|Re: Database should audit high $$ in Foster Care system

[Kane]

On 12 Jul 2003 16:46:25 GMT, (Fern5827) demonstrated
Toadstool ignorance once again:

>The recent debacle in NYC regarding ACS and its monitoring (or
non-monitoring)
>of *high risk- special needs* children within the Foster Care system
should
>alert the auditors to target and carefully monitor those who reap
over 6
>figures from the Foster Care (read taxpayer's) system.

Do you seriously think that foster care subsidy payments are NOT kept
in a database for review? What a maroon...r r r r


>
>FWD asfp:
>
>Subject: Database to audit high earners in FC system
>From: (Fern5827)
>Date: 7/11/2003 2:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Most of the abuses exposed by the high-profile foster deaths, points
out the
>need for the CPS systems to audit most thoroughly those who earn
high salaries
>in caring for *special needs* children,

All children in foster care are by definition "special needs." Get
your terms correct. In many states the population you are referring to
are designated, "special rates," meaning they have extraordinary needs
for supervision and attendance over and above what most foster
children require.

Usually "special rates" are connected to medical needs though some
firesetters, or children with severe deviant behaviors that would
endanger themselves or others can qualify...rare though. Usually the
foster parent just has to take on the load of these latter kids
without extra compensation...though it costs the fp in time and monies
to care for them.

Many times the extreme health needs of the child would require
hospitalization were it not for trained professionals (often retired
pediatric or other nurses) who do indeed get paid for their
professional expertise...at a considerable saving over
hospitaliazation rates..

Take a peek at the state of Texas rates:

http://tinyurl.com/gqvp

At first glance it appears to support the contention that big money
can be made off foster children. With a bit of digging though, and you
might has your fellow Mushroom, Doug, you find out what it really
means. Ask Doug what a Level 4 child is.

Most mental health treatment facilities SCREEN OUT level 4 kids. They
can't handle them except in the most extreme lockup situations. And
that is very very expensive indeedy.

Here's another state's entire listing of various daily rates and
reimbursements for fp care and other items:

http://cfc.state.ky.us/pandp_process/foster_care_per_diem.htm

None of them are excessive in today's economy. And they reflect real
needs being met by real people that have to pay their own way in
life...unlike you, apparently.

Say, why don't you take up doing something with your worthless life
and volunteer?


The URL below will give you the table of special rates for the state
of Oregon. Notice the HUGE amounts of money over and above the
standard foster subsidy. I'm sure those Oregon fp's are getting
inordinately wealthy .... r r r r

http://tinyurl.com/gqsa

Hourly Rate for Supervision $4.61

Transportation Cost - Per Mile $ .34½

Laundry - Per Additional Load $1.00

Relief Care - Hourly Rate $4.61 (fp must foot the bill for any more
than that)

Program Educational Expenses Direct Cost Incurred (reimburse $ for $
only)

Diet Cost Direct Cost Incurred (reimburse $ for $ only)


And from a similar state page these are some of the criteria that
could, but do not necessarily, fall under special rates. Each has to
be proven to an evaluator (usually an experienced pediatric RN) for
merit any rates over the standard subsidy:

http://tinyurl.com/gqta
...................

(2) Family foster care may be used for a child who is unable to fit
into regular family living, but can benefit from family life that has
been adapted to the child's needs. Placement of such a child in family
foster care is dependent upon locating foster parents who have the
skill and stamina to care for the child. Children placed in foster
care with the following behaviors or attitudes shall have a written
care plan, or clear guidelines of care, provided to foster parents.
Such children include, but are not limited to:

(a) A child with severe health impairments or developmental
disabilities requiring specialized medical and physical care who can
benefit from family life;

(b) Children with diagnosed impairments who can receive day or
outpatient treatment;

(c) Youth with emotional/behavioral problems who need care following
residential treatment and are able to live in the community with
special help;

(d) A teen mother who requires both parental guidance for herself and
assistance with learning to parent her child;

(e) Delinquent children in the custody of SOSCF who can benefit from
close family supervision;

(f) A child whose emotional/behavioral problems are so disturbing that
they require extraordinary support, so that a family or community is
unable to cope with the behavior;

(g) A child or adolescent who cannot accept parental care and
guidance;

(h) A child who requires a regulated environment integrated with
social treatment services and training.

And just for fun, and for those that value, unlike you, accurate
information I thought I'd include this list of requirements to be a
foster parent:

http://tinyurl.com/gqx7

These are the Texas requirements.

Basic Requirements for Foster/Adoptive Families:


The prospective foster/adoptive parents may be single or married and
must

be at least 21 years of age, financially stable, and responsible,
mature adults;
complete an application (staff assistance is available);
share information regarding their background and lifestyle;
provide relative and non-relative references;
show proof of marriage and/or divorce;
agree to a home study which includes visits with all household
members;
allow staff to complete a criminal history background check and an
abuse/neglect check on all household members 14 years of age and
older;
and attend free training to learn about issues of abused and neglected
children. This training provides an opportunity for the family and
PRS to assess whether foster care or adoption is best for the family.
The family may withdraw from the meetings at any time. Foster/adoptive
parents generally train together.


Some Additional Foster Care Requirements:


In addition to the basic requirements, foster parents must

have adequate sleeping space;
not provide foster care or day care for more than six children in your
home;
agree to a non-physical discipline policy;
permit fire, health and safety inspections of the home;
vaccinate all pets;
obtain and maintain CPR/First Aid Certification;
obtain TB testing as required by the local health department for
household members; and
attend 20 hours or more of training each year.


Responsibilities of Foster Parents:

provide daily care and nurturing of children in foster care.
advocate for children in their schools and communities.
inform the children’s caseworkers about adjustments to the home,
school and community, as well as any problems that may arise,
including any serious illness, accidents or serious occurrences
involving the foster children or their own families.
make efforts as team members with the children’s caseworkers
towards reunifying children with their birth families.
provide a positive role model to birth families.
help children learn life skills.


Foster Care Reimbursements:

The monthly reimbursement is provided to foster families for
child-care-related costs, such as food, clothing, recreation,
transportation and housing. In extraordinary circumstances, special
rates may be reimbursed to foster families that care for children with
exceptional needs.

See, Rugosa, it's easy. Even you could do it. r r r r


>and who are NOT being visited, checked
>up on, or examined every month as CPS promises.

Why just audit fp's where CPS isn't visiting?

By the way, in honoring my commitment to Cultivate you and Mulch and
Fertilize you regularly, in the way of education and facts to replace
your abysmal ignorance, I'll add this bit of info:

CPS is NOT obligated to visit EVERY child in every state once a month.
Children in long term care, often called "permanent foster placement",
guardianship settings (the state is still the legal custodian),
children in treatment centers, and children in relative placement (in
some states), have a limit of every 90 days.

If you are going to consider yourself a real reformer you'd best start
getting serious, after all these years, in educating yourself.

>Remember not ONE STATE has passed the AUDIT of CPS states, mandated
by the
>Federal Goverenment.

And that would tell a reasonable person, not a Plant, that something
is a bit amiss here. Could it be that the requirements of ASFA were
not defined BEFORE the fact, but are only now being determined by the
Feds as to what is and isn't reasonable?

I've read, and did back in 1997, the ASFA requirements. They were,
with the funding levels involved, obviously goals not attainable.
States were hijacked into agreeing because of the STATE TAX PAYER'S
MONIES being offered back to the states. Typical fed solutions....just
like good old Doug wants more of.

>Why isn't this being done? Too many friends of friends holding these
>sinecures?

It is common knowledge that employees and foster volunteers recruit
heavily among people they know....apparently it's just a bit difficult
to find folks willing to do what must be done to help these badly
damaged children.

Hence, yes, they are friends. Personally I tend to seek out friends
that are doing good work.

As for "sinecures"

si·ne·cure ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sn-kyr, sn-)
n.
A position or office that requires little or no work but provides a
salary.
Archaic. An ecclesiastical benefice not attached to the spiritual
duties of a parish.

So tell us, have you ever fostered? If so tell us how very easy it
was. I'm sure current fp's would love to know your secret.

Would be reformers like you wouldn't lift a hand or spend a dime of
their own to actually help a child. You just get off on dancing in
their blood.

Best,

Kane

[Doug]

"Kane" writes:

> All children in foster care are by definition "special needs." Get
> your terms correct.

Hi, Kane!

Absolutely not. Many children in foster care do not qualify for the
specific determination of "special needs."

"Special needs" is a specific term defined by federal childwelfare statutes,
state law, and agency protocols across all fifty states. The term has very
specific meaning and is intertwined throughout child welfare practice.
"Special needs" is a term so central to child welfare practice it is
virtually inconceivable that someone with even superficial contact with the
system would not be aware of it.
In fact, the primary reason for the terminlogy is to make distinctions among
individuals within the foster care system, many foster kids are not special
needs at all.

>In many states the population you are referring to
> are designated, "special rates," meaning they have extraordinary needs
> for supervision and attendance over and above what most foster
> children require.

I have never heard of the term, "special rates." However, the population
that the writer refers to would be designated by the federally defined,
specific term, "special needs."

It is crucial in our discussions about child welfare that we attempt to use
terminlogy correctly. Otherwise, readers can be severely mislead. Could it
be that, in your enthusiasm to derate another member of this newsgroup with
a lecture on terminlogy that you juxaposed the terminlogy yourself. Could
you really mean, "special needs" rather than "special rates."?

In the case of this particular term, readers seeking to adopt would be
seriously mislead by your misinformation, Kane. "Special needs" is a
criteria used to determine adoption subsidies.

> Usually "special rates" are connected to medical needs though some
> firesetters, or children with severe deviant behaviors that would
> endanger themselves or others can qualify...rare though. Usually the
> foster parent just has to take on the load of these latter kids
> without extra compensation...though it costs the fp in time and monies
> to care for them.

Again, I have never heard of the term "special rates." However, the state
does receive additional funding for "special needs" kids in foster care.
That increase in funding is not, of course, passed on to foster caregivers.
States go through considerable effort to try to qualify kids taken into
state custody as "special needs" kids precisely because they want the
additional funding. In a mental illness diagnosis was attributed to the
"firesetting" in your narrative above, it could be a criteria to determining
the child to be "special NEEDS." Behaviors is not the focal point -- mental
illness, physical disabilities, members of sibling groups, and racial
factors are. This is what the writer to whom you respond was trying to tell
you.

The federal statutory definations and criteria for "special needs" children
can be found in the Social Security Act - sections 473(a) and (c) and more
definitively at 45 CFR 1356.40-41. (You do know how to access the Registry,
right?) See also 45 CFR 233.50 for newest revisions to defining "special
needs" foster children and corresponding impact on RATES paid for foster
care based upon this determination.

As you can see, "special needs" is a very specific, legally defined term
used to categorize individuals within the foster care population and
directly applicable to determining adoption subidies for foster children.
The contributor to which you reply, Kane, was using the terminlogy
correctly.

Generally, the conditions necessary for a child to be declared "special
needs" are that he or she (in Connecticut):
--have a physical, intellectual or emotional handicap
--is over the age of eight
--is a member of a sibling group that needs to be placed together
--has racial or ethnic factors which are a barrier to adoption

We can take a look at how the specific term, "special needs," applies to
readers seeking to adopt in Maryland:

The foster child must meet the "special needs" requirement, which in
Maryland, is defined as any one of the following:
Age six or older after November 1984 or 2 years old prior to November 1984;

A Member of a minority race;

A Member of a sibling group;

Physically or mentally handicapped or emotionally disturbed;

Child with a high risk of physical or mental disease.

As of June 1999, 8,072 children were eligible and reimbursable for Title
IV-E foster care and subsidized adoption. This represents 60.5% of the total
active foster care population in Maryland.

In Maryland and Connecticut, like all other states, "special needs" is
defined by state statutory language that meets federally mandated wording.
The wording is usually almost identical to federal criteria, except for age
of child, where the states vary.

To find out more about the specific criteria of "special needs," you may
wish to check the child welfare practice manual published by USDHHS, ACF.
Or you can simply do a search on google of "special needs and foster care."

> Many times the extreme health needs of the child would require
> hospitalization were it not for trained professionals (often retired
> pediatric or other nurses) who do indeed get paid for their
> professional expertise...at a considerable saving over
> hospitaliazation rates..


In some states, these folks are called "career foster providers." In most
states, they are trained at level III. In all states that I am aware,
candidates for level III care do not have to be retired or active nurses or
trained professionals. They generally do have to be qualified at level I
and II prior to applying, however. And, yes, they make considerably more
money that foster caregivers at the other levels.

If an agency is placing children who should be hospitialized with level III
foster caregivers, they are doing the child a tremendous disservice. Such a
placement would make the agency directly liable for malpractice.

Kane, I would urge you to inform yourself of current child welfare law and
policy.

[Doug]

"Kane" had written:

> >> All children in foster care are by definition "special needs." Get
> >> your terms correct.

To which, I replied:

> >Absolutely not. Many children in foster care do not qualify for the
> >specific determination of "special needs."

> Your "many" is actually "hardly any." All it really takes is a judge
> doing what they are supposed to do at the initial hearing.

All foster children are NOT, by definition, special needs. It's that simple.

It varies across the states, but in Maryland, which I used as an example in
my post, 8,072 children were eligible and reimbursable for Title IV-E foster
care and subsidized adoption. This represented 60.5% of the total active
foster care population in Maryland.

> It takes almost nothing for a child to be designated special needs.
>
> Why would the state fail to so designate every chance they get? It
> means IV-E monies.

Yes, but many children do not meet criteria for the category despite the
state's best efforts. And, yes, you are correct that the state tries very
hard to get the designation because it means extra federal funding.

As I have often said, it is all about the funding.

> The general public thinks that special needs only means disabled. It
> does not in the federal lexicon.

I have no idea what the general public thinks. But, yes, as I have
explained, there are criteria other than physical disability that qualifies
a child for the special needs category.

But there are many foster children who do not meet any of the criteria.

For instance, in Maryland, children are placed into foster care that
are not a member of a minority race, or a member of a sibling group, or
physically or mentally handicapped or emotionally disturbed, or with a high
risk of physical or mental disease.

In some states, around half of the children removed from their homes and
placed into foster care were even unsubstantiated by CPS for risk of abuse
or neglect.

> I've pointed this out before. And if you want to fob off on the public
> that due to a judicial oversight at the time of placement that results
> in a child NOT being eligible, hence not special needs, you go right
> ahead. I don't think anyone will be fooled.

It is not judicial oversight that leads to a finding that a child does not
meet the criteria for special needs. It is a judgment that the state has
failed to make a case for special needs. The criteria are listed. I listed
Connectiuct's and Marylands, you listed South Carolina's. If none of those
criteria are met, the child is not special needs.

A large percentage of children in foster care are not Title IV-E eligiable.

> >"Special needs" is a specific term defined by federal childwelfare
> statutes,
> >state law, and agency protocols across all fifty states. The term
> has very
> >specific meaning and is intertwined throughout child welfare
> practice.
>
> Yes, I just as much as said that. Do you alway try to restate to
> refute? Nice unattributed snippage though.

Well, you stated that "all children in foster care are by definition
'special needs.'"

I stated that your statement was incorrect.

[Doug]

I had written:

> >"Special needs" is a term so central to child welfare practice it is
> >virtually inconceivable that someone with even superficial contact
> with the
> >system would not be aware of it.

To which, Kane replies:

> Oh really? How is it that you are unaware of the actual statutes and
> descriptions that include ANY CHILD removed from his or her parents
> for cause and a long laundry list of other reasons has special needs
> as a designation? From an example that begins as early as 1980 and
> updated last year.

Yes, a "removed from his or her parents for cause AND a long laundry list of
other reasons has special needs" (my emphasis). Not all children placed
into foster care meet the criteria in the laundry list.

Not all children in foster care are special needs. A great number of them
are not. A hefty percentage of children in foster care are not eligiable
for Title IV-E funding.

>Updated November 2002

>State Subsidy Contact Person
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

>Adoption subsidies are available for children with special needs.
>Federal subsidies were created by Congress (through Public Law
>96-272-the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980) to
>encourage the adoption of special needs children and remove the
>financial disincentives to adoption for the families. Children may
>receive a federally funded subsidy under Title IV-E or a state-funded
>subsidy as per state guidelines. Below we have outlined information
>related to definitions of special needs, benefits available, and
>procedures in your state. If you have additional questions, please
>call the North American Council on Adoptable Children (NACAC) at
>651-644-3036 or our subsidy help line at 800-470-6665, or e-mail us at
. If you have state-specific questions,
>please call your state subsidy contact person or the NACAC subsidy
>representative (both listed above) for more information.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

1. South Carolina's legal definition of special needs is as follows:

A legally free child for whom reasonable but unsuccessful efforts have
been made to place without subsidy except where it would be against
the best interest of the child because of significant emotional ties
with foster parents and the child meets one or more of the following
criteria:

a white child ten years old or older;

<<KANE ...just a single item can make them a special needs child...any
one of these items does. You don't understand your own work, if you
are a child welfare worker. It took me a long time to understand this
as I found it hard to believe. You discuss this as though you are a
talented but clueless amateur.

Many kids do not qualify for any of the single items. I understand my work
enough to know that.

<<KANE and most children under ten would have other conditions of
special need. Mental and physical health, sibs, etc.

a black or mixed-race child six years or older;

a physically, mentally, or emotionally handicapped child or a child at
risk for physical, mental, or emotional handicaps;

<<KANE and this is what everyone who has not bothered to learn thinks
"special needs" means and is limited to. It's the common vernacular
for a disabled child, but in child welfare work it is only ONE of the
possibilities.

Exactly. Did I give you the impression that I thought the special needs
category
was solely for children with disabilities? I spelled out the criteria. You
seem self-convinced that a whole lot of people have misdefined this term.
Wherever your assumption comes from, the posts to this newsgroup do not
suggest it.

Now stop and consider....if a child is taken out of
their own home and placed with strangers what would be the risk of a
mental or emotional handicap being present? According to some in these
very ngs, very very very high eh? And according to workers? Figure it
out.

It would be highly unlikely that the state would seek special needs based
upon an argument that its action created a emotionally handicapped child.

>a member of a white sibling group of three or more children placed
>together, one of whom is at least six years of age, or a sibling group
>of four or more white children of any age placed together;

>a member of a black or mixed-race sibling group of two or more
>children placed together, one of whom is at least six years of age, or
>a sibling group of three or more black or mixed-race children of any
>age placed together; or

>a member of a sibling group of two or more children placed together,
>one of whom is a special needs child.

<<KANE and then there is the child, from any ethnic group, taken from
>his sibling and placed with strangers.....by him or herself....would
>that not result in one of the other criteria being met? Like risk of
>emotional handicap?

No, not if the state did not seek special needs based on the criteria you
mention.

>If you really worked for CPS you'd know that with
>all the possible permutations it's damn neigh impossible to NOT get a
>designation of special needs for a child in out of home care.

My experience with CPS showed me that children often do not qualify for the
"special needs" category.

<<KANE end. So if you look closely it is damn hard for a child to NOT
>be a special needs child, now isn't it? Sorry to embarrass you.

There are many children in foster care who are not special needs. In
Maryland, 39.5 %.

Why would your incorrect statement that all children in foster care are by
definition special needs embarrass me? The statement is untrue. But you
are the one that made it.

>In fact, the primary reason for the terminlogy is to make
distinctions among
>individuals within the foster care system, many foster kids are not
special
>needs at all.

>Many "foster kids", I prefer foster children, thank you, are not
>physically or mentally disabled, but they are suffering loss as a
>first condition, then there is the effects of abuse and neglect.

I said nothing about children who were physically or mentally disabled.
That's your strawman. I talked about children who were special needs, and
listed all of the criteria that made them so. I also said that many
children in foster care did not meet the criteria.

more children placed together,
> one of whom is a special needs child.
>
> <<KANE and then there is the child, from any ethnic group, taken from
> his sibling and placed with strangers.....by him or herself....would
> that not result in one of the other criteria being met? Like risk of
> emotional handicap? If you really worked for CPS you'd know that with
> all the possible permutations it's damn neigh impossible to NOT get a
> designation of special needs for a child in out of home care.

No, it is not close to impossible. It happens all the time.

>
> <<KANE end. So if you look closely it is damn hard for a child to NOT
> be a special needs child, now isn't it? Sorry to embarrass you.
>
> >In fact, the primary reason for the terminlogy is to make
> distinctions among
> >individuals within the foster care system, many foster kids are not
> special
> >needs at all.
>

> And they are in a system that they should NOT be in if the world were
> right for them. That IS the definition of a special needs child in the
> common, standard, and official usage.

No, that is not the definition of a special needs child. The definition of
special needs is in state statutes, one of which you quoted (South
Carolina's).

> I was told for years that all foster children are special needs and
> like you I though I was being jivved.

I was never told that but I saw on a daily basis that there is no
substantiation for it. Not all foster children are special needs. A large
number are not.

Until I finally looked at all
> the possiblities and permutations that could be combined and
> recombined. It would be an extremely rare child in the system that
> didn't have at least ONE possible special needs criteria met, even if
> no one officially slapped that label on them.

That may have been where you slipped up. You drew your own conclusions.

> And you can be sure if it is a funding question that label will get
> slapped on.
>
> So grow up and quit trying to split hairs. For all practical purposes
> there are no foster kids not eligible for or designated special needs.

Untrue. For all practical purposes -- and specific, legally defined
purposes -- there are many foster children who are not eligible for or
designated special needs.

> >>In many states the population you are referring to
> >> are designated, "special rates," meaning they have extraordinary
> needs
> >> for supervision and attendance over and above what most foster
> >> children require.
> >
> >I have never heard of the term, "special rates." However, the
> population
> >that the writer refers to would be designated by the federally
> defined,
> >specific term, "special needs."
>
> You are a card, aren't you. You think I don't know what "special
> needs" is but you have never heard of "special rates"?
>
> Your tricky snippage cut out that I wasn't trying to clarify "Special
> Needs" at all, but in fact the subject was "Special Rates." Have you
> no shame?

The author to whom you responded was talking about special needs. In your
response, you claimed that the author was really talking about "special
rates." I responded to you saying that the original author was talking
about special needs and proceeded to provide the criteria for that
designation.

> And Special Rates is actually the issue here, not special needs. It
> was the subject of the thread as I recall: it is that amount that
> foster parents get or try to get for caring for children that need
> more care than is common to foster children generally. I've defined it
> before, but hey, it's much more fun to watch you babble your **** then
> point to the source.
>
> Here, this is what "special rates", a commonly used term in CPS the
> whole nation over, is...about:
>
>
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22special+rates%22++foster
>
> And only 6010 hits on"'"special rates' foster".
>
> Imagine you not knowing that and you claiming to be a CPS worker and
> all....hmmmm...curious, isn't it.

No. We don't use that terminlogy. Amounts paid foster caregivers depends
upon the "level of care" the child is rated for.

>
> >It is crucial in our discussions about child welfare that we attempt
> to use
> >terminlogy correctly.
>
> Most assuredly. A couple of us here have been after you for years to
> either learn or get honest. We simply can't tell if you are ignorant
> or malicious, or not what you claim to be.

I fail to see anything unlearned or malicious in my posting about special
needs and the statutes that define it. It is up to you whether you choose
to learn from it or not.

> You have entirely too much time to post to be a CPS worker, and you
> are unlike any I've ever run into.

Thanks! Comp time is a wonderful thing. <g>

They do not have time to research
> and discuss every nuance of law and policy. Many start their job
> hitting the ground running and don't stop for 20 years or so until
> they collapse.

Never met one of those types. How do you draw this conclusion? How big was
your sample group?

> Now a reporter might just have as part of his or her work the very
> things you come up with here....hmmmmm.....

I doubt that a reporter would be concerned about the details of special
needs designations.

> >Otherwise, readers can be severely mislead.
>
> Now there is a wise and wonderful statement. And a condition you have
> relied on heavily to mislead and garner favorable acceptance of your
> convoluted but artistically contrived nonsense for the ignorant here.

In attempting to educate you about your mistatement that all foster children
were special needs, I did not intend to imply you are ignorant.

> YOU keep them ignorant because they buy it and don't bother to really
> look and think for themselves. And if they've been a victim of or
> subject to CPS interaction they will buy it out of emotional grasping
> at straws. Have you no shame?

I have nothing to be ashamed of, if that is what you mean. If readers
continued to believe that all foster children are special needs, then they
would remain ignorant. But I don't think many held that opinion.

> Yah know what I suspect? I suspect you are still a newspaper reporter,
> good at research but like so many reporters heavily invested in
> editorial "slant."

Another guess? This is your 12th shot at it. It is as wrong as the
previous ones.

> You are good enough to fool the general public but not good enough to
> fool a non-journalistic researcher.

Actually, my research is done for papers greared toward other social science
researchers. Stale stuff. What I write here is generally conversational
narrative with other members.

But thanks.

>Not one that has been doing it
> for over 25 years, and not someone that's done it as part of a
> responsibility to educate others.

Actually, such an individual would be who I am generally targeting my work
to.
Researchers with much more experience are among the critics of the current
child welfare system, as you know.

> "Derate" you?

No, the poster to which you responded. You attempted to correct that author
by saying that all foster children were special needs. You said that author
did not know the terminlogy. I wrote that you were wrong and the original
poster correct.

> Oh golly, gosh, oh gee.
>
> Yah caught me.

No, your assumption about who I meant is incorrect, so I didn't catch you at
anything.

> I actually WAS trying to lower the rated electrical capability of an
> electrical apparatus. At least that's what you appear to be to me at
> times. A little robot programmed to confuse and mislead.

It was not me that I was referring to.

> Or did you mean, debate, berate, or deflate, or expose?
>

I meant berate. Thanks for pointing out my error.

> >with
> >a lecture on terminlogy that you juxaposed the terminlogy yourself.
> Could
> >you really mean, "special needs" rather than "special rates."?
>
> Nope...meant exactly what I said and I've cited and sourced for you
> and anyone that cares to get past your nonsense and misleading crap.
>
> Why is it you selectively point to some things you cite, and not to
> others...hmmmmmmmmm?

> >In the case of this particular term, readers seeking to adopt would
> be
> >seriously mislead by your misinformation, Kane. "Special needs" is a
> >criteria used to determine adoption subsidies.
>
> Yep, among other things. "Special Rates" is also used for much the
> same purpose. And other things are used as well, but then I fail to
> see how anything I said would mislead someone wishing to adopt?
>
> You couldn't possibly mean that there are adoptive children, from
> state custody, that aren't special needs now could you? Go back to the
> top.

Yes, that is what I mean. There are many. Go back to the top and
Maryland's statistics.

> Adoptive children come with all kinds of needs, some that require
> extraordinary support and assistance (under Special Rate definitions),
> while others come with just about the same amount of trouble and cost
> it would take to have one's own baby and raise it.
>
> In fact, if it weren't such a dispicable thought, I'd have to say
> adoption through the state can be something of a bargain.

Interesting.

> It isn't about money, Doug. It's about people's hearts and emotions.
> But then I "derate" you.

It's about funding. Bureaucrats seeking it break a lot of hearts.
Especially tiny ones.

> >> Usually "special rates" are connected to medical needs though some
> >> firesetters, or children with severe deviant behaviors that would
> >> endanger themselves or others can qualify...rare though. Usually
> the
> >> foster parent just has to take on the load of these latter kids
> >> without extra compensation...though it costs the fp in time and
> monies
> >> to care for them.
> >
> >Again, I have never heard of the term "special rates."
>
> Again I question how someone claiming to be a CPS worker, or working
> with child welfare in some capacity would fail to know a term so
> common in the field that a google search on it turned up thousands of
> hits.
> >However, the state
> >does receive additional funding for "special needs" kids in foster
> care.
>
> The only kids in foster care that do not qualify for Title IV-E are
> those so designated by a formula that takes into account the income
> and worth of the parents or, in some instances, the relative
> caregivers. Your milage may vary state to state.
>
> Special needs has nothing to do with that. ALL other children in state
> custody are eligible for IV-E funding if the judge has had the sense
> to remember what he or she is supposed to do when the worker shows up
> at the first visit after a removal to recommend out of home care.
> Archive this so you can con someone next time you try. It helps when
> you have accurate information.

> The reason I overstated, for real world useage of course, that all
> foster kids are special needs kids is that the state will go to
> extraordinary lenghts to see that each child is so designated. Funding
> you know.

Yes, I know. It's all about funding. But the state is not always successful
in getting children labeled special needs. Many do not reach that category.

> In fact some states have workers, (Yours does by the way), whose job
> it is to do nothing but find just such criteria, case by case. They
> get state resident's monies back from the feds, do don't "derate"
> them.

A large percentage of the CPS bureaucracy's workforce is engaged in trying
to get federal funding.

> Other state offices have similar workers for similar tasks...getting
> money back from the feds.
>
> >That increase in funding is not, of course, passed on to foster
> caregivers.
>
> Well, without it the foster program will suffer, and has in a few
> states recently with a reduction in foster care subsidies. .. or
> didn't you know that?

What states have experienced reductions in foster care payments?

> What one giveth one can taketh away. And they do. And it is all tied
> to funding.
>
> >States go through considerable effort to try to qualify kids taken
> into
> >state custody as "special needs" kids precisely because they want the
> >additional funding.
>
> Of course. And that has little or nothing to do with the issue. Folks
> were discussing children with disabilities, and throwing around the
> term "special needs" as pertains to disabled foster children.
>
> Do you always play at The Wizard of Oz on your employers time?

Oh, I suppose if one was so inclined it would be a less dangerous use of
taxpayer's money.

> We will notice the man behind the curtain Doug. At least some of us
> will.
>
> > In a mental illness diagnosis was attributed to the
> >"firesetting" in your narrative above, it could be a criteria to
> determining
> >the child to be "special NEEDS."
>
> Yes, that is one special needs criteria. Any one item from the will so
> designate the child as special needs...but that wasn't the issue,
> Doug. The issue is, what are extra monies foster parents get over and
> above the standard subsidy foster rate....and it's called special
> needs all over this land in CPS.

Exactly. It's called special needs. That is what I have been saying.

> > Behaviors is not the focal point -- mental
> >illness, physical disabilities, members of sibling groups, and racial
> >factors are.
>
> Sorry. For a rate paid over and above the standard foster subsidy it
> is "Special Rates." special needs being a forerunner, but the levels
> and kinds of behavior setting that special extra rate of payment for
> extra services. It requires in most states some kind of control by
> evaluation...usually done by an RN, interestingly.
>
> >This is what the writer to whom you respond was trying to tell
> >you.
>
> I don't think so.
>
> And those same criteria, if it is determined by evaluation, as I
> pointed out in the earlier post, are part of determining "Special
> Rates" as in the child needs more than the ordinary amount of
> supervision and care.
>
> You are simply telling me that what I said is what I said and trying
> to make others believe I think special rates are special needs. I do
> not think that at all. One just happens to follow the other if the
> level of disruption and care is elevated. "Special Needs" foster
> children get a standard subsidy. "Special Needs" foster children with
> behaviors and needs beyond the ordinary get a "Special Rate"
> calculated to pay for that.
>
> Some firesetters, for instance, can be managed quite easily. Some, are
> so compulsive they cannot.
>
> The first would be a special needs child, but the second would be both
> a special needs child...be virtue of the disability, and a special
> rates child by virtue of the need for much more supervision by the
> foster caregiver.
>
> >The federal statutory definations and criteria for "special needs"
> children
> >can be found in the Social Security Act - sections 473(a) and (c) and
> more
> >definitively at 45 CFR 1356.40-41. (You do know how to access the
> Registry,
> >right?)
>
> Why would you put it that way instead of simply citing the listing of
> definitions and criteria, I wonder. Gettin' a little hot in the
> kitchen eh? Got to play your little games, eh? r r r r

The CFR is a standard reference I assumed you may use all the time. In the
off chance you didn't, I asked if you knew how to access it.

> You are so cute and transparent.

Transparent enough to have 12 jobs, right?

>
> >See also 45 CFR 233.50 for newest revisions to defining "special
> >needs" foster children and corresponding impact on RATES paid for
> foster
> >care based upon this determination.
>
> Gee now, let me see what might be up here. Doug points to a citation
> but he doesn't source connect it, just offering a smartass jibe.

The SOURCE of the information is in the cite, Kane. If you have done any
research, you know the CFR.

> Could it be that he has an access that others are unlikely to have so
> he can't be checked up on? Nooooo....he wouldn't do that, now would
> he?

CFR sections are easily checked. That's why they are numbered.

>
> >As you can see, "special needs" is a very specific, legally defined
> term
> >used to categorize individuals within the foster care population and
> >directly applicable to determining adoption subidies for foster
> children.
>
> Yep. And it's so damned broad a kid would have to be in a one night
> selter care situation and back home to NOT qualify.

Incorrect. Many children in foster care do not qualify.

> >The contributor to which you reply, Kane, was using the terminlogy
> >correctly.
>
> You don't understand the discussion underway. They were talking about
> disabilities, as in disabled, and asking about extra payment for that.
> They can get more if the child has been evaluted and determined
> "Special Rates" over and above the common special needs.

You could be right about misunderstanding the discussion. I jumped in
mainly to correct the misstatement about all children in foster care being
special needs.

> >Generally, the conditions necessary for a child to be declared
> "special
> >needs" are that he or she (in Connecticut):
> >--have a physical, intellectual or emotional handicap
> >--is over the age of eight
> >--is a member of a sibling group that needs to be placed together
> >--has racial or ethnic factors which are a barrier to adoption
> >
> >We can take a look at how the specific term, "special needs," applies
> to
> >readers seeking to adopt in Maryland:
> >
> >The foster child must meet the "special needs" requirement, which in
> >Maryland, is defined as any one of the following:
> >Age six or older after November 1984 or 2 years old prior to November
> 1984;
> >
> >A Member of a minority race;
> >
> >A Member of a sibling group;
> >
> >Physically or mentally handicapped or emotionally disturbed;
> >
> >Child with a high risk of physical or mental disease.
> >
> >As of June 1999, 8,072 children were eligible and reimbursable for
> Title
> >IV-E foster care and subsidized adoption. This represents 60.5% of
> the total
> >active foster care population in Maryland.
> >
> >In Maryland and Connecticut, like all other states, "special needs"
> is
> >defined by state statutory language that meets federally mandated
> wording.
> >The wording is usually almost identical to federal criteria, except
> for age
> >of child, where the states vary.
> >
> >To find out more about the specific criteria of "special needs," you
> may
> >wish to check the child welfare practice manual published by USDHHS,
> ACF.
> >Or you can simply do a search on google of "special needs and foster
> care."
>
> And if you examine it closely, and include lots of states, you'll find
> that it's damn nigh impossible, or a case of feduciary neglect on the
> part of the state, to NOT have that designation for child in foster
> care.
>

Incorrect.

> >> Many times the extreme health needs of the child would require
> >> hospitalization were it not for trained professionals (often
> retired
> >> pediatric or other nurses) who do indeed get paid for their
> >> professional expertise...at a considerable saving over
> >> hospitaliazation rates..
> >
> >
> >In some states, these folks are called "career foster providers." In
> most
> >states, they are trained at level III. In all states that I am
> aware,
> >candidates for level III care do not have to be retired or active
> nurses or
> >trained professionals. They generally do have to be qualified at
> level I
> >and II prior to applying, however. And, yes, they make considerably
> more
> >money that foster caregivers at the other levels.
>
> Do you not understand the meaning of the word, "often"? I did not say
> that have to be retired or active or trained professionals, but they
> damn well have to be trained. Yet again another attempt to refute me
> by stating what I said in reframe. Seriously Doug, don't you even
> blush?
> >
> >If an agency is placing children who should be hospitialized with
> level III
> >foster caregivers, they are doing the child a tremendous disservice.
> Such a
> >placement would make the agency directly liable for malpractice.
>
> Yep. And that's a nice piece of information but I fail to see the
> relevance. In fact a lot of medical foster moms, and family, do adopt
> the children in their care. Often they are the product of young party
> going kids that could care less.

How is that relevent?

>
> >Kane, I would urge you to inform yourself of current child welfare
> law and
> >policy.
>
> Yah gotta be kiddin'
>
> But no, you really are serious, aren't you.
>
> I talk about practical everyday CPS realities, as things actually
> work, from research and interviews I've totally lost count of, and
> review of the very laws and policies you try to use to split hairs
> with and you want ME to get informed. r r r r r
>
> Just to clear things up a bit, here is exactly what I responded to,
> just about three steps up the thread to the top post:
>
> "Most of the abuses exposed by the high-profile foster deaths, points
> out the
> need for the CPS systems to audit most thoroughly those who earn high
> salaries
> in caring for *special needs* children, and who are NOT being visited,
> checked
> up on, or examined every month as CPS promises."
>
> Those who earn "high salaries," a flat out lie, over and above the
> standard foster subsidy are not getting a "special needs" rate. All
> foster, or virtually, if you follow my arguments about reality in CPS
> funding efforts, get paid for caring for special needs kids.
>
> The story The Daucus Carota referred to, if I remember correctly, was
> the caregiver that dumped the body of a very disabled child in her
> care, one that would incur a "Special Rate" (the term used nation wide
> in CPS).
>
> But then I should have known better than to correct a Vegetable in the
> presence of a Fertilizer spreader and not expect a huge pile of Manure
> to be dumped into the thread.
>
> You are a card, Doug.

Is that another guess at occupation?