Questioning our Assumptions about Foster Care

Most people recognize that there are a lot of problems with the foster care system in our country, but I’m not sure we realized how deep they are. The New York Times published the results of a study of 602 youths in Illinois, Iowa and Wisconsin, and the results are rather sobering.

Only half the youths who had turned 18 and “aged out” of foster care were employed by their mid-20s. Six in 10 men had been convicted of a crime, and three in four women, many of them with children of their own, were receiving some form of public assistance. Only six in 100 had completed even a community college degree.

“We took them away from their parents on the assumption that we as a society would do a better job of raising them,” said Mark Courtney, a social work researcher at the University of Washington who led the study with colleagues from the Partners for Our Children program at Washington and the Chapin Hall center at the University of Chicago. “We’ve invested a lot money and time in their care, and by many measures they’re still doing very poorly.”

I’m all in favor of parental rights. I don’t think it should be easy for the government to intervene in the relationship between parents and children.

But I think our system for dealing with genuine situations of neglect and abuse needs to recognize the deep and inherent need that children have for permanence.

The story for many foster youths is tragically similar: the system is biased towards reunification, even if drug or alcohol-addicted birth parents are making almost no measurable progress toward becoming stable enough to care for their kids again. The result: these young people are shuffled from foster family to foster family for years, opening up deep wounds and leaving many of them incapable of self-sufficiency.

Eventually, they age out of the foster system and are left to become adults on their own – and you see the outcomes listed above.

Children need and deserve permanent and forever families, ideally with a mom and a dad. I don’t claim to have all the answers, but one of the starting points has to be a limit on the amount of time that the foster care system fights for reunification. At that point, the law should require the state to face reality and begin advocating for permanence through adoption.

I hate to say it, but one of the core problems here is that the “business” of foster care would shrink – and the foster care system has grown into a multi-million dollar business of programs and services. I don’t question that the social workers and program coordinators love kids – but their goal should be to work themselves out of a job by eliminating the need for their help, not expanding it.

The structure of the current system has effectively ensured that we continue to have a large population of orphans in the United States – children who desperately need but do not have permanent parents. We don’t tend to think of these kids as orphans, but after being shuffled through the system for years, that is precisely what they are.

This is a tough problem, and advocating for the reform of our local foster care system is one of the four initiatives that we’re planning as a part of our new adoption and orphan care effort. I look forward to sharing more with you on that soon.

mirandapond

Aaron, I am intrigued and want to hear more! I also agree 100% with your statements regarding the (mis)structure of the system and the urgency to hold our officials accountable to ensuring the outcomes originally prescribed with the foster care system. It was indeed to provide temporary housing to foster to the children while a permanent family was arranged. To eliminate the institutionalism of children. however now it has factored out that statistically we have created a system which almost gives a life sentence to institutionalism.

Extraordinary costs go into transition services (which need to be consolidated into one comprehensive program which is completed by the age of 18) and to the inevitable costs inflicted to our states taxpayers ie 70% of California inmates were reported to have been in foster care for a significant period of time, not to repeat the stats you stated regarding early and unplanned pregnancies (paid for by the state), foodstamps & (welfare paid for by the state), and a myriad of social services–many which, with responsible planning and execution on the behalf of policymakers, the need thereof could be substantially reduced over a longterm strategic plan. And you might as well double the costs calculated above since we are throwing in one or more children which are more than likely to repeat the rut.

These kids age out 100% Dependants of the state; and that is their normal, they know nothing else- and nobody ever has told them of anything else. it's time that California teaches their teenage foster youth responsibility, work ethic, basic life management and stability. And I am not talking a hodge podge ILP program with a county contracted & outsourced wishy washing 80 million dollar housing program- that has so little oversight we are essentially throwing our money away. Think about it these kids are bouncing around house to house of strangers, with that means a new school to a new school (no wonder they never finish High School) and throw in trauma, poor health, and mental health issues. Where in that equation is anybody giving them love, family, culture, community, inspiration, and where in there do they get to discover who they are?

Plain and simple the system was never designed for transition age youth- it was designed for short term care.

As for adoption, there are still issues there, failed adoption rates are rising, and for every failed adoption rate, I am curious what stipulations or contingencies are on those federal and/or state tax credits in the event of failed adoption- do the parents then owe that money back to the government? I know more children and families could benefit from more knowledge regarding 1) what their foster-to-adoption child will be like so they may 2) prepare & be trained or equipped to be the parents that child needs, not the child the parents want or 'always dreamed of'. And I think its worth exploring follow up mandates by the state while the children & new family transition together.

I find it ironic that back before the foster care system, these orphans were indentured servants (basically slaves in a sense) yet after 18 yrs of age they had: stable housing, food, clothing, job skills, long term personal connections EMPLOYMENT… Not endorsing we revert to that, but whatever happened to measurable outcomes?

Adoption was the purpose, is not now the focus, and that needs to change.

PS So frustrated Sandra Bullock just adopted a baby after her movie last November about rescuing a teenage foster kid, ridiculous!

Opportunity policy reform in education is the starting point to PREVENTION. 2nd major point needs to be an reallocation of funding to REUNIFICATION services, making them more comprehensive wrap around services which include a family centered approach, ones in which the return validates the investment- Kids First in Roseville has a 97% success rate with this method, which I fully support. Next is incentively marketing adoption, I know supply/demand rates are off here but if we are strategic and wise about how we handle the first steps to the cycle we will have less of a demand… hopefully evening out the ratios a bit. oh, and we MUST do something about the legal profiling of “UN-ADOPTABLE” children just because the are growing up. DO YOUR JOB social workers!! And lastly for those who are not ever adopted, blessing to you–goal being, there is only a few youth in this category- never being adopted, not the majority of youth) we as a governing agency need to realize when we said your parents were not fit to parent and we would do a better job and take care of you now make you a Dependant, as a state (child Dependant of the state) you were really depending on us and we then have made it our responsibility to meet the needs of teenagers who are on their way to becoming adults, like any fit and responsible parent does. If the state does not have the money do this, then who is supposed to take the teenager away from the state? See the picture? If it's not okay for the parents to do it, then the state should not be able to either. However, I just don't think the public or Representatives actually get what happens after foster care and what we live like. And people like me, never share it, because we then are considered a problem. We fake it and hope someone thinks we've made it.
tonywaters

Aaron: I just had two students through my office at Chico State which illustrated the cmomlexity of establishing a good foster care system. The first had been out hanging pizza advertisements on doors between 6 and 9 in the morning. She was chased out of a small apt. complex which had hoses running through the windows, and childrens' toys scattered across the front yard. Prime candidates for foster care, I would guess.

The second student in my office is an MA student who is also a foster care mom. She had been sent a boy who had been raised in a 5' x 5' box up until she got him 1.5 year ago. The boy is now on his third social worker (the others were laid off in budget cuts), and at four years old was finally adopted out. The judge interviewed the kid who told him he didn't want to be adopted by that family. The kid threw fits, and was sent back by the adoptive parents to my student's house two days later.

All I can say is good luck with working with the foster care system. (I have other stduents who could tell you more horror stories). It is one of the most difficult, saddest, and important things you can do well.
http://www.aaronklein.com/ AaronKlein

Miranda,

Thanks for the great comment. Your passion and knowledge on the subject shine through. Here are a few points in return…

1. I wouldn't be frustrated at Sandra Bullock for adopting a baby. Adopted kids, especially older ones, often have deep wounds. Adoptive parents have to go into that with their eyes wide open and understand how to help heal those wounds.

I think the two primary issues behind failed adoptions are (a) parents not thinking carefully about what they are equipped to handle, and (b) a lack of support for the day-to-day issues they face. I have incredible compassion for special needs kids, but my wife and I carefully considered and decided we weren't ready to deal with that at this point…so our two adoptions have been eight month old babies without special needs.

2. You are dead on about how kids age out fully dependent. I think ILP (“independent living program”) is very valuable right now, but these programs should be restructured with a focus on putting themselves out of business. The best ILP is a permanent family because parents are who teach the skills of independence to children. There are some foster parents who invest that kind of effort into the foster kids they have, but they are rare — it's a little bit like the foster child winning at roulette.

I will keep you posted on how things progress with our initiative. We're going to “go wide” and work on issues of orphan care, adoption and foster care both domestically and internationally. There is much to be done, but I believe we can create a revolutionary community that defends the cause of the fatherless, and that is our mission.

Aaron
http://www.aaronklein.com/ AaronKlein

“It is one of the most difficult, saddest, and important things you can do well.”

Very true words, Tony. Somehow, we have to find the right balance between parental rights and permanence for children. Healing the deep wounds of neglected children will only happen in a permanent home with adoptive parents who fully understand what they are getting into and take that child on as a mission.
http://www.aaronklein.com/ Aaron Klein

Miranda,rnrnThanks for the great comment. Your passion and knowledge on the subject shine through. Here are a few points in return…rnrn1. I wouldn’t be frustrated at Sandra Bullock for adopting a baby. Adopted kids, especially older ones, often have deep wounds. Adoptive parents have to go into that with their eyes wide open and understand how to help heal those wounds.rnrnI think the two primary issues behind failed adoptions are (a) parents not thinking carefully about what they are equipped to handle, and (b) a lack of support for the day-to-day issues they face. I have incredible compassion for special needs kids, but my wife and I carefully considered and decided we weren’t ready to deal with that at this point…so our two adoptions have been eight month old babies without special needs.rnrn2. You are dead on about how kids age out fully dependent. I think ILP (“independent living program”) is very valuable right now, but these programs should be restructured with a focus on putting themselves out of business. The best ILP is a permanent family because parents are who teach the skills of independence to children. There are some foster parents who invest that kind of effort into the foster kids they have, but they are rare — it’s a little bit like the foster child winning at roulette.rnrnI will keep you posted on how things progress with our initiative. We’re going to “go wide” and work on issues of orphan care, adoption and foster care both domestically and internationally. There is much to be done, but I believe we can create a revolutionary community that defends the cause of the fatherless, and that is our mission.rnrnAaron
http://www.aaronklein.com/ Aaron Klein

“It is one of the most difficult, saddest, and important things you can do well.”rnrnVery true words, Tony. Somehow, we have to find the right balance between parental rights and permanence for children. Healing the deep wounds of neglected children will only happen in a permanent home with adoptive parents who fully understand what they are getting into and take that child on as a mission.

Questioning our Assumptions about Foster Care

Markets change. Do your investments still fit you?

Subscribe to the Blog via Email