In case you haven’t seen CCAI’s most recent newsletter and legislative update, be sure to check it out here. Our newsletters include a list of pending foster care and adoption legislation, recently published research on child welfare topics, upcoming events, and information about CCAI’s current work.
One long-standing topic of debate in child welfare has been the cause of the racial disparity that exists among children in foster care. Black children, while only making up 15% of the total child population in the U.S., make up one-third of the children in foster care.
Early government mandated studies from 1986 and 1993 showed that there was not difference in child abuse rates when comparing black and white children. These findings spurred conversations that child welfare workers were exercising a racial bias which was leading to more black children being brought into care and thus the racial disparity in the system. In 1994, Congress responded by passing the Multiethnic Placement Act (MEPA) meant to prohibit states from delaying or denying foster care or adoption placement solely on the basis of race, color or national origin. This law, in part, was meant to allow for and encourage the adoptions of black children out of foster care even when black adoptive families were not available.
Harvard Law School addressed this issue at a conference held last month named, Race & Child Welfare: Disproportionality, Disparity, Discrimination. Elizabeth Bartholet, an expert on this topic, argued against earlier claims that a racial bias exists among child welfare workers which results in minority children being removed from homes at a higher rate. Bartholet said that minority children do in fact experience higher rates of maltreatment, and therefore would make up a disproportionate rate of children in foster care. For more information about the conference, see Daniel Heimpel’s account on the Huffington Post.
Last week, Reuters Health published an article quoting Brett Drake, who recently released a study with data that affirms Bartholet’s statement, saying, “The problem is not that (Child Protective Services) workers are racists, the problem is that huge numbers of black people are living under devastating circumstances. Mitigating poverty, and the effects of poverty, would be the most powerful way to reduce child maltreatment.”
Drawing advocates back to the main issue, a fellow speaker at the conference Richard Barth argued, “Should we be so worried that the child welfare system is unfair or racist that we allow minority children to be underserved and unprotected?” According to the Harvard Law School article, “Barth noted that reducing disproportionality should not be the primary goal—it should be to improve the quality of services for all children”.
Interestingly, this long-standing debate on race and its impact on waiting children in foster care is one being discussed across the ocean as well. BBC News reported remarks recently from Mr. Martin Narey who just retired after five years as the chief executive at the United Kingdom’s leading children’s charity, Barnardo’s. The BBC article quotes Mr. Narey as stating that in the United Kingdom, “”The law is very clear. A child should not stay in care for an undue length of time while waiting for adoptive parents of the same ethnicity. But the reality is that black, Asian and mixed race children wait three times longer than white children.” He expressed the opinion that adoption agencies working to place children in the UK’s foster care system with adoptive families allow delays in placement because they are reluctant to let white families adopt minority children. In November, UK Children’s Minister Tim Loughton sent a letter to local officials expressing that the finding that sometimes “there may be over sensitivity on the grounds of ethnicity when it comes to the matching of children with prospective adopters” “troubled” him.
While debates may continue long into the future, child welfare experts in both the U.S. and U.K. can agree that a great need remains for adoptive families of all ethnic backgrounds to step forward and realize each waiting child’s right to a family.
NPR interviewed Michael Oher to discuss the motivation behind his new book, ‘I Beat the Odds: From Homelessness to The Blind Side and Beyond‘. Through the 2009 blockbuster The Blind Side, the nation learned Michael’s story of growing up with his 11 siblings in Memphis, having been born into a bad situation with a crack-addicted mother who lived in a neighborhood caught in the cycle of youth dropping out of school, joining gangs, and living a life of violence.
Michael is now an offensive tackle for the Baltimore Ravens. During the interview he shared that football was always his number one and that he felt people already knew his life story, so why did he need to write a book? But after receiving thousands of letters from youth who were growing up in similar situations he realized the significant impact he can have on others by continuing to share his story.
As Michael began researching the foster care system to write his book–even after growing up in the foster care himself–Michael couldn’t believe the poor outcomes of these youth. He shared that this he wanted his book to be more than his life story, but rather a guide for youth and adults who impact the lives of youth in foster care.
FosterClub’s All-Stars Internship Program – Deadline Feb. 15
Do You Know a Young Person Who Could Be An All-Star?
FosterClub will select a team of young adults, ages 18 to 24, who have experienced foster care at some point in their lives, to participate in an internship program called the All-Star Program. After two weeks of intense leadership and public speaking training, the All-Stars travel the country participating in foster youth conferences, speaking to child welfare professionals, advocating to policy makers, and more! All-Star interns have an opportunity to improve the foster care system and life for other youth in foster care — plus earn over $3,000 over the summer. Completed applications are due by Feb 15, 2011. For more information, click here.
Nebraska’s child welfare system has been a focus of the press lately. The reason? They are in the process of privatizing parts of their child welfare system. The effort to privatize state foster care systems has long been a topic of heavy debate. Back in 1996, Kansas became the first state to privatize its foster care system. Florida and Colorado soon followed suit with the goal of increasing the efficiency and accountability of child welfare services. Other states, such as Michigan and Ohio have privatized parts of their system, such as adoptions.
An op ed was published in late September of last year in the Grand Island Independent which states, “The evidence continues to mount that Nebraska’s move to privatize the foster care system has been an utter failure. Day after day brings more evidence that the system is broken.” The author cites inadequate funding, lack of communication between foster parents and agencies, and confusion about the process as some of problems.
In October, the Nebraska Foster Parent Review Board wrote a letter to state legislators to raise their concerns. The letter cites “staff changes, payment delays to foster parents and service providers, documentation issues, difficulties accessing services, visitation supervision issues and delayed permanency. Based on 340 case reviews conducted by the Board in September of 2010, 34.7 percent lacked home study documentation; 30.6 percent lacked immunization records; 29.4 percent lacked placement reports; and 27.6 percent lacked visitation or other such reports.”
In November, Governor Dave Heineman responded to the many statements, stories, and reports on the topic saying, “I hope everybody realizes what we’ve been doing in the last 40 years hasn’t worked,” Heineman said of child welfare and foster care. “Nebraska has one of the largest percentages of out-of-home placements in America. […] What is best for the kids is in-home placements, not institutional care. […] The idea of reform is to change the system so a large majority of children and families are getting services in their homes, and a minority are being removed from their homes and put in out-of-home placements. The state has opted for a public-private partnership to do that. […] The government’s not a very good parent. I think we have to involve the private sector, nonprofits, charities and others in this effort. […] It’s real easy to sit there and say, ‘I don’t like the direction this is going,’ but I don’t hear a lot of solutions …”
State legislators are weighing in on this move, saying that there is not enough legislative oversight to the process. With pressure from constituents wanting to know, “Is it adequately funded? How much private money is being invested? Is it sustainable? And do senators need to address any public policy issues regarding child welfare?”. The encouraging news is that state legislators are taking action.
Just this month, a state Senator from Lincoln, Sen. Kathy Campbell, who was newly elected to lead the Health and Human Services Committee announced a resolution will be introduced that “would allow the committee to review and evaluate how child welfare reform has been conducted since its beginning, and report to the Legislature.”
Across the country, several states are working to make processes in child welfare and adoption more efficient. Just last week in Pennsylvania, the state Supreme Court issued new rules meant to streamline the intercountry adoption process for PA residents.
The current intercountry adoption procedures that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the U.S. Department of State operate under say that in order for a child’s adoption to be finalized abroad, both parents must be present in child’s country of origin. This child would then enter the U.S. on an IR-3 or IH-3 visa and gain citizenship upon entering the U.S. If only one parent is present, that parent receives custody for immigration purposes, however, the adoption will be legally finalized after entering the U.S., and the child is eligible for citizenship after the adoption is finalized here in the U.S. In this scenario, the child immigrates with an IR-4 or IH-4 visa (the distinction is simply made depending on if the child’s country of origin is party to the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption).
In cases where only one parent is present, Pennsylvania courts have decided that parents are allowed to file a form petition and several required documents, instead of requiring a time-consuming process of duplicating paperwork from other government agencies.
Another example of child welfare-related processes being streamlined is in Iowa where child abuse and neglect complaints will now be directed to one centralized intake center, compared to their previous practice of having 99 separate counties accept reports. The efficiency of this new process could prove vital in the state, which has a rate of reports at 59.6 per 1,000 children, compared to the national average of 43.1 per 1,000 children.
In Tennessee, a project was undertaken last year to improve the timeliness of foster care adoption. The ultimate goal is to streamline the adoption process and move children into loving families as soon as possible. The idea grew out of a CCAI Advisory Board meeting conversation when Rep. Jim Cooper expressed concerns about inefficiencies in the child welfare system, and Elmer Doty, CCAI Executive Board Member, offered experts from his company to examine ways to improve the system. Using Lean/Six Sigma tools and methodologies, experts from Vought Aircraft (now owned by Triumph Group, Inc.) partnered with the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services to examine adoptions involving children who are in full guardianship with a family identified. What resulted was a thorough, fact-based examination of the key processes of finalizing these adoptions, and finding ways to reduce the variance across regions. Tennessee DCS officials began implementing recommendations last June and will begin tracking data over the next year.
Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute 