Perhaps you’ve heard. Tacked onto the bill that averted
another government shutdown is a child welfare finance “reform” measure called
the Family First Prevention Services Act.
The bill was thought to be dead. It was killed last year by what
one reformer who transformed his own institution years ago called the group home
industry – the collection of private agencies typically paid for every day
they hold foster children in the
worst form of care, group homes and institutions -- and their public sector
allies.
But it came back to life as part of the process of keeping
the government open. Now
it’s law.
One might expect advocates of family preservation to celebrate,
and some almost certainly will. The bill allows some federal money once
restricted to funding foster care to be used for better alternatives. And, in theory, it curbs federal funding for
group homes and institutions.
Some very good child welfare reformers favor the bill. The
best case for it was made by one of those reformers, Jeremy Kohomban. He
transformed what was once one of the nation’s most regressive residential
treatment centers, Children’s Village, in New York, into a leader in
emphasizing trying to help children in their own homes or foster homes. Here’s
his case for the bill.
Setting up prevention to fail
But I disagree. In
2016, I wrote that the range of prevention services that could be funded
under Family Frist was tiny, and there were absurd restrictions on which
programs within that range could get federal aid. And instead of limiting group
homes and institutions, I argued that the bill was so weak that it actually
strengthened them, creating a whole category of institution that would be, in
effect, sanctified in federal law.
So it’s no wonder that in 2016, the Congressional Budget
Office estimated that only $130 million in additional federal funds would go to
prevention each year – a drop in the bucket compared to the billions spent on
foster care. CBO also estimated that the proportion of foster children in group
homes and institutions would barely change – declining from 14 percent to 11
percent – over ten years.
So what the bill really does is set prevention up to fail. When these minor changes don’t do much to
curb needless foster care, those wedded to a take-the-child-and-run approach
will say See? Changing financial incentives didn’t work, all those children
must really need to be in foster care. In
fact, all those kids will still be in foster care because there was almost no
real change in financial incentives.
A “presents for pimps” loophole
Nevertheless, the group home industry insisted that even the
slightest restriction on their ability to warehouse children in the very worst
form of “care” was more than they could handle.
Desperate to get something passed, supporters caved on issue
after issue:
●
They weakened a provision requiring institutions that supposedly engage in
residential treatment to have actual clinical staff on site.
●
They added a “presents
for pimps” loophole – creating a whole new category of institution exempt
from restrictions on federal funding.
That was in 2016.
The new law
In one respect, the version that just became law may be a
little better: although the types of prevention that can be funded are as
limited as ever, the standards for specific programs don’t seem to be as
onerous.
But in at least one key respect, possibly two, the version
that just became law is even worse.
●
There’s a provision (Section 2661) allowing funds from a much smaller existing “family
support services” program to be diverted to “supporting and retaining foster
families for children.” (I’m not sure if this is new, or if I’d simply
overlooked it in previous versions.)
●
States can delay the minor restrictions on funds for group homes and
institutions for two years (though if they did that, they’d also have to forego
the limited new prevention funding). In
fact, this is closer to a four-year delay.
The bill’s provisions concerning group homes don’t take effect until
October 1, 2019 – states opting to delay would not be affected until October 1,
2021.
This gives the group home industry lots and lots of time to
weaken the law still further.
Goldilocks is wrong
And finally, as
I wrote last year: Please, spare us all the Goldilocks defense; the one
that goes, if some people think the law is too tough and other people think
it’s not tough enough, it must be juuuuuuuuust right.
No. The fact that some in the group home industry have the
gall to claim this law is too tough just shows how spoiled they’ve gotten after
all those years getting to eat all the porridge.
