Let's keep moving forward with California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care

Summit aims to improve foster care outcomes Ukiah Daily Journal, Dec. 10, 2008.

Ukiah,CA - A team comprised of Mendocino County people and teams from more than 50 counties convene in San Francisco today on the subject of foster children.

Today's summit is in regard to implementing the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care's recommendations to reform the state's juvenile dependency court system and improve outcomes for foster children in California, a Superior Court of California, Mendocino Count, report stated Monday.

According to the report, teams will be looking at areas of local concern and also creating the means to enact change at the local level.

A portion of the report names better sharing of information among entities that serve families as a discussion topic among county teams. Other points include, for example, raising public awareness for foster care issues and sharing successful strategies.

The Blue Ribbon Commission is a panel appointed by the Chief Justice of California to make recommendations for improving safety, permanency, well-being and fairness outcomes for children and families.

On Aug. 15, the Judicial Council of California accepted recommendations made by the Blue Ribbon Commission.

Members of Mendocino County's team include: Judge Cindee Mayfield, Sheryn Hildebrand of CASA, Rebecca Wilson of HHSA CFSOC, Julie Spoljaric, attorney and Sandra Applegate of Office of County Counsel.

More information on the Blue Ribbon Commission can be seen online at: www.courtinfo.ca.gov/blueribbon

Federal help with kinship care costs might help Cali increase foster care until age 21

Foster care system changes are in the works
Melandez, Lyanne. abc7news.com, Dec. 10, 2008.

SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- California's foster care system is overstressed and under resourced. Today a blue ribbon commission in San Francisco made some recommendations to begin improving the system. At least two major changes are in the works.

When a foster child turns 18, he or she is on their own -- it's called aging out. Between 4,000 to 5,000 children are forced to leave the system each year. With nowhere to turn, some end up homeless or living with friends or relatives.

Joscelynn Carbonell was in foster care.

"Unlike with other kids you could go back to somebody, you have a support system, you have somebody to pick you up when you fall down, they don't have that, they are on one their own, they are America's forgotten children," said Carbonell.

A federal bill would extend foster care to children past the age of 18 up to 21, but first the California legislature must approve it.

Assemblyman Jim Beall of San Jose led a forum in San Francisco to focus on the state's foster care needs and ways to fund them.

If the foster care age is extended to 21, the state and counties would have to pay half of the cost, then the federal government would pick up the remainder. It's a tough sell given our hard economic times.

Frank Mecca is the executive director of the County Welfare Director's Association.

"In the case of foster care they are very well documented, they are scientifically proven so we know that by not investing we'll incur more costs in the long run," said Mecca.

"This is a policy that is in place in a number of large states and it's been proven to reduce adult incarceration and improve post secondary education outcomes," said Amy Lemley from the John Burton Foundation.

There is a way to pay for this additional expense. Today, California pays 100 percent of the cost of taking care of a child by a relative, and that's about to change.

"By opting into the federal program 50 percent of those costs would be paid for by the federal government, saving California $50 to $60 million a year," said Lemley.

The bill, AB12, still must go before a number of committees before it hits the floor of the Assembly.

New Blue Ribbon Foster Care Report

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jc/tflists/documents/blueribexecsum.pdf

Operating a foster care system on the cheap hurts children and costs more later

Child support: Youth-welfare advocates want more pay for foster parents
Rolland, David. San Diego CityBEAT.

Bob Fellmeth punctuates each word by rapping on the table with a clinched fist, as if hoping the sound or the vibration will jar loose some common sense.

“Eighty percent of non-kin adoptions are really coming from family foster care,” he pounds. “That’s why you want to put every kid in family foster care that you possibly can.”

Fellmeth, executive director of the Center for Public Interest Law at the University of San Diego, talks with passion, speed and authority on the subject of foster care. His Children’s Advocacy Institute, an offshoot of the center, has sued the directors of the state Department of Social Services and its Children and Family Services Division, alleging that the state’s meager reimbursements to foster parents violate the federal Child Welfare Act.

But to Fellmeth’s way of thinking, the low payments are simply the cause of a larger problem. By operating a foster-care system on the cheap, the state is pushing foster families out of the business of caring for abused or neglected children. His goal is to draw more families into the fold, which, he says, would better the chances of placing kids closer to their parents, siblings, schools and friends, decrease the number of children in group homes and increase the chances that more troubled kids will be adopted into healthy family environments.

Mary Butters is one of those foster parents who can’t keep afford to keep it up. The Oceanside grandmother has cared for 35 foster children during the past nine years, but she plans to get out within the next month. It’s just too expensive, she says. Butters currently has three children in her care—a 2-year-old, an 8-month-old and a 22-month-old who suffers from, among other maladies, spina bifida, a developmental birth defect that results in a malformed spinal cord—and she receives $446 from the state (through the county) per month for each of them. She reckons that she spends about $600 out of her own pocket each month to raise the children. The state pays for healthcare.

She’d continue if the payments were increased. “I like it. I really enjoy doing it. I really love the kids and everything, but I just can’t afford it anymore,” she says. “I can’t afford to support other people’s kids.”

Butters used to run a day-care business, and while she doesn’t find that as personally fulfilling as being a foster parent, she’s going to return to that line of work. Running day care, she has nights and weekends free and can make $160 a week per child. But, Butters says, “it’s not what I enjoy. I’d rather do foster care. When you do foster care, the kids are almost like your own. Day care’s not as enjoyable.”

As soon as she completes her sentence, the sound of a suddenly crying child can be heard in the background. She chuckles as she explains that her 3-year-old grandson, the man of the house, has just admonished one of the other kids not to tug on the curtains, prompting the sudden wail.

The concern about the low reimbursement rates is just part of a larger effort to reform the state’s foster system, which oversees care for roughly 80,000 children who’ve been, at least temporarily, removed from their homes and, for whatever reason, can’t be placed in the care of relatives.

A Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care later this month will present final recommendations for reform to the California Judicial Council, the policymaking body for the state’s court system. On Friday, Aug. 8, state Assembly Speaker Karen Bass and Assembly member Jim Beall Jr. will hold a hearing in Los Angeles on “Fixing Foster Care: Challenges and Solutions.” Bass, long passionate about foster-care issues, did not respond to CityBeat’s request for an interview.

For Fellmeth and Christina Riehl, a staff attorney with the Children’s Advocacy Institute who’s also researching issues related to the deaths of abused and neglected children, the solution starts with money. Every time a foster parent like Mary Butters leaves the system, they say, it increases the possibility that a child will have to be placed in a group home, which child-welfare advocates say greatly lowers chances for success in adulthood.

A 2007 Children’s Advocacy Institute report called “They Deserve a Family” cites a study done by researchers at the University of Colorado at Denver that found that adults who spent time in group homes as adolescents are less accomplished educationally and vocationally than their counterparts who were placed in foster homes and report lower levels of happiness and self-esteem. Advocates attribute that to group homes’ inherent lack of family-style attachment.

It follows, then, that kids placed in group homes have a greater chance of living in poverty, ending up on the government dole and landing in prison, Riehl says, noting the state’s long-term socioeconomic interest in making sure there are enough foster families to go around.

But she and Fellmeth say there can be a quicker return on investing in higher monthly payments to foster parents.

Raising the payments by 40 percent, Fellmeth and Riehl say, would cost an additional $24 million per year, and since the federal government pays for half, that’s just a $12-million increase, which they argue is a drop in the bucket considering the state’s budget is $100 billion.

They calculate that the state would get that $12 million back if it were able to move 600 kids from group homes to foster homes—assuming there are that many in group homes who don’t require the sort of intensive social work for which such facilities were designed. Whereas the monthly cost of family foster homes is measured in the hundreds of dollars, the monthly cost of group-home placement is measured in the thousands. A spokesperson for the state’s Department of Social Services told CityBeat that the average monthly payment per kid in a group home is $5,490.

The state just isn’t being smart, Fellmeth says. “It’s like a math quiz that they’re flunking. It’s not even an algebra quiz. It’s third-grade level.”

CAI’s lawsuit, then, is a means to a much-coveted end. The suit says that federal law requires states that collect federal foster-care funds to cover the cost of food, clothing, shelter, daily supervision, school supplies, personal incidentals, liability insurance and travel for visitation with birth parents.

“California applied for and willingly accepts this federal funding, but does not cover the costs incurred by foster parents as required by federal law,” the suit alleges. “Even as costs to feed, cloth, house, and transport foster children have risen every year, California’s foster care payment rates have not kept pace.”

After a 5-percent increase that took effect on Jan. 1, the state now pays foster families between $446 and $627 per month, depending on the child’s age. State law requires the reimbursement rates to rise according to increases in the California Necessities Index (CNI)—but that’s “subject to the availability of funds,” state law says. The lawsuit charges that even though the CNI rose 24.9 percent between 2001 and 2007, the state did not adjust the foster-care rates during that time. Between 1989 and 2001, the rates were increased twice—a 12-percent bump in 1990 and a 6-percent hike in 1996.

The lawsuit goes on to note that the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that, nationwide, a family earning between $43,400 and $73,100 per year, spends an average of $962.64 per month raising a single child. A study by the University of Maryland School of Social Work recommends raising California’s rates to $685 for a 2-year-old, $785 for a 9-year-old and $861 for a 16-year-old.

“We have good evidence,” Fellmeth says. “We’ve established that the state has no idea what the costs are. They don’t care.”

A spokesperson from the state Attorney General’s office referred CityBeat to the Department of Social Services for comment and, just before press time, e-mailed a copy of the state’s legal response, which essentially denies the plaintiffs’ substantive charges. A spokesperson for DSS said his office’s policy is to withhold comment on matters involving litigation.

As concerned as Fellmeth is about kids while they’re in foster care, he’s equally mindful of the before and after.

“Nobody ever talks about prevention,” he says. “Nobody ever talks about parenting education. Nobody ever talks about unwed births,” which correlate strongly to the demand for foster care, he says, particularly in the African-American community. “Then you’ve got methamphetamine, which hits hard and is even a bigger cause of poverty,” he adds. “It destroys maternal / paternal instinct. Probably 60 to 70 percent of the cases we see in our clinic are methamphetamine-connected. It’s enormous.”

After foster care, when kids “age out” of the system, they’re pretty much cast adrift, and too many become homeless. CAI proposes that the state set up a “transition guardian” program. Under it, the state would give each foster kid roughly $50,000 to live on for five years while receiving vocational training or higher education. The money would be distributed monthly through a court-approved guardian, and each recipient would be required to check in with a judge, preferably one who’s been overseeing a youth’s care since the first custody hearing, every six months.

“If you believe in family values, these are your children. Literally. Legally, these are your children. This is not welfare to someone else’s kids,” Fellmeth says. “You’ve been paying for them already. You’ve raised them. These are your courts. This is your state. Now, are you going to follow through? Are you going to be a good, decent parent and follow through like other parents do? Or are you going to be a bad parent? That’s the proposition.”

Close to 30,000 foster care youth in LA

Finally, a foster care fix
Legislation before Congress could end years of inattention to reform
Krinsky, Miriam. Los Angeles Times, July 25, 2008.

The child-welfare system is "broken." This harsh indictment has been a constant drumbeat in L.A.-area headlines for years. In the last few months, the tragedy of a 5-year-old subjected to horrifying mistreatment grabbed the public's attention. The pendulum started to swing, and demands mounted to address the crisis.

But there are underlying challenges facing struggling families and overwhelmed child-welfare professionals that headlines and an ever-swinging pendulum don't and can't address. Consider just one part of the system: foster care. Los Angeles is home to nearly 30,000 foster youth. We collectively commit to watch over these children when we bring them into foster care, yet too many struggle mightily with the most basic of needs.

California's foster-care paradox
Foster youth drift from placement to placement, lack basic health care, fail to graduate from high school and have no stable adult anchor. When they "age out" of foster care, most at the ill-prepared age of 18, they often find themselves homeless, unemployed and on the threshold of our justice system.

Although passionate social workers, judges and advocates are dedicated to improving the plight of these vulnerable young people, they battle against inadequate support and inordinately high caseloads -- California dependency judges carry an average of 1,000 cases, and the state's child-welfare workers have caseloads twice the national standard.

All of us pay the resulting price -- in the loss of human potential and the inherent costs associated with generations of youth unprepared for adulthood.

So why aren't we doing more than simply reacting to the tragedy of the moment?

In California, there are positive signs of action. The California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care, launched in 2006, will submit its final recommendations for reform next month, including changes in how juvenile courts do business: implementing attorney and judicial caseload standards, ensuring a meaningful voice in court for all participants and implementing court performance measures. The new state Child Welfare Council, with leaders from all three branches of government, is crafting an agenda to tackle lack of coordination, inadequate information sharing and disjointed leadership among the government agencies accountable for children in care. And our new state legislative leaders -- Assembly Speaker Karen Bass and Senate President Pro Tem-elect Darrell Steinberg -- are long-standing champions of foster care reform.

Yet only limited progress is possible absent federal engagement. Federal money is the largest source of foster care funding, and federal laws control a large number of foster care practices. But for the last decade, federal foster care reform has been nearly nonexistent, with bipartisan bickering blocking visionary reform.

Finally, that's beginning to change.

Last month, the House of Representatives unanimously passed the Fostering Connections to Success Act (H.R. 6307) -- the most important child-welfare legislation considered by Congress in a long time.

This legislation addresses some of the most crucial concerns facing foster youth, and, significantly, it would promote proven reforms. It allows states for the first time to use federal money to support foster children until age 21. A handful of states have experimented with that policy, so we know that extending care to the 24,000 youths who otherwise would "age out" each year would enable a much higher percentage of foster kids to become productive members of our communities. Similarly, the proposed law would, for the first time, provide federal financial support for relatives assuming legal guardianship of foster children they have been raising, thereby promoting an established, cost-effective alternative to foster care.

This landmark legislation also would mandate other key improvements in the care of foster children, including creating new federal requirements for educational stability, improving oversight of healthcare of foster children, mandating efforts to place siblings together and increasing federal foster care and adoption aid for tribal governments.

In the coming week, the Senate will consider this legislative package. Hopefully, it will keep alive the chance for real change in the lives of our most at-risk children.

Let's not wait for the next tragedy or scandal. The time to act -- rather than defensively react -- is now. Our most vulnerable children deserve to be more than another dismal headline.

Miriam Aroni Krinsky is a member of the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care and serves as a lecturer at the UCLA School of Public Affairs.

What dreams do we have for OUR (foster) children?

Open Forum: On Government's Social Responsibilities
Parental obligation: Congress must step up to help foster youth
Burton, John and Miriam Aroni Krinsky. San Francisco Chronicle, July 22, 2008.

What dreams do we have for our children? What future do we seek to chart for them? What supports do we endeavor to give them as they transition into adulthood?

When we address these straightforward questions for our own children, all of the complexities of reforming the nation's beleaguered foster care system disappear. The answers are self-evident. We want our children to have a good education, a stable, loving environment, and the opportunity to grow into healthy young adults.

Our nation's foster children deserve no less.

While millions of Americans obsess about gas prices, baseball rankings, or the latest celebrity scandal, our most vulnerable children have taken a back seat. Fortunately, there is still time for Congress to take action on pending legislation and make a real difference in the lives of America's foster youth - by extending foster care support to age 21.

Every year, more than 24,000 young Americans "age out" from the foster care system when they turn 18 and are no longer eligible for assistance. Without the anchor of a family, foster youth do not fare well as young adults, disproportionately joining the ranks of the homeless, incarcerated and unemployed.

Supporting foster youth until age 21 isn't just compassionate, it makes sense. A recent study compared outcomes for youth who remained in foster care past age 18 with those who left on their 18th birthday. The results were conclusive; youth who are allowed to remain in foster care beyond age 18 were:

-- Two times more likely to be working toward completion of a high school diploma.

-- Three times more likely to be in college.

-- More likely to be insured and have better mental health.

-- Far less likely to be victims or perpetrators of crime and violence.

Extending foster care support until age 21 also prevents crime and reduces the costs of law enforcement, including the expense of incarceration. A 2007 study from the University of Chicago concluded that former foster youth are 10 times more likely to be arrested than youth of the same age, race and sex. According to the California Budget Project, the associated costs of these prosecutions are considerable, with the per capita cost of adult incarceration in California in 2006 reaching $43,287 annually.

Given the ongoing crisis in the California prison system, supporting foster youth until 21 is both a smart and humane way to stem the flow of youth into the adult criminal system.

The pending federal legislative package would also increase federal support for family members who take in abused or neglected relatives, improve oversight of foster youth health and education, and enhance connections among siblings. Each of these approaches has a measurable positive impact on the lives of foster youth and the people who take care of them. And these reforms are cost neutral - paid for through anti-fraud and other good government provisions that have bipartisan support.

The question now is whether the needs of our nation's most vulnerable children can capture the attention of Congress.

Representatives Jim McDermott, D-Wash., and Jerry Weller, R-Ill., have introduced the Fostering Connections to Success Act, which passed unanimously out of the House on June 24 and will enact each of the important changes outlined above. Senator Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, has also introduced major child welfare legislation in the Senate, the Improved Adoption Incentives and Relative Guardianship Support Act of 2008.

The Senate Finance Committee will consider these bills before the end of July. The Senate should move these reforms forward and promote a new federal landscape that supports foster youth as they transition to adulthood.

Without action by Congress, these reforms simply will not happen. For every 50 cents California's states and counties contribute to the foster care system, the federal government pays the other half.

We cannot have two standards: one for our own children and another for the 500,000 children and youth in foster care. All Americans, Republican and Democrat, agree that children are our most precious resource and deserve our protection, assistance and guidance. We urge the Senate to deliver on that vision and pass pending legislation that would extend support for youth in foster care to age 21.

John Burton, former president pro tem of the state Senate, now chairs the John Burton Foundation for Children Without Homes. Miriam Aroni Krinsky is a member of the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Foster Care.