![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Kids sleep in CPS offices after foster-care rejection
By TERRI LANGFORD and JANET ELLIOTT Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...o/4857258.html Private foster care providers have refused to take in at least 372 abused or neglected children so far this year, forcing most to sleep in Texas Child Protective Services offices for a night or more, the Houston Chronicle has learned. Last month, the number of children who had to sleep in offices because an appropriate foster care bed could not be found totaled 148, a sharp rise from 32 youths in January. State officials said earlier this year that most of the office-bunking children had severe emotional or medical problems, making them the toughest to place in an already crowded 34,000-bed foster care network. In the past five years, the number of foster children increased 43 percent while the number of foster care beds grew by 28 percent. But in May, CPS acknowledged that another factor was involved: Private organizations that care for 80 percent of Texas' foster care children can refuse to provide a bed for a child for any reason. "In every case of a child spending the night in an office, a provider with space for that child has refused the placement," said Patrick Crimmins, spokesman for CPS' parent agency, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. That right-of-refusal provision is at the center of a struggle between DFPS and providers that has pushed an overtaxed system past its limits and exposed how providers have the final say as to whom they will care for. "The system is maxed," Crimmins said. "The system as designed, depending on your point of view, either cannot or will not absorb more children." Providers such as Lutheran Social Services counter that they're having to refuse more children to protect their own operations because state caseworkers sometimes underplay a child's behavior history, resulting in a child being placed in the wrong setting. Private agencies contend they need that right of refusal to keep everyone safe. ''Some of the referrals are not appropriate," said Charlene Hoobler, senior vice president of child and family services for Lutheran Social Services. "We're not in the business of turning away children, but we need to manage our risk." Family and Protective Services officials argue that the agency does its best to evaluate the child's level of care. "We honestly describe the characteristics of each child, including any emotional, behavioral or medical needs, when seeking a placement. However, describing a child is not the same as experiencing that child as a caregiver," Crimmins said. Some of these tougher-to-place children, providers say, are so difficult they could jeopardize the foster care operation's licensing if they hurt someone or themselves. So providers say they must pay closer attention to the child's past behavior for both safety and cost reasons. If a severely disturbed child already has been through a provider's foster care program once, some providers think there is no point in accepting the child again. "Providers we are contacting are not accepting some children with special needs, even though they are licensed to do so and are already caring for other children with special needs," Crimmins said. But providers say their right of refusal is about the only flexibility they have to prevent foster care children from being placed in a residential facility or foster home ill-equipped to handle them. A continuing problem In a 2004 study on foster care by then-Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn, she determined the lack of such a no-rejection policy undercuts the state's ability to manage an effective program. Some states do have a no-rejection policy. "Allowing providers to pick and choose among foster children and the services they deliver undermines the entire foster care system," Strayhorn's report found. ''It also puts caseworkers in a bind when contractors can dictate which children they will serve." Lawmakers who worked to pass a foster care overhaul this session are alarmed by the rising number of children staying overnight in offices, no matter what the reason is. "Having 148 children sleep in offices is unacceptable," said House Human Services Chairman Patrick Rose, D-Dripping Springs. But Rose does not support a blanket no-rejection policy. "I do think it's important for us to build our capacity, to require child-placing agencies licensed by the state to accept children on short notice and in critical situations, and to arm our state employees with every ability possible to take care of those children during emergency situations," he said. State Sen. Carlos Uresti, D-San Antonio, tried this session to put a no-rejection policy in place, but it failed to pass. ''We're letting them (providers) dictate the rules, and that's what is creating this problem," Uresti said. The other factors Another issue for providers is flexibility in the number of children they take in. Until recently, it was easier for providers to ask for a little leeway regarding caseloads. They could take on children they may not have been equipped to handle, at least on an emergency basis, because they could request a rules variance from the state to do so. "Before, I could act in the best interest of a child and know (Texas child care) licensing would grant me a variance," Hoobler said. As of this year, those variances are harder to come by as the state began holding agencies and the homes they manage to tougher standards that will officially take effect July 1. Uresti said he would like to see a flexible system in place when it comes to finding placements for this hardest-to-serve abused-child population. He would like to see CPS bend the rules to allow providers a sort of 48-hour emergency leeway when taking on this tougher population. "We have to strike a balance," he said. The hardest-to-place Each month, about 20 percent of those children sleeping in offices were newly discharged from psychiatric hospitals. Providers such as Lutheran Social Services or DePelchin Children's Center are licensed to place abused children into foster homes or residential treatment facilities, which are more secure than a regular foster home but less restrictive than a psychiatric facility. In Texas, there are 4,085 residential treatment beds in 91 centers. Most centers are either at or near capacity, so operators have to weigh carefully who among this hard-to-place population could get the most out of these premium beds. ''We base it (placements) on whether we can help this child," said Curtis Mooney, DePelchin's president and chief executive. A child discharged from a psychiatric hospital can cost providers more than $300 a day for one-on-one supervision in an RTC, Mooney said. Depending on the child and the extent of its problems, sometimes the state will pay less than half that. ''You can't run a quality program on $120 a day," Mooney said. ''If all I had to care for these children were the resources the state was paying, I could not provide the program these children need." Lawmakers and state officials are hoping a new reimbursement rate passed this session — $374 a day for 60 days for children exiting psychiatric hospitals — will ease the office sleeping problem. That increase, as well as a small overall rate increase for all foster children, goes into effect Sept. 1. Until then, Texas Department of Family and Protective Services Commissioner Carey Cockerell is holding daily meetings to make sure CPS staffers have the resources to meet the needs of children in offices and hotels. State officials are meeting with residential providers to discuss ways to increase foster care capacity. Another agency panel is exploring whether these children could be placed in housing run by other social services agencies. A foster care package approved this legislative session adds more than 300 CPS caseworkers and tightens requirements for foster placements. It also allows state employees who have passed criminal background checks to provide emergency care if an appropriate placement cannot be found. ''We recognize that this is a serious issue, and we are aggressively exploring solutions," Crimmins said. ; CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ON A DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY/CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY WIRETAPPING PROGRAM.... CPS Does not protect children... It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse, neglect and even killed at the hands of Child Protective Services. every parent should read this .pdf from connecticut dcf watch... http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com/8x11.pdf http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the US These numbers come from The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect in Washington. (NCCAN) Recent numbers have increased significantly for CPS *Perpetrators of Maltreatment* Physical Abuse CPS 160, Parents 59 Sexual Abuse CPS 112, Parents 13 Neglect CPS 410, Parents 241 Medical Neglect CPS 14 Parents 12 Fatalities CPS 6.4, Parents 1.5 Imagine that, 6.4 children die at the hands of the very agencies that are supposed to protect them and only 1.5 at the hands of parents per 100,000 children. CPS perpetrates more abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse and kills more children then parents in the United States. If the citizens of this country hold CPS to the same standards that they hold parents too. No judge should ever put another child in the hands of ANY government agency because CPS nationwide is guilty of more harm and death than any human being combined. CPS nationwide is guilty of more human rights violations and deaths of children then the homes from which they were removed. When are the judges going to wake up and see that they are sending children to their death and a life of abuse when children are removed from safe homes based on the mere opinion of a bunch of social workers. BE SURE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOUR CANDIDATES STANDS ON THE ISSUE OF REFORMING OR ABOLISHING CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES ("MAKE YOUR CANDIDATES TAKE A STAND ON THIS ISSUE.") THEN REMEMBER TO VOTE ACCORDINGLY IF THEY ARE "FAMILY UNFRIENDLY" IN THE NEXT ELECTION... |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 5, 11:10 am, "0:-]" wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 22:12:25 -0700, fx wrote: ....a lovely little rebuttal to Gregs vicious hate filled invictive against Betty and against overwhelmed CPS workers..... Kids sleep in CPS offices after foster-care rejection By TERRI LANGFORD and JANET ELLIOTT Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...o/4857258.html Private foster care providers have refused to take in at least 372 abused or neglected children so far this year, forcing most to sleep in Texas Child Protective Services offices for a night or more, the Houston Chronicle has learned. Now why would private foster care providers, Greg, who YOU have argued in the past are in it for the money, turn down children to up their income? Eh? LIABILITY and RISK. They affect profitability tremendously! If you profited from providing security guard services would you accept every mobster as a client? Turning them away is a BUSINESS DECISION also! Last month, the number of children who had to sleep in offices because an appropriate foster care bed could not be found totaled 148, a sharp rise from 32 youths in January. "Youths?" Hmmmm...getting a hint yet, Greg? State officials said earlier this year that most of the office-bunking children had severe emotional or medical problems, making them the toughest to place in an already crowded 34,000-bed foster care network. In the past five years, the number of foster children increased 43 percent while the number of foster care beds grew by 28 percent. Oh, severe emotional problems. To my knowledge CPS workers are not trained, nor provided a system within which to deal with such children. I was trained in that field of child treament for emotionally disturbed teens, and it is a very specialized skill. But in May, CPS acknowledged that another factor was involved: Private organizations that care for 80 percent of Texas' foster care children can refuse to provide a bed for a child for any reason. Yet another support of my claim, made for years now, in ascps, that privitizing foster care was and is a sham. "In every case of a child spending the night in an office, a provider with space for that child has refused the placement," said Patrick Crimmins, spokesman for CPS' parent agency, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. The problem, Greg, as I saw developing as early as 1980, just a few years after my service on a county social services advisory commission, was exactly this. The abuse of children had been taking on a much more serious and perverse element. Leaving children so warped and damaged that themselves were becoming a threat to those around them. One of the first casefiles I reviewed as a student worker on practicum in 80, included the related incident of a three year old little foster girl being found standing over the bed of her sleeping foster parents, holding a knife ... a large kitchen knife, she had gotten from their kitchen, telling them she was going to kill them. I was sure there had to be a typo. No, it was a three year old. And as I read on in the case and found what her own parents had done to her it because apparent how she developed this extreme survival behavior. And this was consistenly what I found with children in treatment that had come from homes where the state had had to take custody. The children developed severe sociopathy, as krp puts it, NOT from being unspanked, but from being 'spanked' in so many perverse ways. Including neglect so bizzare as to be worthy of TV movie specials. That right-of-refusal provision is at the center of a struggle between DFPS and providers that has pushed an overtaxed system past its limits and exposed how providers have the final say as to whom they will care for. Actually this is true even with states that do NOT use private providers. But in fact run their own programs. Why? Because foster parents are NOT employees. Society has energetically rejected paid parents as a solution. That is professional parents. Only in cases with a clinical mental health problem is that allowed, and those are highly trained and often folks from the mental health professions that do that kind of "parenting." I used to do some of the preparatory training of those folks, and they don't work for the state, but for private agencies. "The system is maxed," Crimmins said. "The system as designed, depending on your point of view, either cannot or will not absorb more children." When I did my student practicum I recall thinking to myself, if children are being abused in these ways that produce more and more of these children that become so incapacitated when will the saturation point be reached? Society simply hasn't enough resources. Providers such as Lutheran Social Services counter that they're having to refuse more children to protect their own operations because state caseworkers sometimes underplay a child's behavior history, resulting in a child being placed in the wrong setting. Private agencies contend they need that right of refusal to keep everyone safe. Both are correct. Many of those children should be in treatment settings. If you want to see an "industry" take a look there. The problem is, unless it IS run like an industry (they are almost exclusively non-profit by the way) it will fail. ''Some of the referrals are not appropriate," said Charlene Hoobler, senior vice president of child and family services for Lutheran Social Services. "We're not in the business of turning away children, but we need to manage our risk." In fact those that evaluate incoming children for them, and I've known a few of those folks, are very good at their job and recommend most often a closed psyciatric facility placement. And are there enough beds there? In 1980 the waiting list was about 6 months long. And where did they place these children while waiting for the psychiatric bed? Why with FOSTER PARENTS, of course. Family and Protective Services officials argue that the agency does its best to evaluate the child's level of care. "We honestly describe the characteristics of each child, including any emotional, behavioral or medical needs, when seeking a placement. However, describing a child is not the same as experiencing that child as a caregiver," Crimmins said. And THAT folks IS the fact. It read on paper, even with explicit descriptions of behaviors and the clinical DX as well, very different than having a 200 lb teen throwing broken plate glass at you....my very first day in a treatment center...and not supposed to interact with the children, just "observe." I was, in fact, the one that physically took him down while everyone concentrated on trying to stay out of his line of fire. I read his casefile later, after the police took him away to a psychiatric facility. The diagnosis, or evaluation, on this child? MMMMmmmmhhhhhmmmm... YALP An bio parent abused and neglected child. Some of these tougher-to-place children, providers say, are so difficult they could jeopardize the foster care operation's licensing if they hurt someone or themselves. So providers say they must pay closer attention to the child's past behavior for both safety and cost reasons. If a severely disturbed child already has been through a provider's foster care program once, some providers think there is no point in accepting the child again. "Providers we are contacting are not accepting some children with special needs, even though they are licensed to do so and are already caring for other children with special needs," Crimmins said. So what do you think, Greg, and or fx the sock, what would YOU do, send them home to their parents with a course in Hansen Proper Spanking Skills? But providers say their right of refusal is about the only flexibility they have to prevent foster care children from being placed in a residential facility or foster home ill-equipped to handle them. A continuing problem In a 2004 study on foster care by then-Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn, she determined the lack of such a no-rejection policy undercuts the state's ability to manage an effective program. Some states do have a no-rejection policy. Any wonder now, with that above, that fx can post so many incidences of children being injured in foster care? "Allowing providers to pick and choose among foster children and the services they deliver undermines the entire foster care system," Strayhorn's report found. ''It also puts caseworkers in a bind when contractors can dictate which children they will serve." Then they must stop having volunteer contracts with the actual caregiver and make them employees, with the training and back up that implies. Lawmakers who worked to pass a foster care overhaul this session are alarmed by the rising number of children staying overnight in offices, no matter what the reason is. "Having 148 children sleep in offices is unacceptable," said House Human Services Chairman Patrick Rose, D-Dripping Springs. But Rose does not support a blanket no-rejection policy. "I do think it's important for us to build our capacity, to require child-placing agencies licensed by the state to accept children on short notice and in critical situations, and to arm our state employees with every ability possible to take care of those children during emergency situations," he said. Nonsense. Total nonsense. The ONLY way to learn to effectively deal with the damaged children safely for all parties, and especially the children, is not JUST by training, but by day to day experience with a team approach. Imagine, if you will. A worker who has all the case responbilities they do, spending their evening trying to work with mentally ill, and or criminally inclined children such as the story in Texas (and elsewhere). State Sen. Carlos Uresti, D-San Antonio, tried this session to put a no-rejection policy in place, but it failed to pass. ''We're letting them (providers) dictate the rules, and that's what is creating this ... read more »- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Kids sleep in CPS offices after foster-care rejection: Having 148children sleep in Child Protective Service offices is unacceptable," saidHouse Human Services Chairman Patrick Rose... | fx | Spanking | 1 | June 5th 07 09:57 PM |
Riverside County orders review of social services department: UnionLocal 721, who complained Child Protective Services was "broken" and thatnearly half of child welfare workers in Riverside had less than a year ofseniority. | fx | Spanking | 0 | May 12th 07 04:36 AM |
THE DEAD FOSTER CARE CHILDREN COVERED UP! [Child Protective Services] | fx | Spanking | 7 | March 18th 07 05:23 PM |
THE DEAD FOSTER CARE CHILDREN COVERED UP! [Child Protective Services] | fx | Foster Parents | 7 | March 18th 07 05:23 PM |
Barred from Virginia DCSE Offices, then summoned to appear at one of thosze offices. | Editor - Child Support News | Child Support | 15 | April 23rd 04 02:32 AM |