Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Human Services Community Meetings

By

Have any BMGers attended the Human Services Community Meetings? The closest they came to me is Roxbury, during rush hour. Didn’t make it.

Here’s a report on the one in Holyoke Tuesday.

It’s such a huge topic. Everything from foster care to housing, mental health services, and elderly issues.

And Bay Windows reports on co-chair Rev. Richard Richardson’s anti-gay antics:

Richardson is an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage who testified before a congressional committee in favor of a federal anti-gay marriage amendment.

But that’s not the full extent of Richardson’s anti-gay activism. Richardson, the president and CEO of Children’s Services of Roxbury and a board member of the Black Ministerial Alliance, also serves on the board of advisors of the Alliance for Marriage, the organization spearheading the push for the federal amendment. The Chelmsford resident was also one of the original signers of the initiative petition to ban same-sex marriage in the Bay State, which last month was squashed by the legislature. Now, he’s a plaintiff – along with Gov. Mitt Romney – in a lawsuit going before the state Supreme Judicial Court on Dec. 22 that asks the court to either force the legislature to vote on the petition or allow it to bypass lawmakers and be placed on the 2008 statewide ballot.

I’m not saying I have a problem with this. Just pointing out Deval’s Big Tent is really big.

The weaknesses in our foster care system alone could fill a Working Group’s time for months, not just the days they have to compile ideas.

I’ve been a foster parent, and I can attest that DSS needs a commissioner with experience in child welfare. Harry Spence is well respected, and with good reason. He has some good ideas, but he’s implementing them from the top down. Nothing has trickled down to the level of families yet.

DSS is an entrenched bureaucracy that rewards ego and ambition over the best interests of the children. I’ve worked with some really wonderful social workers, but I’ve also encountered some who are truly evil and doing real harm, albeit bureaucratically, to children. Then there’s the legal system. There are many who complain that DSS rules absolutely over families, but I’ve seen the result of judges’ decisions that overrule DSS recommendations and send children back to families who simply cannot care for them.

There is too little money spent ineffectively in a system that is trying to do too much. Spend the money to preserve families first and foremost. Then make sure children are removed only as a last resort. But finally, make sure there are adequate resources–mental health services, counseling, advocacy–to help the children and foster and adoptive families.

This is the hardest kind of parenting to do–picking up the pieces after a family has been shattered by abuse, neglect, drugs, you name it.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. so I’m especially grateful to read this post and learn about some of the important issues, such as foster care system-level issues of funding, quality of services (SW’s, judges, foster parents, etc) and your lived experiences and insights into those

    But finally, make sure there are adequate resources–mental health services, counseling, advocacy–to help the children and foster and adoptive families.

    <

    p>
    Perhaps the new Gov should tap competent leadership and make sure they have the exec/legislative authority to undertake AND sustain rigorous assessment and planning for these HHS services.  I’m not a gov’t person so don’t know if such a structure now exists in EOHHS but I do know some disturbing history exists on this topic in Massachusetts.  In 1990 the Lege, at the behest of the Mass. Hospital Association’s (MHA) biggest/wealthiest/most powerful players (eg academic hospital networks) repealed long-standing and effective legislation that required statewide and regional planning input and approval for new development etc r/t health and hospital services. A quick Google search provided this article, first on a list of many:

    BU Bridge Community Newspaper

    Week of 28 January 2000

    Feature Article
    Hospital deregulation in Massachusetts a proven flop, prof says, By David J. Craig

    About a decade ago, Massachusetts legislators freed hospitals from state regulation in the hopes of controlling costs and promoting competition between hospitals. More than 20 hospitals in the state closed as a result, and many others merged or eliminated staff in an attempt to survive.

    Despite this, hospital costs in Massachusetts rose at more than twice the national rate in 1998 and additional cuts in services likely will result, according to a report released last month by Alan Sager, a School of Public Health professor, and his colleague, Deborah Socolar, an SPH research analyst.

    “This is very troubling,” says Sager, who has been tracking health-care costs with Socolar for more than a decade. “Closing hospitals and removing beds has not succeeded in slowing cost increases, and this jump is totally unprecedented. Hospital deregulation has been a disaster in every respect.”

    Sager’s 13-page analysis, which is based on the latest American Hospital Association (AHA) statistics, shows that per capita hospital costs rose 7.6 percent in Massachusetts but only 3.2 percent nationally in 1998. Costs here were 42.3 percent above the U.S. average — $1,678.10 per person vs. $1,179.60 — up from 36.5 percent above the average in 1997. …

    <

    p>
    The MHA, dominated by Partners Health Care, Inc and a few select other power brokers, has unbridled influence on statewide healthcare delivery “planning and development”. This is a very unhealthy (and expensive) dynamic for all of us in the Commonwealth.  I urge the Gov and his cabinet, in concert with the Lege, to create and implement legislation restoring statewide planning and oversight.  In concert with that they must assemble a competent and broad team that has the authority to lead a statewide publicly accountable structure for ongoing planning, development, and oversight (including quality improvement) of all HHS services in Massacusetts.

  2. Foster care and the Department of Social Services ARE a complex topic.  They are also affected by what the Federal Government does.  See http://www.medicalne… where the Federal Government changed medicaid to allow “for profit” agencies to receive direct payment for providing foster care.  Is this good or bad?  I do not know yet.  What I do know is that Massachusetts followed suit.  That is, up until August of this year, for profits required a governmental or “nor for profit partner”. http://www.boston.co… There was not even ONE public hearing about this change in Massachusetts.

    <

    p>  A clause was added on to an economic stimulus package which was passed in August during informal session that dropped a single word from the definition of foster care – and now “for profit agencies can provide placements without a partner and be paid.  One of these is Mentor – which recently achieved notoriety over the death of a 4-year old placed with a 22 year old single mother who was found to have beaten him to death – been inadequately supervised – and a $4,000,000 settlement – which did not bring the child back to life resulted.  DSS also had no “white hat” on the Dontel Jeffers case, moving him without notice to his family, fail to place him with a grandmother due to faulting her apartment.  http://news.bostonhe… See also http://www.boston.co… which provides extensive background on the Jeffers case.

    <

    p>
    Unfortunately, DSS is not required to make reasonable efforts – or any efforts to assist parents, in part because of two cases, Care and Protection of Isaac and Care and Protection of Jeremy which have limited judicial over sight as to children’s placements and the services they receive.  While I do not agree with everything on this website http://www.massoutra… in fact DSS power is as great as described at this site.

    <

    p>
    And, while I am told Harry Spence is `well regarded’, I am not sure why, or by who.  My own experience is that he does not return phone calls or answer letters (at least not mine) though perhaps a thoughtful letter from a sole practitioner need not be answered – but those of an elected official, I would guess, always are.  See http://www.boston.co… for more about Harry Lewis Spence. 

    Also, DSS has combined two incompatible missions – removal and termination of parental rights, as a prosecutorial function, and at least an alleged role as service providers to strengthen families.  See  http://www.mass.gov/…  There are, however, no regulations or statutes that spell out how to strengthen families, or what efforts DSS must make.  The federal government pays $3000 – $6000 for each adoption, but reunification is unfunded.  While foster parents are NOT paid enough – parents are not assisted.  Over and over I have seen children placed in foster care because their parents are homeless, the goal changed to adoption if the parents are not housed quickly enough, and the goal changed to adoption and parental rights terminated.  I am personally aware of several such cases from work I do as an appellate attorney.  Over and over I see parents who needed a bit of help – housing or daycare – and they receive no assistance at all.

    • I’d heard about the switch to allow for profits in, and the idea that Mentor would, literally, profit from this is appalling.

      <

      p>
      The next step, I fear, will be privatization, which hasn’t worked in other states. Ends up costing more money.

      <

      p>
      But the bottom line is, the children. All these conflicts of interests are not in their interests. I worry that those who rant about DSS, like MassOutrage, blur the issue and make it easy for people to dismiss them as fanatics.

      <

      p>
      DSS is both good and bad. The goal should be to reduce the bad to a minimum and enhance the good.

      <

      p>
      The future of our socitey–our children–is very much dependent on how we treat families. We can invest in families now or put the money toward prisons and homeless shelters later.

      <

      p>
      Just read the interview with John Edwards in last Sunday Globe’s Ideas section about his new book Home. He makes the case that how we see the world as adults comes very directly on our experiences growing up. Could be a “duh” moment, but I think too many have forgotten this important point.

  3. I was there at the Horizon for Homeless Children.  I was diappointed at the limitted number of mental health advocates that were there.  There were many advocates for elders, for children’s concerns, and even for GLBT issues.  I found the forum interesting.  You sign in and get to speak for 2-3 minutes when it is your turn.  You can provide written testimony to the comittee as well.  The committee sits, liatent and takes notes.  Mary Lou Sudders is a very strict time keeper.  there is no dialogue on issues.  People said they were happy to be heard.  Every group identified lack of funding as a major part of their issue. 

    <

    p>
    It left me with a few questions about this process; How can the committee put all of this information together in a report that has meaningful substance?  How will advocates and others respond when it becomes clear that there is no new funding for their program or any other program?

  4. I plan to go to the one in Framingham next Wednesday afternoon.  When I looked at the schedule, I scanned for Human Services meetings and that was the one that seemed easiest for me to get to.

    • I am an independent child advocate which means I do work for families, not profit.

      <

      p>
      Until we change that avenue, children will be for sale in Massachusetts.

      <

      p>
      One of the biggest kept secrets in Massachusetts is that  the State profits from keeping children in foster care!

      <

      p>
      Homeless families are often the victims of foster care, then these children a labeled “neglected” give me a break, the real neglect comes from the gross incompetence associated with DSS.

      <

      p>
      We need accountability and service for families, not going to a class, having some organization open it doors of offer assistance which in reality is nothing.

      <

      p>
      We need rent substitutes, real employment opportunities, DSS workers who actually have a clue may a good place to start.

      <

      p>
      What we really need is new rules and regulations and stop this outrage.  Currently you can not get a fair hearing to “disagree” with DSS for up to one year.

      <

      p>
      Mean while your children anguish and your family is terrorized by uneducated bureaucratics who only see $$$$$$$$$$ dollars signs.

      <

      p>
      Obviously we don’t see foster care children saying I have had a good life. 

      <

      p>
      If we took the money paid out to DSS and used it to assist our families who struggle in this economy our children would be better off, but than remember that means the free gravy train ride for the professional who have lived of the “Cottage Industry” associated with so called child abuse would cease.

      • I am a foster parent, working with DSS. I work only with older teens.. the age group that very few others will work with.

        <

        p>
        I can personally name a great number of kids who will tell you they had a much better life and a much greater chance of success after having gone through the system… ie. our homes.

        <

        p>
        There are also those who do not.

        <

        p>
        We are dealing with the problems that nobody wants to talk about or deal with.

        <

        p>
        I know of no (none!) social worker who wants to keep kids away from a home that is ready for them to go back to. The return of a kid is considered a great success.

        <

        p>
        I can’t tell you how many bio-parents we have seen refuse to work with the system.. assuming that their stubborness and anger will solve their problems.

        <

        p>
        I have seen many successfully recover their families and move on.

        <

        p>
        I often don’t think more handouts programs would solve the problems.. (although there are always some that will succeed with a little help.. thats the point of the new “systems of care” initiatives).. many people abuse these programs and priviledges and then their families fall apart again.

        <

        p>
        Personally, I would much prefer getting the courts out of the system. Logically, the care and best interest of children should not be done in an adversarial system. Then again, the rights of parents are a sacred thing that should be tampered with only with great care.

        <

        p>
        The idea that DSS is rewarded for taking children is a myth created by the angry anti-child-care groups.

        <

        p>
        I agree that the DSS system needs repairs. Most of it has to do with getting the different parts of government willing to work with each other instead of at odds..

        <

        p>
        Schools hate to deal with anything that is not a “perfect” child. The courts have readjusted schedules so that social workers have to be present every day (instead of just one or two days a week as in the past) so that much time that should be spent with the families is spent in courtrooms. Cases are continued over and over, never getting resolved. Workers are assigned cases where different kids in the same case could be spread all over the state (rather than distributing a kid placed remotely to a worker in that region/office). Caseloads are rediculous.

        <

        p>
        The new “Systems of Care” are a great concept.. but in the transition I see a lack of resources in the communities and families that should be appearing now that we are saving so much by closing down many of the residential centers.

        <

        p>
        Many foster families are burned out, with few new people willing to take on the responsibility of society (the state cannot care for these children.. people must do it).

        <

        p>
        I’m not going to lie. The role of a foster parent is tough.. often unappreciated, and hard work. Many of the kids are angry, their families are angry, and you take the brunt of a lot of it.

        <

        p>
        But the satisfaction you get.. after you have settled a kid in, and he suddenly starts to succeed is great. Helping him (or her) either transition back to their family, or move on to go to college or into a job and adulthood makes it all worth it.

        <

        p>
        The Social Services system is far from perfect.. but I have seen no system that can be. By definition, we are dealing with the results of the broken part of society. DSS is at one of the lowest priorities at the state (often the first to get cut during budget problems), yet has to deal with the most important obligations of government.. the care and protection of the wards of the state.

        • UNFORTUNATELY, there is a reward to the General Fund for children in foster care or terminated from their families and adopted.  I know as I do appellate work in the field of child welfare law.  See  “Take the Children and Run” by Professor Richard Wexler in the BU Law Journal at :  http://www.nccpr.org…  And then there is:  //www.house.state.tx.us/committees/reports/78interim/childwelfare.pdf  See also  the full text of ASFA, a pro adoption industry bill if ever there was one:  http://laws.adoption…

          <

          p>
          Further, foster care is funded, reunification and so-called “reasonable efforts” to assist parents, on the whole, are not.  I have represented fit parents fighting for return of their children, many times.  In several cases the reason for a change of goal to adoption was “took/taking” too long to find housing. 

          <

          p>
          Yes, there are the tragic families where DSS is all there is.  But the DSS mission is NOT helped by chaining together a prosecutorial function, namely the removal of children from parents and the power to change the goal to adoption, with the opposite goal of strengthening families.

          <

          p>
          Further, the so-called “best interests” standard is all too often a beauty test – that is which family has the better house or housing, better access to health care, etc.  It is reminiscent, at least to me, of the Gingrich-era preferance for orphanages for the children of what he termed the underclass.

          <

          p>
          But all too many working Massachusetts families are actually one paycheck away from being homeless.

          <

          p>
          Shawn – it is great that you are doing foster care for teens – but when it comes to DSS all too often it is DSS that breaks the family, that takes children and tosses their parents on the trash heap – especially if that parent is a teenaged girl, or a non-anglo father.

          <

          p> 

          • I’ve corresponded with him over the years (caught some speeches by him and saw him at a focus group once).

            <

            p>
            He is, as far as I’m concerned, at least making the point that change must occur.

            <

            p>
            I believe my statement, that you reiterate well, came from research that included his books.. that being that we need to somehow separate the use of the adversarial system from the foster care system. But the issue remains that parents have rights.

            <

            p>
            The “Systems of Care” initiatives come from people all over the country like Wexler. The concept being to bring the services into the homes. Rather than break up a family, try to help a family resolve its problems within its own home and community.

            <

            p>
            The problem with this is finding the resources to do it. The community (schools) doesn’t want the problems, and the families are reluctant to have “outsiders” get involved in thier lives.

            <

            p>
            Human Services are at the bottom rung when it comes to state priorities. Where much of the state budget is fixed costs (ie infrustructure, retirement, health care, etc), the only place you can usually cut when there is a budget crisis is the state employees, and the ones who are considered least important are the social services (social workers, mental health workers, etc).

            <

            p>
            I think your argument about funding is a “point-of-view” issue. At the federal level, they have limited funds for foster care to distribute among the states. So they do it by the number of cases a state has.

            <

            p>
            This can (and in some cases probably does) encourage “pushing up the numbers” to increase federal funds. Then again, how else should you allocate those funds? Wexler and others have some ideas.. and I’m willing to listen.

            <

            p>
            We were lucky to have Tom Delay in a leadership position in congress, only because he is a foster parent and champions the needs of children in the care of the state. I hope he has cleaned up the rest of his problems so that he can get back to focusing on that.

            <

            p>

        • about kids to take the most difficult to manage.  The importance of stable foster care, both longterm and emergency, gets buried in all the bashing and finger-pointing.  Where would we be without good people to take these kids in? 

Archives