Rethinking Foster Care

Radically changing or entirely rethinking the child welfare system.   It seems to be the hot topic that many people are talking about right now, as evidenced through this blog, a podcast series , and even entire non-profits (e.g. AliaInnovations and Foster America ) devoted entirely to this topic.   Why we need to change our system is obvious at this point and we seem to have reached a broad consensus that our current child welfare system does not work as well as it should for children and families.   The stubborn statistics do not seem to budge despite lots of work to change them.   We are still graduating far too many kids from the system into poor outcomes with estimates of 25% of former foster youth experiencing homelessness within a year of exiting care and 25% of youth becoming involved in the criminal justice system within two years of exiting care .   Disproportionality is a significant issue within our system with, for just one example, Afr...

A few days before Christmas, the federal government extended an invitation to state child welfare agencies that has the potential to completely transform the system. The invitation did not arrive with great publicity. Nor was it lengthy. Instead, it was announced in a few ordinary-looking sentences, in a very ordinary-looking email. But looks can be deceiving. The change announced by the federal government could lead to far fewer children being placed in foster care. It could expedite the reunification of those children in care. It could increase visitation between children in care and their parents. And it could get children into permanent homes more quickly, even when they can’t return home. So what is this change that could bring about these dramatic results?   The federal government announced that it would permit uncapped, matching federal child welfare funds under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act to support the representation of parents and ...

In December, the federal government quietly introduced a momentous new funding source for child welfare systems. The Department of Health and Human Services will now reimburse states for legal support given to parents involved in child welfare proceedings, and to their children. This requirement will necessitate that states be creative. For example, in most parts of the country, counties pay for the costs of legal representation. So to access federal matching funds, counties might need to enter a cost sharing agreement in which it agrees to send funds to the state agency so that the agency can pay for the expenses of advocates for parents and children. But this, in turn, will require state agencies to draft conflict of interest agreements to prevent the possibility that advocates will engage in relaxed advocacy because they are being compensated by an adverse party, the state child welfare agency. In other words, we don’t want to create a system in which attorneys are worried tha...

Every day, child welfare systems confront the effects of America’s misguided social policy. Draconian criminal laws and unjust sentencing policies result in the unnecessary separation of children, particularly those who are African-American, from their parents. Harsh cash and food assistance programs, often coupled with onerous work requirements, fail to address the decades of discrimination that kept well-paying jobs from families of color. Inadequate housing assistance programs do little to combat the years of racism that limited housing options for families, or steered African-American families into substandard housing within troubled neighborhoods. In short, incarceration, poverty and homelessness, among other social ills, are not unexpected consequences of our designed policy. To the contrary, our country’s long history of discrimination put families in precarious situations, yet our meager attempt to support families ensures they have little chance ...

On December 7th, Jazmine Headley went to a public benefits office in Brooklyn to renew day care assistance for her 18 month old son.   After waiting for four hours, Ms. Headley – unable to find another place to sit – simply sat on the floor with her child.   But apparently she sat in the wrong place.   Soon thereafter, security guards and then police officers approached her.   A confrontation ensued, captured by a video showing the officers and guards trying to rip her screaming baby from his mother’s arms.   They arrested Ms. Headley and separated her from her baby. After spending five nights in jail, she was released and all charges against her were dropped.   Throughout the struggle, officers never bothered to even ask Ms. Headley for her name.   According to Ms. Headley, “They never said, ‘Hello, who are you?’ They never asked me.” It would be easy to disregard this incident as a poor decision made by a few rogue actors. ...