As a former child-welfare worker, I must take issue with some of the reforms you supported in the May 7 editorial titled “The thankless job of foster care.”
My first concern centers on Gov. Edgar’s multi-tier payment plan for foster parents. As the paper reports, the plan will pay those relative caretakers who are not licensed less than licensed traditional or relative foster parents, thus giving the relative an “obvious incentive” to get licensed.
However, the burden of licensing lies with DCFS and its private agencies. For years, there has been a tremendous backlog of relative foster homes that have been waiting months–and in some cases, years–either to undergo the licensing process or to have some action taken on their application. To punish them by decreasing their monthly board payments would not motivate them to undergo licensing, but it may force them to withdraw from the foster-care program.
My second concern lies with the paper’s support of Gov. Edgar’s proposal to pay a Department of Public Aid rate to those relatives who have been caring for these children for “some time,” thereby avoiding court involvement. While this would save the state money, as DCFS board payments are significantly higher then Public Aid payments, it would leave both the relative and the child defenseless to the whims of the parent.
Legally, the parent could remove the child from the relative’s home at any time, in any condition, for any reason, and the relative who has been caring for this child could do nothing to stop the parent. This is not a situation that fosters any form of stability or security for the child or the relative.
In this scenario, court involvement could at the very least provide the relative and the child with the knowledge that they would be protected from the whims of the parent.
Lastly, the editorial notes that both these proposals would save the state $44 million a year. However, it would also penalize the very people who are part of the system through no fault of their own: the relatives and the children. “They deserve our thanks and our help,” the editorial concludes.
How can decreasing the funds relatives receive accomplish these two goals? How can this plan do anything but drive relative caretakers away and further hurt the children that may have been in their care?
