The Journal Star's editors picked on Nebraska's foster care system the other day in an editorial. The piece, headlined "Foster care numbers troubling", argues that because Nebraska has some of the highest rates of children in foster care in the United States, that makes Nebraska a child-stealing, parent-hating, monstrous place. Whereas the Journal Star's editors think throwing numbers around is enough to make their case, I require a bit more rigor from my data analysis. Numbers alone aren't enough to diagnose those flaws, and they certainly aren't enough to direct us toward solutions.
Make no mistake: there are oodles of flaws in Nebraska's foster care system. The flaws negatively affect the kids, the parents, the foster families, the foster care agencies, and yes, even the State. I've only barely been a part of the system and already I can list myriad complaints, either my own or others'.
Yet among all the numbers -- and many of them are downright depressing -- I don't see much depth. That's true of the LJS editorial, and of advocacy pieces I've seen around the web. It is difficult for me to make the leap from "these numbers look bad" to "these numbers actually represent terrible situations". Consider that "Nebraska ... ranks second-worst in the nation in the number of children in foster care compared with the number of impoverished children. Leading child-welfare advocates are saying that many cases of neglect that lead to child removal really come down to poverty, which can be dealt with without putting the children in foster care." The numbers (we're 2nd-worst!) suggest Nebraska is doing something wrong. But is that actually true? Is Nebraska punishing poor families for the non-crime of being poor? It's quite possible we are. On the other hand there could be other factors at play. Perhaps poverty in Nebraska -- a large chunk of it rural poverty -- is different in some way such that situations for children are worse than in other places. Or maybe we do a crummy job providing social services to the poor. And just what does that word "many" mean in the LJS editorial? How many is many? Surely if there are many stories, some of the affected families want to talk about it. These stories need to be told!
The line in the editorial that really irks me was this one: "Despite the good intentions of those seeking to take children out of situations involving abuse and neglect, for most of those children, foster care leads to worse outcomes than leaving them in the problem homes in the first place." I'm going to have to call baloney here. For "most" children coming from situations involving abuse and neglect, foster care is worse than the alternative? That simply doesn't pass the smell test. Life in the foster care system may not be all roses and candy canes, but it's sure as heck better than being abused or neglected. Perhaps the LJS is alleging that many of the things currently being called "abuse" and "neglect" don't really deserve those titles, and thus foster care is a cure worse than the disease for "most" kids. That's possible. But that's not what the editors' words actually say. They suggest it's generally better to live with abusers than to have to live with strangers. I disagree.
The Journal Star's approach may annoy me, but I'll give them this: they're covering a critical topic. I hope they continue -- and continue relentlessly -- even if I don't always like how they do it. This topic needs to be in front of the public until the public demands (and receives) fixes. The problems with Nebraska's foster care system are in fact symptoms of much larger problems with how Nebraska addresses issues like social services, crime, and mental health. As we work to fix foster care, we can't help but address bigger matters as well.
Comments
See what your friends and neighbors have to say about this.
Thread hijack - speaking of the LJS, I just saw a tweet from Jack Mitchell that they will be having *former* LJS writer Deena Winter on the show tomorrow.
What happened there?
I’m glad to see the LJS covering this area as well. Kudos to them.
Reading that editorial, I interpreted the “foster care leads to worse outcomes than leaving them in the problem homes in the first place” language very differently.
Clearly, if a child is being abused/neglected and then placed in a safer, loving home, that kid will be better off. There will always be a need for foster care in that sense. In any type of situation where the kid is being removed by the state because the parents are so unfit or neglectful, then that family has obviously failed.
My reading of the editorial was that they were suggesting that preventing that type of failure is preferable to foster care, so whatever issues the parents are dealing with can be addressed before they get to that point of failure, and the kids can stay with their birth parents. I would have to agree with that (if that was what they were saying) because the state’s behavioral health services/social services are in great need of help.
I saw that too. I hope I remember to have the radio on by 7:35am tomorrow.
Sounds like her skepticism toward the arena has caught up with her. Bummer, I liked reading her columns.
She has her own blog now as well.
http://deenawinter.wordpress.com/
Share your thoughts with the community.
Commenting is no longer permitted on this post.