-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/50297052e753c9b81cf30d775805812f.pdf
e3011969bc88871ebe1042f60cc79ce8
PDF Text
Text
.~"
\ve/Jv& lltw
:;;;>
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
From May 11 to May 15, I had the opportunity, along with an OMB examiner, to visit foster
care, adoption assistance and other child welfare programs in Northern and Southern California.
While the itinerary was comprehensive and a broad range of child welfare topics were covered,
messages from regional, State and local officials, service providers, caseworkers and program
participants were surprisingly consistent. This report provides a State profile and findings
according to the major issue areas surrounding child welfare programs today.
GOALS OF SITE VISIT .
The recently enacted Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASF A) includes many provisions
that signal a continuing Congressional interest in child welfare reform. Major provisions
include: the authorization of fifty child welfare demonstration projects; the establishment of an
advisory panel on kinship care; and, incentive payments for States that increase the number of
\
foster child adoptions. In order to develop and analyze proposals for child welfare reform, the
goals of my site visit oftitle IV-E (foster care, adoption assistance and Independent Living) and
IV-B (Child Welfare Services and Promoting Safe and Stable Families, formerly Family
Preservation and Support) programs were to:
Understand how federal funding mechanisms affect State and local policy and financing
decisions.
Understand how IV-B programs such as Promoting Safe and Stable Families operate at
the local level.
Assess the implementation of ASF A and obtain State and local views on the legislation.
Assess the State's child welfare demonstration project, which includes kinship care and
the use of IV-E funds to provide IV-B services.
Learn more about the court's role in the child welfare system.
Understand the data reporting and case management system.
Hear State and local concerns, issues and recommendations about the child welfare
system in general.
1
�I. ITINERARY
DAY ONE
Met with Regional Office staff who explained their role, provided an overview of
California's child welfare system, including implementation ofthe Adoption and Safe
Families Act and the State's child welfare waiver.
Met with the Judicial Council, the administrative office for the State Supreme Court.
They implement the federal Court Improvement Project and have developed
recommendations for improving statewide juvenile courts.
Visited a local kinship care support program, the Edgewood Center, which provides
relative caregivers, mostly grandparents, and children with services such as child risk
assessments, counseling, on-site respite care (with recreational activities, computer and
library facilities), off-site respite care (camping trips), transportation, and referrals. Also
\ spoke with kinship caregivers to hear their concerns and feedback on the program.
DAYTWO'
Visited an integrated child welfare services program, the Futures Project. The school
based program offers a broad range of services through a partnership between the county
and school district. Referred families meet with a multidisciplinary staff (nurse, mental
health counselor, eligibility worker and social worker) to develop a plan incorporating a
strategy for services.
.
Met with the San Francisco County staffto discuss the State's State~ide Automated
Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) for which they receive an enhanced
federal match. After three years of implementation, operation at the county level has just
begun. Prior to implementation, there was no way to track children across counties.
DAY THREE
Met with State Department of Social Services staff to discuss implementation of the
Adoption and Safe Families Act, the State's child welfare waiver, the Governor's
Adoption Initiative, kinship care needs, and State priorities.
Roundtable discussion with child welfare advocacy groups, foundations, local child
welfare agencies, the State Department of Social Services staff The strongest message:
More flexibility to serve children in their homes in a multidisciplinary way.
DAY FOUR
Visited a transitional children's residential facility, the MacLaren Children's Center,
an emergency shelter for up to 300 children. Children can stay for a maximum of 30
days. A school, an infirmary, an Independent Living Program, and astore where children
can redeem their good behavior coupons, are all on-site. Also visited a transitional
2
�housing program for emancipated youth who live in an 8-unit housing complex for up
to 18 months. At both sites, we met with children participating in the programs, social
workers and teachers.
Visited a family preservation and support program, the Triangle Family Preservation
Network. The program provides a broad range of services to at-risk families. A
multidisciplinary team works with families to develop a service-delivery plan which can
include: in-home counseling and specialized visitors to teach personal finance,
housekeeping; role-modeling and parenting skills.
Visited the Los Angeles County Child Abuse Hotline Center which is staffed 24 hours
a day, 7 days a week. Receiving up to 500 calls per day, staff screen calls for either an
immediate response, a 5-day response, or no-response. Staff also use the SACWIS
system to report incidents of child abuse.
,
Spoke with director and staff of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and
Family Services to discuss effects of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, kinship care
needs, family preservation and substance abuse treatment needs, and the reasons for the
large increases in their foster care case load.
DAY FIVE
Visited the Edmund G. Edelman County Children's Court which hears only
dependency cases -- no delinquency cases. The family-friendly courthouse offers on-site,
services such as: shelter care for children awaiting court appearances, an underground
lockup with secure elevator for incarcerated parents, referrals, and transportation.
Met with the LA County Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) director. The
CAS A is co-located at the Children's Court. CASAs are court-appointed to a specific
case to make an independent investigation of the child's circumstances in the foster care
.system and to submit their findings to the court.
Visited a Los Angeles County Probation Office to discuss their IV-E claiming process
and the joint assessments (probation and county child welfare) of probation children with
protective service needs.
Visited the Girls Republic Group Home which houses eight girls who have committed
misdemeanors and felonies. Girls'between the ages of 13 and 18 stay for up to one year,
attend a local schoo), and receive services in a very structured program emphasizing self
esteem and responsibility. We spoke with the director and residents.
3
�II. CALIFORNIA STATE PROFILE
FY 1997 FEDERAL EXPENDITURES FOR CALIFORNIA
Foster, Care
$779,057,607
Independent Living Program
$12,481,776
IV-B, part 1, Child Welfare
Services
$33,954,776
4%
IV-B, part 2, Promoting Safe
-and Stable Families
$33,398,317
4%
TOTAL
$924,418,320
100%
FOSTER CARE CASELOAD
Caseload size in a useful indicator of the magnitude of child welfare issues. For most States, the
foster care population shifts continuously. Because foster care is, ideally, a temporary
,
placement, children exit and enter the system daily. If an aggregate caseload appears stable,
children are moving in and out of foster care at a consistent rate. Any changes result from an
imbalance between entrances and exits.
According to the Multistate Foster Care Data Archive, there were 32,520 foster care children in
California in 1983. By November 1997, that figure tripledJo 96, 791 foster children. With a 163
percent cumulative increase, California's foster care population is not only the largest in the
nation, but also the second-fastest growing, after Illinois. The two largest States, California and
New York, together contain over two-thirds of foster children.
For California, the dramatically increasing caseload means that entrances are outpacing exits.
Most of this growth was concentrated between 1987 and 1989, and is largely attributable to an
increase in kinship care nationwide (described in section IV). Because relatives generally
provide consistent and safe care, children tend to stay longer than in non-relative care. As a
result, this population is driving a huge increase in foster care caseloads because overall entries
are outpacing exits. Local service providers, Los Angeles and San Francisco County officials all
report that the underlying cause of the rise in kinship care is increasing substance abuse among
parents. According to State and local officials, a typical foster care case in California is a
child who is living with their grandparents because his/her parents are abusing drugs.
4
�Among those children who enter the California foster care system for the first time, 53 percent
are reunified with their own families, and most of these reunifications relatively soon compared
to other exits. Almost lO percent of first-time entries are adopted. The remaining children are
eventually placed in out-of-home placements, ~ge out of the system, or run away. According to
AFCARS data, of the 96,791 children currently in out-of-home placements, 28 percent are in
group homes, one-third are in relative foster care homes, one-third are in non-relative foster care
homes. The monthly foster care maintenance payment for a two-year old is $345.
Child welfare in California is administered by each of the 58 counties. Because each county has
different protocols for placing children, the State's primary role is in inteIjurisdictional
placements. To facilitate this role, the Governor's Adoption Initiative has just begun operating a
Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (described in section VI) which
provides all counties with access to information on all cases.
5
�III. EMPHASIS ON ADOPTION
OVER FAMILY PRESERVATION AND REUNIFICATION
State and local officials interpreted the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASF A) to
emphasize adoption as the permanent placement of choice, over efforts to preserve or reunify
families. For the first time, the law specifies instances where courts should not make reasonable
efforts to reunify families prior to foster care placement. In addition, ASFA requires States to
initiate termination of parental rights if a child under ten has been in foster care for 15 of the
most recent 22 months. Even the simple renaming of the "Family Preservation and Support"
program to "Promoting Safe and Stable Families" is symbolic of the philosophical shift
emphasizing adoptions. The following describes how federal funding mechanisms reinforce
these ideals, and how two local programs provide preservation and integrated services.
IMPACT OF FEDERAL FUNDING STREAMS ON LOCAL DECISIONMAKING
Four major federal funding sources support child welfare activities: title IV -E, IV -B part 1, IV-B
. part 2, and the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). Title IV-E programs are open-ended
entitlements that provide "back-end" services such as foster care or adoption assistance. Title
IV-B part 1 (discretIonary Child Welfare Services Program) and part 2 (capped entitlement
Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program) programs support "upfront" preventative services
such as family preservation and support services. States may also use their SSBG funds to
provide child welfare services ..
With capped federal resources to support children living with their families in communities and
open-ended foster care and adoption funding, fiscal incentives have historically encouraged
States to "dump" children into out-of-home placements. Moreover, because it is difficult to
measure the impact ofIV-B prevention programs nationwide, little is known on their
effectiveness. Although IV -B activities reduce out-of-home placements, and thus, result in IV-E
savings, the lack of information has resulted in little support for IV-B programs.
IV-E (Foster Care,
Adoption Assistance, ILP)
$788
$3,356.1
$5,121.5
IV-B, part 1 (Child Welfare
Services)
$200
$294:6
,
$292
IV-B, part 2 (Promoting
Safe and Stable Families)
NA
$60
$275
SSBG (about 25% go to
child welfare services)
$2,725
$2,800
$1,909
6
�As the table above shows, IV -E funding levels have dramatically increased, while IV -B and
SSBG funding has remained fixed or decreased. Between FYl985 and FYl999, funding for IV
E programs increased from $788 million to over $5 billion, while SSBG decreased from $2.725
billion to an estimated $1.909 billion. FYl999 funding for IV-B part 1 and part 2 was level at
$292 million and $275 million respectively.
In response to rising foster care costs, ASFA emphasizes that foster care is a temporary, not
permanent placement setting, and looks to adoption as the permanency solution. States are
. expediting and increasing adoptions in response to the $20 million in adoption incentives.
While California State and local administrators laud the adoption bonus, they are concerned that
federal officials are overlooking the "other" permanency options of preserving and reunifying
families. The lack of a single, reliable source of federal funds targeted for upfront, preventive
services results in a shortage of these services in California. This shortage is evidenced by long
waiting lists at local programs such as those described below.
Furthermore, any federal savings achieved by meeting the desired permanency outcomes and
preventing out-of-home placements, cannot be captured and reinvested into the child welfare
system. California State administrators, San Francisco and Los Angeles County officials, and
local service providers contend that appropriate incentives and investments can better enable the
child welfare system to attain the ASF A goals of safety, well-being and permanency. The
following is a description of two types ofIV-B programs.
THE TRIANGLE PROGRAM: A FAMILY PRESERVATION AND SUPPORT PROGRAM
HHS awarded LA County a five-year grant to test a Family Preservation and Support project in
28 agencies throughout the County. The Triangle Family Preservation Network is one of these
agencies serving the South Central Los Angeles area. The goals of Triangle are to assure the
safety of children, improve family functioning by building on strengths, and increase self
sufficiency and community involvement.
Triangle offers intehsive services to families referred by social workers, schools, churches, or the
courts. Once the family caseworker assesses the family's needs, a team comprised of the
mUltidisciplinary staff and the family develops a service plan based on the family's strengths.
Core services include: one to four in-home visits per week by the family'S caseworker; child risk
assessments; specialized visitors targeted to the family's needs (such as housekeeping, personal
finance, role-modeling, and parenting; in-home emergency caretakers; counseling; mental health
and substance abuse treatment; and self-help groups). Triangle also helps families find
appropriate assistance through linkages with other health, education and social service agencies.
Linkage services include employment and training, health care, child Gare, respite care, housing
assistance, literacy classes, and legal services. Family case plans can last anywhere from three
months to one year. .
7
�Because it is difficult to measure the effects of prevention programs, the evaluation focuses on
the impact that family preservatio(n and support has had on out-of-home placements. Since the
program's inception in 1994 (the demonstration is in its fifth year), preliminary findings show
that foster care placements have decreased by 63 percent.
THE FUTURES PROJECT: AN INTEGRATED CHILD WELFARE SERVICES PROGRAM
Taking an integrated approach to early intervention and prevention, the Futures Project in San
Mateo County offers a broad range of services through a partnership between the County and the
school district. Through the provision of integrated services (also referred to as "wraparound"),
the program can promote self-sufficiency, improve the educational success of children, and
support the mental and physical health of families. Federal funding for these diverse activities
come from Family Preservation and Support, TANF, Food Stamps and Medicaid. County funds.
are matched with State funds at a 3:1 ratio.
Located on four school sites, the Futures Project serves six schools and is operational in only
those communities where there is a long history of collaboration to maximize success. Each site
is staffed with a nurse, eligibility worker, mental health counselor, and social worker to provide
on-site assistance such as community resource referrals and child risk assessments through the
following process.
'
As Attachment B illustrates, clients may self-refer, or teachers, CPS, agency and Futures staff
(who also conduct in-class activities such as problem-solving) can refer students and parents to
the program. Once Futures staff assess the client's needs, a team comprised of the
multidisciplinary staff and the client, develops a strategy for services. The team reconvenes for
follow-up meetings accordingly.
The Futures Project was awarded a five-year Family Preservation and Support grant to support
the prevention and reunification component of the collaborative program. The County has
proposed a demonstration to examine the effects of school-based prevention on foster care
caseloads. The evaluation is based on a cost avoidance model using outcome-based measures
such as: the number of adoptions, out-of-home placements, and other types of care; the number
of first-time and repeated incidents of child abuse and neglect. The Director emphasized that
strong political relationships between the collaborating agencies were the root of the program's
success.
CULTURAL CONFLICTS
The emphasis on adoptions conflicts with Indian tribal interests which seek to reunify children
with relatives in the tribe. For Region IX States that have a large number of tribes, this is a
major concern. Regional staff emphasized the importance of considering ASF A as one piece ofa
larger picture.
8
�IV. CHILD WELFARE WAIVER/DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
Social Security amendments in 1994 authorized ten States to use IV-B and IV-E funds to test
new approaches to child welfare service delivery. The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997
recently expanded that authority to ten additional States in each of the five FYs 1998 through
2002. California was among the first ten States to be granted a child welfare waiver. The State's
project is comprised of three components: Extended Voluntary Placement, Intensive Services,
and Kinship Performance.
EXTENDED VOLUNTARY PLACEMENT
The first component of the three-part proposal is the Extended Voluntary Placement (EVP)
program. Under current law, families outside of the dependency system (in which chilciren are
wards ofthe State) may voluntarily place their children in out-of-home care, usually with
relatives, for up to 6 months, at which time courts must decide whether to return the child home
or to place the child in foster care. The EVP program would allow counties to extend the judicial
determination requirement for voluntary placements from 6 to 12 months, thus keeping these
families outside of the dependency system. This project will allow families more time to make
permanency decisions, and is also likely to reduce foster care costs and court costs. To
determine cost-neutrality, the evaluation will use comparison counties. Also, the EVP project
will not exceed 500 cases over the 5 years of the demonstration.
INTENSIVE SERVICES
The second project, the Intensive Services program would permit use of title IV-E funds to test
innovative service delivery approaches for at-risk families. Integrated service programs, such as
those described insectiori III, will allow the counties to provide a broad range of individualized
services (such as in-home counseling, parenting training, personal finance classes). This project
is likely to reduce out-of-home placements and/or divert children in placement to less restrictive,
more permanent, family-like settings, and thus, result in IV -E savings. The evaluation will
compare randomly assigned experimental and control groups. A determination of cost-neutrality
will rely on an analysis of the costs within control groups.
California is one of several States with a.child welfare waiver allowing IV-E funds to pay for
intensive IV -B preventative and reunification services which reduce out-of-home placements and
result in IV -E savings. Such demand for intensive service demonstration projects indicates the
need for increased IV -B re!)ources.
KINSHIP CARE
Under current law, kinship caregivers have three options. If they participate in foster car~, the
State maintains custody of the child, requiring court appearances and monthly child welfare
agency involvement. In order to adopt and have full custody, relatives must terminate parental
9
�rights. And finally, relatives can obtain legal guardianship and preserve parental rights, but
cannot receive any federal support under this option.
Given that one-third of California's foster children are living with relatives, there is a great
interest in providing them with guardianship rights to eliminate the unnecessary court and case
management costs. State Administrators and local service providers all echoed the same
sentiment: foster children living with relatives unnecessarily burden court and child welfare
caseloads. Because relatives generally provide consistent and safe care, children tend to stay
longer than in non-relative care. As a result, this population is driving a huge increase in foster
care caseloads because overall entries are outpacing exits. The foster care system is an
inappropriate fit for children living with relatives.
The third component ofthe State's demonstration project, the Kinship Performance program
provides kinship caregivers of foster children over the age of 13 with guardianship and monthly
foster care payments. Providing relatives with guardianship and assistance will reduce court and
child welfare management costs, as the children would no longer be wards of the State. These
savings are likely to offset the costs of maintenance payments. The evaluation will entail random
case assignment to experimental or control groups. A determination of cost-neutrality for will
rely on an analysis of the costs within control groups.
Although the State is still in the early implementation stages of all three components of their
demonstration project, California State child welfare administrators, local service providers,
caseworkers and kinship care providers voiced concern over the limited scope of the kinship care
component. At the federal level, there is interest in learning about kinship care, and ASF A
encourages kinship care child welfare waivers and requires the Department to submit a report on
the topic. While State administrators appreciate this interest, they say it is too little, too late.
Kinship care is already prevalent nationwide and is beyond testing through a small-scale
demonstration project. In fact, because the Kinship Performance project was limited to foster
children above 13 of age in ten counties, the State estimates that the evaluation costs will
outweigh the benefits of conducting the demonstration on such a limited basis. They are unsure
at this time whether they will be going forward with the project.
10
�V. ROLE OF THE COURTS
The courts play an important role in the child welfare system by providing judicial decision
making and oversight of IV-Band IV -E services. Specifically, the court makes decisions
concerning the existence of child abuse or neglect, the termination of parental rights, the
placement of children in State custody, and whether reasonable efforts have been made to
prevent removal of children from their homes.
In addition, the recently enacted ASFA increases the workload in juvenile and family courts.
The legislation requires that child safety be the highest priority when making service provision,
placement, and permanency planning decisions for children. The law, for the first time, also
specifies instances when States are not required to make efforts to keep children with their
parents ifdoing so places the child's safety in jeopardy. ASFA has resulted in: (1) tighter
deadlines for judicial hearings and decisions, (2) increased caseloads, and (3) insufficient training
in child welfare issues for judges, Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs), guardians ad
litem, and attorneys; and, delays in making the determinations required 'by the legislation.
In FY 1998, $10 million of the Family Preservation and Support program was set-aside for the
Court Improvement Project. This project provides State courts with resources to collaborate with
the other organizations and individuals responsible for promoting and protecting the well-being
of children and families (for example, State child welfare agencies, Court Appointed Special
Advocates, guardians ad litem, citizen reviewers, and attorneys) in reviewing laws and
procedures designed to protect to families and children. State courts can design assessment tools
that identify ineffective laws and procedures, and implement State reforms.
THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA
The Judicial Council of California is the administrative office for the State's supreme court and
is responsible for developing the State's Court Improvement Project assessment report and its
implementation plan. The two-year assessment phase included a broad-based review of laws,
procedures, and practices applicable to juvenile court operations to assess whether courts fulfilled
their legal obligations to the children and families who appear in juvenile court. The report
examines four areas for improving California's handling ofjuvenile court dependency cases: (1)
improved management of court hearings, (2) valuing juvenile court judges, (3) effective,
efficient, and well-trained advocates for parties, and (4) judicial leadership in the community.
, The Council used the assessment report to develop 27 specific Court Improvement Project
recommendations. The recommendations include:
Local juvenile courts should adopt case calendaring techniques that reduce waiting time
for hearings.
Local juvenile courts should actively monitor the timeliness and quality of reports to the
court. Judicial officers should hold parties accountable for late and incomplete reports.
11
�Local juvenile courts should closely monitor the granting of continuances and only grant
continuance for good cause.
All judges hearing dependency cases should be familiar with the Resource Guidelines,
which contain very specific suggestions for conducting thorough hearings in dependency
actions, endorsed by the American Bar Association and Conference of Chief Justices.
Juvenile dependency courts should utilize alternative dispute resolution techniques such
as mediation and family group conferences.
A single judicial officer should hear all phases of a dependency case. Judicial officers
should also serve a minimum of three years.
The Judicial Council should identify and correct financial disincentives to permanency
planning and reunification.
The Judicial Council should seek adequate funding to ensure training for counsel in
dependency cases.
The use of Court Appointed Special Advocate programs (CAS A) should be expanded.
Juvenile courts should continue to seek adequate funding. (Notably, in response to this
recommendation, State legislation was proposed to triple funding levels for the CASA
programs. Approval is pending in the legislature.)
Completed phases of implementation include: the distribution of the report, recommendations
and Resource Guidelines; the development of model local rules, protocols, forms and guidelines;
an annual conference to provide technical assistance in local action plans; on-site assistance and
monitoring; and, training for attorneys, advocates and judicial officers.
12
�VI. DATA REPORTING AND CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Since 1994, States have been required to participate in a mandatory data collection system
known as the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS). Under
AFCARS, States are required to collect case-specific data on all children for whom they have
custody, regardless ofIV-E eligibility. Data elements include length of foster care stay, the
number of children entering and exiting foster case, the most recent case plan for foster children,
current placement of foster care exits (pre-adoptive home, foster-relative, foster non-relative,
group home, institution, or runaway). Although implementation has been slow, nearly all States
are now reporting AFCARS data.
States can also receive an enhanced federal match if they develop a Statewide Automated Child
Welfare Information System (SACWIS) which incorporates AFCARS data points, but is also an
automated case management system. To date, 46 States were implementing SACWIS systems.
As part of the Governor's Adoption Initiative, California has opted to develop a SACWIS system
which, after three years of implementation, is just beginning operation at the county level. Prior
to implementation, there was no way to track children across the 58 California counties.
Although some counties have had difficulties in making the transitior: (those who chose to add
the system onto existing systems, rather than implement dedicated systems), all believe that the
system will result in improved case management, and thus, better outcomes for children. The
State SACWIS system is used to: meet AFCARS requirements; collect and manage information
on the delivery of child welfare services; collect and manage IV-E eligibility information;
monitor case plan development; record court reports; provide inter-county electronic data
exchange; and meet confidentiality requirements.
The paperless case management system allows all the social workers who work on a single case
to maintain a comprehensive record in one place. In addition to the thousands of field workers
now using SACWIS, caseworkers stationed in courts and hotline centers can access cases
directly and input court reports and child abuse incidents. This system prevents field workers
from having to spend all day waiting for court appearances and coordinating with child
protection workers. Ultimately, automated case management allows caseworkers to spend their
time more efficiently, resulting in better outcomes for children.
By the end of the State fiscal year 2000, the State Department of Social Services will submit a
report to the Governor on the impact of the system on the child welfare systems. The State is
looking at how SACWIS will influence case management practice and policy.
,l3
�APR. - 29' 99 (THU) 16: 39
""
'
P. 001
.
Dow JOIlCS Internctive PublicationB Libmry
hnp:llnl1itgls.djnr.com/cgi.binlDJlubllnC...&'Higblight=un&P'lI.lTypc-ToxUlnly&View=Villw I
Politics & People:
Abused Kids Get Squeezed by the Ideologues
By Albert R. Hunt
02/2711997
The Wall Street Journal
Page AI7
(Copyright (c) 1~97. Dow JOlles & Company, Tnc.)
Today, like each day~ five kids in America will be brutally mur4ered by their parents.
Both the political left and the right are unwittingly aiding this outrage in tbe guise of
pTomotin~ family values.
The left's culpability goes back to the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of
1980, which ,makes it very difficult to take abused and neglected children away from
their biological parents. The political right would make this intolerable situation evell
worse with 'one ~fits newest and hottest priorities: the "parental-rights I! movement.
To put it in understandably stark terms, these movements -- which both fai1 to make any
distinction between family rights and protection of innocent children -- are totally in
line with a Califorpiajudge's recent abominable decision to give O.J. Simpson custody
of his children. '
,
"The combined ,effect of the existing child welfare laws and the parental-rights
movement is to ensure that people like O.J. Simpson get full custody, 11 says Richard
Gelles, direptor of the Family Violence Research Program at the University of Rhode
Island and author of "The Book of David, about a 15-month-old boy who was
murdered by his mother~ a repeated abuser.
II
,
What really infuriates Mr. Gelles is that the jockeying for political advantage on the
family {,alues issue distracts from the real need for major refonns to help battered
children. These, would be expensive at a time when new spending is not in vogue, and
controversial-- no matter how the issue is framed, the bottom line is that the states need
to play a more active role in deciding the fate of abused chiJd"en .
4121>/99 4:3:1 pr
1 of4
�P. 002
APR. -29' 99!THU) 16:39
Dow Joneu Interactive Publicruiansl.ibmry
,'
hnf':II"rlllg2~.djl1l'.Gtlm/l!gi-bin/DJlnl"'mo· ..&l-lishlishr=ml&DocTYI',,=Tr>:dOniy&View-Viowi
,
!his c~lt be.~ne without changing tile 1980 legislation. whose well-intended premise
IS that Iffamilies stay together they will flmu'jsh together. States were directed to make
"reasonable efforts" to keep and reunite children with their biological parents.
Carol Bevans who has written extensively on adoptioll and foster care, says tillS
measure has been a "dismal failure:' resulting in longer stays in foster care and fewer
adoptions. With more efforts to reunite kids with a.busive parents, Mr. Gelles and otbers
have documented case after case of repeated abuse ending in penn anent injury or death.
Rather than viewing these cbild abusers as dangerous or even psychotic. he notes, too
often they are treated as merely "being at one end of ~l continu1.Un of parenting."
.
,
1'111s would seem' to be an easy target for conservatives - another government program
with unintended dire consequences. Instead, the political right, cheered on by the
Christian Coalition, focuses more on pushing state and federa1 parental-rights initiatives.
The real purpose of these efforts, which are being introduced in more than two dozen
states and in Congress, is to advance the right's assault on public scbools. Parents would
be able to prevent their Idds from leaming everything from sex education to evolution to
Shakespeare.
That is bad enough. But the even more ominous effect. a number of family law
specialists have warned, would be to make it harder to take action aga.inst abusive
parents and would therefore set back efforts to increase adoptions out of the foster-care
system.
Central to any effort to a11eviate the plight of abused children in America is to facilitate
more adoptions. (My wife and I have three children. one of whom lS adopted.) Last
year there were an esthnated half..million children in foster care~ only 20,000 were
adopted. Yet the demand for adoption in America. i~ every bit as great as the supply.
Althougb cons~rvatives are loath to give any credit. 8iJ1 a.nd Hillary Clinton de.sen:e
high marks on adoption. The president was 11 forceful advocate last year ofleglslatlOll
easing restrictions on transracial ndoption and enacting an adoption ~ax cred~t. ~s.
Clinton whom conservatives derided severa) years ago for her sensIble sllggestlOu that
l.mder ce~ circumstances child "en ought to have greater legal rights to separate fT011l
their parents. has been an eloquent cllal,npion of more adoptions in America.
This month the administration proposed giving states a b~)~us for ,increasing adoptiOl~s,
especially for special-needs kids, and shurtening (he wentmg period f?f a ~01.lrt l~eaT1ng
after a child enters the foster-care system. Tn the House today, ~Onow1~g dISCllSS1011S
with the White H.ouse, Democratic Rep. Barbara Kennelly and Repubbcan Rep. Dave
4/2919') 4~32 Pl\
2 pf4
�P. 003
APR. . 29' 99 .(THU) 16:39
Dow JnllOS lnklnu;;tive PubliCAtionfi Libl'QJY
hl! Jl:flJln;ts2~.d.inr ,llulnJcgi.binIT)Jlnlernc...&HiAhliSh l-on&.DQcType=Tcxl.(lnly&View=View1
,
Camp will introduce a similar tneasure, which also would modify the "reasonable
efforts" provision to make it somewhat easier to take Iuds from abusive parents.
~. Gelles, w~e wholeheartedly supp0l1ive of vastly increased emphasis On adoption,
~s ~ore ra~cal s~eps must be taken. too. Social welfare workers are simply
Ill-eqwpped to mvestlgate the thousands of incidents of repeated abuse and neglect; this
ought to be done:by police. "These are crimina1 acts and it involves the protectioll of
life," he argues.
Then, starting with the) 980 legis]ation~ laws on both the federal and state levels shou1d
be modified to better enhance the rights and protection of children; parental
responsibilities should be emphasized as much as parental rights. States that protect
children well ought to get federal rewards. This would make it easier for judges to take
kids from unfit parents.
Mr. Gelles also argues that considerably more resources have to be expended. Since no
one is confident of all the answers. there could be tour or five big experimental efforts
to gauge better what might work. One answer for abused kids who can't be adopted
may be what used to be caned t'orphanages" -- now usually referred to as "congregate
care facilities. II House Speaker Newt Glngrich was assai1ed two years ago for
suggesting this, but he was absolutely right, Mr. Gelles says. Today's orphanages don't
bear any resemblance to the Dickellsian images of "Oliver Twist. II
"Congregate care facilities such as Boys' Town in Nebraska and the Milton Hershey
School in Pennsylvania are plausible and cost-effective placements for abused and
battered children ,.. he says. But they are costly~ the average annual per- child cost nU1S
around $35,000, ,
Equally important is for the political light and Jeft to stop doing hal1n under the guise of
promoting family values, what Samuel Johnson would today call the "last refuge of
scoundrels. "
The agenda Mr. Gelles outlines will produce tlak from both sides of the ideolo.gical
spectrum. Conservatives will p~otest abo~lt giving t~le s~~te too much pow:r. Llbe~als
will complain this is disproportionately al1ned at mUlonhes~ more than 60 Yt. of child ren
.in foster care are African-American or Hispanic.
Both are right. But the altenlative is simply unacceptable: Consider a rea! case in
Washington, D.C.; involving a five-year-old boy wh~se motbe~ four yeal sago
suffocated his younger sister when t11e infant wouldn t stop Crylllg. The mother, who has
had four children by four men~ had repeatedly violated the law. Yet even .today, fow:
years after she murdered her child , the fate of her five-year-old son remams l.IDcertam.
4/29{99 4:32 PM
�P.004
APR. - 29' 99 \TH 16: 40
U)
f:)ow .'nn~s
Interactive PubliolLbOns LibTl\ry
ht1p:J/nrsltV-H.ajllr.cum/oBi.bin/DJIJ\ltllllo..•&HighHghFon&DooType=Te"tORly~View=Vlowl
Copyright ® 1999 Dow Jones & Company, Inc, All Rights Reserved,
4/29/994:32 PM
�Adoption
gQbtg'OI1Jin~
,~', u.s. goveillli1entWeb site
"
J".;'
.
'to list kids n~tionwide by 2001
By Marllyn Elias
USA TODAY"
,
..,
'"
"'A national Web site that
could Include all yo~ers
available in public adoptions
. The ,federal government Will give these kids a. much
Monday announced plans to greater pool of families to draw
create a Web site With photos. from," says Joe Kroll of the
and descriptions of children . North American CouncU on
· awaiting adoption through pub Adoptable Children, an advoca
lic agencies across the natioR.' cy support group,
About 8,000 youngsters need . SWl, "it's not going to make
homes now. That number could children who are not there sud
double or triple by 200 I, when 'denly available." Williams says.
the site Is expected to be uP.
The 'Vast majority" of young
says Carol Williams of the Chil siers photographed and de
dren's Bureau at the Depart scribed Will be over 3 years old,
ment of Health and Human she says. Maily Will have handl
Services (HBS).
caps - physical, Intellectual or
President amton In Novem emotional. Some Will be part of
ber asked HHS for a plan to ex· sibling groups to be adopted to
pand use 01 the Internet to find gether. A significant number
adoptive homes.
wUI be racial minorities, WU-.
The HHS report. submitted 11ams says. .
"" Monday, estimates the Web site
A pUot Internet adoption sUe •
· Will cost $1.5 mlllion to set uP. called FACES (go to www
then $1.25 million per year to .adoplorg and click on photo
run. The funds Will come from. listings) has been offered by
adoption-related programs al the National Adoption Center
ready In the budget, With pri In Philadelphia since October
vate-sector contributions ex-.; .1995. The site opened with Ust
peeted.
:. ings and photos of 40 children;
States won't be legally re- ' now there are 1,600, executive
'.: qulred to list on the federal site, director Carolyn Johnson says.
· the report says, but a recent na- .. Interest has accelerated, she
'. ;.:
tiona! survey suggests that. says. In March, 1,315 of the chU..
dren listed drew e-mail In·
many states.regard the Internet
as a good recruItment tool. .'.
"'The president supports the
use 01 the Net In this way. and
we're pleased to be maklng
progress," says Bruce Reed, do-'
mestic policy adviser to amton. No White House approval
Is needed to get the plan mov
lng. Reed says.
, The number of u.s. cblldren
free for adoption Is eXpected to
soar In the neXt few years, pli
marlly because of a 1997 feder
a1 law that shortens the length
· of time kids can remain in fos
ter care before plans are made
for a permanent home.
quiries from 380 potential fam
Wes.
About 37 states have Internet
adoption sites, but some are
very llmited.
Prospective parents always
visit youngsters In person be
tore adopting, Johnson says.
Hom~ studies and approval are
required, Just as they are In or
dlnary adoptions. ,,' .
Many of the 76 adopted so
far off the Pblladelphia site
"'weren't likely to have ever
found homes," Johnson says.
"'The Internet Is the best tool we
have."
i
I.
.._
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Ruby Shamir - Subject Series
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
First Lady's Office
Ruby Shamir
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36351" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="http://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763277" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2012-0565-S
Description
An account of the resource
Ruby Shamir held the position of Policy Advisor and Assistant to the Chief of Staff in the First Lady’s Office. Previously, she served as Assistant Director for Domestic Policy in the Domestic Policy Council. This series of Subject Files contains materials relating to domestic policy topics, especially on children’s issues such as health, education, child care and youth violence. The records include memorandum, faxes, letters, reports, schedules, and publications.
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
236 folders in 15 boxes
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1999-2001
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Adoption and Foster Care/Ideas
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
First Lady's Office
Ruby Shamir
Subject Files
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2012-0565-S
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 1
<a href="http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/assets/Documents/Finding-Aids/Systematic/2012-0565-S-Shamir.pdf" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="http://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763277" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
7/22/2013
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
2012-0565-S-adoption-and-foster-care-ideas
7763277