Child-welfare bill puts more children at risk
Tragic stories about abused and neglected children hit the headlines nearly every day throughout our country. When we hear accounts of kids sleeping in office buildings because state workers have nowhere to send them, it not only breaks our hearts; it prompts us to demand changes to our nation’s child-welfare system and re-examine the options for kids in dire situations.
For years, federal efforts to improve our foster-care systems have been inadequate, leaving states to find their own ways to provide quality care for children. Some have done better than others.
The Family First Prevention Services Act (H.R. 5456), which passed the U.S. House in June and is waiting for consideration in the Senate next month, is a bipartisan attempt to reform our nation’s child-welfare system, with a shared goal of making changes that will improve the well-being of children in need.
A closer look, however, shows that this legislation diverts funds away from quality programs already in place, many of which have a longstanding record of success when it comes to serving children.
The purpose behind the bill is to provide funding to states to expand services that help prevent children from being taken away from their parents and placed into the foster-care system. These services include mental- and substance-abuse services and in-home parental training.
The intent of this legislation makes sense. Keeping kids with their parents and families is usually the best option, assuming the kids are safe and healthy. Unfortunately, there are too many situations where children need to be moved to a different home, and into an environment where they can receive the care they need and deserve.
In these situations — when children are moved to a different home — the proposed legislation offers states two options: foster care or “qualified residential treatment programs,” which are locked-down facilities staffed with medical professionals, designed to care for children with significant behavioral and emotional needs.
Residential group homes would not be an option. Starting in 2019, if states choose to place children in a residential group facility, they will not receive the federal reimbursements they currently receive through Title IVE waivers.
This creates a dilemma: What about the child who needs a higher level of care than a foster home can provide but doesn’t belong in a locked-down treatment facility? What about siblings, brothers and sisters who need to stay together instead of being split up, which often happens in fostercare placement? States could still use residential group homes, proponents of the legislation argue, but they would have to cover the costs.
Many residential group homes, including our program, Florida Sheriffs Youth Ranches, receive a significant percentage of funding through private donations. They will continue to operate even if this bill passes. However, if placing kids in residential group homes is discouraged — through federal funding — we see a troubling scenario in the near future. Children will either be left in unsafe home environments or placed into behavioral treatment programs designed for more-severe cases. Neither scenario is acceptable.
It’s understandable why some people believe group homes are bad for children and their development. There are poorly run homes that unfortunately have tainted the image of residential group care and, even worse, have hurt children. These homes have no business taking care of children, and states must do a better job of staying away from environments where kids are unsafe or their needs unmet.
But there are also many highquality, accredited group homes that use a family-style model of care, homes that have measurable outcomes and records of success. Many of these programs take in children after they have been shuffled from foster home to foster home, giving them the opportunity to live in a structured family environment often for the first time. At the Florida Sheriffs Youth Ranches, we see children go on to graduate high school, attend college, serve in the military, start careers and raise families. Congress should think twice before trying to restrict states from using these types of programs.
The opportunity to achieve comprehensive child-welfare reform at the federal level is rare. Our legislators should be commended for taking a look at these issues and allowing the needs of neglected and abused children to rise to the level of congressional debate.
However, providing more funds for preventive family services should not be financed by removing residential group homes as part of our system of care.