Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Criticism of LA Times' Series on Foster Care; the Agency Leadership and the Federal Funding Scheme

The Los Angeles Times has recently published a series of articles by reporter Garrett Therolf on child protecive services highlighting some of the cases with horrible outcomes that resulted from allowing children "known to the system" to remain in their homes vs. placing them in foster care. 

The nature of the reporting came under fire from several critics, including Daniel Hempel of Fostering Media Connections, Celeste Fremon of the Blog WitnessLA, and Richard Wexler of the National Coalition of Child Protection Reform.  Times' Assistant Managing Editor, David Lauter's response to that criticism appeared on the Times' Readers' Representative web page, and Lauter's response generated additional criticism as well as several reader comments.

One reader's comment began with "I don't know what this fuss is about...", which I took personally.  Thinking about these cases in the abstract is so far removed from the visceral, real-life experince of being a cast member in the actual drama. 

As a result, I posted the following comment on the Blog, which you can find at http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/readers/2010/11/times-responds-to-criticism-of-foster-care-coverage.html.

Thank you, William, for wondering what all the fuss is about.

Here's what it's about for me: in April of 1999, my wife and I had our two sons taken from their elementary school one afternoon. They were first placed into a group home and then into foster care. It never should have happened.

I very much appreciate the incisiveness of the criticism -- much deserved -- leveled by Mssrs. Heimpel and Wexler against the Times' reporting in the recent series of articles by Mr. Therolf. Celeste Fremon is correct when she identifies the straw man arguments constructed by David Lauter in his response. I hope that Mr. Lauter will get past them, make his way into a more forthright self-examination of the Times' reportage and continue this very important conversation.

The underlying fuss, beyond the reportage, is about a curious system of financial incentive/disincentive, imposed upon counties by federal policy that reimburses counties ONLY for the costs of out-of-home placement of children, even though other alternatives may be more effective, less costly and most importantly, less damaging and traumatic for children and families.

Presently Los Angeles County, along with Alameda County and the State of Florida, have been granted waivers from compliance with that federal policy, and are able to use federal reimbursement dollars in the best interests of child welfare. That waiver is making a very positive difference in Florida outcomes, and under the right child welfare agency leadership, it can do the same in Los Angeles County.

Though we were lucky in the foster care department (incredibly supportive family friends volunteered and were approved to act as our sons' foster parents, although we were not allowed contact with them absent a monitor for many months), our children, my wife, who has multiple sclerosis and whose condition worsened considerably under the stress of the separation, and I endured much emotional trauma. Our family nightmare, which took place in Orange and not LA County, ended when we were reunited ten and one-half months after that horrible day in April, 2009.

Our lives were forever changed -- and not in a good way -- because of an institutional bias toward removing children from their homes that prevails in most places in this country under the current child welfare funding scheme. Far too many families experience similar treatment. THAT's what the fuss is all about.

Yes, child abuse and neglect are real. And yes, child protective services are a necessary thing. However, they need not be the necessary evil which they far too often are. If we are going to provide those services, let's fund them in ways that eliminate institutional bias, give children what is best for their welfare, help deserving families that need help, and improve outcomes, both social and fiscal. Let's get child protection right.
 *     *     *     *     *     * 
This is just one small step forward toward reform, a step toward the elimination of the institutional bias in favor of removing children from their homes resulting from the Federal funding scheme.  Each case needs to be viewed individually, and all options in the best interest of the child's welfare -- and the family -- need to be considered without any financial incentive or disincentive toward any such option.  That would be one more way of getting child protection right.
   

Reasonable Efforts: Preview "Criticism of LA Times' Series on Foster Care; the Agency Leadership and the Federal Funding Scheme"

Reasonable Efforts: Preview "Criticism of LA Times' Series on Foster Care; the Agency Leadership and the Federal Funding Scheme"

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Response to my letter to Bill Clinton

I have today received a letter of reply to the letter I sent to Bill Clinton and posted here on May 28, 2010.  I have edited that post by appending the text of the former President's letter at its end.

Since the entire point of my letter was completely missed, I think perhaps I'll write again.  I must admit, however, that I'm pretty disappointed in the lack of a quality response.  The reply letter offers no evidence that my letter was read by anyone with even a thimblefull of critical thinking skills.

It's sad.

Saturday, July 17, 2010

It's time to plan for action. Collective action.

A little more than a year ago, I set up a Facebook account and started a cause on Facebook called "Getting Child Protection Right."  Over the intervening months, almost four hundred Facebook users from the US and abroad have joined that cause.  Some of those have made contributions to the cause's dedicated non-profit organization -- the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform www.nccpr.org ,  an organization that has done more than any other I have found to influence policy makers in a position to effect positive change to a system that, while well-meaning, often does far more to harm children and families than to help them.  That certainly was my family's experience.

Today I sent out an email bulletin to all of the members of the cause, asking them what individual actions they have taken or thought about taking in order to change things for the better. I realize, of course, that some of those who have joined the cause are just now newly involved in "the system" and may only be thinking about how to get their children back home and how to end their involvement in it.

Nonetheless, I think that it is important for all of us, those whose involvement is in the past and those presently in the system, to put on our thinking caps and come up with a collective plan of action.  Commitment to such a plan can only help to move us all from a position of powerlessness into one of strength.

I have asked for ideas and have proposed one myself.  Now I must pause and be patient, await responses and then figure out how to respond to them.  In the meantime, I shall continue to formulate my own ideas, which presently range from how to provide better and more comprehensive investigation, how to enhance real due process in dependency court, how to increase the availability of in-home, wrap-around services to keep children from being needlessly removed from their own homes, and how to make the entire process more transparent and honest.

The research and papers published on the NCCPR website are among the most helpful I can imagine.  So as a first collective action, I have proposed that every member of Getting Child Protection Right contribute one dollar or whatever they can afford to that organization on the day that we grow to 400 members, and I plan to propose that we do the same each time we acquire 100 new members, thus increasing our contribution by $100 each time we hit that milestone in growth.

I know that we can do more, but this is a start.

 

Friday, May 28, 2010

What hath the Adoption and Safe Families Act wrought? A Letter to Bill Clinton.

President William J. Clinton
c/o William J. Clinton Foundation
55 West 125th Street
New York, NY 10027

May 27, 2010

Dear President Clinton:

I am the father of two sons, Rudy, 21, and Jonah, 19, both college students. My wife, Jacqui, and I have been married for almost 24 years. She has secondary progressive multiple sclerosis, and I am her primary caregiver.

I write to you today on behalf of other families, though; families who currently are and who in the future will be adversely affected by the policies launched with the passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA).

In April 1999, our local Child Protective Services agency removed Rudy and Jonah from our home on groundless suspicions. After ten months of dependency court hearings and prompt compliance with every aspect of the case plan imposed upon us, we were reunited on a “trial visit” basis. After another eight months, the dependency court case was finally dismissed.

The emotional stress of that nearly two-year experience accelerated the progression of Jacqui’s MS, and her disability increased considerably. My own stresses cost me a job.

But none of that is my reason for writing you today. Instead, I want to tell you that, building on the policy foundation established by ASFA, South Carolina has passed a new law, the signing ceremony for which took place on Tuesday last. Under that law, holding children in foster care for just six months will become grounds to terminate parental rights forever. After 18 months, the new law requires termination of parental rights, no ifs, ands or buts.

Because of the instrumental role you played with ASFA, it is very important that you know what is happening now. The policy of financial incentives from the Federal government to the states birthed by the passage of ASFA has become a malignancy, one threatening the well-being of American families.

Please read the May 27, 2010, entry on the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform’s (NCCPR) Blog http://www.nccpr.blogspot.com/ . I beseech you to use the power of your foundation to help reverse the harmful policies resulting from ASFA.

I am more than happy to discuss this idea with you, and I have no doubt that Richard Wexler, Executive Director of the NCCPR would be as well.

I also hope that you also read the new report of the Annie E. Casey Foundation on the reforms made in the Maine Child Protective Services bureaucracy. That report can be found at http://www.aecf.org/.

Thank you for reading this. I hope that you will use the resources of your Foundation to remedy the harm done by a law that was supposed to help, not harm, families and children.

Very truly yours,

Steven H Hirsch
*********************************

Update:  July 27, 2010

Today I received the following letter of reply from Bill Clinton:
*********************************************************************************
"July 22, 2010

Dear Steven:

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me.

Our children are the future, and protecting them is our most profound responsibility.  The goal of the Adoption and Safe Families Act was to give every child the opportunity to grow up in a healthy and safe environment, with the potential to become strong, successful adults.  Throughout my Administration, we tried to increase the number of adoptions from the foster care system by eliminating race and ethicity barriers, breaking down geographic barriers by using the Internet, and ensuring health coverage for adopted children with special needs.

I'm glad you share my belief in the importrance of advocating for children's safety.  It's vital that we talk about the issues that are important to us, so I encourage you to continue to share your views.

Sincerely,

/s/ Bill Clinton"
*********************************************************************************

So, since the entire point of my letter was missed, shall I take the time to write once more?