from the bottom up, with an emphasis on keeping families together. The rate at which children are taken from their homes is among the lowest in the country, and re-abuse of children left in their own homes has been cut sharply. An independent monitor appointed by the court has found that children are safer now than before the changes. CONTACTS: Ira Burnim, Legal Director, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law (202) 467-5730, ext. 129. Mr. Burnim also is a member of the NCCPR Board of Directors. The Bazelon Center also has published a book about the Alabama reforms. Paul Vincent, Child Welfare Policy and Practice Group, Montgomery, Ala. (334) 264-8300. Mr. Vincent ran the child protection system in Alabama when the lawsuit was filed. He worked closely with the plaintiffs to develop and implement the reform plan. Ivor Groves, independent, court-appointed monitor, (850) 422-8900.
5. Family to Family. This is a multi-faceted program developed by the Annie E. Casey Foundation (which also helps to fund NCCPR). One element of the program, Team Decisionmaking often is confused with the entire program, which has many more elements. The program is described at the Casey website http://www.aecf.org/Home/MajorInitiatives/Family%20to%20Family.aspx A comprehensive outside evaluation of the program, found that it led to fewer placements, shorter placements, and less bouncing of children from foster home to foster home – with no compromise of safety. CONTACT: Gretchen Test, Annie E. Casey Foundation (410) 547-6600.
6. Community/Neighborhood Partnerships for Child Protection. These partnerships, overseen by the Center for the Study of Social Policy in Washington, are similar to the Family to Family projects. They mobilize formal and informal networks of helpers to prevent maltreatment and avoid needless foster care placement. Partnerships in Florida’s Duval County, St. Louis, Mo. and Georgia have reduced placements and improved safety. CONTACT: Marno Batterson, Center for the Study of Social Policy, (641) 792-5918, marno.batterson@cssp.org.
7. The turnaround in Pittsburgh. In the mid-1990s, the child welfare system in Pittsburgh and surrounding Allegheny County, Pa. was typically mediocre, or worse. Foster care placements were soaring and those in charge insisted every one of those placements was necessary. New leadership changed all that. Since 1997, the foster care population has been cut dramatically. When children must be placed, nearly half of all placements are with relatives and siblings are kept together 82 percent of the time.
They’ve done it by tripling the budget for primary prevention, more than doubling the budget for family preservation, embracing innovations like Family to Family and adding elements of their own, such as housing counselors in every child welfare office so families aren’t destroyed because of housing problems. And children are safer. Reabuse of children left in their own homes has declined and there has been a significant and sustained decline in child abuse fatalities. CONTACT: Karen Blumen, Allegheny County Department of Human Services, Office of Community Relations (412) 350-5707.
8. Reform in El Paso County, Colorado. By recognizing the crucial role of poverty in child maltreatment, El Paso County reversed steady increases in its foster care population. The number of children in foster care declined significantly – and the rate of reabuse of children left in their own homes fell below the state and national averages, according to an independent evaluation by the Center for Law and Social Policy. CONTACT: Barbara Drake, El Paso County Department of Human Services, (719) 444-5532.
9. The Bridge Builders, Bronx, New York. Combine the giving and guidance of ten foundations with the knowledge and enthusiasm of eight community-based agencies, add extensive involvement of neighborhood residents in outreach, service delivery and governance, then partner with the child protective services agency and what do you get? A significant reduction in the number of children taken from their homes, with no compromise of safety, in a neighborhood that is among those losing more children to foster care than any other in New York City. That’s the record of the Bridge Builders Initiative in the Highbridge section of The Bronx. (NCCPR received a grant to assist the Bridge Builders with media work). CONTACTS: Joe Jenkins, executive director, (718) 681-2222; Jenkinsj@highbridgelife.org, John Rios, Jewish Child Care Association of New York, co-chair Bridge Builders Executive Committee, riosj@jccany.org
10. The transformation in Maine. After a little girl named Logan Marr was taken needlessly from her mother only to be killed by a foster mother who formerly worked for the child welfare agency, the people of Maine refused to settle for pat answers about background checks and licensing standards. They zeroed in on the fact that Maine had one of the highest proportions of children in the country trapped in foster care. The combination of grassroots demands for change from below and new leadership at the top led to a dramatic reduction in the number of children taken away over the course of a year. And while the state still has a long way to go in using kinship care, the proportion of children placed with relatives has more than doubled. It’s all been done without compromising safety, earning the support of the state’s independent child welfare ombudsman. CONTACTS: Dean Crocker, Vice President for Programs, Maine Children's Alliance, (207) 623-1868 ext. 212, dcrocker@mekids.org; Mary Callahan, founder Maine Alliance for DHS Accountability and Reform, (207) 353-4223, maryec_98@yahoo.com
11.Changing financial incentives. While not a program per se, making this change spurs private child welfare agencies to come up with all sorts of innovations. This is clear from the experience in Illinois. Until the late 1990s, Illinois reimbursed private child welfare agencies the way other states typically do: They were paid for each day they kept a child in foster care. Thus, agencies were rewarded for letting children languish in foster care and punished for achieving permanence.
Now those incentives have been reversed, in part because of pressure from the Illinois Branch of the ACLU, which won a lawsuit against the child welfare system. Today, private agencies in Illinois are rewarded both for adoptions (which often are conversions of kinship placements to subsidized guardianships) and for returning children safely to their own homes. They are penalized for prolonged stays in foster care. As soon as the incentives changed, the “intractable” became tractable, the “dysfunctional” became functional, and the foster care population plummeted. And children are safer. Today, Illinois takes away children at one of the lowest rates in the country. Independent, court-appointed monitors have found that child safety has improved. CONTACT: Ben Wolf, Illinois Branch, ACLU, (312) 201-9740, ext. 420, bwolf@aclu-il.org
12. Due process of law. Even the best programs are no substitute for due process. That means court hearings in child welfare cases should be open. But that also means it’s urgent for accused parents to have meaningful legal representation from well-trained attorneys with low caseloads and solid support staff. It’s not a matter of getting “bad” parents off, it’s a matter of challenging case records that often are rife with error, countering cookie-cutter “service plans” that provide no services and ensuring that families get the help they need. A pilot project to provide such representation in some counties in Washington State has had such success in safely keeping families together that even the Attorney General’s office, which represents the child welfare agency in these cases, favors expanding it. FURTHER INFORMATION AND CONTACTS are available from the Washington State Office of Public Defense at this website: http://www.opd.wa.gov/Parents%20Representation%20Program.htm And for additional due process recommendations, see NCCPR’s Due Process Agenda.
Updated, December 3, 2008 http://www.nccpr.org/index_files/Page410.html
JUST SAY NO TO THE ORPHANAGE
National Coalition for Child Protection Reform / 53 Skyhill Road (Suite 202) / Alexandria, Va., 22314 / info@nccpr.org / www.nccpr.org
JUST SAY NO TO THE ORPHANAGE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the idea of going "back to the orphanage" gained a great deal of attention when former House Speaker Newt Gingrich brought it up, the notion has quietly been pushed by child savers for a long time.
Gingrich, at least, was honest about his agenda: He wanted to take children away from their parents just because they are poor. The child savers claim no such intent, but their proposals amount to the same thing.
Supporters of orphanages base their arguments on three false premises:
First, they say, we must have more orphanages because there are not enough foster parents for all the children who need them. But as we have shown in previous issue papers, we do not have too few foster parents, we have too many children needlessly taken from their own homes.
Thousands of children who could be safely in their own homes now languish in foster care. Get these children out of the system and there will be plenty of room in foster homes for the children who really do need substitute care and there will be no need to build any more orphanages.
Second, orphanage backers claim that institutionalizing children gives them "stability." But orphanage staff often work in shifts, and even in places that employ so-called "house parents," they typically quit every year or two. For a child, that makes living in an orphanage every bit as unstable as a succession of foster homes.[1]
The third false premise is the Boys Town myth. Child savers say today's orphanages will be better than yesterday's and we should no longer precede the word "orphanage" with the word Dickensian. This myth has been fed by media that flocked to what they thought were the nation's few well-run institutions (some of which turned out not to be models after all). Of course there are model orphanages. There also are model jails. But they are called models precisely because they are unusual.
To find out what is in store for most children if we go back to the orphanage, we need go back no further than 1987. That was the year New York City set up 17 mini-orphanages for infants and toddlers. The city called them "congregate care facilities" but they soon acquired another name: baby warehouses. In the two years between the time they were set up and the time the state ordered them closed:
· Two children died of infectious diarrhea because of unsanitary diapering practices. A third child died because -- like 91 percent of the children -- he was not properly immunized. There may have been more deaths, but the record keeping was as shoddy as the sanitation.
· Inspectors found that "all but five of the shelters have had consistent problems with roaches, flies, mice, or rats. Food practices are often unsafe."
· Disease was not the only hazard. Inspectors also found "unshielded wall outlets, broken cribs, playpens, and highchairs, play areas with broken glass, toxic chemicals leaking from containers within easy reach of toddlers."
· Children were cared for in eight-hour shifts by untrained workers who often did not even know their names. At one of the baby warehouses, the children were spoken to only when they did something wrong [2].
Sixteen years later, a new study of group homes and institutions in New York, this time for teenagers, found similar hideous conditions. According to The New York Times, “the report paints a daily life full of barbarisms…[emphasis added].
“Teenagers recount being raped, having their rooms set on fire, being pressed to join gangs and routinely having their few nice possessions stolen. Insiders and outsiders … agree that staff members not only fail to protect children but also engage in violence and intimidation themselves.” [3]
These institutions are not aberrations. An Indiana study found that children in "group homes" are 10 times more likely to be physically abused and 28 times more likely to be sexually abused than children in their own homes [4].
There have been other tales of terror from America's modern orphanages. Among them:
· SOS Children's Village in Florida repeatedly has been cited by orphanage proponents as proof that orphanages can work. But between 1999 and 2001 33 reports were filed with Florida's child abuse hotline alleging abuse of children at the 50-bed facility; 21 were "substantiated" or "indicated." During the same time period 13 "house parents" and 14 "parent assistants" quit or were fired. (So much for orphanages providing "stability.") [5]
· Another facility touted as a national model, Maryville, near Chicago, has been revealed as a place of terror for many of the children confined there, according to documents obtained by the Chicago Sun-Times. The newspaper reports that "the place is often up for grabs, with staff struggling to handle suicide attempts, sex abuse, drug use, fights and vandalism [6]
In 2001, police were called to Maryville 909 times.[7] After a 15-year-old left her Maryville "cottage", was gang raped by other Maryville residents and escaped from her attackers, she says the kindly staff at her "cottage" wouldn't let her in until they had filled out a report about her "running away." [8]
In 2004, Illinois pulled all 270 state wards out of Maryville [9] – something it could do because it had done such a good job of reducing needless foster care. As a result, in Illinois, substitute care is no longer a “sellers market.”
There are many other examples:
· A 1997 Los Angeles County Grand Jury report which found, according to the Los Angeles Times, that "Many of the nearly 5,000 foster children housed in Los Angeles County group homes are physically abused and drugged excessively while being forced to live without proper food, clothing, education, and counseling." [10] [Emphasis added]
A year later, the Times found that "children under state protection in California group and foster homes are being drugged with potent, dangerous psychiatric medications, at times just to keep them obedient and docile for overburdened caretakers…Under the influence of such drugs, children have suffered from drug-induced psychoses, hallucinations, abnormal heart activity, uncontrollable tremors, liver problems, and loss of bowel control..."
The Times found that it happens to children as young as 3 "and even a 22-month- old knew the word 'meds.'" [11]
· The JDM Residential Treatment Center near St. Louis, where, according to a former director, "there were days when there wasn't any food. The whole thing was just a way to make money off the state."[12]
· Mooseheart, near Chicago, where, over five years, four "houseparents" were convicted of molesting the children in their care. In the most recent case, a houseparent was convicted of molesting six pre-teen boys in less than a year. [13]
· Mission of the Immaculate Virgin on Staten Island, which became so well known for brutality that youths would run away and sleep on the subway rather than spend even one night there. According to New York Newsday, "Adolescents returning from temporary placements ... described a pattern of incidents in which longer-term residents raped, robbed, or assaulted newcomers while night-shift staff slept on the job." [14]
· Linden Hill and Hawthorne Cedar Knolls, two institutions in Westchester County, New York which were, according to New York Newsday, "plagued by violence, unchecked sex, and poor supervision. ... " Said one counselor: "They have lost sight that the program is no longer safe to kids. It's outrageous." [15]
A study of teenagers who had been through a representative cross-section of orphanages reported that the teenagers found institutions to be a significantly worse option than their own families, care by relatives, adoption, or even foster care.[16] The North American Council on Adoptable Children aptly summed up the study findings: "The teens felt "less loved, less looked after, less trusted, less wanted Teens described a powerful code of behavior dictated by institutional peer-group subculture, encompassing drugs, sex, and intimidation."[17]
And that study is typical. A comprehensive review of the scientific literature on orphanages reveals that even the model facilities do serious emotional harm to children.[18] When it comes to orphanages, we’re not talking about rotten apples. We’re talking about rotten barrels.
To know which is more likely to emerge from the "back to the orphanage" movement -- luxury orphan resorts or baby warehouses --we need only look at how America has handled the mass institutionalization of other populations who are feared and despised.
The "back-to-the-orphanage" movement is based on the premise that the same governments and private agencies that have given us the prison system and the juvenile justice system, and have dotted the landscape with hideous warehouses for the mentally ill and the mentally retarded, somehow will come up with loving, humane institutions for children who are disproportionately black and overwhelmingly poor. But orphanages are institutions for the poor, and institutions for the poor are almost always poor institutions.
Updated January 1, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. North American Council on Adoptable Children, There is a Better Way: Family-Based Alternatives to Institutional Care (St. Paul, Minn: 1995) pp. 5-9.
2. All information about the "baby warehouses" is from 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.
3. Leslie Kaufman, “Survey Backs Reputation of Danger in Group Homes,” The New York Times, November 6, 2003.
4. J. William Spencer and Dean D. Knudsen, "Out of Home Maltreatment: An Analysis of Risk in Various Settings for Children," Children and Youth Services Review Vol. 14, pp. 485-492. Back to Text.
5. Megan O'Matz, "Model children's home falls short of expectations," South Florida Sun-Sentinel, April 21, 2002, p.A1. Back to Text.
6. Tim Novak and Chris Fusco, "Reports find Maryville's environment 'dangerous'" Chicago Sun-Times, Sept. 6, 2002. Back to Text.
7. Ofelia Casillas and David Heinzmann, "A troubled Maryville attempts to heal self," Chicago Tribune, Sept. 7, 2002. Back to Text.
8. David Heinzmann and Ofelia Casillas, "Maryville feeling stress of its kids," Chicago Tribune, Sept. 8, 2002. Back to Text.
9. Ofelia Casillas, “Maryville opens doors again,” Chicago Tribune, June 28, 2007. In 2007, 25 state wards were transferred to the campus from another Maryville program.
10. James Rainey, "Grand Jury Cites Abuses in Group Foster Homes," Los Angeles Times, April 9, 1997, p.A1. Back to Text.
11.Tracy Weber, "Caretakers Routinely Drug Foster Children"(p.A1) and "Prescription for Tragedy" (p.A31) Los Angeles Times, May 17, 1998. Back to Text.
12. Martha Shirk, "As Troubles Come to Light, Home Surrenders License," St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Oct. 3, 1993, p.1. Back to Text.
13."Ex-Mooseheart Staffer Guilty of Molesting Boys," Chicago Tribune, Nov. 5, 1993, Sec. 2, p. 7; Linda Young, "Mooseheart Aches After Sex Abuses," Chicago Tribune, Feb. 8, 1994, p.1., Alicia Fabbre, “Mooseheart worker pleads guilty to abuse,” Arlington Heights, Illinois, Daily Herald
February 07, 2003 Back to Text.
14. Nina Bernstein, "Probe of Foster Care Nightmares," New York Newsday, May 2, 1990, 16. Back to Text.
15. Michael Powell, "Violence Rife at Two Homes for Troubled Teens," New York Newsday, Nov. 14, 1990, p.6. Back to Text.
16. M. Bush, "Institutions for Dependent and Neglected Children: Therapeutic option of choice or last resort? American Journal of Orthopsychiatry (50)(2), 239-255.Back to Text.
17. North American Council on Adoptable Children, Note 1, supra. Back to Text.
18. The summary, with full citations, is available on request from NCCPR. Back to Text.
JUST SAY NO TO THE ORPHANAGE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the idea of going "back to the orphanage" gained a great deal of attention when former House Speaker Newt Gingrich brought it up, the notion has quietly been pushed by child savers for a long time.
Gingrich, at least, was honest about his agenda: He wanted to take children away from their parents just because they are poor. The child savers claim no such intent, but their proposals amount to the same thing.
Supporters of orphanages base their arguments on three false premises:
First, they say, we must have more orphanages because there are not enough foster parents for all the children who need them. But as we have shown in previous issue papers, we do not have too few foster parents, we have too many children needlessly taken from their own homes.
Thousands of children who could be safely in their own homes now languish in foster care. Get these children out of the system and there will be plenty of room in foster homes for the children who really do need substitute care and there will be no need to build any more orphanages.
Second, orphanage backers claim that institutionalizing children gives them "stability." But orphanage staff often work in shifts, and even in places that employ so-called "house parents," they typically quit every year or two. For a child, that makes living in an orphanage every bit as unstable as a succession of foster homes.[1]
The third false premise is the Boys Town myth. Child savers say today's orphanages will be better than yesterday's and we should no longer precede the word "orphanage" with the word Dickensian. This myth has been fed by media that flocked to what they thought were the nation's few well-run institutions (some of which turned out not to be models after all). Of course there are model orphanages. There also are model jails. But they are called models precisely because they are unusual.
To find out what is in store for most children if we go back to the orphanage, we need go back no further than 1987. That was the year New York City set up 17 mini-orphanages for infants and toddlers. The city called them "congregate care facilities" but they soon acquired another name: baby warehouses. In the two years between the time they were set up and the time the state ordered them closed:
· Two children died of infectious diarrhea because of unsanitary diapering practices. A third child died because -- like 91 percent of the children -- he was not properly immunized. There may have been more deaths, but the record keeping was as shoddy as the sanitation.
· Inspectors found that "all but five of the shelters have had consistent problems with roaches, flies, mice, or rats. Food practices are often unsafe."
· Disease was not the only hazard. Inspectors also found "unshielded wall outlets, broken cribs, playpens, and highchairs, play areas with broken glass, toxic chemicals leaking from containers within easy reach of toddlers."
· Children were cared for in eight-hour shifts by untrained workers who often did not even know their names. At one of the baby warehouses, the children were spoken to only when they did something wrong [2].
Sixteen years later, a new study of group homes and institutions in New York, this time for teenagers, found similar hideous conditions. According to The New York Times, “the report paints a daily life full of barbarisms…[emphasis added].
“Teenagers recount being raped, having their rooms set on fire, being pressed to join gangs and routinely having their few nice possessions stolen. Insiders and outsiders … agree that staff members not only fail to protect children but also engage in violence and intimidation themselves.” [3]
These institutions are not aberrations. An Indiana study found that children in "group homes" are 10 times more likely to be physically abused and 28 times more likely to be sexually abused than children in their own homes [4].
There have been other tales of terror from America's modern orphanages. Among them:
· SOS Children's Village in Florida repeatedly has been cited by orphanage proponents as proof that orphanages can work. But between 1999 and 2001 33 reports were filed with Florida's child abuse hotline alleging abuse of children at the 50-bed facility; 21 were "substantiated" or "indicated." During the same time period 13 "house parents" and 14 "parent assistants" quit or were fired. (So much for orphanages providing "stability.") [5]
· Another facility touted as a national model, Maryville, near Chicago, has been revealed as a place of terror for many of the children confined there, according to documents obtained by the Chicago Sun-Times. The newspaper reports that "the place is often up for grabs, with staff struggling to handle suicide attempts, sex abuse, drug use, fights and vandalism [6]
In 2001, police were called to Maryville 909 times.[7] After a 15-year-old left her Maryville "cottage", was gang raped by other Maryville residents and escaped from her attackers, she says the kindly staff at her "cottage" wouldn't let her in until they had filled out a report about her "running away." [8]
In 2004, Illinois pulled all 270 state wards out of Maryville [9] – something it could do because it had done such a good job of reducing needless foster care. As a result, in Illinois, substitute care is no longer a “sellers market.”
There are many other examples:
· A 1997 Los Angeles County Grand Jury report which found, according to the Los Angeles Times, that "Many of the nearly 5,000 foster children housed in Los Angeles County group homes are physically abused and drugged excessively while being forced to live without proper food, clothing, education, and counseling." [10] [Emphasis added]
A year later, the Times found that "children under state protection in California group and foster homes are being drugged with potent, dangerous psychiatric medications, at times just to keep them obedient and docile for overburdened caretakers…Under the influence of such drugs, children have suffered from drug-induced psychoses, hallucinations, abnormal heart activity, uncontrollable tremors, liver problems, and loss of bowel control..."
The Times found that it happens to children as young as 3 "and even a 22-month- old knew the word 'meds.'" [11]
· The JDM Residential Treatment Center near St. Louis, where, according to a former director, "there were days when there wasn't any food. The whole thing was just a way to make money off the state."[12]
· Mooseheart, near Chicago, where, over five years, four "houseparents" were convicted of molesting the children in their care. In the most recent case, a houseparent was convicted of molesting six pre-teen boys in less than a year. [13]
· Mission of the Immaculate Virgin on Staten Island, which became so well known for brutality that youths would run away and sleep on the subway rather than spend even one night there. According to New York Newsday, "Adolescents returning from temporary placements ... described a pattern of incidents in which longer-term residents raped, robbed, or assaulted newcomers while night-shift staff slept on the job." [14]
· Linden Hill and Hawthorne Cedar Knolls, two institutions in Westchester County, New York which were, according to New York Newsday, "plagued by violence, unchecked sex, and poor supervision. ... " Said one counselor: "They have lost sight that the program is no longer safe to kids. It's outrageous." [15]
A study of teenagers who had been through a representative cross-section of orphanages reported that the teenagers found institutions to be a significantly worse option than their own families, care by relatives, adoption, or even foster care.[16] The North American Council on Adoptable Children aptly summed up the study findings: "The teens felt "less loved, less looked after, less trusted, less wanted Teens described a powerful code of behavior dictated by institutional peer-group subculture, encompassing drugs, sex, and intimidation."[17]
And that study is typical. A comprehensive review of the scientific literature on orphanages reveals that even the model facilities do serious emotional harm to children.[18] When it comes to orphanages, we’re not talking about rotten apples. We’re talking about rotten barrels.
To know which is more likely to emerge from the "back to the orphanage" movement -- luxury orphan resorts or baby warehouses --we need only look at how America has handled the mass institutionalization of other populations who are feared and despised.
The "back-to-the-orphanage" movement is based on the premise that the same governments and private agencies that have given us the prison system and the juvenile justice system, and have dotted the landscape with hideous warehouses for the mentally ill and the mentally retarded, somehow will come up with loving, humane institutions for children who are disproportionately black and overwhelmingly poor. But orphanages are institutions for the poor, and institutions for the poor are almost always poor institutions.
Updated January 1, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. North American Council on Adoptable Children, There is a Better Way: Family-Based Alternatives to Institutional Care (St. Paul, Minn: 1995) pp. 5-9.
2. All information about the "baby warehouses" is from 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.
3. Leslie Kaufman, “Survey Backs Reputation of Danger in Group Homes,” The New York Times, November 6, 2003.
4. J. William Spencer and Dean D. Knudsen, "Out of Home Maltreatment: An Analysis of Risk in Various Settings for Children," Children and Youth Services Review Vol. 14, pp. 485-492. Back to Text.
5. Megan O'Matz, "Model children's home falls short of expectations," South Florida Sun-Sentinel, April 21, 2002, p.A1. Back to Text.
6. Tim Novak and Chris Fusco, "Reports find Maryville's environment 'dangerous'" Chicago Sun-Times, Sept. 6, 2002. Back to Text.
7. Ofelia Casillas and David Heinzmann, "A troubled Maryville attempts to heal self," Chicago Tribune, Sept. 7, 2002. Back to Text.
8. David Heinzmann and Ofelia Casillas, "Maryville feeling stress of its kids," Chicago Tribune, Sept. 8, 2002. Back to Text.
9. Ofelia Casillas, “Maryville opens doors again,” Chicago Tribune, June 28, 2007. In 2007, 25 state wards were transferred to the campus from another Maryville program.
10. James Rainey, "Grand Jury Cites Abuses in Group Foster Homes," Los Angeles Times, April 9, 1997, p.A1. Back to Text.
11.Tracy Weber, "Caretakers Routinely Drug Foster Children"(p.A1) and "Prescription for Tragedy" (p.A31) Los Angeles Times, May 17, 1998. Back to Text.
12. Martha Shirk, "As Troubles Come to Light, Home Surrenders License," St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Oct. 3, 1993, p.1. Back to Text.
13."Ex-Mooseheart Staffer Guilty of Molesting Boys," Chicago Tribune, Nov. 5, 1993, Sec. 2, p. 7; Linda Young, "Mooseheart Aches After Sex Abuses," Chicago Tribune, Feb. 8, 1994, p.1., Alicia Fabbre, “Mooseheart worker pleads guilty to abuse,” Arlington Heights, Illinois, Daily Herald
February 07, 2003 Back to Text.
14. Nina Bernstein, "Probe of Foster Care Nightmares," New York Newsday, May 2, 1990, 16. Back to Text.
15. Michael Powell, "Violence Rife at Two Homes for Troubled Teens," New York Newsday, Nov. 14, 1990, p.6. Back to Text.
16. M. Bush, "Institutions for Dependent and Neglected Children: Therapeutic option of choice or last resort? American Journal of Orthopsychiatry (50)(2), 239-255.Back to Text.
17. North American Council on Adoptable Children, Note 1, supra. Back to Text.
18. The summary, with full citations, is available on request from NCCPR. Back to Text.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)