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

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............