Real Experts Say Keep Group Homes Open

The anti-group home juggernaut continues to roll along. The Governor of California has signed legislation that aims to drastically reduce the number of foster children placed in group homes by turning them into short-term placements for up to 6 months.

On the federal level Senator Orrin Hatch, has announced his attention to work with other Senators to develop legislation reducing reliance on group homes for youth in foster care.

In last week’s column, I wrote about the folly of restricting group homes when family foster homes are in short supply. Today, I cite the real experts—young people who have thrived in group homes, often in contrast to their foster home experience.

Below are a few examples.

Sunday Koffron Taylor, a former foster child and current foster parent, is now the vice president of the Michigan Chapter of Foster Care Alumni of America. She questions the constant call that every child should be in a family:

The reality is that there are not enough qualified or willing foster homes for older children. I am the beneficiary of the group care system and I have noticed when talking to other foster care alumni that those of us who spent the majority of our time in group settings suffered far less mental and emotional abuse then our counterparts who are placed in foster homes. …Time would be more wisely spent improving group care, rather than attempting to coerce and cajole the unwilling and unprepared foster parent into accepting the care of children whose needs they are not equipped or willing to meet.

Eric Barrus, currently a student at Brigham Youth University, participated in the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute (CCAI)’s summer internship program. Eric bounced from home to home until he found stability and love at an independent family group home called Open Gate Ranch, which serves up to eight boys at one time.

The family running “The Ranch” have adopted six of their residents (including Eric) over the 20 years that they have operated the home. In his policy report for CCAI, Eric proposed that family-style group homes be placed in a different category from group homes operated by shift staff and be a preferred option for older boys in foster care.

Another former CCAI intern, Thomas McRae, Jr., entered foster care at the age of 11. He lived in 22 foster homes, suffering abuse, neglect, and multiple changes of school and neighborhood. He reacted with anger and aggression, leading to further disruption as foster parents refused to keep him.

After his last altercation with a foster parent, he ended up in a Boys Town family-style group home. He was supposed to stay only a few days, but his attorney fought for a longer placement, and he ended up there for 8 months. Of his house parents, Thomas states:

They were so inspiring, so motivating. They taught me what it means to have a mother and a father. They taught me patience and kindness. Had it not been for them, I would not be the man I am today.

Thomas is already a seasoned public speaker and will graduate from Cheyney University next spring with a degree in psychology.

These experiences illustrate that group homes not, in and of themselves a problem. As a sector of the child welfare continuum, however, it has come to be defined by its worst members. These are often larger and are known for their rigid “level” systems in which even the most basic “privileges” can be taken away.

The “foster home sector” could easily be viewed through the same lens, but it’s not. There are foster parents who have never been to their child’s school, never taken them to the doctor, and don’t buy them more than the minimal clothing. There are even abusive and neglectful foster parents. But nobody is talking about shutting down all foster homes, or limiting the amount of time a child can stay in a home.

Could the higher cost of group homes have something to do with this discrepancy? Group homes cost more than foster homes, although the ratio of costs varies by jurisdiction and type of home. But the higher cost of group homes might explain why some conservative legislators, like Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), are so keen on restricting group homes.

The child welfare field should take the advice of Sunday Taylor and improve group homes, rather than eliminating them or establishing arbitrary time limits. Improved standards and accountability for group homes can improve their quality.

And let’s do more research on the effectiveness of different types of group care compared to foster care for different populations. The one study that compares similar group and treatment foster homes following the same treatment model shows that family-style group homes produced better outcomes.

Let’s make sure we know what works before we make it any harder to place youth in homes that could mean the difference between a successful life and a future in prison or on the streets.

This column was published in the Chronicle of Social Change in October 28, 2015.

Curbing Congregate Care Plus Foster Care Shortage Equals Bad Policy

Rarely have I seen a greater disconnect between policy and reality than what is occurring in California’s foster care system.

On October 11, Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation that drastically reduces the number of children placed in group homes and the length of time they spend in such placements.

Four days later, the Los Angeles Daily News reported that there is an “urgent need” for foster parents in the San Fernando Valley. Yet nobody in the executive or legislative branch seems to be connecting these two facts. What is going on?

Under the new legislation, all group homes will be replaced by “Short Term Residential Treatment Centers.” These centers will be licensed only to provide short-term intensive treatment for children who are determined in need of such an intervention.

Stays at these centers will be limited to six months. Longer stays will have to be authorized by senior child welfare officials.

The new legislation is based on the increasing belief that “congregate care is detrimental to the development and well-being of youth in foster care.” Yet, as I wrotein an earlier column, the research behind this assertion is far from conclusive. Especially when it comes to older youth with more serious therapeutic needs, group care may be more appropriate. For larger sibling groups that cannot be accommodated in a single home, a group home may also be a preferable option.

A loving, caring family is of course the best option for many children. However, as I discussed in another column, many foster homes do not provide this type of nurturing environment. Some are neglectful or even abusive, and many are simply providing room and board.

There are also not enough foster homes, good, bad or in-between. So even if any foster home is better than any group home, most jurisdictions just don’t have enough foster homes.

The Daily News reported on October 15 that the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services is holding a special event to recruit “urgently needed” foster parents. Because of the shortage of foster homes, there has been a surge in the number of children admitted to the County’s welcome centers, short-term shelters for children for whom there is no foster home available.

These centers are allowed to keep children for only 24 hours but the Los Angeles Timesreported that this rule was violated 800 times in the last year.

The underlying cause of the crisis is the collapse in the supply of foster homes in Los Angeles County. As reported by the Times, the number of beds in homes of foster parents who are unrelated to foster youth has dropped from 22,000 to 9,000 since the year 2000.

Social workers make up to 100 calls to place one child. What is going to happen when the closing of group homes creates an even greater demand for foster homes?

The supporters of the new California legislation understand that they will need to recruit more foster homes in order for the new regime to succeed. The new law will provide more money to recruit, retain and support foster families.

But unless this money will be enough to buy homes for foster parents in expensive areas like Los Angeles County, or to provide salaries so foster parents do not have to work outside the home, I doubt this effort will be successful.

The rush to close group homes during a foster parent shortage is not a California phenomenon. It is happening all over the country behind the child welfare establishment rallying cry, “Every child needs a family.” In the District of Columbia, children are being sent as many as 30 miles or an hour by car away from the District for lack of foster homes, while group home beds have been cut back.

When there are not enough foster homes, closing group homes does not make sense. Instead, we should create group homes that are as family-like and nurturing as possible. There are many group homes that already meet their residents’ needs for love and caring much more than many foster homes.

Next week, I will share the views of some of the real experts about group homes: young people who have lived in them.

This column was published in the Chronicle of Social Change on October 20, 2015.

A Rising Tide of Foster Care Entries

The federal government issued its new foster care data report on Sept. 18, and the news was startling. Foster care caseloads were up substantially for the first time in a decade. Between 2013 and 2014, the number of children in foster care increased from 400,989 to 415,129, which is an increase of 3.5 percent. This was the second consecutive increase in foster care caseloads.

The new data appear to confirm an end to the major decline in caseloads that occurred in the first decade of this century. The number of children in foster care fell from 567,000 in 1999 to 398,000 in 2011. The foster care caseloads declined slightly in 2012 and increased slightly in 2013, to 400,989. The 2014 figure suggests that we may be entering an era of increasing foster care caseloads.

Increased entries into foster care appeared to account for most of the increase in caseloads. The number entering foster care increased by almost 10,000 over the year. The number exiting foster care decreased, but by a much smaller amount.

The increase in foster care caseloads cannot be accounted for by expansion of some foster care systems to include youth between the ages of 18 and 21. The age distribution of children in foster care remained almost the same over the last year, as did the age at entry into foster care and exit from foster care.

The Department of Health and Human Services did not offer an explanation of this increase. However, several factors have been cited as explanations for increases at the state and local levels. Reports from many states suggest that the increased popularity of drugs like heroin and methamphetamine are resulting in more kids being removed from their families. For example, the number of children in foster care in Kansas has reached an all-time high, whichprofessionals attributed at least in part to the revival of heroin and methamphetamine.

Changes in child welfare policy may be responsible for caseload increases in some states. The number of children in foster care in Florida reached its highest level since 2008 this July. Among the reasons given are the use of a new method for assessing risks to a child’s safety, which is resulting in more removals. The state shifted to this system after a widely publicized series of child deaths. A similar dynamic is occurring in Oklahoma, where a spate of child deaths resulted in an increase in removals and foster care caseloads.

The number of youth in foster care has risen for two consecutive years, according to federal data collected from states

The Florida and Oklahoma situations illustrate the cyclical nature of child welfare practice. Child welfare systems have to balance the harm caused by removing children from their families with the risks incurred by leaving them in possibly dangerous situations. Many states have been reducing their caseloads for years. After years of erring on the side of keeping children at home, they may be reconsidering in light of evidence that they have gone too far.

There is a limit to how much a state can safely reduce its rate of child removals. I was a social worker in the District of Columbia between 2010 and 2014, when the caseload was cut in half. While this reduction was occurring, I heard from many attorneys working in the system that children were being kept in toxic homes for too long and were more troubled when they were finally removed.

Many professionals involved with the District’s child welfare system during the time of caseload reduction also expressed fear of a tragedy due to children being left in an unsafe home. One such event did occur. As I described in an earlier column, a child whose family had been the target of an investigation but who was not removed later disappeared and is presumed dead.

It is possible that increased investment in services to families will make possible a resumption in the decline in child removals without compromising child safety. Congress is considering a major change in child welfare funding so that services to prevent foster care placement could be funded at the same level as out-of-home care.

Perhaps if such a policy is implemented, it will usher in a new era of caseload decline, based on a foundation of adequate monitoring and services to families that have come to the attention of the system. Let us hope that it does not lead to financial pressure to keep kids at home even when they are not safe.

This column was published in the Chronicle of Social Change on October 5, 2015