Whatever It Is, It Isn’t Constructive Welfare Reform : Provision in proposed act could endanger abused and neglected children

Lost in the focus on welfare reform is a shortsighted provision that would freeze funds used to protect abused and neglected children. If the Senate approves the proposed Personal Responsibility Act as written, federal aid would be capped and states would no longer receive federal dollars based on need. Demand is not static. It is rising. If current trends continue as expected, agencies would be forced to cut their staffs. Such a change is potentially life-threatening. A slow response to an emergency referral could result in a death. This is not welfare reform.

The proposed Personal Responsibility Act tackles a welfare system that is clearly broken. The massive bill approved by the House and under consideration in the Senate attempts to fix Aid to Families with Dependent Children. But the legislation also could cripple child abuse programs and foster care programs. Surely, that is an unintended consequence that the Senate Finance Committee should avert when members tackle welfare reform.

A proposed child protection block grant would replace nearly two dozen federal programs, including foster care, child abuse prevention and treatment and adoption assistance. It would cap spending and eliminate the guarantee of help for all abused or neglected children who need it. It would eliminate assistance for poor kids taken in by a caring but poor relative who otherwise could not afford to feed an extra mouth. It also would eliminate medical coverage for foster children and aid for compassionate people willing to adopt children with daunting and expensive medical needs. In these tragic cases, less government help is not better.

SAD, MAYBE DEADLY: Lawrence Townsend, Riverside County’s social services director, insists he would be forced to cut staff members who conduct investigations, check on children in foster care or supervise children who remain in their own homes. “It would be sad not to respond to referrals because of a lack of staff,” he said. Sad, and perhaps deadly.

The consequences in Los Angeles County, California and across the nation could be dramatic if the proposed AFDC changes were to take effect. The time limit, elimination of assistance to teen-age parents, denial to legal immigrants and changes in child disability assistance could deny aid to an estimated 4.5 million poor children nationally. That would translate to 300,000 poor children with no form of support in Los Angeles. If only one out of 20 needed foster care, according to Pete Digre, Los Angeles County children services director, the county would face a new and unreimbursable cost of $185 million. That would force the layoff of the entire child protective staff. No staff, no response to referrals. No staff, no investigation. No staff, no supervision.

There is a high correlation between poverty and family violence. The recent recession and state cuts in welfare payments swelled foster care. The economic downturn and reductions in public aid also caused a dramatic increase in the number of children who need protection from their parents. These sorry outcomes should serve as a warning to Washington.

Hunger is also on the rise. A UC Berkeley study, commissioned by the state, has found 2 million hungry children in California, and that number is rising. An estimated 8.4 million children are at risk of hunger. They are also at risk of neglect, which is defined as parents’ failure to provide adequate food, clothing and shelter. Many of these children may require protective services, but any influx would cost plenty. The consequences of rampant, unchecked and chronic hunger could cost even more in the future.

A DUBIOUS SAVING: Congress wants to save money now in this area. Digre, who often testifies in Washington, suggests a reduction in bureaucracy and paperwork. The federal government can save millions if states are no longer required to investigate whether foster children are eligible for AFDC in order to recoup federal payments. For example, in the case of some abandoned babies, the parents can’t be found to determine whether they are eligible. Eligibility can be determined easily and inexpensively by a court finding that a child needs help.

Some federal requirements should be retained, however. Foster care programs sometimes attract convicted child molesters, who apply to supervise children. These applications are rejected because the federal government requires a fingerprint check by the FBI. That check should remain on the books. Strict licensing requirements, another safeguard against dangerous foster homes, should also be kept.

Child protective services is more law enforcement than welfare, more public safety than public assistance. Every child is entitled to be safe. And society at large needs this protection too.