Reviews vs. Resources

Jeff Bull

"There were no surprises."
- Susan Tina Kotek, The Oregonian, May 12, 2005

Susan Tina Kotek serves as policy director of Children First for Oregon, a local advocacy group, and though I hold nothing like her credentials on the issue, I relate to that lack of surprise. One doesn't have to be an expert to know that the foster care system in Oregon, along with the rest of the country, produces fatal gaffes with uncomfortable regularity.

In fact it was a pair of those gaffes – the deaths of Ashton Parris and Jordan Knapp – that prompted Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski to order an independent review of Oregon's Child Protective Services (CPS) division (for a pdf copy of the review, hit the link and click on "Child protective svcs report"). It's worth noting that the remainder of the Oregonian's quote registers Ms. Kotek's agreement with the recommendations contained in the review, but there's something to that lack of surprise.

Before digging into the problems, it's only fair to point to what the state has done right: we've got the proper foundation in the form of the Guided Assessment Process (GAP). Here's the reports comment:

"GAP represents a good foundation for establishing a more effective approach to safety intervention that is comprehensive, clear and provides sufficient direction throughout the child protection process."

Commendable as that is, it's undermined by a refrain through the pages that follow. One overarching concern through the review rises from a separation between what needs to be done – dubbed "policy" early on – and how it should be done- which is dubbed "procedure." Time and again, whether it's a matter of defining "risk" versus "danger", training of case workers, or the essential mechanics of getting a foster child out of danger, for all the agreement about what should be done, there's very little agreement as to who does it and, again, how.

The review offers sound advice about getting there from here, but there's something missing in all of this: the ugly reality of tight state funds. And, last time I read an article on the budget battle, the legislature current debate centers on the Democrats favoring schools against the GOP's penchant for prisons and reserve funds.

With so little debate over expanding resources to CPS, one is left wondering where how one key issue in the review can be addressed: the lousy ratio of caseworkers to clients. The Oregonian's article provides good copy on this:

"Oregon's child-welfare workers and supervisors routinely handle caseloads of 20 or more children, a number that exceeds standards to perform their jobs well, Holder said in the report.

Holder did not specify a standard, but organizations such as the Child Welfare League of America recommend caseloads of 12 to 15.

The report said supervisors in Oregon oversee 10 or more staff, which is more than the national standard of six employees."

That's not hard evidence of a shortage of funds, but it points that way. As does another detail – an allusion to high turnover in the field – contained in another part of the report:

"Policy is written in such a way that reader expertise is assumed. This is particularly problematic given that such large numbers of staff have less than a year of experience."

Public service fields are notorious for high turnover, with low pay and high stress acting as the greatest aggravators – again a problem of resources. This is the essence of Ms. Kotek's lack of surprise at the review's findings.

The question then becomes will Oregon commit more resources to this problem? Miles separate knowing what needs to be done – which the review revealed – and providing the resources to do it. On the one hand, the portion of the Department of Human Services budget devoted to foster care will gain $2.4 million in the governor's recommended budget; on the other, the same budget cuts one facet of the same budget – the "special rate" portion that provides extra funding for foster kids with "medical, behavioral or mental health issues." Combining these factors, are the resources there to maintain to status quo? To improve on it?

Oh well. At least the independent review didn't cost anything. Then again, requesting reviews and appointing panels often provides nothing more than the appearance of action.

By Jeff Bull May 12, 2005