http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705364663/Utah-foster-care-placements-up-40-in-past-decade-legislative-audit-finds.html?pg=1
It seems that foster care in Utah is a whole lot different than foster care in other states. This article mentions, "Over the past decade, foster care placements in Utah have increased by 38 percent while the number of families that receive in-home supports that allow children to stay in their family homes has decreased by 40 percent".
I am not very familiar with the foster care policies of the state. Is there an abundance of a "zero tolerance policy" here than in other states? Or are there just more children in Utah than in other states and that's why the ratios are so different here?
Hi,
ReplyDeleteI've read the article now and have some points to make. First, I think it could be misleading to insinuate blame to the court case that reformed the ways that DCFS did business. To learn more about this case and its resolution, see http://www.deseretnews.com/article/680194920/93-suit-credited-for-changes-at-DCFS.html?pg=1
The article to which I refer you notes that the settlement and new procedures for handing cases at DCFS will work as long as there is committed funding to see it through. But most of you know that DCFS has taken significant budget cuts in the past 3 years, so I suspect that in some areas, the agency is relying on the federal funding from the foster care system in lieu of state funding for preventive services. Now if the federal government has to cut funding for foster care services, things could get very interesting.
However, that by itself does not explain why foster care placements exceeded in home services prior to the recession. We probably need a regional DCFS director to address that question. I personally favor prevention services and the ones described appear to be cost effective. It would seem to make sense to call the state legislature's attention to the potential savings of preventative in home family services and suggest that they find ways to fund them at a higher level. What do some of you think about this issue?
Foster care and the removal of children from their homes is a touchy issue for me. I have been with parents when their children were being removed and wondered "Why this one?" I have also been with parents whom I have made repeated reports on and wondered "Why not this one?" Like Utah, California's CFS system is striving to work more with the bio family and make removal an option of last resort. As a result of budget cuts, California is actually seeing a signficant drop in the number of open CFS cases. This number is misleading though because the truth is they simply don't have enough workers to actually open cases (and offer services) except in the most severe of cases. This means many reports are being written off as unsubstantiated claims, and many more are not even being investigated. Families aren't receiving any services until it is to late and their case moves up to the "extreme" level, thus necessatiating out of home placement. This may be the case in Utah too. I am not sure though. I do know that Utah gives bio parents 8 months to work towards reunifying with children under two, rather then 6 months like California. This would increase the number of children without perment placement so perhaps that also has something to do with the issue.
ReplyDeleteI have been with numerous families when their children have been taken away and I have to admit,...it is not a touchy issue for me. I can't say why Utah has had an increase in children removed from there home but I can say of the hundred plus cases were I have been present when a child was removed I haven't seen one that I had any question why the child was removed. (Not to say there aren't those cases).
ReplyDeleteI favor prevention services because they are more cost effective. But I don't think that preventative services will have an enormous impact on the types of cases that I have seen.
What I mean is, when a child has to hit her father over the head with a 2 X 4 to prevent him from strangling her mother to death (a mother that also refuses to separate from the abuser) or if a screaming 3 & 1 yr old are picked up by police in a public park (covered head to tow in alcohol) while there mother is passed out drunk at their feet and is being sexually molested by a homeless man (with no teeth), there are serious endangerment and addiction issues that need to be resolved. (Both true cases)
If a prevention policy is to be effective I think it would need to target children and teens before addictions, abusive behaviors, and being a parent are even issues.