National Coalition for Child
Protection Reform / 53 Skyhill Road (Suite 202) / Alexandria, Va., 22314 / info@nccpr.org / www.nccpr.org
THE
UNREASONABLE ASSAULT ON "REASONABLE EFFORTS"
Faced
with overwhelming evidence of huge numbers of children needlessly placed in
foster care -- and what foster care was doing to these children, Congress
passed a law in 1980 that included a clause requiring states and localities to
make "reasonable efforts" to keep families together.
Judges
were supposed to certify that "reasonable efforts" had been made -- a
process that simply involved checking a box on a form -- before the case was
eligible for federal foster care funds.
There
was nothing in that law that prevented agencies from moving swiftly to remove
children from their homes -- and keep them out -- in the small minority of
"horror story" cases. The law required "reasonable efforts"
-- not ridiculous efforts. And everybody knows it.
By
1997, the debate over "reasonable efforts" had taken an Orwellian
turn. Child savers began blaming it for their own failure to get children out
of foster care. To make the case, they cited the increase in the foster care
population since the early 1980s. But they avoided going back further than that
- because had they done so, they would have had to admit that in the late
1970s, before "reasonable efforts" became law, there were at least as
many children languishing in foster care, relative to the total child population,
as there are today.
The
real problem is the opposite: Rather than making reasonable efforts, agencies
typically make little or no effort at all to keep families together. According
to the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, many such judges
"remain unaware of their obligation to determine if reasonable efforts to
preserve families have been made. Other judges routinely 'rubber stamp'
assertions by social service agencies. ..."[1]
A
report released in March, 2000 by a team of leading national child welfare
experts found that in New York City's family courts the question of whether
reasonable efforts have been made is "very rarely addressed." The
same report found that judges admit they often routinely approve requests to take
away children even when they don't really believe the child savers have made an
adequate case. The report concluded that "Such practice comes
frighteningly close to abdicating the Court's basic responsibility to protect
the rights of children and families."[2]
One
study found that courts made no "reasonable efforts" determination in
44 percent of cases. Since all that is necessary to make such a determination
is for a judge to check a box on a form, the figure undoubtedly underestimated
the extent of the problem.[3]
A
study of "lack of supervision" cases in New York City by the Child
Welfare League of America found that in 52 percent of the cases studied, the
service needed most was what one might expect -- day care or babysitting. But
the "service" offered most often was foster care.[4] Where were the "reasonable efforts?"
Three
separate studies since 1996 have found that 30 percent of America’s foster
children could be safely in their own homes right now, if their birth parents
had safe, affordable housing.[5] Where were
the "reasonable efforts?"
In
Washington D.C., where the foster care system has been taken over by the
federal courts, the first receiver named by the court to run the agency found
that between one-third and one-half of D.C.'s foster children could be returned
to their parents right now -- if they just had a decent place to live.[6] Where were the "reasonable
efforts?"
Even
the Chicago Tribune, the newspaper that led the crusade that derailed family
preservation for years in Illinois, eventually acknowledged that the
"reasonable efforts" requirement was not enforced in that state. [7]
It
wasn't enforced anywhere else either. The federal government never seriously
enforced the reasonable efforts requirement and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
that individuals couldn't even sue to have it enforced.[8]
Children
do not languish in foster care because of reasonable efforts. Children languish
in foster care because of the lack of reasonable efforts.
And
none of this is surprising. All of the incentives -- for everyone from the
frontline worker to the agency administrator -- pushed against making
reasonable efforts.
Financial incentives: The National Commission on
Children found that children often are removed from their families
"prematurely or unnecessarily" because federal aid formulas give
states "a strong financial incentive" to do so rather than provide
services to keep families together.[9] (See Issue Paper 12).
Political incentives: No
worker or administrator will ever be penalized for wrongly placing a child in foster
care -- even if the child is abused there. But if a child is left at home and
something goes wrong, workers may be fired, judges transferred, and all face
the wrath of the media.
Personal incentives: When
a worker sees a child living in poverty, the first instinct is often to
"rescue" the child on the assumption that the child is bound to be
"better off" in care. That child in that home is a reality before the
worker's eyes. The dangers of foster care, physical and emotional, however
real, are an abstraction the worker will never see.
But
despite all these incentives and despite the mountain of evidence that the
"reasonable efforts" clause was widely ignored, whenever a child
"known to the system" died, someone was sure to blame "the
law" -- by which they meant the "reasonable efforts" clause.
Why? Because when a child dies, it's usually because workers are overwhelmed
with too many cases; or they have little or no training, or paperwork got lost,
or any one of dozens of similar problems, many of which require more money to
solve and all of which reflect badly on the agencies themselves.
Thus,
when asked "Why did this child die?" They can say either: "This
child died because 'the law' made us do it" or "This child died
because we screwed up." What are most agency administrators likely to say?
Sadly,
the scapegoating of family preservation has been so successful that by the end
of 1997, Congress had effectively repealed the "reasonable efforts"
requirement. Backers of the new law say it only ends reasonable efforts in the
most egregious cases. In fact, the law is filled with "catch-all"
clauses that make it possible to avoid the requirement in almost every case.
The law no longer requires reasonable efforts, but it does not prohibit them.
It is up to states and localities to decide what to do next.
Updated
January 1, 2008
1. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
et. al., Making Reasonable Efforts: Steps for Keeping Families Together. (New
York: Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, 1987), p.8.Back to Text.
2. Special Child Welfare Advisory Panel, Advisory Report
on Front Line and Supervisory Practice, March 9, 2000, pp. 47,48.Back to Text.
3. National Child Welfare Resource Center for Management
and Administration, University of Southern Maine, Pilot Early Review Project,
Preliminary Data Analysis, March 1989.Back to Text.
4. Mary Ann Jones, Parental Lack of Supervision: Nature
and Consequences of a Major Child Neglect Problem (Washington: Child Welfare
League of America, 1987) p.2.Back to Text.
5. Deborah S, Harburger with Ruth Anne White, “Reunifying
Families, Cutting Costs: Housing – Child Welfare Partnerships for Permanent
Supportive Housing Child Welfare, Vol. LXXXIII, #5 Sept./Oct. 2004,
p.501. See also: Janita Poe and Peter Kendall
“Cases of Neglect May Be Only Poverty in Disguise,” Chicago Tribune,
Dec. 24, 1995, p.6.Back to Text.
6. Tamar Lewin, "Child Welfare Is Slow to Improve
Despite Court Order," The New York Times, Dec. 30, 1995, p.6.Back to Text.
7. Andrew Gottesman, "System Overload: Juvenile
Court Can Rarely Spare the Time to Care," Chicago Tribune, Dec. 22, 1993, p.1.Back to Text.
8. Suter v. Artist M., 112S.Ct. 1360, 1992.Back to Text.
9. National Commission on Children, Beyond Rhetoric: A
New American Agenda for Children and Families, (Washington DC: May, 1991) p.290.
Back to Text.
|
|
|
|
