View Single Post
  #3  
Old July 15th 03, 05:26 AM
Doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default | Database should audit high $$ in Foster Care system

"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.