Among
the most bizarre criticisms of family preservation is the allegation that it
dominates federal funding priorities.
These
attacks apparently are linked to passage of the Family Preservation and Family
Support Act of 1993. That law has been wrongly characterized by critics,
and some media, as providing $1 billion for family
preservation.
The
$1 billion was spread over five years -- and it was not just for family
preservation. Far from it.
The
law allows states to spend the money they get through this law on a huge array
of services -- even foster care and adoption. A state can, if it so chooses,
receive its entire allocation under this law and spend not one dime on family
preservation [1]. The so-called “Adoption
and Safe Families Act” (ASFA) – the 1997 law effectively abolishing "reasonable
efforts" -- continues the Family Preservation and Family Support Act, but it
dilutes the act still further by allowing even more of the money to be spent on
adoption [2].
But
even if all the money had been earmarked for family preservation, it still would
have been dwarfed by the money available for what still is the best-funded child
welfare "service" -- foster care.
Compared
to the gigantic, open-ended entitlement for foster care, $1 billion spread over
five years is barely noticeable. Before the 1993 law was enacted, the most
conservative estimate indicated that the federal government spent at least eight
times more on foster care than on services to keep children out of foster care
[3].
Because foster care is an "entitlement," that is, for every eligible child
states automatically get partial reimbursement, the ratio hasn't improved.
Indeed, between 1999 and 2003, the federal government is estimated to have spent
nine dollars on foster care for every dollar spent to prevent it.[4].
The
funding bias in favor of foster care is one of the main reasons why so many
children are needlessly placed.
Although
family preservation is less expensive in total dollars, because of federal and
state funding formulas, foster care may cost less for a state or locality making
a placement. In Pennsylvania, for example, for every dollar a county spends on
foster care, it gets an average of 85 cents back from the state and federal
governments.[5]
The
National Commission on Children found that children often are removed from their
families "prematurely or unnecessarily" because federal aid formulas give states
"a strong financial incentive" to do so rather than provide services to keep
families together [6].
This
does not mean that local governments "make money" on foster care. It does mean
that foster care often costs them less than programs to keep children out of
foster care.
And
some private agencies do indeed make money on foster care. These agencies are paid for every day
they keep a child in foster care.
If they return a child home -- or get a child adppted -- the
reimbursement stops. That creates a
strong incentive to let children languish in foster care.
Since
adoption generally takes longer than reunification, however, there also is an
incentive for private agencies to press to change the “goal” in a child’s “case
plan” from reunification to adoption.
In
1997, having realized the harm done by the foster care panic -- and under
pressure from the Illinois Branch of the American Civil Liberties Union --
Illinois moved to change direction by changing financial incentives. Illinois now pays for permanence,
rewarding private agencies financially for returning children to their own homes
and for adoptions. The agencies are
penalized for allowing children to languish in foster care.
As a
result, the Illinois foster care population fell from more than 50,000 in
1997[7] to 19,825 as of September,
2003,[8] and as the foster care population has declined, child safety has
improved.[9]
Unfortunately,
at the federal level, the financial incentive to place children is increased by
two other laws. Under the new federal welfare law, if a family is forced into
poverty, no matter what the reason, they may not be able to get public
assistance to help care for their own children (depending on how many years they
have received such assistance), but as soon as their children are taken away,
the foster care system may receive a never-ending subsidy to help foster parents
cover the costs of caring for those children.
The
second law, ASFA, includes bounties to states of up to $6,000 or more per child
for every adoption they finalize over a baseline number. The bounty is paid when
the adoption is finalized, so there is an incentive to place a child with little
concern about whether the placement will really last. Indeed, if the adoption
"disrupts" and the child is placed again, the state can collect another
bounty.
Thus,
states and private agencies now have financial incentives to keep children in
foster care and financial incentives to place them for adoption - but no
financial incentives to keep them in their own homes or return them
there.
“What
you have now is an incentive to initially remove the child and an incentive to
adopt them out,” says David Sanders, head of the Los Angeles County Department
of Children and Family Services, one of the nation’s largest child welfare
systems. “I think when you put
these two together, there is a problem.” [10]
As
for parents, with these new laws in place, the federal government will help
foster parents care for children, the federal government will help some adoptive
parents care for children, and the federal government will help institutions
care for children. About the only parents the federal government won't help
indefinitely are birth parents.
1.
Martha Matthews, "HHS Issues Family Preservation & Support Program
Instruction," Youth Law News 15 no.2 (March-April 1994) p.3. See also, Marc
Katz, "New Legislation Pours $1 billion Into Family Preservation," Youth Law
News 14, no.5 (September-October, 1993) p.8. Back to
Text.
2.
"Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, Sec. 305. Back to
Text.
3.
U.S. House of Representatives, Select Committee on Children, Youth, and
Families, No Place to Call Home: Discarded Children in America (Washington DC:
Jan. 12, 1990) p.163. Back to
Text.
4.
Testimony of Betsy Rosenbaum, American Public Human Services Association before
the House Ways and Means Committee Subcommittee on Human Resources, May 10,
2001. Rosenbaum cited Congressional Budget Office estimates.Back to
Text.
5.
Barbara White Stack, "Relatives should get foster care pay, suit says,"
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Aug. 16, 2000, p.1. Back to
Text.
6.
National Commission on Children, Beyond Rhetoric: A New American Agenda for
Children and Families, (Washington, DC: May, 1991) p.290 Back to
Text.
7. Illinois Department of Children
and Family Services, Children in Substitute Care: 1985 to Present,
available online at http://www.state.il.us/dcfs/foster/index.shtml
8. Illinois Department of
Children and Family Services, Division of Quality Assurance, Executive
Statistical Summary, March, 2003,
http://www.state.il.us/dcfs/com_communications_execstats.shtml.
9. Illinois Department of
Children and Family Services, Signs of Progress in Child Welfare Reform
available online at http://www.state.il.us/dcfs/docs/SignsJan03.pdf
10.
Troy Anderson, “Government Bonuses Accelerate Adoptions,” Daily News of Los
Angeles, December 8, 2003.