Follow Karen

 Beverly Jones, Connie Hayek like this

38 comments Jump to most recent comment

• Susan

  Susan Punnett

  Executive Director at Family and Youth Initiative

  I think the question of how to make services individualized while also meeting an appropriately high standard is key. The case management steps are so much easier to track (visits held, case plans updated/filed) so that’s what gets measured and where the focus is. But it’s not how children need to be parented – what they need is someone to recognize and encourage their interests and abilities and give them opportunities. The system as a system can’t do that (or do it well). It has to be an individual who has taken the time to get to know that child or teen.

  Maybe it’s possibly that a case worker or CASA or other individual can fulfill that role. My bias is that it’s best an adult outside the formal system.

  How to define who that person is or how we know they’re both working in the best interest of the child and succeeding (which may often mean pushing back against system decisions which we know those in formal case management roles don’t handle well).

  We’ve clearly not solved the question for our APPLA youth of how to measure/identify adults who are really going to stay in the life of a youth aging out (rather than just checking that box because someone has put forward the name of some adult).

  I believe that there are many more teens who still want families if only we worked with them differently – giving them more of a voice and time to get to know adults before we require them to say yes or not to adoption. That’s what we do and we know it works – including for some whose goals were not adoption; one of whom consistently said no to adoption until he was told it was his mentor who wanted to adopted. Immediate change to his response once the conversation changed from the unknown to a very well know adult. Also increases the pool of adoptive families when adults get to know these teens first.

  So long as we continue to treat older children as unadoptable and take them at their word when they say they don’t want to be adopted (despite no one having done the hard work with them first to tease out why they’re saying that and making sure they understand what it means to age out), systems won’t put the time or money into changing practice enough to increase the number of older children who are adopted (and/or connected to adults who really will be there for them even if they ultimately decide they don’t want adoption).

  • Like
  • Reply privately
  • Flag as inappropriate
  • 18 days ago
• Jake

  Jake Terpstra

  —

  Susan, you make some very good points. Probably most teens long for a family of their own, but having been mistreated and possibly rejected by a family(s) they don’t want more of the same—unless it is someone they trust. Caseworkers need to be trained to deal with that, and have time for it. Studies show that they spend over half their time on paperwork.

  To my knowledge, agencies do not have criteria for success. If only connections with lifetime families were considered success, and counted, agency practices would be quite different.

  Normally I would like to see that special role carried by the caseworker, rather than an “outside” person. But that begs a few questions. Only 37% of child welfare staff have had social work training. In addition very few universities have child welfare courses. And as I mentioned, so many other “duties” have been added that they don’t have much time for it. The system itself is upside down. I just wrote a book about the system; let me know if you are interested in getting it.

  Jake

  • Like (1)
  • Reply privately
  • Flag as inappropriate
  • 18 days ago

  Sandra Seaman likes this

• Jeanine

  Jeanine Livingston

  Contracting Compliance Manager at Washington Federation of State Employees

  Karen, an attempt was made in Washington state in 2009 to do this. I work for the labor union that represents the state workers in our Children’s Administration. I worked extensively with our members, academics and national experts in this area to understand a) what is this about; b) is this a good thing or a bad thing and c) what is our position/argument. Not wanting to take the standard labor position, it was important to our members that we do what’s best for kids & families.

  Through that process (and it was a LONG 4+year process) we learned that there really is no benefit to the system in adding another layer of bureaucracy to the child welfare system. The costs of doing so are extensive; look to Nebraska, Milwaukee and even Florida where the first tests were done. HUGE costs to set up the infrastructure that resulted in no improvement to outcomes.

  In response to claims that the jurisdictions doing this saw improved outcomes it was often said by the academics & experts I encountered that “with the amount of money invested in the system, someone would have to have been trying really hard to not improve outcomes”. What I learned is that there really isn’t any objective research that isolates and quantifies the contributing factors to improved outcomes. The jurisdictions that implemented privatization did so in conjunction with a variety of other initiatives so it’s very difficult (I would assert impossible) to say that privatizing was the answer.

  In 2012, near the end of the push to try this, I was invited to attend a Casey learning exchange in Phoenix. Representatives from both private and public sectors from several jurisdictions were there for panel discussions. Jurisdictions considering such a move got to ask jurisdictions that had implemented about their experiences. When asked about whether the movement to privatize alone contributed to improved outcomes each of the panelists very honestly replied that wasn’t a factor. It was the investment into services, largely attributable to getting a IV-E waiver that allowed flexibility in spending, that was the most significant in improving outcomes – however you define them. In fact, at one point, one of the panelists of a jurisdiction that had already implemented declared that it appeared we were having a “watershed moment” where we were all wondering why we would invest in additional layers of bureaucracy rather than directly into services.

  Since then, in Washington state, we received a IV-E waiver to implement a Differential Response (we call it Family Assessment Response) model. Our members fully support this. About 11 years ago we implemented Family Voluntary Services (an adaptation of DR) that was highly successful.

  Today we are looking at Social Impact Bonds as a mechanism to better fund and expand needed services. Again, our members fully support this. We have gone from a highly adversarial iniative that would divert sorely needed dollars for services for families and children into greater bureacracy to a very collaborative movement to more wisely invest scarce dollars to where they can do the most good.

  There is a substantial amount of data on what’s happened here. I’m happy to help direct you to those resources if you like.

  Best of luck to you!!

  • Like (2)
  • Reply privately
  • Flag as inappropriate
  • 18 days ago

  Connie Hayek, Jody S. like this

• Jake

  Jake Terpstra

  —

  Jeanine,

  Your experience is consistent with what I heard about privatization. (not purchase of services from private agencies) None of those five states reported improved services or lower cost, as promised. The contracting agency went broke in two of the states, because they underestimated the cost.

  • Like
  • Reply privately
  • Flag as inappropriate
  • 18 days ago
• Susan

  Susan Punnett

  Executive Director at Family and Youth Initiative

  Jeanine, what a thoughtful process in Washington State; very interesting to read that description. Hope other states learn from what you collectively did – and that one day there is “objective research that isolates and quantifies the contributing factors to improved outcomes;”that is much needed.

  Jake, One of the things that has stayed with me since my introduction to the thinking of some social workers was the idea that some teens were too damaged to have a family – but if they don’t learn to be part of a family (however defined) now, what does that mean for their adult lives, since being connected to other people is part of what all of us want and need? I think case workers should be the person who makes sure a child’s individual needs are met while he or she is in care but even if that were happening would still believe that there needs to be an “outside” person whose commitment to the child is personal and will continue long after that child leaves care (whether that means a parent the child will return to/be placed with or someone who will serve in a parental type role if the child is going to stay in care until aging out). Found your book on Amazon and looking forward to reading it.

  • Like
  • Reply privately
  • Flag as inappropriate
  • 15 days ago
• Jake

  Jake Terpstra

  —

  Susan, That’s a complex set of questions. But real.

  It s true that some kids are considered to be too damaged for family care, though that may depend partly on foster homes available. I ran a treatment facility, and often had a tough time keeping kids out who I thought could be cared for in a family. but there were some. I considered our program a family support service rather than a child care service.. We did what we could to keep family ties intact.. And considered our mission to prepare kids for family living, if not their own, then some other ones, relatives , foster care or adoptive.. It usually worked.

  We accepted children only if the referring agency agreed to work with the family, and then we worked as a team. That’s effective.

  But one of the most valuable, and also under-used, resources is specialized ((treatment/therapeutic) foster care.. They can help most kids that would otherwise go to group care programs, with better outcomes and at about a 4th the cost. Some programs have a problem though—-kids staying in those hones for adoption. That’s the agency’s problem not the kid’s. If anything in CW is my pet, it’s SFFC.

  You’re right that the caseworker should stay in the picture with adoptive families of older, or at least be available. Post adoptive services are in short supply generally, as are reunification services. And they probably have more payoff economically than any other services.

  On of my favorite stories is about Karen Jorgenson, who was the director of NFPA for about 10 years. She had a girl in foster care who eventually left and I believe lost contact. But when this girl was married, had kids and in her 40s, she called Karen ands asked her if she would adopt her. She needed the security of that tie. And she did. That’s permanence!!

  Hope you like the book.

  • Like
  • Reply privately
  • Flag as inappropriate
  • 15 days ago
• Adoree

  Adoree Blair

  Co-Owner at Integrated Family Services

  Top Contributor

  What a great story. And what a great foster family – I remember Karen as NFPA President. We lose far too many of these dedicated foster families by not ensuring the child they love has a good outcome. People are complex.

  I worked hard during the late 1990’s to bring people to the table to discuss privatizing foster care in our state. We did not get there, but about 50% of our placements are in private (non profit) foster care. What I saw from the front lines, as a foster parent, is that the ability to have a cushion of support from the agency when a foster parent was advocating a different outcome than the public agency advocated, was invaluable for preserving the best foster families. Families certified by the government agencies faced more retaliation and helplessness when they advocated in a way that made the county/state uncomfortable. It made sense to me to ensure that all foster care thus be privatized in order to ensure that all people who cared about the child came to the table without retaliation.

  The issue that remained, of course, is that we don’t do a good job of measuring why people enter foster care. Those who do so out of a ‘calling’ or a love for children are the ones the children need. We have too many who foster for the money, which is frightening when one considers there is just not money there (we always paid more out of pocket than we were ever reimbursed, which is common among those who foster for child-centered reasons.)

  Until we can measure and put standards on the foster parents upfront (enough financial and other stability, enough resources within their own family to remain stable with the added burden of dysfunction foster care brings) and then keep those families by treating them as partners, we will always have less-than-adequate foster homes. If privatizing solved this issue, it would be great, but a lot of other standards would have to be built into the privatization.

  • Like (1)
  • Reply privately
  • Flag as inappropriate
  • 15 days ago

  Sandra Seaman likes this

• Jake

  Jake Terpstra

  —

  Adoree,

  I’m not sure we are talking about the same thing re: privatization. In Kent Co MI the Co Dept purchases 95% of its services Some legislators think that increasing it to 100% would be privatization. That simply would increase purchase of services. With privatization the county dept staff would be forced to leave and a private contractor would take over. It could be compared with farming. If a farmer hires work done, that’s purchase of services. If he sells the farm that’s like privatization.

  In our licensing experiences in MI we concluded that the best services were in private agencies and also the worst. It depends on the management more than the auspices. It sounds as though you working in a very good agency. I worked in both public and private agencies and wouldn’t rate private higher. I worked on the foster care review board here for 3 years, and noticed that practices of the private agencies don’t come close to the public image they have and work hard on.

  In the Children’s Bureau I sometimes was asked what is better, public or private agencies. I said that either can be excellent or deplorable. It depends on the management not auspices. I also recommended that they try to make it about 50 50 because no one should have a monopoly and clients need choices.

  But there is something that we sure agree on—that case decisions should not be changed for kids in foster care without involvement of foster parents. They should be invited to ALL court hearings about their kids. and asked their opinions. I’m sure court decisions would be much better. Same for case planning in agencies. If there were active fos parent associations in each jurisdiction it would make a huge difference.

  On of the issues that you (or I) didn’t mention is that 2/3rds of the caseworkers have NO social work training. It’s supposed to be a social service but mostly it is done without social workers.

  The whole system needs overhaul.

  • Like
  • Reply privately
  • Flag as inappropriate
  • 14 days ago
• Hedy

  Hedy Clothier

  Supervisor at Broome County Social Services

  I am a supervisor in a Social Service agency in upstate New York. About 4 years ago we contracted out foster care services. The intital transistion began when the unit responsible for finding and maintaining foster/adoptive homes was contracted out to a private agency.Then over the next 4 years 98% of the cases have been transfered to private agencies for foster care services. It has been a rough transisition and there are still issues to be resolved.

  The local agency still oversees all cases thru casemangement. The casemamagers are responsible for writing the reports to the court, approving the 6 months assessments, making sure that the voluntary agency comply with regulations regarding contact wth the families and youth and also making sure that diligent efforts are documented in with in the case notes/casefile. This asures that dilligent efforts are undertaken to reunite children with there parents. If that is not possible it is the casemanagers and the local districts DSS file the petitions to free children for adoption.

  I believe that if the staff had been more involved in the actually process and were allowed to develop a plan for the transition if could have been much smoother. People became angry and feared for their jobs and instead of assisting the voluntary agency out and provide guidance they developed and attitude of “let them figure it out” In fact, there has not been one job cut and we recently were granted 2 new caseworker positions by the county legislature. Workers have found out that there is more then enough work to go around.

  An Interagency protocol was developed to assist workers in determing their role in a case. Workers meet with the volunary agency staff on a monthly basis’s to dicuss changes in visitation, and review progress or lack of progress with the family.

  Some days it is still a struggle to have staff not do the work that the voluntary agencies is supposed to do. This is still a work in progress but it continues to improve.

  Most of the voluntary agencies have social workers on staff and have easier access to psychiatrists and psychologists. We have greatly reduce our youth in residential placements. A large number of children that would have previously been placed in a residential setting are now being maintain in thereputic foster home. A handful of the local district’s staff are MSW’s but the majority are not.

  From a cost point of view I do not know that it is any more cost effective. However, it allows district staff more time to provide preventive services and more timely Child Protective investigation.

  • Like
  • Reply privately
  • Flag as inappropriate
  • 14 days ago
• Jake

  Jake Terpstra

  —

  Hedy, the encouraging part of your message is that you are sharply reducing residential group care of kids. In addition you are doing it in the best possible way, using therapeutic foster homes.Congratulations.

  Are you still under a class action suit by CRI?

  • Like
  • Reply privately
  • Flag as inappropriate
  • 13 days ago

• Adoree

  Adoree Blair

  Co-Owner at Integrated Family Services

  Top Contributor

  I agree also, Hedy and Jake – it is good, too, to share forward steps! Jake, I agree with what you said about private/public foster care agencies. I must have not made the point well enough. It is a shame that foster children face a ‘roll of the dice’ about what type of social worker, foster home, services, etc., that they get. We really need to keep the best homes with the extra effort and stop certifying those who aren’t clearly doing the work due to their heartstrings caring about children.

  • Like
  • Reply privately
  • Flag as inappropriate
  • 13 days ago
• Chiloquin

  Chiloquin Shelton

  Experienced HR Specialist, Customer Service Advisor, Administrative Specialist, Business Graduate, Entry Level Marketer

  I live in Austin, Texas where there are many private foster care agencies particularly churches and non profit organizations. Whether it is private or public there is still a problem in the end for those particularly who age out of foster care. Many organizations such as CASA.org are trying to do what they can to help with guidance, resources and mentorship. But in the end, it is those who have lived most of their lives in foster care and age out that we should be concerned with the most. A program needs to be created for those who have lived in the system and are close to aging out that can allow more adults to mentor and may even consider adopting older children as a way of preparing them for adulthood…companies, colleges, financial institutions, any business that is interested in helping these young teens and young adults have the opportunity to be successful…

  • Like
  • Reply privately
  • Flag as inappropriate
  • 13 days ago
• Adoree

  Adoree Blair

  Co-Owner at Integrated Family Services

  Top Contributor

  Amen, Chiloquin, to (also) needing to support those aging out. There have been many innovative programs designed to provide that support, but no real victories. I grew up in Oregon, where there was a small town about 100 miles from my birth town, in the Southeast of Oregon, named Chiloquin, In fact, that was the town where my mother grew up. Were you aware of this? I have never heard this as a name – it’s lovely.

  • Like (1)
  • Reply privately
  • Flag as inappropriate
  • 13 days ago

  Chiloquin S. likes this

• Chiloquin

  Chiloquin Shelton

  Experienced HR Specialist, Customer Service Advisor, Administrative Specialist, Business Graduate, Entry Level Marketer

  I have Adoree and one day plan to visit this small town…I asked my mother why she named me this and it has to do with our Native American heritage (Although our heritage originates from NC…lol) I am proud of the name regardless and thank you for the compliment:)

  • Like
  • Reply privately
  • Flag as inappropriate
  • 13 days ago
• Rose

  Rose Jordan

  Pursuing opportunities as LCSWA

  Mark Kroner (Lighthouse Services, Ohio) provides an excellent alternative living housing program with supportive services for ready to age-out and aged-out foster youth.

  • Like
  • Reply privately
  • Flag as inappropriate
  • 13 days ago
• david

  david roby

  I/ Executive Director at Kids Country Club

  David Roby
  Scanning all of the comments makes me realize that across North America there are a lot of good people (many on this panel) who care about our children. This applies regardless of private or direct government services. Karen we have gone through the identical questioning around privatization and I can tell you (unfortunately) that the end result is that nothing really changes. First there are a lot of adult interests at play. More CAS organizations are unionized than private firms and unions will fight privatization to the death. Current staff in the social services like their jobs and intend to keep them. Private organizations have the need to balance books and yes the government ‘expects’ them to do the same work for less. Why? Because the whole idea is to find a way to save money and please the taxpayer. ‘Notice,’ thus far I have said absolutely nothing about what is ‘best for the children.’ But, until we all come to the table as equals, nothing positive will come from privatization. Karen, sorry to sound like a bitter old man (despite the fact that I have been in the ‘business’ for more than 40 years) but reality is, Kids are not the problem…..we are. And unless you are prepared to confront these vying adult positions Georgia will end up with a lot of money spent on surveys and plans and the taxpayer will be expected to pay for the stale-mate.
  PS: An old foster child of mine called the home last week. He is now 42 years of age, married with children, and still calls me Dad. He said “I want you to know that the day you sat on the floor, held me and we cried together was the day that changed my life.”

  • Like (2)
  • Reply privately
  • Flag as inappropriate
  • 13 days ago

  Pamela W. B., Jeanine L. like this

• Jodi

  Jodi Doane

  Director at HIAS Chicago

  Susan, I also enjoyed your comments. IL is roughly 88% privatized, and made the move in the early 90s. We’ve had much opportunity to get it right and get it wrong. To Jake’s point, IL did hope that the cost of care would be less expensive; that more youth and families would be served with less dollars. Unfortunately not the case. But as also mentioned, there are workers that make a lifelong impact on youth- to the positive and negative- in both private and public agencies. As a state-administered state, we have only one DCFS to answer to, to negotiate with, to showcase successes of youth and families as a result of our services. I believe the challenge lies in how far beyond the agency equivalent of “minimum parenting standards” an agency is willing to go- and if they are, it usually means fundraising to cover the gap. This isn’t bad, and I don’t know many state legislatures that expect the state portion of funds to cover all services to a youth or family; but if the agency doesn’t have strong programs with verifiable outcomes and some innovation in service thrown in, privatization vs. non doesn’t matter: our young people still won’t have the same level of opportunity or knowledge that young people growing up in healthy natural families have.

  • Like (1)
  • Reply privately
  • Flag as inappropriate
  • 12 days ago

  Adoree Blair likes this

• Adoree

  Adoree Blair

  Co-Owner at Integrated Family Services

  Top Contributor

  Bless you David Roby. I remember the kitchen floor and a heart-broken boy rocking in my Kao wailing while I rocked him and cried too. All foster children deserve the kind of empathy. What a privilege it is to be a foster parent. How I miss it.

  • Like
  • Reply privately
  • Flag as inappropriate
  • 12 days ago
• Jake

  Jake Terpstra

  —

  David, we sometimes forget that relationships (worker with kids and families), is the heart or essence of child welfare—not keeping all the Ts crossed and Is doted. Your experience with that boy is the real heart of CW. But the role of caseworkers and the time they have available for clients now makes it difficult. Even if they are inclined.

  Results of privatization in 5 states that I am aware of were mediocre at best, and one described in a local paper, ‘horrible”. In two states the contracting agencies underestimated the cost and were unable to continue. In one instances the state had to make up a $3 million shortfall. The assumption that private agencies can do it better and cheaper, may be true in isolated instances, but there is no basis for believing that generally. That is stereotypical thinking. ll the proposals assumed it. None claimed it afterward.

  You’re right, kids’ interests do not seem to enter the picture, a least not clearly. It reminds me of an African proverb, “When elephants fight it is the grass that suffers”.

  • Like
  • Reply privately
  • Flag as inappropriate
  • 12 days ago
• Adoree

  Adoree Blair

  Co-Owner at Integrated Family Services

  Top Contributor

  What a great proverb, Jake – that tells it like it sometimes is. We can do so much better.

  • Like
  • Reply privately
  • Flag as inappropriate
  • 12 days ago

• Beverly

  Beverly Jones

  Vice President – Chief Program Officer at Lutheran Child and Family Services of Illinois

  I have worked in both the public and private sectors. Given this, there is no magic answer to having a child and family serving system that works well for children and families. I have seen the best and the worst regardless of the provider. It seems to me the conversation needs to be about what do we want the system to achieve and not who does it. We need to move past the number of visits, caseload size, and the like and ask the more important question – What is the outcome and impact that we need to achieve when families are served in the system?

  • Like
  • Reply privately
  • Flag as inappropriate
  • 11 days ago
• Jeanine

  Jeanine Livingston

  Contracting Compliance Manager at Washington Federation of State Employees

  Beverly that is probably the biggest issue: “What is the desired outcome?” not who does the case management – frankly it’s the same people doing the boots-on-the-ground work. The desired outcome, particularly in the movement to “Performance-Based Contracting” is where the danger lies; unintended consequences. In MIlwaukee they saw a huge increase in quick, “permanent” placements with kin. It was fast, easy and cheap. Unfortunately, this was achieved by inadequate screening and sharp increase in re-abuse. The administrator of the system was sharply criticized and quit the job before being fired. Regrettably, we ended up with her here in Washington. Thankfully, we were able to prevent a similar experience.

  The same is true in Nebraska (you don’t have to look to a different state to learn how horrible it was, the local news and legislature in NE say plenty), Florida, Illinois and Kansas. They all had to remodel from the original initiative.

  My best advice: Investigate fully not only the initiative but the people and money behind it. Many have very bruised reputations seeking redemption, others are well funded and wish to retain the funding streams. All are well intentioned but many got lost along the way. Be careful. Very very careful when selecting outcomes.

  • Like
  • Reply privately
  • Flag as inappropriate
  • 10 days ago
• Adoree

  Adoree Blair

  Co-Owner at Integrated Family Services

  Top Contributor

  Jeanine – this is not the first time I heard about this sharp increase in re-abuse due to kin placements. Of course, we also know that often, kin are the best place for a child. But careful consideration is needed. Also, in the 1990’s, in Minnesota, the state decided that all foster children should be placed with same-race families. It was considered bold and cutting edge, and there was a great deal of hope surrounding such placements. (I recall being there for my daughter’s college with my African American foster baby in tow, and being told “you are not supposed to have him.”) There followed a horrible expose’ in the Star Tribune about how many children had been abused AND killed in the same-race homes. The issue was not that any one race is more abusive, but in order to certify enough same-race homes, standards had become lower. It was horrific to read about. Somewhere in my files, I have the articles regarding this.

  • Like
  • Reply privately
  • Flag as inappropriate
  • 9 days ago
• Jeanine

  Jeanine Livingston

  Contracting Compliance Manager at Washington Federation of State Employees

  You are very correct Adoree, very often Kin placements are the best and I didn’t meant to take away from that in this discussion. The problem I researched was in setting a performance outcome of quick permanency. If the choice is adoption, reunification or kin placement and the incentives for permancy are equal regardless of which is chosen, Kin placement will be chosen as the most preferred. Why? It’s faster and it’s cheaper.

  Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) for adoption is a long and expensive process through the legal system and finding an adoptive home is also long and expensive with home studies, background checks and due diligence requirements.

  Typically, kinship placements are faster to get through the background checks and legal process. The parents/biological families tend to be more aggreeable and there is less of a legal process. Home studies are not as arduous. So this is where the children go regardless of the best possible outcome.

  We found that when implementing Performance Based Contracting, whether for case management or service delivery, starting with process outcomes is the best place to phase-in and increase to actual safety, permanence and well-being outcomes more gradually.

  • Like
  • Reply privately
  • Flag as inappropriate
  • 9 days ago
• Jake

  Jake Terpstra

  —

  Many studies show that outcomes are better when kids are placed with relatives, but many of those are adoptions. .

  • Like
  • Reply privately
  • Flag as inappropriate
  • 9 days ago
• Adoree

  Adoree Blair

  Co-Owner at Integrated Family Services

  Top Contributor

  Interesting points, Jeanine Livingston –

  • Like
  • Reply privately
  • Flag as inappropriate
  • 9 days ago
• Connie

  Connie Hayek

  Child Welfare Consultant

  My observation has been that the states that are considering or have implemented privatization initiatives tend to be those that have problems and are seeking to ‘fix’ those problems by privatizing. This is absolutely the WRONG reason to pursue it, IMO. Bringing in another layer of management, bureaucracy, and accountability will not ‘fix’ a system that is experiencing challenges. Those internal issues must be addressed in order to successfully shift to a new model of service provision.

  Similarly, looking to privatization as a cost-savings measure is not realistic. As many have mentioned, cost-savings have not been realized by those jurisdictions that have privatized. Adding more management layers will not save money in the short-term and probably not in the long-term.

  With privatization, there is an additional challenge of data collection and reporting. In the past, the Children’s Bureau has not been receptive to allowing private agency staff to input directly into SACWIS systems. This means that the public agency must continue to perform the data entry function, which tends to exacerbate the problem of caseworker turnover and job/career dissatisfaction. This in turn weakens the oversight and accountability factors.

  In spite of all of this, I believe there is potential for something LIKE privatization to successfully improve outcomes. I’m thinking of performance-based contracting or Social Impact Bonds (SIB). There have been some exciting outcomes identified with SIBs in juvenile justice, early childhood, and corrections. I’d like to see more (healthy) jurisdictions pursue and evaluate these approaches.

  • Like
  • Reply privately
  • Flag as inappropriate
  • 2 days ago
• Jake

  Jake Terpstra

  —

  I understand that privatization hit a snag in the GA legislature Lets hope it is permanent. Privatization plans always promises better service as less cost, but never delivers. It’s not about kids it’s about politics.

  • Like
  • Reply privately
  • Flag as inappropriate
  • 2 days ago
• Gaven

  Gaven Ludlow

  Vice President of Kansas Foster Care and Adoption Services, TFI Family Services

  I have been part of the state system in KS that ‘privatized’ (truly a private/public partnership) almost 20 years ago. While many of the comments about cost and service are true, this must be viewed in the context of the times, politics and goals originally set out. I believe and have seen the system for children in KS improve. Multiple outcomes from lengths of stay in foster care, success in reintegration, time to adoption, reduction of residential placements, other child focused outcomes have been better. Did it reduce cost? No, but was it realistic to expect cost reduction in a system that needed major improvements and was at the time failing under a federal lawsuit? Again No. Did it objectively (if not fully knowingly) start to establish criteria for improving services to families and kids. Yes, and with successive years it continues to learn and grow.
  Did the original structure of the partnership cause agencies to struggle and some fail, Yes, government lead, sped and focused initiatives often fly before they actually have the wings to stay aloft. However multiple programs in the system of ‘privatizing’ services can work and I believe some states are slowly learning these lessons.

  So let’s not throw out the idea of privatization as bad and hope it does not start in other states. Instead, let’s ensure we are demanding that the methods of structuring it, setting goals for it and monitoring it fit with solid child welfare practice. A simple case in point is still my own state of Kansas. Each contract for services is only engaged for 4 years with an agency. As agencies develop and mature, costs also continue to rise. Those costs are not always about the agency but often simple workforce economics. If you do a good job of hiring and retaining employees, your staff costs increase each year along with other benefits and expenses. So based on a open bid system for limited contracts, an agency will often price themselves out within 1 to 2 contract cycles. If they don’t it is likely they are extracting those savings from staff or services.

  So in Kansas we do end up with contract provider changes more frequently than would be beneficial to the services. It forces staff to restart with a new agency, children/families to endure a transition period, and a contract losing agency to rebuild. There are better and more lasting contract methods that do fit for these services.

  Again, I say with pun intended, don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.

  • Like
  • Reply privately
  • Flag as inappropriate
  • 1 day ago
• Karen

  Karen Worthington

  Versatile writer ♦ consultant ♦ lawyer ♦ editor providing strategic communications and subject-matter expertise.

  Thank you for all the helpful information on the effects of privatization in states that have tried it and the insights of those who have looked at this issue.

  Quick update on Georgia’s pending privatization bill: as of today, Georgia has three days left in the legislative session. The House provided a substitute to SB350 (the privatization bill) that would introduce a two-year pilot in a few areas in the state. The original provisions of SB350 have been added into HB990, a Medicaid bill that passed the House and is now moving through the Senate.

  Today Governor Deal announced the creation of the Child Welfare Reform Council to complete a comprehensive review of the Division of Family and Children Services and advise the governor on possible executive agency reforms and legislative fixes if necessary. (http://gov.georgia.gov/press-releases/2014-03-13/deal-council-will-work-reform-child-welfare-system)

  • Like
  • Reply privately
  • Flag as inappropriate
  • 1 day ago