I agree that we must invest in the kids in order to save as many as we can. The effort is worth it. That said, it's an uphill battle. And I certainly don't think we'll ever be able to really solve the problems.

PennyQuilts is right. It all starts with the family. And too often lifestyles that we would consider horrendous are for at-risk kids normal. Growing up if your daddy goes to work everyday, that's normal. If he goes to jail, that's normal.

Reading over some of the research with regards to permanency in group homes where services can be concentrated and children really supervised, I think you may be wrong Penny. Facilities which house 50-80 children in cottage units of 6-8 children with "house parents" who live with the children 5 days per week and provide parenting have been fairly successful both here and abroad. We all know the simple solution is good families, but let's be honest about things, there aren't that many to go around.

Yes, I agree that they've frequently been successful and I really like those types of facilities for the right child. Unfortunately, there aren't that many of these types of facilities available (and just try finding a place for a pregnant teen!). They are incredibly expensive and it is hard to get kids in. The cost per child in the local one we used back in Virginia was about $85,000.00 a year. Putting all the kids who should be removed from crappy homes in these types of places isn't possible - there just isn't the money for it or enough facilities.

As an aside, I found that there are two main types of residential homes. The first is based on a case manager model and the second is more like the one you described. My experience, was that the most troubled kids, including the delinquents, did much better in the case manager style homes. They weren't trying to be their parents. They were trying to give them intense therapy and structure. My hardest cases (other than the ones with serious mental illness or drug abuse problem - they need a different type of care) tended to do quite well in this type.

The foster home types simply couldn't handle them - they didn't have the training needed and they often lacked real support by the parents. And they had a different type of child. Foster care group homes such as you described, candidly, was the place we put a lot of essentially good kids whose parents couldn't be bothered and as a result, the kids got into trouble. The kid whose main problem was that she had wretched parents often did well in this type of foster care home. If it were up to me, we'd have far more of these types of homes. Traditional foster care homes vary dramatically in terms of safety and consistency. I'd certainly rather them go with a family member but if that isn't possible, for the kids who are just adrift with crappy parents, I personally like the structure that comes with a group type foster care home such as what you described.

We have an entire political party which has developed a religious orthodoxy around smaller government and smaller taxes.

Midtowner, please forgive me for editing your comments in this reply, but I agree with the bulk of your post. So with the part I left in my reply I would add that I think we should be voting and governing differently on the different levels. I happen to harbor a strong libertarian tendency, but I would only like that philosophy applied to the national level. I happen to harbor socialistic tendencies, as well that I would like to see applied to the local level. I want the state government to work supporting both. Sadly, we focus on the president of the nation for all our political energies when we should be exercising our political and governance desires much more locally to get more bang for our political / governance buck. I can't imagine that we want the solutions to all our problems provided by the folks in D.C., painting us with the same brush that coats Seattle, San Francisco, San Diego, Miami, Dallas, Chicago, NYC, and other commuinties large and small. We Oklahomans generally do that very well, rarely being content to vote into local, state or national offices people cut from the same cloth.

Penny, as others had mentioned, your posts are quite long. I know you have many opinions and some things aren't explainable in 2 sentences but I'd suggest trying to shorten them. I, and I'm sure others, usually skip over your posts when I see 4 paragraphs. Again, just a suggestion

I'll work on it, thanks.

Midtowner, please forgive me for editing your comments in this reply, but I agree with the bulk of your post. So with the part I left in my reply I would add that I think we should be voting and governing differently on the different levels. I happen to harbor a strong libertarian tendency, but I would only like that philosophy applied to the national level. I happen to harbor socialistic tendencies, as well that I would like to see applied to the local level. I want the state government to work supporting both. Sadly, we focus on the president of the nation for all our political energies when we should be exercising our political and governance desires much more locally to get more bang for our political / governance buck. I can't imagine that we want the solutions to all our problems provided by the folks in D.C., painting us with the same brush that coats Seattle, San Francisco, San Diego, Miami, Dallas, Chicago, NYC, and other commuinties large and small. We Oklahomans generally do that very well, rarely being content to vote into local, state or national offices people cut from the same cloth.

I appreciate what you said. I feel much the same.

Midtowner, please forgive me for editing your comments in this reply, but I agree with the bulk of your post. So with the part I left in my reply I would add that I think we should be voting and governing differently on the different levels. I happen to harbor a strong libertarian tendency, but I would only like that philosophy applied to the national level. I happen to harbor socialistic tendencies, as well that I would like to see applied to the local level. I want the state government to work supporting both. Sadly, we focus on the president of the nation for all our political energies when we should be exercising our political and governance desires much more locally to get more bang for our political / governance buck. I can't imagine that we want the solutions to all our problems provided by the folks in D.C., painting us with the same brush that coats Seattle, San Francisco, San Diego, Miami, Dallas, Chicago, NYC, and other commuinties large and small. We Oklahomans generally do that very well, rarely being content to vote into local, state or national offices people cut from the same cloth.

Child welfare is definitely a local issue and should be under the purview of state governments. The only federal oversight would be the Dept. of Justice who can pursue federal civil rights actions in cases where the system is a systemic failure.

I'm not suggesting Congress do anything at all. We have a state and local government of a bunch of stark raving lunatic conservatives who absolutely will not raise taxes to fund something even when it is funding which is the exact problem. Since Oklahoma has a balanced budget amendment, we actually do have to pay for everything our government does as it's done.

As far as Penny stating $85K/year as the cost for one child in a residential group home, I really hate when people come up with numbers like that without having a clue as to how that number came into being. Most likely, that number comes from someone who is arguing that despite the efficacy of these placements, they cost too much to be feasible on a grand scale. These calculations are probably including infrastructure costs, which disappear once the infrastructure is paid for, probably fail to recognize the efficiency benefit of being able to provide services to several children at the same physical plant, probably fail to recognize the fact that the expenses now in raising these children, in studies, would be justified by the positive outcomes we'll see by these children not going to prison once they grow up.

Dubya, I'm not sure what you're saying regarding not painting with a broad brush. It's not like we Okies are a different species than those in what I'm guessing you're thinking are more liberal cities. Our children are basically the same as their children and having a different longitude/latitude isn't really a valid reason to not try to learn from what other states are doing. That's the laboratory of Democracy. In business, if you don't pay attention to your competitors, what do they call you? I'm guessing they call you stupid. Let's not be stupid. If what they're doing works and what we're doing doesn't and a big factor there appears to be funding, how can funding not be a problem?

As a state, we have to decide what matters. I think child welfare and education really matter. It's an outrage that our taxpayers aren't willing to pony up what it costs to have a decent system.

As far as Penny stating $85K/year as the cost for one child in a residential group home, I really hate when people come up with numbers like that without having a clue as to how that number came into being. Most likely, that number comes from someone who is arguing that despite the efficacy of these placements, they cost too much to be feasible on a grand scale. These calculations are probably including infrastructure costs, which disappear once the infrastructure is paid for, probably fail to recognize the efficiency benefit of being able to provide services to several children at the same physical plant, probably fail to recognize the fact that the expenses now in raising these children, in studies, would be justified by the positive outcomes we'll see by these children not going to prison once they grow up.


Er - this was how much it cost, Mid. I used to bust my butt to try to find scholarships and it was routine for the judges who ordered kids into those facilities to tell them that they were fortunate to go and that this is how much it cost, per year. They'd tell them not to blow their chance because other kids didn't get the chance due to lack of funding. FAPT is the statutory means to approve funding for services and I would routinely have to argue to the FAPT that this particular child was a good candidate to justify the expense. They had paperwork with the expense sheet and everything...

Er - this was how much it cost, Mid. I used to bust my butt to try to find scholarships and it was routine for the judges who ordered kids into those facilities to tell them that they were fortunate to go and that this is how much it cost, per year. They'd tell them not to blow their chance because other kids didn't get the chance due to lack of funding. FAPT is the statutory means to approve funding for services and I would routinely have to argue to the FAPT that this particular child was a good candidate to justify the expense. They had paperwork with the expense sheet and everything...

Any link as to the methodology to come up with that number?

That said, if that's what it costs and the costs can be reasonable justified, let's build these things in Oklahoma.

Any link as to the methodology to come up with that number?

That said, if that's what it costs and the costs can be reasonable justified, let's build these things in Oklahoma.

No link but I worked with them for years and, as I said, it was well known in the area. To get a child into one of them was considered quite a feat due to the cost.

Mid, the problem is that we can't afford them in any great number That is what I've been saying to you. They are astronomically expensive. Do a google of residential facilities - there are even some Washington Post articles that reference the costs to the communities, generally you have to read the articles to get a feel for it. The facilities typically don't advertize their rates. Moreover, these are generally private, nonprofit facilities that have full time staff dedicated to fund raising and are usually of a religious bent. The government typically doesn't run them - they contract with them. In fact, due to budget problems, in Northern Virginia, for a time, they shut down the publically run case manager group homes and began contracting with the foster care type group homes to try to save money. The nonprofits had pitched a "deal" to accept some of the group home kids thinking it would be easy money. It was a complete disaster all the way around - they ended up shutting down the case manager type group homes and I was constantly in court with my kids facing assault charges when they would attack staff. They just didn't know how to handle them.

And btw, one of the things I ran into, constantly, was parents on the public dole who tried to block getting their kids in because they lost their benefits if the kids didn't live with them. They've rather their kids live in poverty than nice places if it meant the checks stopped. Enough to make your blood boil. As I said, those types of homes do pretty well with kids who are just wild kids with rotten parents. They don't do so well with kids who have moved on down the thug route.

No link but I worked with them for years and, as I said, it was well known in the area. To get a child into one of them was considered quite a feat due to the cost.

Mid, the problem is that we can't afford them in any great number That is what I've been saying to you. They are astronomically expensive. Do a google of residential facilities - there are even some Washington Post articles that reference the costs to the communities, generally you have to read the articles to get a feel for it. The facilities typically don't advertize their rates. Moreover, these are generally private, nonprofit facilities that have full time staff dedicated to fund raising and are usually of a religious bent. The government typically doesn't run them - they contract with them. In fact, due to budget problems, in Northern Virginia, for a time, they shut down the publically run case manager group homes and began contracting with the foster care type group homes to try to save money. The nonprofits had pitched a "deal" to accept some of the group home kids thinking it would be easy money. It was a complete disaster all the way around - they ended up shutting down the case manager type group homes and I was constantly in court with my kids facing assault charges when they would attack staff. They just didn't know how to handle them.

If we can afford 7 billion dollar warships which the Chinese have already joked they could take out with a fleet of explosive-laden fishing boats (or just one torpedo), then we can afford to take proper care of the most vulnerable and needy children in society. Let's say Congress took the cost of the new Zumwalt class destroyers, about $21BN for the current fleet and instead directed that money to child welfare.

We can afford it. It's just that our Congress is bought and paid for by lobbyists for various industries and needy children don't have lobbyists.

With the expansion of poverty and the permanent underclass, the real question should be can we afford not to do something like this?

If we can afford 7 billion dollar warships which the Chinese have already joked they could take out with a fleet of explosive-laden fishing boats (or just one torpedo), then we can afford to take proper care of the most vulnerable and needy children in society. Let's say Congress took the cost of the new Zumwalt class destroyers, about $21BN for the current fleet and instead directed that money to child welfare.

We can afford it. It's just that our Congress is bought and paid for by lobbyists for various industries and needy children don't have lobbyists.

With the expansion of poverty and the permanent underclass, the real question should be can we afford not to do something like this?

I'll just have to disagree, Mid. Having been in the trenches, for years, I found out just how many needy kids are out there. It is a never ending raging torrent of misery that continues to increase as families fall apart. I used to talk to the old timers who'd been doing this kind of work for decades and they tell me that things changed about 15 years ago and these kids simply aren't the same kids they used to see - they are often completely feral and the services aimed to deal with kids who have been victims don't work so well with kids who have turned predatory. Plus, a lot of doctors are quick to prescribe medication intended to work short term to help a child settle down and behavior therapy to take place - but the parents aren't able to change and tend to just keep them on the meds with the doctor's permission. So we often have drugged up kids - drugged by parents who don't know how to deal with them, otherwise.

Moreover, it isn't like a state could have 2 - 3 of those facilities and it would be fine. Like most foster care, they are really geared towards non violent offenders. Once a child goes down that ruiness path they no longer meet the criteria for most of those types of programs. Heart breaking.

If we can afford 7 billion dollar warships which the Chinese have already joked they could take out with a fleet of explosive-laden fishing boats (or just one torpedo), then we can afford to take proper care of the most vulnerable and needy children in society. Let's say Congress took the cost of the new Zumwalt class destroyers, about $21BN for the current fleet and instead directed that money to child welfare.

We can afford it. It's just that our Congress is bought and paid for by lobbyists for various industries and needy children don't have lobbyists.

With the expansion of poverty and the permanent underclass, the real question should be can we afford not to do something like this?

You're confusing national and state issues/monies

You're confusing national and state issues/monies

A very large portion of our child welfare budget comes from federal matching dollars or federal grants. On a national level, we are wasting money on ridiculous weapons systems we'll never need when that money could be sent to the states to encourage funding of child welfare by providing matching dollars.