Taking a Hard Look at Fixing the Budget

My friend, Charlie, said that he does not think we should give the government more money to solve the budget crisis. He sees raising taxes or throwing money at the problem is the easy solution. I was in an intense discussion with him about what California’s leadership was doing, pointing out that the politicians did not want to raise taxes on those who could best afford it, but instead they “taxed” those who could least afford it by cutting back on the safety net of children, the elderly, the poor, the disabled.

Taxing those vulnerable and who are least able to resist is also “the easy solution.” These individuals are less likely to make the difference in an election and certainly in no position to gather signatures or congregate in protest because they are working too hard to live day to day.

The harder solution would be to look realistically at how much we are being taxed. What is the corporations, businesses and citizens contribution to our tax base? Is it fair, reasonable and equitable? After all, don’t they benefit from the services provided by the state and local government? Is it really out of proportion to the rest of the country? Are we really over taxed for what we get?

What about the waste within our government? I recently wrote about the cost of L.A. County to audit Hillsides’ contract estimated at $200,000 to $250,000 to recoup $37,000 (which we believe is in error). Is there a better, more efficient way to audit? I think so.

How about the number of audits we get from different departments (many times a duplication of what another entity has done), by the state and local governments? We have approximately two audits a month. What about the amount of time and staff it takes to submit an invoice to Los Angeles County?

A business would never stand for this. If I can identify waste in my little corner of business with the County, multiply it by the thousands who do business with the state and local governments. Let’s start at the State and then move to local entities. Do we need all the commissions that we have? Do the legislators need all the staff they have? Are there procedures that could be streamlined or eliminated? I am sure that, taking an honest look, we could preserve the level of services for those vulnerable and still cut costs.

An example of this is our local school district’s new Superintendent reorganized the infrastructure of the district and saved millions of dollars. We should do the same thing across the State and Counties.

But no, the sad thing is our government would rather raise taxes or cut services to those who need them without ever looking at the real culprit.

The Third in a Series of Seven Stories

M.F. was admitted to Hillsides on 4/11/05 and discharged on 7/18/07. M had severe and sometimes violent tantrums at home and in school which led to this youngster’s placement at Hillsides. Intensive use of Therapeutic Behavioral Services helped him develop a number of substitute behaviors as an alternative to having tantrums, which led to experiencing more success in school and on home visits. He also became an avid swimmer, participating in aquatics activities at the Rose Bowl.

The Hillsides therapist worked intensively with his grandparents and his mother although she felt that the DCFS Social Worker’s plan to send him to live with the grandparents was not feasible. The mother was an active substance abuser and clearly unable to provide a home for M. The court concurred that sending M to his grandparents was not advisable, but an aunt living in another county showed up and petitioned the court to let her take him.

The court agreed in spite of his very vocal opposition. As M was very unstable at the time, we recommended that a little more time was necessary to help prepare him. The court discharged him immediately into the aunt’s care. She was opposed to any outside services to help her with him. Within a month, he was back into the system and, as far as we know, is doing well in a foster home.

REFLECTION
1. Outside County and Court should have allowed Hillsides to spend time with County’s social worker in planning M’s movement out of Hillsides.
2. Listen to M’s objections about living with his aunt (after all he has control on how cooperative he is going to be in the placement).
3. See if there are things that would make this aunt more acceptable to M.
4. If there are no alternatives to the aunt’s acceptability of M, explore alternative permanent placements.

CONCLUSION
1. Family involvement in the treatment process is a key factor.
2. A plan for discharge agreed by all parties, Hillsides, DCFS, the child and the family is necessary for a successful transition. (A plan is not going to work if the child or the receiving party is saying they are not ready.)
3. We should consider mandatory supportive services in the home.
4. Once a plan has been agreed upon, there should be some benchmarks set to determine the move-in date.
5. As a general rule, the residential treatment agency should provide Wraparound services to the receiving family where ever possible, since they are the ones who know the child and the family. (This would entail an exception to the Service Provider Areas (SPA) specific structure of the Wraparound program, since most residential treatment centers do not have Wraparound programs in all the SPAs.)

Where is the Bailout for Charities Serving Children and Families?

Teresa De Crescenzo, Executive Director of GLASS Youth and Family Services, wrote an excellent opinion article for the Los Angeles Times where she asks “Where’s the bailout for non-profits?” She continues, “The stock market is in free fall, financial organizations are being bailed out and the Detroit automakers may yet get financial help from Washington. But what about those of us in the non-profit world? Where’s our bailout?” I salute Ms. De Crescenzo for expressing what many of us who devote our lives to helping others feel.

The State of California is enmeshed in their own fiscal meltdown it appears that it will not be in a position to help non-profits for many years. In fact, the exact opposite has been and is occurring. As the Executive Director of a major residential treatment center for children in foster care and families, my Board and I struggle to give abused, neglected and abandoned children the treatment that they need and deserve. Despite the fact that the State has failed for years to cover the costs of these comprehensive services, we continue to treat thousands of children and their families each year with a system of funding that has only given Hillsides an increase of 5% after more than five years of flat funding---not even an annual cost of living increase.

In effect, charities like Hillsides and the clients we serve have been burdened almost to the breaking point while we as a society are willing to bailout corporations who are now experiencing the aftermath of their own mismanagement and greed. Where is the equity for those children who are unfairly being accused of depleting state funds due to an increase in demand for the free lunch programs, as reported in the Pasadena Star-News on December 4? Where is the fairness for those children who are suffering due to the cuts in educational support or whose families have had their child care subsidies slashed?

If I sound angry and frustrated, I am. Everyday, I see firsthand the suffering and challenges people face—particularly the children in foster care who have no voice. Out of a commitment to create safe places for children and families living in Los Angeles County, the Board of Hillsides continues to take the position that rather than cut vital services, our charity is using our limited financial reserves to manage this downturn in the economy. Our reserves are not an endless source of revenue and, frankly, I do not know how much longer we will be able to continue doing this. A non-profit’s only alternative when funding is not available is to turn desperate people away, as we have no bailout to fall back on.

If the choice is between sitting on the sidelines willing to maintain status quo or letting children continue to suffer the ravages of child abuse or go without breakfast and lunch or providing assistance to charities, the answer seems simple to me. While many of you might not like the idea of tax increases, I believe this is the only option left open to the State of California. We’ve tried budget cuts with disastrous human consequences, now it is time to consider “Whoever does this on the least of thee does it to me.”

Requiring Foster Family Certification for Adoptions May Close Some Family Doors

Just when I think that the administration of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) is on right path with initiatives to keep families intact with supportive services, to move children in out-of-home care back into their families, extended families or adoptions, they come up with a policy that flies in the face of good practice.

The Department of Child and Family Services and its Director, Trish Phloehn, are insisting that they will not contract with foster family agencies (FFA) who do not certify their foster families for adoption. For those unfamiliar with the process, this direction means the foster family will be required to go through a process for certification that is similar to the process they already go through to be certified foster families. The major difference is that they must be willing to declare that they are interested in adoptions.

At first blush, this would seem to be an improvement in service delivery because it would cut down the time that it takes for a foster home to become an adoptive home. In fact, DCFS is citing this as a reason for wanting it in the contract. They are also saying that an adoptive home study is a higher standard than a foster home study even though FFAs report that they are just as exacting for their foster homes as the adoptive homes. And finally, DCFS is saying they do not want a foster family who wants to adopt to fail the certification and approval process to adopt a child even though DCFS can not cite, nor can the FFAs cite, an instance where this has happened.

What they fail to take into consideration is that foster care homes for some children are temporary homes used to care for the child until reunification or permanency can be worked out. A number of foster care homes would like to assist children in this transition period of their lives, but do not have a desire to adopt. A number of foster care families who entered the foster care system with the idea they did not want to adopt have changed their minds after being foster parents to a child or children. In other words, they fell in love with the child or children and decided to adopt. Demanding that they be certified to adopt prior to accepting foster care children may have stopped these families from being foster parents. The Department could have closed the door of opportunity for adoption at a later date.

Couples like my wife and I who are over 65 who might have the time to do foster care would be eliminated because we are too old to be certified, or because we are not interested in adopting at this stage in our lives. Some wonderful older couples, who take in babies and toddlers while reunification is being worked through, would be eliminated from the pool of potential foster care homes. If, in fact, a foster home does want to adopt, and an infant or toddler is in their care while the biological mother is getting clean and sober, it puts the foster parent in competition with the mother. This unintended competition is not supportive to the reunification process.

Hillsides does not have a foster family agency, however, at one time Hillsides did take in infants and toddlers whose mothers were addicted to drugs and alcohol and worked with them to help them regain their babies. This was one of the most successful programs we operated, because these mothers did not want to be addicted, wanted to get clean and sober, and wanted to regain their babies. Most of the mothers were able to get their children back within 12 months. One of the things we had to do with our own child care staff is to remind them that they were to be role models to these mothers, they were not to put up barriers to helping the mothers bond with their children. Even though they also loved these children, their job was to help the mother regain custody. This would be a difficult task for a foster care mother who wanted to adopt the child she was caring for.

The Department needs both kinds of foster care homes. The Department will have children who will not be able to return to their families and need a permanent home where adoption would be the outcome. Several types of foster care homes exist: those very much interested in adopting children, those that may grow into that frame of mind as the child has lived with them, or those that may have gotten into foster care with the expressed intention of wanting to adopt.

Unfortunately, the Director of DCFS has persuaded the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to buy into this policy without hearing some of the strong arguments against doing this. We now have a situation where the Board of Supervisors has publicly supported its DCFS Director, and it is difficult for them to reverse their decision.

The direction taken should not be either or, but a thoughtful discussion on solutions that will meet the needs of all parties involved.

In American history women have played a significant role in making our country what it is today. In particular, women addressed a plethora of unmet needs in communities and founded countless nonprofits. Most specifically in Los Angeles County, Deaconess Evelyn Wile envisioned a world where children were safe and nurtured in their homes.

During National Women’s History Month, I wanted to bring attention to Wile’s vision, which has rescued over 35,000 children in 95 years. Founder of Hillsides, formerly the Church Home for Children, a Pasadena foster care children’s charity, Wile saw the devastating affects of death, divorce, desertion, and disease had on children left behind.

Serving children at risk and their families in Los Angeles County, Hillsides follows in the footsteps of its founder who believed in creating safe places for children. Unlike the traditional orphanages of the early 1900s, Hillsides created a cottage concept, an open space home environment where children would experience a normal childhood, share a room with no more than three children, and be cared for by house parents.

Reminiscing, Wile described what was apparent, “I knew there was no money, land or house for such an undertaking--nothing but five hens which a friend had promised me…” With blessings from the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles, Wile set forth and purchased the first home in Highland Park in 1913, and in just four years relocated Hillsides to what many children refer to as their safe haven--17 acres in the San Rafael Hills of Pasadena.

Wile continued, “Through the kindness of friends who loaned their cars, we were able to take the children out to the new homesite and allow each of them to turn a little of the sod and thus be in ‘at the beginning.’ We hoped that the lesson of the bare hillside would impress itself upon the children’s hearts and minds, in comparison with what is ‘to come’ through the generous gifts which have been made.”

Today, children continue to turn a little of the sod, tend to the weeds, and discover new life in plants and flowers. In their gardens, they find a peaceful, restful place they can visit to get their minds off of the things that may be weighing on their hearts and minds.

Children living at Hillsides because of their foster care placement or severe emotional disturbances find comfort, security, and trust with our staff. Given intensive treatment combined with recreational therapeutic activities, children begin to thrive and establish connections with adults.

In addition to the residential program Wile founded, Hillsides has expanded its programs and services to serve families in crisis who need support in redirecting their lives to create safe places for their children. We also provide special education and a transitional living and housing program, as well as advocate for children’s rights.

When a man was directed to the home during Wile’s day, he was surprised to hear what Hillsides really was, and said he had “‘supposed those were two real homes--perhaps a father and son were building.’ And that’s exactly what we want them to be--real homes!” Wile recalled.

Wile truly created a real home for children traumatized by their early circumstances. After 95 years, eight homes, and an apartment building, Hillsides remains a true home to 66 children and 20 former foster care youth.

Society Diminishes Value of Children, Especially Foster Care Kids

Over 510,000 children are in foster care nationwide and of those children, about 81,000 are in California. In Los Angeles County, we have more than 37,000 children living in out-of-home placements. For years, Americans have said children are our most valuable resource, our future. Based on recent events that demonstrate the value in which we hold our children, the impact of America’s future is bleak.

A lawsuit was filed in the State of California, on behalf of foster children, because of the poor reimbursement given to foster parents to care for them. Children continue to be the largest segment of our population that lives in poverty. In addition, President George W. Bush vetoed a bill that would make health care available to all children living in America.

Foster parents have been under-funded. In particular, California’s reimbursement rates to foster parents are embarrassing and fall far short in providing the financial resources necessary to give foster parents the ability to provide adequately for our children’s needs. According to a recent report released by Children’s Rights, the National Foster Parent Association, and the University of Maryland School of Social Work, California’s current foster care rates must be increased by up to 61 percent in order to cover the real costs of providing care for children.

As the executive director of Hillsides, a Pasadena-based foster care children’s charity that provides care to children at risk and their families, I have seen families struggle to meet the financial obligations to care for their own children. What agencies are beginning to see now is a decrease in the number of foster parents willing to open their doors to children who have been abused, abandoned, and neglected.

Inadequate foster care rates negatively affect foster parent recruitment and retention, potentially increasing the likelihood that children will be placed in institutions or shuttled from one foster placement to another—and decreasing their chance of finding permanent homes. At Hillsides and in other similar residential treatment centers, we see the devastating affects that multiple foster care placements have on children.

As a society, we are challenged to solve children’s issues and make sound policy. Too often we talk about the problems, but never quite find positive solutions. Or the pen never makes it on the paper to sign sound legislation into law. Or policies are never put into practice. When will we begin to hold elected officials, government administrators, and government agencies responsible for bettering the future of America’s children?

Keeping silent perpetuates this cycle of political ping pong and furthers the abuse these children must endure. In one way or another, society’s silence fosters this atmosphere which greatly devalues our children. I see a society that has misplaced its priorities of caring for our children and is no longer a focus.

Most schools, particularly in the large urban areas, are under-funded and failing to provide educators with adequate tools to teach students. Teachers, caretakers, and childcare workers are poorly paid and not given the tools they need to be successful with their charges. We have not wanted to pay higher taxes to improve children’s situations. We have argued for years about the cost of universal healthcare without considering what the denial of such a program does to the children and families in need of it. We protect the gun lobbyists, while our children are shooting each other on the streets. We ignore the devastating affect of drugs and alcohol on children and families without making rehabilitative programs available to all that need it.

The fact remains that child protective services started in New York at the turn of the 20th century using Humane Society regulations designed to prevent cruelty to animals. Even today, kennels receive more money to board pets than foster families who care for children, according to reports citing the lawsuit filed in California. As a society, we have not come very far in the last one hundred years.

When will we say, “It’s time to consider what is in the best interest of all children living in America and let’s do what it takes to accomplish that?” As a society, we can put a stop to political ping pong. We can vote for Presidential and Congressional candidates who talk the talk and walk the walk when making policy that is in the best interest of American children. We can communicate to our elected officials and hold them responsible for placing children first. If we do this, we will begin to see hope in the future of our children.