[Mrs. Don-o]

The problem is, kids from foster care are the really neediest ones, first because they usually are older-than-infant and in sibling groups which nobody wants to break up, and second because they come from backgrounds of abuse, deprivation, instability, neglect, etc. They have extraordinary emotional needs (often physical/medical needs as well), and can be disruptive and even dangerous, and hard to foster.

It's impossible to get a foster kid except through the state system.

Second, when it comes to permanent adoption, white undamaged newborns are instant adoptees, no problems whatsoever, multitudes of couples are on the waiting list to adopt them. The hard kids to place for permanent adoption are, as above, kids from the foster system.

Once again, you cannot get kids via the foster system except through the state.

So it's not just a matter of getting government funding.

It's a matter of getting government-controlled kids.

BTW, I strongly agree with you about the entangling problems of contracts given by government agencies to private agencies. But since the govt. has taken over so much of what used to be church "Works of Mercy," the whole shebang is now under the control of Holy Mother the State.

[grania]

I saw it first hand in my adventures-in substituting a few years back. A struggling parochial school took in voucher students and used a federal reading program. The school became way too fond of that voucher money, and made allowances in behavioral expectations with those kids. The reason I was substituting instead of someone from the parish? When the teacher of the Federal program went to a conference, a public school substitute was part of the deal.

I was fine to bring in. <^..^> But the school didn't like having strangers teaching. They had someone stay in the classroom first period just to be sure.

This is anecdotal and minimal, for sure. But it illustrates how in subtle ways government money changes things.