Friday, December 23, 2016

Child welfare in New York City: Another mayor wanna-be tries to exploit child abuse tragedy

 
New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer
NCCPR's updated report on New York City child welfare
is available here.

And see this excellent column from Errol Louis in the New York Daily News for more about Scott Stringer's so-called report, and other politicians who "preen at kids' expense"

It’s good to see New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and the Administration for Children’s Services fighting back against the alleged “report” from another mayor wanna-be. This time it’s City Comptroller Scott Stringer seeking to exploit child abuse tragedy to advance his political ambitions.

I say alleged report because I can’t seem to find it anywhere.  There is a press release on Stringer’s website – but I can’t find an actual report.  I assume it exists, since a NY1 story shows video of a document trumpeting “preliminary findings.” [UPDATE, DEC. 27: In an excellent column in the New York Daily News Errol Louis writes that "In reality, what Stringer issued was nothing but a two-page letter to ACS, along with the all-important press release..."]

Stringer’s apparent shyness about posting his findings is surprising. One would think he would be proud to show us all how he managed to conduct a thorough review of 3,692 child abuse investigations in less than three months.

As for the numbers Stringer spewed out, it’s worth looking at the fine print.

The actual “report” – as seen in a screenshot of the NY1 story  - says that of the 3,962 ACS investigations conducted from July 1 to September 25, 38 were high priority because they involved a report of a death of a child. That does not mean ACS knew about all 38 children. Some of them may have been high priority cases precisely because the death was the first ACS knew about the family.  Stringer goes on to claim that ten of the 38 deaths were in cases where ACS in fact had received at least four reports on the child. 

But here’s what ACS says:

● Among the cases studied by Stringer’s office, there were 26 fatalities during the three-month period and 33 fatalities in all, not 38.
● Four of the deaths occurred before 2014.
● 15 of them were in families not known to ACS.

Gothamist reports that, according to the city, of the fatalities in cases that were known to ACS:
● Six allegedly died due to  unsafe sleeping conditions.
● Three died due to illness
● One died in a fire
● One died due to an accident. 

In three other cases, the cause of death is not yet known.

The best indication that ACS’s numbers are right comes from how Stringer responded: He tried to change the subject, saying in effect: Pay no attention to the fatality figures I used to grab cheap headlines, what about the findings on whether workers completed all their required tasks?

We all know the answer: Had the report focused on that in the first place, there would have been no cheap headlines.

Here are a few basic facts to put this, and any other report on child abuse fatalities, into context.

● There are about 1.8 million New Yorkers under age 18.

● There were 55,329 reports alleging child abuse in New York City in Fiscal Year 2016.

● Even by the Comptroller’s own estimate, there were 3,692 “high priority” investigations in a period of just three months.

● In a typical year, somewhere between 40 and 50 children previously known to ACS die. 

● “Known to the system” can be anything from one report on a family to many more. And the time frame can be anything from known to the system a day before the death to known to the system ten years earlier.

● In many cases, the death is not due to child abuse. For example: A spike in deaths of children known to the system in 2015 was due to an increase in deaths due to natural causes.

● Determining if a death is due to abuse, neglect, or accident can be surprisingly subjective. Suppose a toddler wakes up early one Sunday morning, manages to unlock the door, wanders outside and is hit by a car.  Accident or neglect? Given the biases that permeate child welfare, if the child lived in Riverdale, it probably would be labeled an accident.  If it’s the South Bronx, it be more likely to be labeled neglect.

What we can – and can’t – learn from death numbers

What does it all mean? Though each is the worst form of tragedy, and the only acceptable goal for such deaths is zero, a child abuse death is, fortunately, very rare – so rare that it is almost impossible to determine if a child welfare agency is doing better, or worse, by trying to count them.

It also means that the children who are going to die if ACS doesn’t find them first are a very small number of needles in a very large haystack.  And the case which, after a tragedy, seemed to have more red flags than a Soviet May Day parade may have looked before the tragedy just like hundreds of other cases where nothing went wrong.

You will never succeed in finding the needles by trying to vacuum up the entire haystack – in other words, by tearing apart far more families and consigning far more children needlessly to foster care. New York City tried that after Elisa Izquierdo died and after Nixzmary Brown died. It didn’t work. And it’s probably happening now, too.

There are better ways to measure ACS performance: What percentage of abused or neglected children known to the system face any form of abuse or neglect again? What proportion of children sent home from foster care have to be placed in foster care again?

By these measures, ACS’ performance in FY 2016 actually was the best it’s been in at least six years.

And it’s not good enough.

No free pass for ACS

None of this means it’s time to give ACS a free pass and turn to other things.

As I suggested in response to a report from another mayor wanna-be, there are far better ways to evaluate ACS. 

As for those performance measures in Stringer’s report, maybe it’s time to look at a more fundamental question: Do those requirements actually improve practice, or are they just CYA protocols.

For example, according to the New York Post, one of the “shocking” findings in Stringer’s alleged report is that “31.9 percent of the cases were closed without first being reviewed by a supervisor five times.”

Five times?  Really?  Perhaps we should start by considering whether reviewing the same case five times is the highest best use of a supervisor’s time – as opposed to a CYA rule added after some past high-profile tragedy in which a supervisor only reviewed the file three or four times.

The price of panic

And finally, if in fact the proper checks aren’t being made, if the investigations are too superficial, if workers are engaging in what’s been called “drive by casework” that’s almost certainly because those workers are overloaded.

Political grandstanding pushes workers to rush to tear apart even more families. That kind of foster-care panic further overloads workers. So the investigations get sloppier – and more children are endangered. Scott Stringer’s grandstanding is making all vulnerable children less safe.


Surely Stringer could have found a better way to campaign for mayor.

Sunday, December 18, 2016

UPDATED: The politics of foster care panic in New York

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is exploiting a child abuse death to score points 
in his longstanding feud with New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio

One politician after another exploits child welfare tragedies, fueling a surge in needless removal of children

UPDATE, DECEMBER 22: NCCPR has updated its comprehensive report on New York City child welfare.  And see also below for our take on the latest report from City Comptroller Scott Stringer.

The previous post to this blog discussed the foster care panic that appears to be underway in New York City – the third time in 20 years that a high-profile tragedy has led to a surge in the needless removal of children from their homes.

We’ve already had the Ritual Sacrifice of the Agency Chief – the reform-minded Commissioner of the city Administration for Children’s Services, Gladys Carrion, has announced her retirement. That might well be what really happened, but when mayor Bill de Blasio’s press secretary was asked if the mayor  would have fired Carrion had she not quit, he refused to comment.

The state Office of Children and Family Services (OFCS) has demanded that de Blasio hire a state-approved “monitor” to oversee ACS.  (De Blasio didn’t help matters when he misled the press and public, claiming the monitor was his idea.)

And who is fanning the flames? One politician after another.  It’s reached almost comic proportions, with one grandstanding pol actually complaining that the monitor might get to take cheap shots before he does!

The problem is not that these pols are falling all over themselves to criticize ACS. The problem is that they’re not being critical enough. By focusing only on errors that lead to deaths of children in their own homes, they leave the false impression that this is the only kind of mistake the agency makes.

In fact, while ACS has improved in recent years – in fact the agency’s safety outcomes are the best they’ve been in at least six years – all child welfare agencies can be arbitrary capricious and cruel, taking many children from homes that are safe or could be made safe with the right kinds of help, even as they leave other children in danger.

The demagoguery by grandstanding pols sends a terrible message to the frontlines: There is no penalty for taking away hundreds, perhaps thousands of children needlessly – no matter how much harm that does to the children. A caseworker’s career, reputation, even their personal freedom is on the line only if they leave a child in her or his own home and something goes wrong.  Contrary to what caseworkers often claim, when it comes to taking away children, they’re not “damned if they do and damned if they don’t” – they’re only damned if they don’t.

Who would put politics ahead of children’s safety? It’s a long list:

Governor Andrew Cuomo


The undermining of child welfare reform in New York City starts at the very top – and I don’t mean the mayor. I mean the governor, Andrew Cuomo.  In New York, counties and New York City run their own child welfare systems, but the state is free to meddle as much as it wants.  Cuomo has taken full advantage of that freedom to pursue a vicious, longstanding feud against de Blasio – at children’s expense.

How bad is their feud?  The New York Daily News says it has been

… uniquely personal, bitter and public … Close observers of both men wonder if Cuomo will not rest until he has buried de Blasio politically.

Cuomo is the son of the late Gov. Mario Cuomo, one of America’s most inspiring, most compassionate – and most complicated – political leaders.  The reporters who covered him regularly (for about I year I was one of them) knew he had a dark side.

Andrew has all of his father’s dark side, some of his eloquence – and little, if any, of his compassion.  As far back as 1987, when he was a close advisor to his father, he was portrayed in an annual musical comedy revue performed by state government reporters as Darth Vader. Click here for the video.

Think he wouldn’t play politics with children’s lives? He already has. One of Cuomo’s first big fights with the far more progressive de Blasio involved the governor’s efforts to thwart the mayor’s plans for universal pre-kindergarten.

“Public Advocate” Letitia James


Letitia James
New York City is unusual, perhaps unique in the United States, in having a citywide elective office of Public Advocate. As the name implies, the principal power of this office is the bully pulpit.  Its principal function seems to be to launch mayoral campaigns.  The first Public Advocate, Mark Green, ran for mayor and lost. The third, Bill de Blasio, ran and won.

Green took a smart, nuanced approach to child welfare, issuing scathing reports often focused on failures in all directions, including wrongful removal and how the deck was stacked against families.  It’s exactly the kind of critique needed now.  But I can’t link to the reports because  Green’s successor, Betsy Gotbaum, removed them from the Public Advocate’s website.

All of Green’s successors – including de Blasio – used their bully pulpit to undermine child welfare reform and take advantage of high-profile tragedies for political gain. (That’s why it was  a heartening surprise when de Blasio named a real reformer, Carrion, to run ACS.)

No Public Advocate has been worse on this issue than the current occupant of the office, Letitia James. She, too, is said to be interested in running for mayor.  And she’s been the perfect partner for Cuomo.  Working with Marcia Lowry who used to run the group that so arrogantly calls itself “Children’s Rights” and who has become a key figure opposing reform nationwide, James sued the city and, technically, the state.

I say technically because the suit against the state required almost nothing from the state – except that it “monitor” ACS.  So of course the state rushed to “settle.”

As I noted in a previous post, perhaps most appalling, the settlement actually would have barred anyone else from bringing a class-action suit against the state during the term of the settlement. (Presumably Lowry and James would have sought a similar ban against suing ACS had they reached a settlement with ACS.)  In other words, Lowry and James simultaneously maintained that their suit was essential and every other possible class-action suit was worthless.  The arrogance behind this position is breathtaking.

The “settlement” maneuver was so transparent that when a federal judge threw out the settlement, she suggested the state, the public advocate, and Lowry may have engaged in – her words:  “collusive activity.”

As far as the part against the city goes, the suit was a thinly-disguised effort to force ACS to curb efforts to keep families together (efforts that, as noted in my previous post, improved child safety) and rush to terminate parental rights in more cases.

The suit was so bad that not only did all of the groups providing legal representation for parents unite to oppose it, so did all of the groups providing legal representation for children – including a group that actually had partnered with Lowry on a previous suit.

So on one level, James and Lowry deserve credit: It takes a truly awful, destructive lawsuit to  unite ACS, the lawyers for parents and the lawyers for children.

Further raising questions about the suit is what happened after the horrifying death of Zymere Perkins.  First Cuomo, apparently seeing another chance to try to “bur[y] de Blasio politically” ordered the state Office of Children and Family Services to “investigate.”  Then, last week, OFCS ordered the city to name a monitor – someone who would have to be approved by OFCS.  In other words, the state did on its own what the settlement would have “required,” reinforcing the perception of “collusive activity.”

And James sank to a new low, taking the occasion of a child abuse tragedy and its aftermath to issue a sanctimonious statement that boiled down to: Nyah, nyah, nyah – I told you so!

But the person most upset by the naming of a monitor may be the next of the great grandstanders ...

 Mark Peters, commissioner of the New York City Department of Investigation (DOI)

Mark Peters

Peters was an early master of Donald Trump-style fearmongering-by-horror story, exploiting such
cases to make broad, sweeping, unfounded generalizations. Now he seems to be afraid someone else may beat him to it.

In a statement apparently issued when people still thought the monitor was de Blasio’s idea, Peters said: “DOI is the independent monitor for ACS; we are not sure what another independent monitor would add."

Translation: It’s hard enough sharing the cheapshot limelight with Letitia James, now this new monitor will have first dibs!  I suspect that sentiment is shared by …

New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer


Scott Stringer
He also announced an “investigation” into the Zymere Perkins case – supposedly a follow up to a
“scathing audit” he’d issued in June.

[UPDATE, DECEMBER 22: And lo and behold: Stringer now claims to have conducted a comprehensive review of 3,692 cases – in less than three months. The resulting report appears to suffer from the same methodological failings as Peters’ work.

It’s hard to tell, though, since the report somehow was conveniently leaked to the New York Post one day before its release. The Post published a story, but no link to the document itself. So there’s no way to fully evaluate exactly what Stringer was looking at or how he looked.

But, the Post reports - at the very bottom of the story that

Both ACS and Mayor Bill de Blasio’s office disputed Stringer’s findings, saying 21 of the 38 deaths Stringer cited had no prior history with ACS. They also said seven other deaths stemmed from unsafe sleeping conditions, two were illness-related, one was determined to be accidental, and the official cause of two others remained pending. The existence of five other child death cases cited by Stringer is being disputed by the de Blasio administration. “It’s no surprise that ACS’s data was cherry-picked to support a simplified and largely inaccurate conclusion,” mayoral spokesperson Aja Worthy-Davis said. “This report contains many inaccuracies — such as a base misunderstanding of child-protective review protocols and legal rules regarding risk assessment. 
In short, the Stringer report appears to be one more politically-motivated smear from one more mayor wanna-be.]


 As for Mayor de Blasio, he hasn’t exactly been a profile in courage either.  As I noted in my previous post, he could learn a lot from Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy – who has backed up his child welfare agency chief, Joette Katz, when she’s refused to cave to very similar political pressure.


 We all need to be monitors


In fact, the best independent “monitor” of ACS is all of us.  In New York, Family Court hearings are open to the press and the public. Anyone can sit in, day after day, and see how the system really works in the typical cases, not just the horror stories.  There also is a well-developed infrastructure of advocacy in New York City, including those lawyers I mentioned for children and parents, grassroots advocacy groups such as the Child Welfare Organizing Project and Rise, a New York-based magazine written by parents caught up in the child welfare system. And state law gives ACS unusual leeway to comment on cases. If officials at ACS don’t comment, odds are they’re stonewalling.

All of this is why scholars like Tina Lee can produce great books such as Catching a Case – the story of how the New York City system really works. Few jurisdictions offer as many avenues to real oversight of their child welfare agencies. Journalists just need to take advantage of it.

Again, none of this means ACS should be immune from criticism. On the contrary, as I said in my previous post, we need to hear more bad news, not less.

Mark Green was as critical as anyone of ACS.  But his criticism was not only scathing, it also was thorough, sensible and smart.

But, of course, Mark Green never did get to be mayor.                                                                                                                             

Thursday, December 15, 2016

Once again, New York City children pay the price of foster care panic

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio. Photo by Kevin Case

And it comes just as data show City children "known to the system" at their safest in at least six years.


The data are still preliminary but, as first reported by the website Gothamist, it appears that for the third time in two decades New York City is in the midst of a foster-care panic – a sharp sudden increase in children removed from their homes in the wake of a high-profile tragedy.

Zymere Perkins, a child “known to the system,” died in September. Politicians immediately started tripping over each other in the rush to advance their careers with the usual demagoguery. That had the usual effect. Data from the city child welfare agency, the Administration for Children’s Services, show that in October the number of children taken from their homes apparently was 75percent higher than in October, 2015. (ACS keeps these data online for only a month at a time, the link goes to a cached version of the rerlevant data.)

Making this doubly tragic: In Fiscal Year 2016, before the panic, key measures of child safety show that New York City children were safer than at any time in at least six years.  In contrast, foster-care panics make children less safe.

That doesn’t mean all was well at ACS. I am not suggesting there is validity to the common complaint about the media: “You don’t report the good news” – and Mayor Bill de Blasio needs to stop whining about this.  Of course media don’t report the good news. When I was a reporter, I didn’t go out to the airport to write stories about all the planes that landed safely.

What is needed is more reporting about the bad news: Tearing apart far more families needlessly does the children in those families enormous harm. We need more reporting on that kind of bad news – as Gothamist has done.  ACS and other agencies like it routinely err in all directions – we need more reporting on the stumbling and bumbling that leads to needless removal, as well as the stumbling and bumbling that leaves children in danger in their own homes.

In the absence of such reporting, the foster care panic will go on for years, just as it did starting in 1996 and again a decade later. Many more children will be harmed, and all New York City children will be less safe.

That’s because of the message to the frontlines: If the only kind of blunder for which a caseworker can get in trouble, or wind up on the front page, is leaving a child in danger in her or his own home; if there is no penalty for making scores or hundreds of blunders that lead to needless foster care, then, of course, caseworkers will remove children needlessly.

What the data tell us


There are two key measures of child safety – they are the standard measures used by the federal government: One is the percentage of children re-abused after they become known to a child welfare agency after a given period of time. The federal government measures reabuse within six months. New York City uses a tougher standard, reabuse within a year. The second standard is foster-care recidivism, the percentage of children returned home from foster care who have to be placed again within a year.

The percentage of children reabused in 2016 was the lowest since 2009. The rate of foster-care recidivism was the lowest since 2006.  Data and sources are in NCCPR’s report on New York City child welfare.

Now, consider what happens during foster care panics.

The 1996 panic, set off by the death of Elisa Izquierdo late in 1995, did nothing to make New York City children safer. Removals skyrocketed, reaching the highest number in decades in 1998. That same year the rate of re-abuse was the highest it’s been in any year since, and foster-care recidivism barely budged.  And, of course, thousands more children were exposed to enormous inherent harm of needless foster care, and the high rate of abuse in foster care.

After Nixzmary Brown died, in January, 2006, removals shot up again from 2006 through 2009. So did rates of reabuse and foster care recidivism. As entries into foster care went down again, first recidivism and then reabuse rates slowly declined.

What about fatalities?


Of course, the measurement of choice for politicians isn’t something relatively reliable such as how many children actually are re-abused. The measurement of choice is: Was there a particularly horrifying case in the news that supposedly “proves” the child welfare agency is incompetent? 

By that measure every child welfare agency in America is incompetent, always was incompetent, and always will be incompetent. Because there is no child welfare agency that can prevent every tragedy – or even every tragedy in which the case file had more “red flags” than a Soviet May Day parade.

But here’s what we do know: Foster care panics make children less safe, even when the measure is the number of deaths of children “known to the system.”

That’s actually a lousy measure – for reasons for which we all should be grateful. Though each is among the worst imaginable tragedies, let us be grateful that the number of such tragedies, even in a city the size of New York, is low enough to rise or fall due to random chance.

That’s why it’s irresponsible in the extreme to try to draw sweeping conclusions, as the commissioner of the city’s Department of Investigations tried to do, based on examining only the horror stories.

But as long as everyone insists on using such deaths as a measure, I’ll point out that during the two previous foster-care panics, deaths of children “known to the system” in New York City increased.

Here’s something else we know: The only places in America that have succeeded in improving child safety are those that did what New York City has done in recent years – rebuild to emphasize safe, proven alternatives to tearing apart families. In contrast, there is no place in America where foster-care panic has made children safer.

And there’s one more thing we know: Foster care panics are not inevitable.

The state run child welfare system in Connecticut also has had high profile tragedies in recent years. Those tragedies have been followed by the same sorts of self-serving demagoguery seen now in New York City.  But there’s been no foster care panic – for the simple reason that the leader of the state child welfare agency refuses to allow it, and her boss, the governor, is backing her up.

A dose of Connecticut courage is just what New York City needs right now.

Monday, December 5, 2016

New columns on the "presents for pimps" amendment to the Family First Act, a stunning report on child welfare in Arkansas, and another lesson from Election 2016

➤Legislation that would tinker with federal child welfare financing known as the "Family First Act" was dead, then alive, now, probably, dead again. Unless it isn’t.  More to the point, there’s a real lesson in the callousness and cynicism of the group home industry in the form of one of the changes they added to further weaken the bill.  It amounts to a Christmas present for pimps. I’ve written about it here:


➤In Arkansas, the child welfare agency hired a consultant to find out why there was a sharp increase in the foster care population.  I suspect they wanted the consultants to say it was all because of drug abuse and budget cuts.  But they didn’t.  I wrote about it for Youth Today, here:

The most ardent backers of “predictive analytics” in child welfare tend also to be the most ardent backers of a “take the child and run” approach to child welfare. But there are exceptions – reform-minded leaders of child welfare systems who say, in effect, you can trust me to only use the algorithms the right way.

➤The New York Times has a striking story about how President Obama took the same approach to national security issues – exercising self-restraint on issues such as use of torture but resisting efforts to establish stronger protections via laws or court decisions. 
For obvious reasons that’s coming back to haunt him – and us.

So in this column I ask What Happens When the Good Guys Ride into the Sunset, Leaving Their Algorithms Behind                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

Thursday, December 1, 2016

Fixing Oregon foster care becomes a pathetic game of whack-a-mole

On September 15, 2015, Willamette Week exposed the fact that the State of Oregon was warehousing children in hideous conditions in group homes run by a private agency. The newspaper also exposed the fact that the state Department of Human Services knew about those hideous conditions for more than 18 months and did nothing.

That increased pressure on DHS to raise standards for the places where it put children.  So the agency had to increase the use of everything from state offices to juvenile jails as places to park children as they desperately searched for beds that met at least minimum standards.

Less than two weeks after the first Willamette Week story, a group called Youth Law and Justice sued to try to stop DHS from placing children in offices, jails, etc.  This week, they settled with the state.

So now, it will be harder for the state to warehouse children in offices, jails, etc.  So, guess what: They’ve started to lower standards for foster homes and group homes again.  The settlement accomplished exactly nothing.

“Fixing” foster care in Oregon has turned into a pathetic game of whack-a-mole. When public pressure curbs one bad option, DHS rushes to use another bad option.

The problem that drives everything else


That’s because Oregon still refuses to face up to the problem that drives everything else: The state takes away far too many children. 

The federal government just released state-by-state data on entries into foster care for 2015. In that year, the number of children torn from their families in Oregon actually increased by ten percent over 2014. Oregon now takes away children at a rate 35 percent above the national average, even when rates of child poverty are factored in.  (When you don’t factor in poverty, the rate of removal in Oregon still is 17 percent above the national average.) There is no evidence that Oregon children are 35 percent safer than the national average.

Oregon’s rate of removal is nearly double or triple the rate of states such as Alabama and Illinois,  where independent court-appointed monitors have found that rebuilding the system to emphasize safe, proven programs to keep families together improved child safety.

So the reason Oregon leaves children in substandard foster care and parks them in offices is not because Oregon has too few foster parents. The reason is that Oregon has too many foster children.  Unfortunately, among Oregon media so far only the Statesman Journal in Salem has reported on this issue, and discussed the sad history of child welfare reform efforts in the state (in the epilogue to this story, produced in cooperation with Oregon Public Broadcasting.)

It’s not a matter of money


Oregon easily can afford to do better.  

The same Oregonian story that revealed state officials again trying to ignore abuse in foster care also notes that “the state faces what could be a $1.7 billion shortfall over the next two years, making it difficult to invest in improving child welfare services.”

But Oregon already has the money – no new money is needed.

As of 2014, the most recent year for which comparative data are available, when comparing child welfare spending to the impoverished child population, Oregon spent at the 12th highest rate in the country – a rate more than 55 percent above the national average. (If you don’t factor in poverty, Oregon still spends at a rate more than 30 percent above the national average.)

This does not prove that Oregon is spending too much on child welfare - or even that it is spending enough.  Since there is no child welfare system in the country that does a truly excellent job, we don’t actually know how much it costs to do the job right.

But we do know that Oregon can “invest in improving child welfare services” without spending more money.

Oregon spends so much, and gets such lousy results, because of the great paradox of child welfare: The worse the option, the more it costs.  Safe, proven alternatives to foster homes cost less than foster homes, which cost less than group homes, which cost less than institutions.

So when a state takes away children at a rate well above the national average – as Oregon does -- it should come as no surprise that the state is spending a lot more money than average, and still getting dismal results.

No one in Oregon should let the Department of Human Services get away with saying “well, we would do that, but we don’t have the money.”


They have the money.

Saturday, November 19, 2016

Adoption of children from foster care: National Child Welfare Hypocrisy Day, 2016

This post originally appeared in 2008. Since the event is annual, I've reprinted it on several occasions since, with revisions and updates as appropriate.  

How do we know what's really important to a person, or to a corporation, or to an institution?

    One way, of course, is how we choose to spend money, and I've written before about how child welfare agencies do that. But there's also another good measure: what we choose to celebrate.

    The father who has memorized the schedule of his favorite football team but always forgets his children's birthdays is sending a message. So, too, is the child welfare agency which claims that its first priority when a child is taken away is to reunify that child with her or his birth parents, with adoption as the second choice, but chooses to celebrate only the supposed second choice.

    In general, adoption is the right second choice; for some children it is the right first choice. Adoption can be, both literally and figuratively, a life saver for a child; it should be one important component of any good child welfare system; and there is nothing wrong with celebrating it as one avenue to permanence.


How child welfare systems view
keeping families together


But if the true intent of child welfare systems is revealed by what they celebrate, then one of the most noble concepts in child welfare, giving children permanence, has been perverted into a synonym for adoption and only adoption. Reunification gets lip service until everyone in the system, from frontline workers, to agency chiefs to top judges can get what they really want: children taken from poor people and placed with middle class families; families like their own. The real agenda of most child welfare systems, and most of the people in them, is made apparent every year on National Adoption Day; or, as it should properly be called, National Child Welfare Hypocrisy Day.

EVERYBODY KNOWS THE DRILL


How child welfare systems view adoption


    The day actually is celebrated on different dates in different states, but it's always in November and most places will hold their celebrations today. You know the drill. Open the court on a Saturday, bring in cake and balloons, finalize foster-child adoptions en masse – and reinforce every stereotype about how the system rescues children from horrible birth parents and places them with vastly superior adoptive parents. And, of course, get a guaranteed puff piece in the local newspaper, with no tough questions. This one, from the St. Petersburg Times in 2008, is typical:

In general, a courthouse is not a happy place. People go there to get divorced, to fight eviction, to file for bankruptcy, to watch loved ones sent away to prison. You see a lot of suffering, and you hear it in the cries and cursing that echo through the hallways. Forty children, sugar-laden with sheet cake and bouncing around a lobby with balloons, made Friday an exception at the county courthouse in Tampa. As part of a National Adoption Day celebration, they were legally united with "forever families," mothers and fathers giving them a one-way ticket out of the foster care system. …

The treacle aside, it's almost certainly inaccurate. Given what we know about adoption "disruption" for some of the children, it may well be round trip. And, as is discussed below, stories like this one make such tragedies, and others, a little more likely.

    If nothing else, this is the day when almost all the people in almost every child welfare system in the country, from frontline workers to agency chiefs, show their true colors. This is the day that makes them genuinely happy. Yet all these same players will turn on a dime and blather on about how their first priority is reunification. Well, if that's your first priority, why aren't you celebrating it? Why do so many fewer communities take part in National Reunification Day, a project that only began in 2009? Why is there no happiness expressed over doing what you yourselves claim is priority #1?  Why don't reporters note that, when a child finally gets to return to the birth mother she loves after months or years needlessly separated, that, too, can bring some happiness to a courtroom?

Clearly, reunification is not priority #1. Priority #1 is carrying out those middle-class rescue fantasies – taking children from people like them and placing them with people like us; people of the same race and, especially the same income level, as your average caseworker, judge, lawyer – or reporter. (No newspaper took the whole "people like us" thing as literally as Foster's Daily Democrat and its sister papers in New Hampshire. In 2008, a four story 4,900-word Sunday package of glop and goo about adoption day included a sidebar in which the saintly foster mother –who kept complaining about not getting enough taxpayer money for her adoptions – was none other than the newspaper's managing editor!)

For almost everyone working in the system, the truth is that keeping families together is the broccoli on the child welfare menu and adoption is the dessert. National Child Welfare Hypocrisy Day is another way to bring out the dessert tray before anyone's eaten their broccoli.

The exceptions are few and far between. The first to recognize the hypocrisy was Marc Cherna, long-time reform-minded leader of the human services agency in Allegheny County, Pa. He was the first to create an annual celebration of reunified families and push it at least as hard as the adoption celebration. After NCCPR started spreading the word about this, a few other communities followed suit.

Then the Parents’ Representation Project of the American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law sponsored the first National Reunification Day – but even now that's it's become National Reunification Month, relatively few places take part, compared to the hundreds of Adoption Day events.  And some of the best reunification events are sponsored not by child welfare agencies or courts, but by groups like the Family Defense Center and Legal Services of New Jersey.

THE DANGERS OF ADOPTION DAY

    It's not just hypocritical, it's also dangerous.

    When the only kind of "permanence" that receives any reward is adoption, the message to the frontlines is obvious: Don't try to reunify, rush to terminate parental rights. And that's exactly what happens. In Kentucky it led to a scandal, as the Lexington Herald-Leader exposed "quick trigger adoptions" with workers rushing to terminate parental rights in cases where children may never have needed to be taken from their parents. The only difference between Kentucky and the rest of the nation is, in Kentucky, the Herald-Leader was paying attention. That caught the attention of NBC Nightly News which offered an excellent overview of the Kentucky scandal.

But there are other dangers as well. Year after year, terminations of parental rights outrun actual adoptions. The result: A generation of legal orphans with no ties to their parents and little or no hope of adoption – with or without cake and balloons - either. The combination of these non-financial incentives, plus the adoption bounties paid by the federal government goes a long way to explain why the number of children who "aged out" of foster care in 2015 with no home at all soared nearly 35 percent over the number in 1998.  And it's been like that, or worse, every year for well over a decade. That means the mad rush to embrace adoption-as-panacea has left us with more than 100,000 additional "legal orphans."

And then there is the matter of where these children wind up.

Another reason for the mad rush to adoption-at-all-costs is the fact that getting those adoption numbers up is the one time a child welfare agency is guaranteed good press. Everyone knows the reporters will write a story like the one quoted above and not ask any tough questions about whether the children really needed to be taken, and how carefully the adoptive parents were checked out. And then, the same journalists will wonder how it could happen that children like Ricky Holland and Timothy Boss in Michigan and others across the country could be murdered by adoptive parents - in effect, adopted to death.

Of course abuse in adoptive homes is rare – just like abuse in birth parent homes. The bigger problem is adoption "disruption," when agencies rush children into a bad match and the parents change their minds. No one really knows how often that happens – child welfare systems almost never ask questions to which they don't want to know the answers. Some rough estimates are in NCCPR's Issue Paper on adoption.  And journalists rarely follow up on those adoption "happy endings" - unless the adoption itself got an exceptional amount of attention - as happened here.


But whether the problem is legal orphans, disruption or, rarely, severe, even fatal abuse in adoptive homes, it's all encouraged by adoption bounties and the adoption day mentality, both of which promote quick-and-dirty, slipshod placements. Even Marcia Lowry, who used to run the group that so arrogantly calls itself "Children's Rights" has said that "… Congress should realize that far too many states … when they do, for example, raise their adoption numbers, are doing so by including many clearly inadequate families … along with the genuinely committed, loving families who want to make a home for these children, just to 'succeed' by boosting their numbers." That her own lawsuit settlements have been known to push states the same way is a contradiction someone might want to ask her about someday.

Monday, November 14, 2016

New NCCPR resources on "predictive analytics"

The latest dangerous fad in child welfare is the push to use "predictive analytics" to decide when to tear children from their families.  NCCPR has a new report on the topic, Big Data is Watching You.

Our latest column on the subject notes that, in the presidential election Big Data Lost. Bigly. So maybe it's not a good idea to use the same approach to deciding the fate of children.

Wednesday, November 2, 2016

The death of “Child 1”: Philadelphia’s child welfare agency makes such tragedies inevitable

A child dies in “residential treatment.” But the heart of the problem is “residential treatment” itself.


This post has been updated to reflect the fact that the Philadelphia Department of Human Services says it had no role in the placement of this particular child in this particular residential treatment facility.

Suppose, hypothetically, we were building our public child welfare and mental health systems from scratch. We could design them any way we wanted.

Now, suppose somebody said: Hey, I have a great idea!  Let’s take the young people we believe have the most serious emotional and behavioral problems, at the very age when they are most susceptible to peer pressure and put them all together in the same place! Won’t that work well?

Odds are most people would think it’s the guy who thought up the idea who really needs a mental health intervention.

Yet that’s exactly what we do.  We slap a nice, reassuring label on it – residential treatment – dress it all up with psychobabble and try to make the grounds look as pretty as possible to impress visitors, but at bottom it’s an approach doomed to failure.

This is one of the relatively few areas in child welfare where the research is close to unanimous. Even when the institutions do not devolve into hellholes, residential treatment is a failure that does terrible harm to children – and costs a fortune. (The link to the research also goes to an
all-purpose foster care-industrial complex excuse check-list, which lists all the standard rationalizations for residential treatment, and why they don’t stand up to scrutiny.)

There is nothing – nothing – that residential treatment supposedly does that can’t be done better and safer with intensive in-home services. In this video, a pioneer in providing such services explains how it’s done:


The death in Philadelphia


All these problems are inherent in the RTC model. In other words, these problems exist before we even reach the issue of horrible conditions and abuse at RTCs – issues that are now getting attention in Philadelphia because a 17-year-old, known only as “Child 1” died in one of them, a place known as Wordsworth Academy. 

It took that death, and a litany of other failures, before the state stepped in and shut down the residential treatment program.  The state did it, not the Philadelphia Department of Human Services,  actually placed “Child 1” at Wordsworth,  which actually oversees child welfare in the city and which has contracted with Wordsworth to provide an array of services to the city’s vulnerable children. DHS says it was not involved in placing "Child 1 at Wordsworth. DHS can't pull a facility's license, but it certainly could have pressed the state on the matter before a child died.

Indeed, when you lock away a large group of people who are overwhelmingly poor, disproportionately people of color, people we don’t want to think about or fear, then keep them out of sight and out of mind, what do you expect?  That’s why these kinds of scandals happen over and over again.  

So why does DHS keep relying on these places?

Because DHS is begging for beds and beggars can’t be choosers.

Though DHS has reduced its reliance on all forms of “congregate care” – group homes and institutions – it still uses these facilities at a rate above the national average. It has to.  Because DHS tears apart families at the second highest rate among America’s big cities, even when you factor in rates of child poverty. When you don’t factor in poverty, Philadelphia is number one.

 

Philadelphia's high rate of removal


The rate of removal in Philadelphia is triple the rate of New York City and quadruple the rate of Chicago.  Does anyone really think Philadelphia children are three times safer than New York children and four times safer than Chicago children.

And no, that’s not some inevitable result of a bunch of terrible new state laws passed in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky scandal that encouraged child abuse hysteria and foster-care panic. Philadelphia’s dismal record predates those laws. The figures cited above are from 2014.  And those same laws apply in Pittsburgh, where, unlike Philadelphia, the foster care population did not increase after those new laws passed.

This latest tragedy is one more consequence of years of willful blindness at DHS, an agency that has refused to learn from other cities and states that do a far better job keeping children safe while taking proportionately far fewer children.

Yes, those other places also use group homes and institutions – but they use them less.  So tragedies like the latest death in Philadelphia are less likely.

There’s a lot we still don’t know yet about this latest tragedy.  We don’t even know the boy’s name.  Surely he deserves at least to be known in death by his own name.  And we deserve to know if he ever really needed to be in “the system” at all, much less how he wound up institutionalized.

Perhaps it will turn out his removal to substitute “care,” however it happened, was entirely justified. Perhaps it will turn out that the child was placed "voluntarily" by parents or other caretakers who felt they had no other choice - because no one offered them better alternatives.  Or perhaps there was some other set of circumstances.  But that would mean only that some other child, who did not need to be taken, was in the safe placement that should have been reserved for the youth we now know only as “Child 1.”

Tuesday, November 1, 2016

Reefer madness at the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families




According to a recent story in the Boston Globe, the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF) is upset over language in a referendum on the ballot next week that would legalize recreational use of marijuana.

The language in question would require DCF to have actual evidence that marijuana use by parents places their children at risk before taking those children away, putting the family under supervision or otherwise interfering with their lives.

The language is so mild that the state’s “Child Advocate” says it wouldn’t change current practice.  Even Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Bartholet is not upset by this language.  Bartholet is probably the nation’s most fanatical advocate of a take-the-child-and-run approach to child welfare; her own proposals would require the removal of millions of children from their homes nationwide.

But DCF is throwing a fit. 

Why the language is needed 


This New York Times story explains why the referendum language is needed. It describes how cases involving marijuana possession are misused to needlessly harass families and sometimes take away their children.  There’s also this story from the now-defunct Philadelphia City Paper. And this one from Fusion.  And this case from Ohio.

These stories provide chilling evidence in support of what NCCPR President Prof. Martin Guggenheim, told the Globe.  He said the referendum language

“would be a big step forward in equalizing the rights of rich and poor parents by eliminating what should be an irrelevant factor in prosecuting child welfare cases.”
 Guggenheim, a national expert on child welfare law, said child protection is supposed to be about protecting kids who have already been harmed or are at imminent risk of harm.
 Yet, he said, “Child protection statutes have been used for decades to control poor people and take away their kids, using marijuana use as pretense — where, on the other side of town, pot would be winked at.”

The harm to children


As is so often the case with agencies like DCF, their position on this part of the referendum flunks the balance-of-harms test.

Surely, by now, everyone in Massachusetts knows how dangerous the state’s foster care system is to children.  Even a lawsuit brought by the group that calls itself Children’s Rights, a group that is no friend of keeping families together, makes that clear. (Yes, the lawsuit was dismissed, but based on a narrow reading of the law, not on the facts of the suit and the condition of Massachusetts foster care.) 

Two huge MIT studies found that in typical cases children in foster care fare worse even than comparably maltreated children left in their own homes.  Several more studies find abuse in one quarter to one-third of foster homes.

And consider the finding from a study of a drug problem a lot more serious than pot smoking:

University of Florida researchers studied two groups of children born with cocaine in their systems; one group was placed in foster care, another with birth mothers able to care for them.  After six months, the babies were tested using all the usual measures of infant development: rolling over, sitting up, reaching out.  Consistently, the children placed with their birth mothers did better.  For the foster children, the separation from their mothers was more toxic than the cocaine.

Before exposing children to all that harm inherent in foster care placement and/or the stress of a child abuse investigation, the referendum language says only that DCF should have “clear, convincing and articulable evidence that the person’s actions related to marijuana have created an unreasonable danger to the safety of a minor child.”

That’s a balancing test that should be welcomed by any agency that really cares about the best interests of children.

Such a test is especially needed in Massachusetts.  For well over a decade, Massachusetts has taken away children at a rate well above the national average -- and that was even before a foster-care panic sent removals skyrocketing in 2015 and 2016. 

DCF’s arguments 


According to the Globe story, DCF maintains that any language anywhere that

could limit a social worker’s ability to consider any substances, including marijuana, as a factor for child custody [is] troubling, especially given the unprecedented spike in DCF cases fueled by the opioid epidemic,

And what, exactly, does smoking pot have to do with the opioid epidemic? Obviously, nothing. But DCF knows that any opportunity to squeeze in a reference to opioid abuse is a great way to stampede people into giving the agency all the power it wants while avoiding even minimal checks and balances.

It appears the Globe had to do a lot of searching to find anyone outside DCF who shares the agency’s view.  They found

Sanford N. Katz, a professor of law emeritus at Boston College Law School,[who] said he doesn’t think the child welfare paragraph in the ballot measure has “any place in the law.”
 “Let some action occur and let it go before a judge to decide whether the impact has been negative” he said. “It’s so case-by-case! For example, if you’re legally growing marijuana and the child has access to it, that may be sufficient for social service intervention.”

Right. The same way DCF regularly hauls away children in upscale Massachusetts towns like Newton and Brookline if the parents forget to lock the liquor cabinet.

As for the seductive argument that we should just look “case by case” and let the judge decide, that conjures  up images of carefully prepared expert social workers using their enormous skills and unlimited time to balance the harm of smoking (or growing) marijuana against the harm of removal.

That’s a fantasy. In fact, case-by-case is a euphemism for arbitrary, capricious, and cruel. It is a system in which overloaded undertrained workers are free to act on whim, prejudice and the profound racial and class bias that permeates the system.

The whole point of having laws at all is to protect against the arbitrary abuse of power. 

As for judges, they are far more prone to wield rubber-stamps than gavels.  And no wonder. Like caseworkers, judges know that if they leave a child in her or his own home and something goes wrong, their careers may well be over. Remove hundreds of children needlessly and, while the child may suffer terrible harm, the judge will be safe.  That’s why judges in New York City actually admitted, on the record, that they are so afraid of adverse news coverage that they regularly remove children from their homes even when they think the child welfare agency has not made a good enough case.

The real problem with the language in this referendum is that, for once, Bartholet may be right: It may not really change anything.

Tuesday, October 25, 2016

New Columns on the stop-and-frisk of child welfare, lessons from Wells Fargo, caseworkers who assert a right to lie and reforming the system in Connecticut

My fellow liberals are rightly upset about stop-and-frisk policing. They should be equally upset about
Predictive Analytics: The Stop-and-Frisk of Child Welfare

Speaking of parallels between criminal justice and child welfare: At least in criminal justice, a police officer sued after allegedly perjuring himself probably wouldn’t say, “Gee, I had no idea that was unconstitutional.”  But in child welfare, it actually happened. Read about

There also are Lessons for Child Welfare from the Tales of Wells Fargo. Lesson #1: financial incentives matter.

There's been a child welfare tragedy in Connecticut. So of course, reforms that have made children safer are under attack. Here's NCCPR's take:


Saturday, September 24, 2016

New columns on differential response, predictive analytics and the Family First Act

I'm opposed to the so-called Family First Act, which is being sold as a way to change perverse financial incentives in child welfare and reduce the use of group homes and institutions but which, in fact, would do little of either.

But I'm also offended by intellectual dishonesty.  So two recent NCCPR columns in the Chronicle of Social Change deal with the intellectual dishonesty behind some of the arguments being used against the bill:

Family First Act Has Problems, But The “Imminent Risk” Provision Isn’t One of Them


Meanwhile there's still another study out showing that "differential response" - a less coercive way to handle reports alleging child abuse - does not compromise child safety.  But that isn't stopping opponents - including a group with a particularly poor track record on child welfare issues. Read about it in this column:


And finally, if you're still not creeped out by the prospect of using "predictive analytics" in child welfare, read this column.