Can you hear us yet?

17 years ago

To the editor:
    I am employed with a local mental health agency in Aroostook County; primarily I work with foster children. In the past year we have seen deep cuts to family programs and foster parent reimbursement. Worse, we are hearing that the heaviest cuts have yet to be made. As a result, the system of direct service is falling apart. A fact some are choosing to disregard.     My social service colleagues and I have been corresponding with members of state government quite a bit in recent months. For the most part we have been ignored. They don’t want to acknowledge our position – we have said that cuts to the most vulnerable populations served will result only in short-term savings. They have heard our warnings – recent cuts are short-sighted and will cost far more in the long run. We believe that children are going to be harmed as a result of the state’s actions. We have warned legislators and administrators that children could die. Most often, our pleas fall on deaf or disbelieving ears.
    Our assertions are dismissed, the “powers that be” must believe that we are being self-serving and alarmist. We are told that “difficult choices must be made”. We agree, but believe that the current emphasis of cutting the front lines of support are at best misguided, at worst corrupt.
    Our positions are far from alarmist. The consequences are beginning right now. We are seeing an exodus of foster parents who can no longer afford to care for children. Where will the children go if not foster care?
    Foster care is the least restrictive and least expensive placement option, even as such targeted by policy makers. This is a baffling move — since DHHS caseworkers tell us that they have few, if any, other placement options. There has been a downsizing of group homes and other residential programs, even these more expensive programs are not a viable option. We know that even more expensive placement options such as Crisis Units have been used for warehousing children. Crisis Units cost up to $500 per day, drastically more than foster care. Some kids are ending up in hospitals; others are ending up in the criminal justice system. We have also heard DHHS case workers say that homeless shelters are placement options. Are we really at this point? The answer is yes; maybe the Governor has some spare rooms in the Blaine house?
    As citizens we must accept that cutting is necessary – but the cuts are not happening where the “fat” is. How about the 1,900 budgeted positions in the state that are vacant? Where is that money? What about re-assigning cases or enacting real teamwork amongst DHHS caseworkers to reduce out-of-district travel expenses (well managed indeed). We know one DHHS caseworker who bragged that her travel-related expenses typically exceed $8,000 each month! How about using the existing tools that are grossly underutilized such as video teleconferencing and the internet to save costs. How about reducing the number of third-party watchdog “service organizations” that the state has employed to create a bottleneck to a family’s access of necessary services. These “oversight” programs likely cost a great deal more than they save; and they duplicate two to three fold existing systems already in place and paid for by our tax dollars. To add insult to injury – these organizations are out-of-state entities. Not only are we not getting our moneys worth with our tax dollars, the extra money is not being re-invested here.
    The state is failing Maine families by retracting the safety net. It’s time to restore or re-think funding to crucial child and family programs. Private, non-profit organizations can add a lot to the discussion of cost efficiency and savings – but unfortunately it appears that no one is willing to listen. We have a lot to say, here are just some of my cost saving suggestions:
• Limit out of district travel for DHHS caseworkers. When a child in State Custody resides in an area outside the DHHS Caseworkers geographic coverage area – either reassign the case to the local DHHS Office or develop a multi-district “team” concept of casework at DHHS. Based on the cases I am aware of, limiting out of district travel in this manner could save the State hundreds of thousands of dollars (maybe more) each year. If anyone believes that what I suggest is the current practice, they would be mistaken.
• Use local vendors for services. An example: when children are in the adoption unit photographs and videos are used to properly “market” them to prospective families. While this is a necessary practice – why do we send children from Aroostook County to Bangor for the service? Not only is there the added expense of the actual service, travel and staffing tie up a lot of resources. This was really bad planning on somebody’s part, and one private for-profit agency got an exclusive State deal out of it.
• Stop writing blank checks to biological parents. I agree in principal to supporting families while they “get back on their feet” during the reunification process. They have a right to expect the support of their community, but they also have an obligation to do most of the work themselves. If a parent’s effort is lacking or transparently insincere, the discretionary spending on the part of the caseworker should be limited. Yes, supporting families is good casework, but unfettered financial support is enabling. Let’s teach families to fish, because we can’t afford the trips to the market.
• Raise Taxes. Yeah, I went there. If we can’t meet the basic needs of our “family” (the state of Maine), then increasing the revenue of our household has to be considered. We hear that constitutional mandates to balance the budget are the reason for the deep cuts. No one seems to be willing to talk about other options, like revenue increases. The state’s blind resolve to ‘cut everything else’ feels cold and cruel to those most affected. When talking cuts, let’s not forget that we are talking about people – not mere statistics.
• More accountability on biological parents/shorten time in foster care. A huge problem that I see is that once children are removed, bio parents are expected to contribute very little in the way of effort or reimbursement. Sure, that’s the intent – but only in philosophy not in actual practice. I’ve been doing this work for 18 years now and that has remained a constant issue. What about expecting a parent to pay the State child support? Many would not, but some would. Parents who contribute are also more likely to be active participants in the reunification process, alleviating another pernicious problem — cases that linger in the system for many years. The courts are going to have to buy into this idea – but one reason why the system is so expensive is the amount of time kids remain in permanency limbo. We have gotten our share of the blame for that – but it requires everyone’s prompt attention to resolve. I could write many pages on this point alone, but will sum up by saying that if parents do not take credible steps toward reunification – we have a responsibility to find a permanent placement in a kinship or adoptive home sooner than later.
• Develop a public forum for complaints and suggestions. I once went to a DHHS sponsored training on ethics. One of the key themes of the training was that abuses and excesses happen when they can be hidden. Seems pretty simple to me. Consumers, vendors, and constituents need a very public forum in which they can post day-to-day grievances without fear of reprisal, in some cases that may mean that they can be posted anonymously. It just so happens that the state has a nifty Web site that could collect and display publicly said complaints. The implementation of this type of quality control system would cost pennies and provide a great deal of information.
    Furthermore, neutral ombudsmen should be appointed to monitor and investigate complaints. Would all the postings be legitimate? Probably not, but it would be hard to ignore the ones that are – especially if they happen over and over again. This level of accountability may also prevent complaints from happening in the first place.
    Mine are just a sampling of recommendations that could save the state a lot of money. It should be encouraging that I am not the only one who has suggestions to make. Lately I have seen many pages of letters from concerned citizens, often foster parents, with ideas that are thoughtful, intelligent, and innovative. Please, take the time to listen to us. If the state relies solely on their own internal “think tank” to solve their budget woes – we are in big trouble. If insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, it might be time to call in assistance for a change.
    Can anyone hear us? I am not sure, but I am certain that it is time to speak out. We need to give a voice to the voiceless. I urge all of you to reach out to your legislators, DHHS workers, and to the media. If you have an opinion – let it be heard. Those who have been insulated from cuts are counting on our complicity – that is the last thing that we should give them.
Joseph P. St.Peter
Presque Isle