 |
A headline on the website of the Portland
Oregonian today says:
Foster care scandal: Are kids safe? 'I can't answer that question yes'
The headline refers to a dialogue at a legislative hearing
yesterday. According to the Oregonian it went this way:
Clyde Saiki, the department [of Human Services] interim director, was asked at a hearing Thursday whether he could say all children in state care "are safe today." He gave a blunt response: "No."
"The way you've asked that question," Saiki told [State Sen. Sara] Gelser, "I can't answer that question yes. That's something that bothers me. That's something that keeps me up at night."
Judging by the stories written about this, it seems
reporters were shocked – shocked! – that the head of the child welfare agency
can’t guarantee that every foster child is safe.
But it was a loaded question – one to which the only
possible honest answer is “no” and always will be “no.” Not just in Oregon, but in every child
welfare system in America, including the few that are relatively good.
 |
| Clyde Saiki |
Abuse in foster care is a major national problem. Study after study has
found abuse in one-quarter to one-third of foster homes – and the record of
group homes and institutions is even worse.
Oregon may well be no worse than many other states,
particularly those other states which, like Oregon take away far too many
children. Oregon may just be getting
more attention at the moment.
But Sen. Gelser trivializes this serious issue by setting an
impossible standard. Indeed, the
phrasing of the question makes me wonder if she wanted a serious answer, or
just a chance to look good on television.
Earlier I
gave her credit for sincerity, now I’m starting to wonder.
The reason for that boils down to the word that made the
question so loaded: All.
Are all children in foster care in Oregon safe? No.
Are all children in foster care anywhere safe? No.
Are all children agencies decided to leave in their own
homes safe? No.
Are all children at college safe? No.
Are all children in high school safe? No.
Are all children currently in cars on America’s highways
safe? No.
Are all children currently walking down the street safe? No.
Are all politicians more interested in grandstanding than
genuinely improving child welfare? No.
Or, to put it another way: Would anyone seriously call a
police chief on the carpet by demanding to know if all citizens in his or her community are guaranteed not to be
victims of crime?
The question should be: What can be done to make children as
safe as possible – and bring abuse in foster care as close as possible to
zero? But that’s not nearly as likely to
get you headlines – especially since the honest answer is: Start by taking away
fewer children.
A threat from foster
care agencies
This was illustrated, albeit unintentionally, in the Oregonian story. Gelser has introduced legislation that
supposedly would crack down on abuse in foster care. But look what the head of a trade association
for foster care agencies said:
Janet Arenz, the director of the Oregon Alliance of Children's Programs, a group that lobbies for foster care providers, supported Gelser's goals
Let me just stop here: Her goals involve making sure foster
children aren’t abused. Who wouldn’t
support them? Now, get ready for the but
…
but raised concerns about the cost some providers might face under stricter rules. She said agencies had been ending their foster care contracts even before the prospect of reforms. State officials have repeatedly lamented, in hearings but also in … emails … Oregon's lack of safe and appropriate placements for foster children. The foster system is in charge of 8,000 kids on any given night.
"They're not sustainable," Arenz said. "They're losing too much money. There's tremendous risk in managing the kids and making sure they're complying with rules and regulations."
In other words: Better watch out Oregon, if you make us meet
even minimal standards we’ll close our doors and then what are you going to
do?
That threat only works when the state is taking away too many
children in the first place. Stop the
wrongful removal and foster care no longer is a sellers’ market. The state can call
the agencies’ bluff and get rid of the bad actors.
Flaws in proposed
legislation
Unfortunately, Gelser’s “all or nothing” approach also is
reflected in a bill she’s introduced to force Oregon DHS to crack down on
abusive foster care providers. Again
from the story:
Officials would also be forced to revoke a license if a child dies because of abuse, regulators learn a provider didn't immediately report a sex crime, or the provider fails to cooperate in an investigation.
Now, consider a hypothetical:
Agency X has been doing an exemplary job for 40 years. It holds foster parents and group home staff
to the highest standards and it genuinely works with families to get children
returned home as soon as possible. It
has an unblemished record.
Until one day, one staff member, perhaps beset by personal
problems of his own that no one knew about, explodes. He hits a child hard, the child hits his head
on the floor and dies.
Or, let’s say one staffer gets scared and covers up an
instance of child-on-child sexual abuse.
If the Oregonian description
of Gelser’s bill is correct, the license for this entire agency is pulled
immediately.
What happens to the children?
 |
| Actually, Linus was on to something Flickr Photo by Lehigh Valley, Pa. |
They may well have to be uprooted and moved to another
foster home – even though one of the major reasons foster care does so much
harm to children is because it forces them to move from placement to placement.
Gelser’s jury-rigged solutions remind me of an old Peanuts
cartoon in which everyone is trying to figure out how to keep Snoopy warm when
he sleeps atop his doghouse on cold winter nights.
All sorts of bizarre ideas are brought up until, finally,
Linus says: "Why doesn't he just sleep inside the doghouse?" The others just look at him and roll their
eyes at the absurdity of such a suggestion.
Similarly, Gelser and Oregon media, insist on ignoring the
fact that the only way to fix foster care is to have less of it.
By the way, if you
click on the Oregonian story be sure to scroll down to
the comment from WeCanDoBetterOregon. It is one of the best analyses of
political – and media – response to this kind of crisis I’ve ever read.
