Front Page  »  

Foster kids just like money in the bank

December 19, 2013
Lee Collins

Lee Collins

By DANIEL BLACKBURN

Children taken from parents and placed in foster homes generate a generous flow of cash to California counties, according to a recent Los Angeles Times report.

County social services agencies throughout the state net at least $1,800 each month for every child placed into foster care.

“The currency of the system is children; the key to getting more children — and earning more money — is finding willing foster parents,” The Times reported.

The newspaper noted the strong financial motivation for government’s placement of children in what often are inferior foster homes.

Approximately 40 percent of a monthly grant for each child goes to the foster parents; the remaining 60 percent goes to individual counties to help pay salaries and reduce office expenses.

Earlier this month, San Luis Obispo County Social Services Department Director Lee Collins asserted this county does not receive any government funding for children in the foster care system.

He told the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors on Dec. 10 that there is a high cost to the county for keeping children in county custody.

Statewide, many of these children then end up in neglectful or dangerous foster homes.

“The money that foster parents receive — about $748 a month in California, or $25 a day — is for the children’s living expenses,” The Times reported. “The homes are not meant to be profit-making enterprises, but it is the sole income for some parents.”

According to California’s state website, “The preferred placement of children who require out-of-home care is with relatives.” However, county employees have wide-ranging, often absolute, discretion in determining if children stay in foster homes, or with family members, while working to “reunify” kids with parents.

Many parents of children “relocated” to foster homes also reported extreme difficulties in getting child welfare employees to respond to allegations of foster abuse. Those employees are required by law to investigate within 48 hours allegations of abuse or neglect of their wards.


Loading...
Subjects:             
Related:


61 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Actually, re-reading the relevant section of the Times’ article, it appears clear that the $1,870 goes to the private child welfare agencies, not the government:


“In the 1980s, California relied heavily on group homes, some of which cost taxpayers up to $25,800 a year per child.


Legislators reasoned that charities, churches and community groups would be more efficient and nimble than the government bureaucracy. They gave them the power to recruit foster parents and hire their own social workers.


The law provides about $1,870 a month to care for each child and to cover administrative costs. The foster family receives about 40% of that amount, and the rest goes to the agency to pay for social workers, office rent and other expenses.”


0

The article also states:


“California began a modest experiment 27 years ago, privatizing a portion of foster care in the belief that it would better serve children and be less expensive. Lawmakers decided to enlist local charities to help recruit and supervise foster parents.


Today, the state’s private foster family system — the largest in the nation — has become more expensive and more dangerous than the government-run homes it has largely replaced.


Those living in homes run by private agencies were about a third more likely to be the victims of serious physical, emotional or sexual abuse than children in state-supervised foster family homes, according to a Times analysis of more than 1 million hotline investigations over a recent three-year period.


In Los Angeles County, at least four children died as a result of abuse or neglect over the last five years in homes overseen by private agencies, according to county officials. No children died in government-run homes during that period.


http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-foster-care-dto,0,5583241.htmlstory#ixzz2o3MJRcIL”


————–


Are SLO County foster-care homes contracted through the state or through SLO County? If they are contracted through SLO County, it is the county that has oversight of the foster-care homes. If it is the state, then the state has foster-care oversight.


0

I don’t know. Perhaps the CCN story could have actually answered those questions.


0

Homer, either way–whether the county contracts with the foster-care homes or if the state does–there is contracting as a means for providing foster-care homes.


0

“the welfare state is broken I am the man to fix it” Ronald Reagan looking for the lowest bid


0

This is what Lee Collins said about CWS NOT receiving any money for children in Foster care… at 56 minutes in.


http://slocounty.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=1656


0

“The homes are not meant to be profit-making enterprises.”


BUT they ARE…

IMHO, most Foster Parents ARE in it for the money…


0

Another highly paid government official lies to the public or is completely ignorant of the way his own agency works. Nothing new here this is just normal operating procedure for most government agencies. It’s scary to think what could happen if the government were to be placed in charge of an even bigger area of our lives, like healthcare!


0

It’s been a long time since I was a foster parent – early to late-90s – but at the time there were only about 80 foster homes in SLO County so they were shipping local kids to San Jose and elsewhere. I took in teenagers who had issues – physical and behavioral – who came through an agency contracted by the County to provide additional support for foster parents and kids – counseling and a little more money than that given to foster parents of kids who didn’t have as many problems.


It’s a hard job and what they pay you to support even troubled teenagers doesn’t begin to cover the real expenses: $35 for clothes, for example, doesn’t help much towards giving these kids decent shoes and clothes so they don’t feel any different at school than they have to. Nothing for yearbooks, class rings, class photos, club dues…


I felt that the authorities were over-focused on placing these kids back with family, at least at that time, no matter how bad that family might be. One kid I had for a couple years went back at 17 to the mother, whose husband had sexually abused the child before. The County made the mother a foster parent and paid her to look after her own child. I don’t know if she lied about her husband still living there or not, but the husband did it again. The child (at 18 and out of the system) called me at 1am one Friday night to ask for a pick up along Hwy 1 north of Pismo, and a place to live.


In this person’s case, none of five aunts and uncles living locally wanted the child. In Velie’s case it appears quite different. But it’s not always best for foster children to be reunified with family. Some of the kids I took care of came from really awful backgrounds, with families full with drug addicts and criminals.


They made a mistake with my foster child that put that kid right back into the bad scene. Given the institutionalized propensity to place foster kids with family-members whenever possible – then and now – I would rather the authorities NOT place kids back in contact with people who don’t look after them properly, even if they are related, until it’s as sure as can be that it’s a safe place for the kids.


Finally, I don’t know what’s really going on in this case, and I don’t know Lee Collins – I don’t think he was around when I was a foster parent. But I’ve been impressed by his willingness to stand up to the governor’s office to fight against cuts to after-18 services for foster kids, and home health care workers. He always seemed pretty progressive and responsible to me.


0

Your story is horrible. And I agree, that child should have never gone back with the parent unless the abuser was proven to be out of the picture.

DSS needs to be responsible for treating each case as a special case and not with an institutionalized propensity. As in the Veile case the kids were not being abused, nor in danger, nor did they ever state that was an issue. They found an illegal reason – dirty house – as a reason. Unfortunately Lee Collins will pursue his personal agendas above ethical ones. And of course fighting the governors office for money is not just for the people. Glad for you to be unaware of his real doings. But the reality is all you have to do is talk to one of his employees to know his true colors.


0

Earlier this month, San Luis Obispo County Social Services Department Director Lee Collins asserted this county does not receive any government funding for children in the foster care system.”


Really Lee?? We can see that you are much farther out of touch with reality than first assumed. Although lying is not a new concept to Mr. Collins, this is just more proof he needs to move on to retirement. I sincerely hope Mr. Collins is treated just as he has treated others.

He is looking really old. All that “Empathy” really wears a man down.


0

From your article: “County social services agencies throughout the state net at least $1,800 each month for every child placed into foster care.”

From the Times’ article:

“The law provides about $1,870 a month to care for each child and to cover administrative costs. The foster family receives about 40% of that amount, and the rest goes to the agency to pay for social workers, office rent and other expenses.”

I’m not a math whiz, but I’m pretty sure 60 percent of $1,870 does not equal the county netting “at least $1,800.”


0

That rather significant error aside, the Times story is indeed a sad one. Perhaps you should also include this part in your story: “By two key measures used by national child welfare groups, California’s privatized system is worse than its government-run counterpart, according to a Times analysis of three years of data ending in 2011. Youths in privately operated homes remained in the foster system 11% longer than those in other types of homes — 378 days compared to 341 days.”


0

The article says the county was paid $1,800 per month/child. Homer, that is accurate. The county THEN pays the foster parents.


0

No, the CCN article says the county “nets” at least $1,800 a month. If the county keeps 60 percent, the net amount is quite a bit less than $1,800 a month. More importantly, the Times story actually is saying private child welfare agencies, not counties, get $1,800 month. Let’s see if CCN retracts this story, or at the very least contacts Lee Collins for a comment. Not holding my breath.


0

Why does it take so LONG for kids kidnapped legally by the hypocritical ‘Child Welfare Services’ to be returned to their rightful homes … MYSTERY SOLVED!


0

This is a black or white issue… Either the LA Times is right or wrong or Lee Collins is right or wrong.


0
1 2 3