Posted on 03/06/2006 7:01:27 PM PST by NormsRevenge
Federal budget cuts to child-welfare services may cost California hundreds of millions of dollars over the next decade and could short-circuit efforts to keep thousands of children with family members, local county welfare officials and policy experts say.
The cuts, advocates say, are a direct effort to sidestep a federal court decision that helped open up payments to thousands of relatives who are caregivers in several Western states.
These cuts could immediately affect the care of some 4,000 to 5,000 children in California alone, according to the advocates.
"If the state can't backfill for the lost funds, I think it means that more kids will be with strangers instead of their kin," said Frank Mecca, executive director of the County Welfare Directors Association of California.
Some 70 percent of the estimated $614 million in cuts over the next decade will impact California, the Center for Law and Social Policy reported.
Mecca and other county welfare officials also are worried the cuts will harm their ability to conform with federal performance standards, something that could cost the state additional child-welfare funding.
But a top federal official said California should step up to the plate financially.
"The decision about where to place the child should always be made on the basis of what's in the best interests of that child," said Wade Horn, head of the federal Administration for Children and Families, which administers federal child welfare funding. "And if the best interest is to be placed with grandma, then the state should pick up the costs."
One of the lawyers who filed suit against the government called Horn's response a cop-out.
"I think it's the feds' responsibility because they're the ones who interpret the law," said Marjorie Shelvy, a lawyer with the Legal Aid Foundation of LosAngeles, which sued the federal government over its interpretation of the payment rules.
In 2003, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal government must offer foster care payments to thousands of relative caregivers who had not been eligible before because, Shelvy said, the parents of the children they were caring for did not qualify for Aid to Families with Dependent Children — a welfare program that hasn't existed since 1996.
Federal officials told states in the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction — including California — to change their regulations to conform with the ruling. And families in California in particular stood to benefit, advocates said.
California is one of only three states that does not offer state foster care payments to relative caregivers, leaving those who do not qualify for federal payments to rely on welfare to care for children, Shelvy said.
Even so, the state has not shown that it has complied with the court decision, she said. So she and other attorneys have gone back to federal court.
Sara Lamnin of the Lincoln Child Center in Hayward has talked to a few families who would be affected by the federal budget cuts. She said they have not been getting the foster care payments as required by the court decision.
State officials did not comment on the suit.
The budget package also cuts case-management services for youths in psychiatric institutions, hospitals and other such unlicensed care settings as well as for some relative caregivers — cases that typically take longer than the 30 days federal officials will pay to resolve them, advocates said.
"Pure and simple, it's about cutting spending so they can protect other priorities besides foster kids. And that's shameful," Mecca said.
The state also may lose federal permission to use foster care dollars for new programs designed to keep children with their families. A federal waiver allowing 11 counties, including Alameda, to use some funding for such programs — instead of its sole traditional use, for maintaining children in foster homes — is set to expire on March 31.
A new waiver that would expand the number of counties to 20 and remove a cap on the number of families that could participate has languished for months on the feds' desk.
Department of Social Services spokeswoman Shirley Washington said the federal government has promised feedback on the state's waiver request by the deadline, but that is all.
Horn said he'd like to approve the waiver before the deadline and that he supports the programs it allows. But he said federal and state officials have yet to agree on a number of major issues, including how much money the state will get each year.
He said the Bush administration has been a strong advocate for changing the eligibility requirements and allowing states more of a say in how they spend foster care dollars, but Congress has not been interested.
"For the last three years, we've been proposing to Congress to do away with (the eligibility requirement). I would say it's not likely to happen," Horn said.
County officials said they are scratching their heads over the federal cuts. They need the money.
"We keep going out there and saying we want children to stay home with their families. And there's no services. We're not supported by any more federal funding," said Dana Fabella, head of Child and Family Services in Contra Costa County.
Alameda County Social Services Agency head Chet Hewitt said it would be a challenge for his county to pick up the funding slack caused by the budget cuts.
"The system tries very hard to do well by children, with limited resources," Hewitt said. "There seems to be a commitment on the part of the state and federal government to improve the system. That's not going to come on the cheap."
Wonder if Mexico will help out? nah....
My husband and I had our granddaughter in our custody for six months. It would never have occurred to us to ask for government subsidy. Good grief.
Since when do we pay relatives to care for family? What BS!
Well, some families might not be able to afford another mouth without extreme hardship, plus it should be cheaper to fund a family than a complete stranger to watch the children. They should get maybe 50% of the normal rate to save money.
I would rather the family take care of their own, even if they need a minor boost of cash to do so.
When the funds dry up so will the wire transfers home.
Vicente will become politically vulnerable as the backbone of his national budget plan withers.
More Texas PR firms will have to rush in to save the man.
As in post #3, families SHOULD take care of their own - even if it means tightening one's belt a little. As that poster said, It wouldn't even occur to me to have gov't help - they're FAMILY! That's what families do!
I'd say in California's case the family's production rate, not their consumption rate is the problem. California's New Majority reproduces at almost twice the rate of the native population, which is apparently leaving as fast as they can.
Your point about it being cheaper for the state to provide a modest stipend to relatives rather than full-cost foster care is a good one. In Washington State I believe the stipend is roughly 1/6 of the foster care payment and the placement generally is more permanent. In addition, the state's costs are lower due to the lack of need for ongoing monitoring and assessment, which is required by law in a foster care situation.
As I said above, we all agree with that. It is not even a point anyone would debate. However, many can't or won't. Then the state is left with a very expensive foster care situation if the relative stipend isn't an option.
Actually, quite a few of these kids are only children.
Very true, glad you pointed that out. It's usually better if a child stays within the family than go to a foster home with strangers.
Bump that....
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.