Re: abc's crisis of the foster care system (cross-posted)

Hi, Kane,

It disputes your comment.

Precisely.  And I said that the horrendous situation former and present
foster children find themselves in is the product of their entire life
experiences.  That includes, in the main for most of them, their experiences
in state custody.

The Casey Family Foundation concentrated on the child's total experiences
thoughout life.  It is true that a great deal of the cases involved children
whose experiences in the main came in state custody.  Many of these children
were removed as infants.  I have repeatedly stated that causes for the
exceedingly poor outcomes for former foster children must be measured by
evaluating the child's total life experiences.

It is you that continues to insist that these problems are the result, in
the main, of their experiences in their families.   You are wrong, of
course.

Being forcibly removed from one's family makes a emotional wreck out of a
small child.

Children are maltreated in foster care at rates eight to ten times that of
the general population.

The vast majority of children subject to substantiated findings are never
removed from their families before, during or after the investigation.
Children who are sexually abused  are 42% less likely to be removed than
children who are physically abused.  In 2004, 77,000 children were placed
into foster care after CPS itself determined that they were not maltreated
by their families or at risk of being maltreated by their families.  These
77,000 children are clearly more at risk of being abused in foster care than
in the environment where CPS workers themselves found no reason to even
suspect that they were maltreated or at risk of maltreatment.

I wasn't. I was talking about the children removed from families CPS had
unsubstantiated for risk of or actual maltreatment.  Since these children
were not abused in the first place, they could not be "reabused."

You are quite incorrect.  The vast majority of children subject to
unsubstantiated findings are not returned after the investigation is
completed and findings made or are removed months after the unsubstantiated
finding.

Check AFCARS.

Incorrect.  You continually try to fog up the obvious.  ...As I continually
point out.

Less than 10% of removed from their families are returned within 60 days of
both substantiated and unsubstantiated findings.  Their average stay is,
instead, 2.1 years.

They are, in fact, the same thing, according to the federal folks that
compile the figures and pay for the research.  However, "substantiated" does
not usually mean actually abused or neglected, but in the main "at risk" of
future abuse or neglect, maybe, sometime in the future.  These "at risk"
findings represent most of the "substantiated" cases.

According to the USDHHS and the CPS agencies in the states reporting, they
do meet the federal criteria for substantiated.  The survey of one state in
1994 you reference pointed out that families were sometimes substantiated
based upon the worker's relationship with her supervisors or general
attitude in the workplace.  The USDHHS revised its critera to its present
defination and has maintained it for a decade.

An unsubstantiated finding has nothing to do with determining whether
services will be effective or not.  Unsubstantiated is a finding that the
CPS worker has found no credible evidence to suspect that the child has been
abused or neglected or is a risk of being abused or neglected.  Thousands of
substantiated families are forced to receive "services" and thousands of
unsubstantiated families are forced to receive "services."

Not at all.  The "research" proved no such thing.

....Now, here comes the fog again:

Siblings of a child who is abused are, of course, substantiated as being as
risk of being maltreated themselves.  Since these siblings are subject to
substantiated findings, they are, by USDHHS defination, "victims."

As I have mentioned repeatedly, most cases are substantiated on the basis of
risk of abuse or neglect, not actual abuse or neglect.  Unsubstantiated
cases involve children CPS has determined were neither at risk of
maltreatment or actually maltreated.

USDHHS definations are quite clear.

"Victims" are child subjects of substantiated reports.
"Non-Victims" are child subjects of unsubstantiated reports.

Here are the USDHHS definations:

Nope.  Statistics on field practice, gathered by those in the field.

Standards as defined in state law.  CPS caseworkers are required to follow
state law, are they not?  Are you saying that CPS field practice is being
done unlawfully?

Well, come to think of it, yes you have.  We've agreed on that.

I speak to the field practice and to federal and state law.

Extralegally?

No.  Children included in a substantiated disposition because they are at
risk are, by USDHHS defination, "victims."  They decidedly would not be
included as "non-victims."

Non-victims are children subject to an unsubstantiated finding.

If they were substantiated as being at risk, they are counted as "victims."

It supports facts that you repeatedly fail to challenge.

Which adds nothing to my comment, but is diverting babble, Doug. ‘Spin’
as usual.

I said, which is sufficient for the understanding of the reader of
normal intelligence who does not need your interpretation, “And they
came by it in the majority from their origins, the family they were born
into,” covering easily what you babbled on about to divert.

life

Then why has your and other’s emphasis, including The Casey Family
Foundation analysis ignored the family of origin in favor of focusing
only on the foster experience?

Riding in a car unbelted can cause irreparable harm. IF you have a wreck.

In foster care the risks of harm are far less than in the family of
origin the child was removed from.

95% of all harm to children that are the subject of open CPS cases comes
from OTHER than foster caregivers, and most from parents and family
members. That’s pretty good odds for children in foster care, compared
to being anywhere else.

My recent post from an Oregonian article quoted by an Oregon county
sheriff’s office pointed out that around 50% of all children that come
into foster care have such complex medical needs that they require a
medical foster placement...which of course is NOT available from lack of
funds.

If 50% have ‘complex medical needs’ then we can assume some of the
remainder have SOME more than average medical needs.

and in

Caseload size is directly tied to quality of casework Doug. You have
argued it and quoted Casey and Pew to that effect as well as other
sources favored by YOU. The feds know it, the states know it, and you
know it, but now you wish to change your story.

Quality casework has now become, by the logic of the little
propagandist, Doug, an “agency best interest” rather than a child’s best
interest. Do I understand you correctly?

I was. YOU have. We debated issues that included it. YOU pointed out
re-abuse as a critical element in child protection casework quality, and
lack of quality. Stop your lying and dodging, and twisting and turning
and changing your story, Doug.

The same old misleading bullshit, Doug. The majority are returned when
that is determined. There is a judicial hearing the determines
placement. The children not returned are either abused, neglected, or at
serious risk of harm.

The logic appears correct. Problem is you base it upon a lie. I have
repeatedly proven that you are wrong. You simply ignore my posts to that
effect.

substantiated

Which would go to the opportunity to OBSERVE, not a claim that services
CAUSE the re-abuse.

Families that are substantiated and receive no services are no longer
clients. And CPS cannot march into their homes without a repeat
allegation. CPS doesn’t control those.

from an

time

What most readers, if they are bothering to read, will miss is the use
of ‘average’ and what that really means.

In the context of CPS, it means that the number that pulls the length of
time upward is very large indeed compared to the number that returns
quickly. And that large number are the most abused and at risk of re
abuse. They stay in the system for a very long time.

And for more than just the reasons of abuse. Many of them are in fact
receiving rehabilitative services. Those take time. I worked with that
population. Most of the youth had been in and out of foster care for
years, re-abused by their parents.

Normally for inpatient care, which they were, the length of stay was
from 12 to 18 months. They were foster children. They usually came from
a foster home, and they usually returned to a foster home, because their
parents were incapacitated. Often by being confined. Themselves in
treatment, or prison, or parental rights removed.

"substantiated" does

Excuse me? That’s MY LINE. The gambit is noted.

Yes. You finally have told the truth. You are a good chess player, and I
recognize a move to be exploited later when I see it. Gambit noted.

definitions to

And, according to the study I posted here, they do NOT MEET THE FEDERAL
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SUBSTANTIATED.

No, they FAIL to follow it, just as the study pointed out. And YOU have
argued yourself the assessment methods FAIL.

Hence the numbers are NOT based on true abuse, nor true neglect, nor
true risk...though the last item is the one they are closest to meeting
according to federal definition.

You have said so. I have said so. And the study I posted said so.

I told you NOT to continue to argue the obvious agreed upon issue, but
to stick to the issue under discussion...how ACCURATE are the numbers.
You continue to beat the horse we both killed long ago to deflect
attention from what you cannot win – that the numbers do NOT reflect
reality so your claims are NOT based on fact.

The major point you continually avoid is that UNSUBSTANTIATED
undercounts the truth. The assessment tool is being used to determine
the likelihood of services being effective, not the facts of abuse or
neglect. A child can be abused, and still be unsubstantiated IF a worker
assesses that the family’s circumstances will be more likely to support
services being effective.

This WAS the finding of the study, and it stands today. This has not
changed.

agency

supported by

state CPS

conclude or

You post your ‘house-rules’ and I’ve posted the action at the table as
it really happens.

People are not playing by the rules. You get to use that for propaganda
purposes.

communicating a

homes after

were

Faulty logic. We call it “spin,” when done deliberately to deceive.

The “way of communicating” has been proven by research to NOT be
matching the criteria of the USDHHS definitions.

Thus what children are “called” no longer can be proven to match what
the facts are.

You have avoided again that in households where their has been a victim,
there are likely sibs. The nature of the abuse or neglect can often be,
and often is, that if that child victim is removed and the others are
not, they too would be at risk of the same abuse the “target child” was
subjected to. Hence they are removed, but by definition, not ‘victims.’

Do you think that is not a large number and that I make up this scenario?

I speak to workers about it. Who do you speak to, God?

that

House rules. Not field practice.

House rules. Not field practice.
Just as I’ve said before, and provided the study to prove.

concludes

supported

You speak to the word, I to the actual field practice. House rules. Not
field practice.

The worker and their supervisor do that. They often find that real life
and “house-rules” conflict to the endangerment of the child. They go
with the safety of the child. Naturally.

And you want to argue that families that need services will come
running, you and your buddies.

to a

Because of actual field practice, and I’ve proven this in prior argument
with you, many times, they are NOT. A victim is a child that has been
injured, or is at substantial risk of harm. A substantiated disposition
can include NON VICTIMS from the same family that would be at risk.

Again with the spin. Siblings, returns from shelter hearings. They are
counted as non-victims, are temporarily in foster care, so are counted
as “removed,” even if for 48 hours.

number of

Likewise, you

precisely to

state CPS

And this supports what portion of your argument that I have not defeated
before?

spend

foster care

In other words, my dire commentary when we first met, that YOU agreed
with, concerning the need to fund better educated and trained workers,
preferably MSWs in child and family specialty, is about to be overcome
by the states doing that.

They will have quality casework now, and children will be better
protected and either not be in out of home placement or get up-front
services that their parents will welcome with open arms.

Let’s see how one state views child welfare, shall we...from an
editorial TODAY, in the Oregonian. See if you don’t hear echoes from my
comments three years ago on the lack of will of society to do what is
right – the failure by trusting political solutions to social problems:

http://www.oregonlive.com/editorials/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1149294
347240370.xml&coll=7

You may have to go through a sign in routine. Search on “Oregonian”
“Editorials” and click on “For many kids, Oregon is a state of neglect”
each time you see it. You’ll get to this:

   
For many kids, Oregon is a state of neglect
Oregon must confront the alcoholism, drug abuse and parental failures
driving more children into foster care
Monday, June 05, 2006
The Oregonian

T here is no barometer that better measures the health and safety of
kids than the rise and fall in the number of children in foster care. In
Oregon, the numbers show that far too many of its kids are caught in a
tragic storm of alcohol, drugs, abuse and neglect.

The Oregonian's Bill Graves reports that the number of children entering
foster care in Oregon has ballooned by 25 percent in just the past two
years. For three years running now, more children have been taken from
homes of violence or neglect and put in foster care in Oregon than went
back to their families, turned 18 or otherwise left the state-supervised
care.

Oregon is losing ground on kids, in spite of the best intentions of
Oregon's top elected officials and all their rhetoric about putting kids
first. Thousands of children in Oregon are less safe and more vulnerable
to abuse today than they were even a few years ago. To balance the state
budget, the Legislature has hacked away at drug and alcohol treatment,
Healthy Start and other programs for children and families.

The Legislature even decided in 2003 that maintaining one of the
nation's lowest beer taxes was a higher priority than finding more money
for alcohol treatment. That year Oregon cut its drug and alcohol
treatment programs by 18 percent to help balance the shrunken state budget.

Now two years later, state officials report that drug and alcohol abuse
was a key factor in a sharp rise in child abuse and neglect cases in
Oregon. Drug and alcohol abuse was involved in nearly half of the 11,255
substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect in fiscal year 2005, they
say. Moreover, alcohol and illegal drugs, mostly methamphetamine, were
factors in nearly every one of the 18 Oregon child deaths from abuse or
neglect last year.

All those people now chattering about whether the meth epidemic is
little more than media hype ought to visit with some of those abused and
neglected kids carrying their few belongings into Oregon foster homes.
In Jackson County, about six out of every 10 children placed in foster
care are taken from their parents because of meth abuse in the family,
according to Carin Niebuhr, director of the county's Commission on
Children and Families. Meanwhile, a national report next week is
expected to detail the strains that meth abuse has put on the entire
nation's foster care system.

It is frustrating that so many Oregon leaders -- and the voters who put
them in office -- still seem unable or unwilling to see the clear
connections between such things as cuts in drug and alcohol treatment
and increases in child abuse and neglect. When the Legislature debated
the beer tax increase, most of the talk was about protecting the state's
craft-brew industry and virtually none was about protecting children by
funding alcohol treatment for their drunk and abusive parents.

Even now, as this state prepares to send back more than $1 billion in
tax revenues to comply with its kicker law, and girds for a likely vote
on a new state spending limit, all the noise is about taxes and schools
and what's good or bad for business. While Oregonians holler for their
kicker, they all but ignore the cries of thousands of abused children.

©2006 The Oregonian
...........

And Oregon residents are no different really than people anywhere in
this country. Wallet first, social programs second. Or third. Or less.

expensive

You are naive beyond perception. Time and again you have put up
arguments like this. And I have pointed out my very long history with
observing and interacting with CPS. People who neglect and abuse their
children do NOT step up for services. They WILL try to refuse them. They
will, AS YOU YOURSELF HAVE POINTED OUT, pretend to comply and move on,
and will have changed nothing.

You claimed that when services were FORCED that would be the outcome.

How do you, presuming you wish children to be safer and are NOT the
child hating family hating fool I believe you to be, propose to get the
very families that most need “services” to volunteer instead of be forced?

What will be the bait? Free meth?

In other words, the very thing YOU have argued in the past with claims
that forced services do not work.

social

rather

“Force?” FORCE!!!!???

Do you recall your arguments about the certain failure of forced
rehabilitative services, Doug?

Did you know it is illegal to “spin” a car’s odometer backward?

R R R R R R...lucky you, it’s not illegal to spin your spin backwards.

And I have a surprise for you and your cronies, and the “experts”
including political appointees you cite as your authority.

An injured child, a developmentally delayed child, an emotionally
traumatized child, a child that cannot learn like others, cannot
socialize safely, is NOT LESS EXPENSIVE TO HELP IN HOME THAN OUT OF HOME.

Now I have a new prediction....and you helped open my eyes to this high
probability likelihood.

THIS IS GOING TO BE AN HORRIFIC BOONDOGGLE, should it come to pass, more
terrible in cost to our treasury AND THE LIVES OF CHILDREN, and to their
parents, than anything we’ve seen so far.

Yes, little man, it most certainly won’t be long now.

0:->

PS I've not seen you post this sloppily in some time. I hope things are
well with you and you are not living with undue stress. Even your
spelling, something I don't often concern myself with -- except jokingly
-- has become so bad as to make me wonder.

You know I'm right, Doug, and it's getting to you. No one can sustain,
unless they are pathological, a continuous string of dishonest claims
without it effecting them.  K

Hi, Kane,

Actually, they find themselves where they are through a multitude of
variables unfolding throughout their entire life.  To determine the "why" of
the exceedingly poor outcomes, one must measure the entirity of their life
experiences, both before and during foster care.  The removal itself, for
young children, often causes irreparable harm.

The key is in spending what money they already receive more wisely and in
ways that address the best interests of children, rather than the agency.

I was not talking about children who were abused.  The majority taken into
state custody were not.  Since they were not abused in the first place, it
is impossible for them to be "re-abused."

I quoted, in another argument, the fact that substantiated families who
receive services are more likely to be re-substantiated than substantiated
families that received no CPS services.

The average stay in foster care is around 2.1 years -- down slightly from an
average of 2 1/2 years in 2002.  That is not, in my opinion, "in short
order."   A very small percentage of children are returned within the time
frame of an investigation.

They are, in fact, the same thing, according to the federal folks that
compile the figures and pay for the research.  However, "substantiated" does
not mean abused or neglected, but in the main "at risk" of abuse or neglect.

The USDHHS provides the criteria for each category and the definations to
state CPS agencies, who organize their data under the criteria before
reporting.  Each of these state agencies follow state statutes that define
"substantiated" and "unsubstantiated" in the same way.  If CPS workers are
operating under a different criteria, they are violating their state law.

"Substantiated" is an investigation disposition from the state CPS agency
that the allegation of maltreatment or RISK of maltreatment was supported by
state law or state policy.  "Unsubstantiated" is a finding by the state CPS
agency that there was not sufficient evidence under state law to conclude or
SUSPECT that the child was maltreated or AT RISK of being maltreated.
http://tinyurl.com/g6on9

It's pretty simple, really.  The state has to have a way of communicating a
finding of an investigation or assessment -- whether the allegations are
true or not.  Children subject to substantiated dispositions are called
victims.  Children subject to unsubstantiated findings are called
"nonvictims."  In 2003, CPS removed 69,000 nonvictims from their homes after
a child abuse investigation or assessment determined the allegations were
unsubstantiated.

Here are the USDHHS definations:

a.. Substantiated: A type of investigation disposition that concludes that
the allegation of maltreatment or risk of maltreatment was supported or
founded by State law or State policy.
a.. Unsubstantiated: A type of investigation disposition that determines
that there was not sufficient evidence under State law to conclude or
suspect that the child was maltreated or at risk of being maltreated.
http://tinyurl.com/g6on9

Nope.  Substantiation is a legal, investigation disposition that concludes
that the allegation of maltreatment or risk of maltreatment was supported
evidence required by state law.  In each state, these state statutes define
the thesholds of evidence but do NOT address service needs.

In fact, the majority of CPS services are forced upon unsubstantiated
families.

They most certainly are interchangeable.  A victim is a child subject to a
substantiated disposition.  A nonvictim is a child subject to an
unsubstantiated disposition.  In 2004, 77,000 non-victim children were
removed from families CPS unsubstantiated for maltreatment or risk of
maltreatment.

Take a look at the table below.  You see quite clearly that the number of
child victims is precisely the same as the number of children subject to
substantiated dispositions of investigations or assessments.  Likewise, you
will see that the number of "non-victim" children corresponds precisely to
the number of children subject to unsubstantiated dispositions by state CPS
workers.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/table6_4.htm

The CPS reform package being considered by Congress allows states to spend
Title IV-E funding as they choose, rather than it being tied to foster care
services.  This means the state agencies will simply provide more of the
in-home services they currently provide and much less of the more expensive
and often times abusive out of home services.

CPS comes to them.  They will continue to come to them, as they have in the
past.  The difference will be that CPS can now use federal Title IV-E social
security funding to force parents to accept cheaper, in-home services rather
than take the child into state custody.

And they came by it in the majority from their origins, the family they
were born into.

Some do.

And some do not. Some believe that adequately funding the system for
lower caseloads WILL in fact move children through the system more
rapidly to permanency. Better funding will result in not just lower
caseloads...a problem pointed out BY EXPERTS even you have quoted, Doug,
but allow for hiring and training more qualified workers.

Which has NOT proven yet to be the safest course. Parents have been
known, as you know perfectly well, to re-abuse these same children. YOU
quoted, in another argument, figures showing high rates of re-offending.

That is only true if you count raw numbers of removals...and ignore
those that are returned in short order.

When you claim "not abused" you are ignoring the research I posted here
that shows that "not abuse" and "unsubstantiated for abuse or neglect"
are not the same thing, nor the same yardstick.

Substantiation is a service needs driven assessment label, not a legal
definition of abuse.

"Victim" and "substantiated" are not interchangeable terms, as you
delusional claim. The study I provided you done for the USDHHS shows
clearly that you are not correct, and your insistence on ignoring it is
what earns you the title I give you of liar.

Yes?  0:->

Nonsense babbling again, Doug?

R R R R, volume does not equate with accuracy or expertise, Doug. Wade
Horn is identified as an anti-women's rights appointee to a political
office.

Wade makes the same mistake I've pointed out to you repeatedly and you
have ignored or minimized.

The concept of upfront services has two major stumbling blocks, closely
related to each other.

Those who NEED the up front services do NOT present themselves for those
services. Criminals, addicts/substance abusers, mentally ill.

And especially those guilty of abusing, or placing their children at
risk. They are NOT your self development conscious population that self
assess as needing help and seeking it.

Which brings me to point to, and something that this administration is
becoming a major concern of the public over: if up front services are to
be delivered they will have to be delivered by heavy intrusive efforts.

These take the disguise of "public services agents" calling up people to
"volunteer" the services, but always with the hint and occasionally the
open threat of action if the "services" are not "volunteered for."

You and others here like you have even argued this very same thing
yourself in the context of the current system.

I suggest you carefully read Wade's statements from last year, for this
very content. Nicely worded, not at all obvious, but to one that has
followed CPS and related agencies, and the paths that legislation has
taken, it is more than clear. It is moving the point of entry of
government, not removing it.

And it will have similar outcomes. Those that cannot or will not present
themselves will be on a list. And the very thing YOU pissants claim is
being done, that is not, WILL BE A FACT OF LIFE: That CPS will be
charged with HUNTING child abuse, rather than taking incoming calls only.

The agency may not BE CPS, but other agencies will apply for grants,
hire new workers, and out they will go into the field. "Nurses,"
"community service Workers," from fields as diverse as health, and
recreation (Recreation is a favorite place to focus on children and
their parents and signs of abuse when government wants to intrude on
families.)

http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/olab/legislative/testimony/2004/cw_testimony.htm
Then read:
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/olab/legislative/testimony/2005/test_060905_chi
ld.html

And you will see the trend.

As for Wade himself, and the politics surrounding him, (and don't EVEN
try your bullshit of attempting to separate the quality and content of
someone's claims from their character and milieu with me, a.shole), you
might want to look at the criticisms:

http://www.mediatransparency.org/personprofile.php?personID=89

The politics are, well, business as usual.

YOU just want the money to move from one place to another.

Do you have a personal interest in this, Doug? A financial one?

It isn't an industry. No profits accrue to anyone.

You are lying. And YOU have applauded the use of GALS, and social
workers. A case manager is a case worker. Stop your lying.

There are no partridges, other than computer support, clerical support,
utility fees, building rents, transport for children, and often parent
clients, etc., and as far as I know, "no pear trees and the trees in
which they roost."

Trees resting in trees, Doug?

You obviously aren't paying attention to what YOU are writing, and you
most certainly ARE patronizingly playing on your belief in the ignorance
and or stupidity of the readers.

Who, hopefully really AREN'T as stupid as you patronizingly make them
out to be with your nonsense.

Bio families do not have the expenses related to abused children, unless
they abuse and neglect and are responsible enough to pay themselves for
the outcomes.

We can presume the $14,000 per child figure is not for that population.

You are ignoring, and thus misleading (called "lying" in some circles)
the rest of what the Pew commission found. And what others have found.

The abuse and neglect has taken on a much more perverse color than in
the past, with far greater injury with more serious outcomes that cost a
great deal more to treat. Number ARE going up, NOT down.

A simplistic way of describing something that is more comprehensive than
just the poverty level.

However, the poor neglect and abuse their children at a higher rate than
 the non-poor. It's just a simple fact. Nothing complex. They are often
poor for reasons that are not just lack of ability to find a job.

People that don't abuse, and become poor, do not start abusing because
they are poor. People that live lifestyles that include abusive child
rearing and are poor do not stop abusing even if you provide them money.

This has all been tried before and failed.

Appeals to emotions with loaded word choice, like 'pull down' leading
one to believe that they are 'making money' by this process.

They are spending money at a faster rate than they are getting it
because of the load on the system.

As for the TRUE reaction to PEW commission report, you need to go beyond
your bullshit propaganda, Doug.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=63622

[[[ Notice they are saying the same thing I am saying. Funding has been
a perpetual problem .. in all areas of child protection, including the
courts. They too have been underfunded, badly. ]]]

home     today's news     about USN     USN services     contact USN     media
services     news sources     search

Strengthening Courts, Improving Foster Care: A Progress Report from the
Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care

4/5/2006 2:53:00 PM

To: Assignment Desk, Daybook Editor

Contact: The Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, 202-687-0948;
Web: http://www.pewfostercare.org

News Advisory:

-- Strengthening Courts, Improving Foster Care: A Progress Report from
the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care

-- Thursday, April 6, 10 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., U.S. Capitol Building, Room
H-137, Washington, D.C.

No child enters or leaves foster care without a judge's approval. Given
the critical role of juvenile and family courts in children's lives, the
nonpartisan Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care called for
sweeping court reforms to protect children in foster care and secure
safe, permanent families for them.

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 includes new provisions to improve the
juvenile and family courts that reflect some of the Pew Commission's
recommendations. These new court improvements will help courts track and
analyze their caseloads to improve outcomes for children in foster care,
allow judges and other court personnel to receive needed training, and
encourage collaboration between courts and child welfare agencies. The
DRA provides $100 million over five years for these court improvements.

These new court provisions add critical momentum to the efforts of
states to improve their child welfare and court systems. At this
briefing, members of the Pew Commission, Congressional leaders, judges,
court leaders and federal officials will explore the potential impact of
these court improvements on children in foster care throughout the
United States. Participants include:

THE HONORABLE BILL FRENZEL, Chairman, Pew Commission on Children in
Foster Care, Guest Scholar, Economic Studies, The Brookings Institution

THE HONORABLE WALLY HERGER (R-CA), Chairman, Subcommittee on Human
Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means

THE HONORABLE WADE HORN, Assistant Secretary for Children and Families,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

THE HONORABLE JOAN OHL, Commissioner, Administration on Children, Youth
and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

THE HONORABLE LEE F. SATTERFIELD, Associate Judge, Superior Court of the
District of Columbia, Former Presiding Judge, D.C. Family Court

WILLIAM C. VICKREY, Member, Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care,
Administrative Director of the Courts, California Administrative Office
of the Courts

CLARICE DIBBLE WALKER, Member, Pew Commission on Children in Foster
Care, Former Commissioner, D.C. Social Services

http://www.usnewswire.com/

-0-

/© 2006 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/

It will defund, which will, of course, dump kids OUT of the foster
system, or close the doors to them when they need protection. The
pendulum will swing again.

The size of the needed workforce will increase to "give" those upfront
services that Wade is so supportive of. More AGENTS of the government
will make attempts at entre' to homes and family.

YOU, and they, are stupid.

Bullshit. CPS has little to do with the reporting on meth. The news
services are sending journalist and reporters out to find out for
themselves and they are finding that indeed there IS such an epidemic
and it's have devastating impact on families and children.

You are a propagandist, and it appears you are one for the current
administration on these matters.

It will be about two to three years before we see the first signs of
this boondoggle.

Watch.

Just as I predicted the upsurge in meth related issues for child
protection and the country I predict that child abuse rates, once we
change administrations, will be correctly reported and they will skyrocket.

Families will not present themselves for "up front services" and we'll
see more and more clever "agencies" with specially trained, expensive,
workers going out to find ways into homes.

Having done so more abuse will be uncovered than ever before...because
our system and society has resisted intrusion into the family...and that
will break down.

That IS the goal of certain factions now influencing legislation, and
they are poised to do those intrusion under color of law.

They are NOT family friendly...just "family model" friendly, and the
objective is to NOT allow for non-biblical model families to exist.

You will see the gates to hell open on this one, Doug. If they carry it
off. 5 years at the outside before the public discovers they have been
conned by you and your kind.

0:->

And for those that care, another opinion on Wade and his politics and
values, which of course boils down to biases:

http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=5474

Hi, maggie,

Former and present foster children represent the most endangered population
in this country.

Child welfare experts contend that the only way to reduce the abuse in
foster care and the very poor outcomes for former foster children is to have
less foster care.  And reform movements are underway in many states and, on
the federal level, to place less children into state custody and release
foster children to their families earlier.

Currently, the vast majority of children removed from their families were
not abused.  69,000 of children placed in foster care in 2003 were removed
from families CPS workers themselves unsubstantiated for risk of or actual
neglect/abuse.  These non-victims represent 30% of the foster care
population.  The majority of those who were substantiated were found to be
at risk of neglect or neglected.  Of those children substantiated as victims
of abuse, the majority were substantiated because they were "at risk" of
abuse, not actually abused.

............. like welfare, foster care

The most vocal of foster care critics are professionals who are directly
involved with it.  Dr. Horn is one of the players in CPS reform efforts.

."there are no provisions for treatment, prevention,

The total cost of raising the child takes up about $14,000 of that.  Foster
children's medical, dental and mental health needs are covered by Medacaid.
The remaining $26,000 goes to principals and workers in the child welfare
industry itself.  Administrative costs are many times much higher than 2/3
of the funding going into foster care, although 66% is the general rule.
For each foster child, there is a battery of GALS, social service workers,
state caregivers, case managers, mentors, partridges, pear trees and the
trees in which they roost.

....................beyond abc's findings, the per annum cost per

....And pay for their college.

The overcrowded and abusive foster care system described by ABC news became
that way because of what the Pew Commission calls "the perverse funding
incentive" provided state CPS agencies to remove children from their
families.  Federal Title IV-E Social Security Funding currently flows to the
states on the basis of how many poor children CPS takes into custody.  As
long as the child stays in foster care, the state agencies pull down the
uncapped, on demand Title IV-E funding.

As the result of the Pew Commission report, Congress is currently at work to
remove the strings to Title IV-E funding.  The money will become a capped
entitlement to the states, allowing CPS agencies to decide for themselves
how to spend the money. This will cut the foster population by as much as
80% across the country.

The reform legislation, partially because of Dr. Wade's support, will soon
be passed by Congress.  This is the reform legislation the Organization of
American Counties and CPS attempted to defeat through a lobbying campaign
about the Meth "epidemic."

Meanwhile, individual states have reduced their foster care poplulation by
applying for and being granted exclusions from Title IV-E funding
restrictions.  California, Iowa and other states were just granted Title
IV-E waivers.  We can expect the state that harbors close to half of the
nation's foster children to reduce the population of state wards by 50% over
the next three years.  Mamouth reductions in foster care populations have
occurred in Illinois, Oregon and other states granted Title IV-E waivers in
the past.

It won't be long, now.

abc's primetime did a june 1 story on "the crisis of the foster care
system"..............among abc's conclusions were 52 percent of foster
children suffered from post-traumatic stress (a rate twice as high as
soldiers returning from war).............thirty percent of the homeless
have been in foster care............ twenty-five percent of those in
prison are foster care alumnus............. like welfare, foster care
is intergenerational (children growing up in foster care can become
mothers with children in foster care........... "the highest ranking
federal official in charge of foster care, wade horn of the department
of health and human services, is a former child psychologist who says
the foster care system is a giant mess and should just be blown
up"............."there are no provisions for treatment, prevention,
family support, or aging out - just for supporting things as they
are"..........that status quo costs taxpayers $22 billion a year and
works out to $40,000 a year to keep a child in foster
care....................beyond abc's findings, the per annum cost per
child in foster care would keep a child in a good boarding
school............