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.

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.