- Email: [email protected]
The inadequate federal presence
16
Kamerman
and Kahn
absence of funding in many places to provide for earlier intervention, for in-home service, or to provide a miscellany of small scale, modest services that could reduce family stress is noted as a major problem by many public social services staff. Indeed, private voluntary agency directors and staff talk of the importance of gap-filling funds, the glue to hold a package And public agency staff press for what is of interventions together. provided in some locations; flexible funds that make it possible for staff to provide the small necessities or amenities that can make a significant difference, from paying one or two months security on an apartment, or extra transportation costs to get to a job, to purchasing a crib or paying for driving lessons. The Inconsistent and Unclear Role of the Courts Federal and state laws often require court involvement in various child welfare processes including adjudication in abuse cases, disposition regarding supervision of placement, and review and monitoring of cases once a child has been placed away from home. The courts are also required to determine whether the child welfare agency has made all Depending on the particular reasonable efforts to avoid placement. jurisdictions, courts can play a more or less active role in shaping what happens to a child in the dependency or delinquency system. Social services administrators and staff complain about inappropriate, inconsistent, and overbearing intervention from the courts. Judges and other advocates often view the authority of the court as an effective strategy for implementing desired change in service delivery while administrators see this as one other source of public pressure, without the resources that would enable the agency to implement such changes. Recent judicial decisions have left some social work staff concerned about personal liability in the event of a wrong decision regarding a child maintained at or returned home, while administrators worry about the future implications for recruitment of staff. The role of the court is complicated but potentially very significant. It varies by jurisdictions. And it is viewed by some as at least as much of a barrier to more effective service delivery as a facilitator. The Inadequate Federal Presence At the start of the Reagan administration, Title XX, the social services program enacted in 1974 and the basis for the hope that communities might develop comprehensive, family-oriented social service delivery systems based in neighborhoods, was converted to the Social State and local planning, statistical Services Block Grant (SSBG).
The Problems Facing Social Services reporting and many Title XX rules and conditions were dropped. The states were to be on their own. Indeed, an effort was made by the Administration to fold P.L. 96-272 into the SSBG; however, a Congress that had just passed that legislation after years of effort refused to wipe it out just when implementation was to begin. Several subsequent efforts were made by the Administration, but the Congress held firm. Given this type of history, one is not surprised at the repeated evidence, dramatically summarized at several hearings, of limited federal support for full implementation of P.L. 96-272. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) ceased compiling essential data about foster care. It left itself almost without staff expertise in foster care, adoptions, treatment services, and training, so that it could neither implement legislation adequately nor advise the Congress. Essential regulations to implement Sec. 427 of the law were never issued and states were encouraged to make do with temporary substitutes (Program Announcements, Policy instructions, Policy Interpretations Questions), making it difficult to achieve the fiscal rewards promised for compliance. When states did claim their due, slow processing, challenges, and lack of funds prolonged the results and still leave many jurisdictions with large sums unpaid. Even more important: the 1980 reforms were premised on a steady growth of funds in Title IV-B and Title XX, supportive of IV-E. The reality, a product of Administration social service policy and general fiscal policy, has left the program too deprived to fulfill its full promise. New social problems have overwhelmed the field; some states have reacted with energy, creativity and their own research but the federal government - as represented by the DHHS and the Office of Management and Budget, has not carried its part of the task - sharing, coordinating, helping to fund, facilitating exchange, finding new answers. The chairman of the Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, a harsh critic, summed up one hearing in frustration: The Federal Government has just taken a walk (Joint Hearings, 1989). As we began our study the inadequacy of the federal presence was readily identified as a serious problem. After we completed our study and prepared to publish, well into the Bush Administration, the problems persisted. Most essential leadership positions were not yet filled. The Inadequacy of Data and the Inconsistency of Language A fully satisfactory, systematic picture of child and family social services in the U.S. or of children in this system is impossible given the current status of terminology and data. There are no national data regarding the supply of services, the interventions used, or the characteristics of providers; nor are there data on the characteristics and numbers of
Kamerman
and Kahn
absence of funding in many places to provide for earlier intervention, for in-home service, or to provide a miscellany of small scale, modest services that could reduce family stress is noted as a major problem by many public social services staff. Indeed, private voluntary agency directors and staff talk of the importance of gap-filling funds, the glue to hold a package And public agency staff press for what is of interventions together. provided in some locations; flexible funds that make it possible for staff to provide the small necessities or amenities that can make a significant difference, from paying one or two months security on an apartment, or extra transportation costs to get to a job, to purchasing a crib or paying for driving lessons. The Inconsistent and Unclear Role of the Courts Federal and state laws often require court involvement in various child welfare processes including adjudication in abuse cases, disposition regarding supervision of placement, and review and monitoring of cases once a child has been placed away from home. The courts are also required to determine whether the child welfare agency has made all Depending on the particular reasonable efforts to avoid placement. jurisdictions, courts can play a more or less active role in shaping what happens to a child in the dependency or delinquency system. Social services administrators and staff complain about inappropriate, inconsistent, and overbearing intervention from the courts. Judges and other advocates often view the authority of the court as an effective strategy for implementing desired change in service delivery while administrators see this as one other source of public pressure, without the resources that would enable the agency to implement such changes. Recent judicial decisions have left some social work staff concerned about personal liability in the event of a wrong decision regarding a child maintained at or returned home, while administrators worry about the future implications for recruitment of staff. The role of the court is complicated but potentially very significant. It varies by jurisdictions. And it is viewed by some as at least as much of a barrier to more effective service delivery as a facilitator. The Inadequate Federal Presence At the start of the Reagan administration, Title XX, the social services program enacted in 1974 and the basis for the hope that communities might develop comprehensive, family-oriented social service delivery systems based in neighborhoods, was converted to the Social State and local planning, statistical Services Block Grant (SSBG).
The Problems Facing Social Services reporting and many Title XX rules and conditions were dropped. The states were to be on their own. Indeed, an effort was made by the Administration to fold P.L. 96-272 into the SSBG; however, a Congress that had just passed that legislation after years of effort refused to wipe it out just when implementation was to begin. Several subsequent efforts were made by the Administration, but the Congress held firm. Given this type of history, one is not surprised at the repeated evidence, dramatically summarized at several hearings, of limited federal support for full implementation of P.L. 96-272. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) ceased compiling essential data about foster care. It left itself almost without staff expertise in foster care, adoptions, treatment services, and training, so that it could neither implement legislation adequately nor advise the Congress. Essential regulations to implement Sec. 427 of the law were never issued and states were encouraged to make do with temporary substitutes (Program Announcements, Policy instructions, Policy Interpretations Questions), making it difficult to achieve the fiscal rewards promised for compliance. When states did claim their due, slow processing, challenges, and lack of funds prolonged the results and still leave many jurisdictions with large sums unpaid. Even more important: the 1980 reforms were premised on a steady growth of funds in Title IV-B and Title XX, supportive of IV-E. The reality, a product of Administration social service policy and general fiscal policy, has left the program too deprived to fulfill its full promise. New social problems have overwhelmed the field; some states have reacted with energy, creativity and their own research but the federal government - as represented by the DHHS and the Office of Management and Budget, has not carried its part of the task - sharing, coordinating, helping to fund, facilitating exchange, finding new answers. The chairman of the Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, a harsh critic, summed up one hearing in frustration: The Federal Government has just taken a walk (Joint Hearings, 1989). As we began our study the inadequacy of the federal presence was readily identified as a serious problem. After we completed our study and prepared to publish, well into the Bush Administration, the problems persisted. Most essential leadership positions were not yet filled. The Inadequacy of Data and the Inconsistency of Language A fully satisfactory, systematic picture of child and family social services in the U.S. or of children in this system is impossible given the current status of terminology and data. There are no national data regarding the supply of services, the interventions used, or the characteristics of providers; nor are there data on the characteristics and numbers of