Fostering Profits
March 6, 2015 10:15 AM Subscribe
“You feel the pressure. You have to make those targets,” said a former worker whose name, due to a signed nondisclosure with Mentor, could not be used. “I went there because I care about services for kids. I eventually became a machine that cared about profits. I didn’t care about kids.” (SL Buzzfeed News Investigation. trigger warning: descriptions of sexual abuse and assault against children)
My dad, though not a case worker, worked for CPS for many years. His stories have often made me wonder whether orphanages wouldn't actually be better options than foster care. Is splitting up siblings and friends, and moving kids around between multiple different houses, and spreading them all out so thin that overworked case workers can't possibly check on them all very often, really such a great plan for helping these kids?
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:28 AM on March 6, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:28 AM on March 6, 2015 [13 favorites]
Is there anything that privatization can't make worse ?
Magic 8 ball says "My sources say no".
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 10:32 AM on March 6, 2015 [40 favorites]
Magic 8 ball says "My sources say no".
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 10:32 AM on March 6, 2015 [40 favorites]
Orphanages would be an obvious cost center, which means it would never ever ever happen in the modern US.
posted by aramaic at 10:33 AM on March 6, 2015
posted by aramaic at 10:33 AM on March 6, 2015
This is horrifying.. capitalism turns children into objects to be maneuvered for profit instead of human beings that need love, care, and support. Some things should never have a profit motive.
posted by zug at 10:45 AM on March 6, 2015 [12 favorites]
posted by zug at 10:45 AM on March 6, 2015 [12 favorites]
Good lord. I had no idea there were for-profit foster care companies, let alone one that is publicly traded.
posted by Kabanos at 10:47 AM on March 6, 2015 [15 favorites]
posted by Kabanos at 10:47 AM on March 6, 2015 [15 favorites]
Just when you thought this country couldn't become more vile and despicable...
It does.
If we make it... historians will not judge this era of ours kindly.
At all.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 10:55 AM on March 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
It does.
If we make it... historians will not judge this era of ours kindly.
At all.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 10:55 AM on March 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
But R.R.’s new guardians weren’t directly supervised or paid by the government. They had been signed up as foster parents by a giant corporation called National Mentor Holdings, which, over the last three decades, has turned the field of foster care into a cash cow.
Over and over we're told that privatization is more efficient, that it produces better results, that it's vastly and inherently superior to public service by the government. Over and over, we see that what really happens is that profits are privatized while the risks are socialized.
posted by Gelatin at 10:56 AM on March 6, 2015 [31 favorites]
This is the most horrific thing I have read in years. There's no difference bertween The Mentor Network and the scam Judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan were running in Pennsylvania. How do these people sleep at night?
posted by Awful Peice of Crap at 11:10 AM on March 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Awful Peice of Crap at 11:10 AM on March 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
BuzzFeed tries to follow up with board members of Civitas with little success:
Board Members Of Troubled Foster-Care Company Have Little To Say About Abuses
posted by Kabanos at 11:14 AM on March 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
Board Members Of Troubled Foster-Care Company Have Little To Say About Abuses
posted by Kabanos at 11:14 AM on March 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
“Obviously we made a poor judgment in that case,” said Mentor’s Robson. “And if we could turn back the clock we would.” But he was emphatic that the disasters in the way the company screened Small, and placed Alexandria with her, had nothing to do with an effort to cut costs to increase profits.
Oh, I see -- you aren't malicious, you're just incompetent. I feel so much better now.
posted by Gelatin at 11:16 AM on March 6, 2015 [9 favorites]
Mother Jones: The Brief Life and Private Death of Alexandria Hill
posted by Kabanos at 11:19 AM on March 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Kabanos at 11:19 AM on March 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
Jesus Christ. I don't know what to do here.
posted by boo_radley at 11:19 AM on March 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by boo_radley at 11:19 AM on March 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
Those nonprofits have received contracts in states that bar for-profit foster care operations. And then those nonprofits turn around and hire Mentor’s for-profit arm as a subcontractor to run virtually the whole operation.
Never mind -- they are malicious, after all.
posted by Gelatin at 11:19 AM on March 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'll note the Buzzfeed story indicates there was a good rationale for forming this for-profit company: it's better than this work being done by agencies that are financially unstable and constantly having to run around cap in hand. And that the problems began when Mentor fell into the hands of a private equity company.
"Private equity" is shorthand for used car salesmen in better suits.
posted by ocschwar at 11:28 AM on March 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
"Private equity" is shorthand for used car salesmen in better suits.
posted by ocschwar at 11:28 AM on March 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
it's better than this work being done by agencies that are financially unstable and constantly having to run around cap in hand. And that the problems began when Mentor fell into the hands of a private equity company.
It's really fucking awful that we - any definition of "we" - think the solution is privatization rather than walking our "children are the future!" talk by adequately funding the nonprofits that do this work so they're not unstable. Christ.
posted by rtha at 11:32 AM on March 6, 2015 [17 favorites]
It's really fucking awful that we - any definition of "we" - think the solution is privatization rather than walking our "children are the future!" talk by adequately funding the nonprofits that do this work so they're not unstable. Christ.
posted by rtha at 11:32 AM on March 6, 2015 [17 favorites]
it's better than this work being done by agencies that are financially unstable and constantly having to run around cap in hand.
But that rationale -- which was offered in a quote by the company's founder, not the assertion of the writers -- doesn't make any sense. States paid Mentor on a per-child basis; the company makes a 10% profit even after paying for foster parents' fees and overhead. That revenue stream would also be available to a non-profit, plus the 10% the company's corporate owners skimmed off the top.
posted by Gelatin at 11:33 AM on March 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
But that rationale -- which was offered in a quote by the company's founder, not the assertion of the writers -- doesn't make any sense. States paid Mentor on a per-child basis; the company makes a 10% profit even after paying for foster parents' fees and overhead. That revenue stream would also be available to a non-profit, plus the 10% the company's corporate owners skimmed off the top.
posted by Gelatin at 11:33 AM on March 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
How do these people sleep at night?
Ambien and cushioned on a big pile of money.
posted by Talez at 11:36 AM on March 6, 2015 [4 favorites]
Ambien and cushioned on a big pile of money.
posted by Talez at 11:36 AM on March 6, 2015 [4 favorites]
The obvious fact that the company's founders, plus the venture capitalists who bought it and those who bought into the company when it went public -- see plenty of money in the operation means that the "cap in hand" image, while vivid, doesn't necessarily apply to nonprofits.
It is, however, a telling insight into the worldview and priorities of the company's founder, which seems to remain an integral part of a corporate culture that has resulted in the suffering of children documented in these articles.
posted by Gelatin at 11:37 AM on March 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
It is, however, a telling insight into the worldview and priorities of the company's founder, which seems to remain an integral part of a corporate culture that has resulted in the suffering of children documented in these articles.
posted by Gelatin at 11:37 AM on March 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
But that rationale -- which was offered in a quote by the company's founder, not the assertion of the writers -- doesn't make any sense. States paid Mentor on a per-child basis; the company makes a 10% profit even after paying for foster parents' fees and overhead. That revenue stream would also be available to a non-profit, plus the 10% the company's corporate owners skimmed off the top.
The bargain that's supposed to happen with for-profit entities is that they assume the financial risk of occasional quarters and years when families are too stubbornly stable and adequate to provide children in crisis, and that they be ready for those times when the kids come flooding in.
Government budget cycles are too slow for this. And non-profits are not supposed to retain financial cushions if they want to be accredited as non-profits.
posted by ocschwar at 11:38 AM on March 6, 2015
How do these people sleep at night?
Ambien and cushioned on a big pile of money
...while their subconcious gleefully unspools the sweet, sweet American Dream.
posted by CynicalKnight at 11:43 AM on March 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
Ambien and cushioned on a big pile of money
...while their subconcious gleefully unspools the sweet, sweet American Dream.
posted by CynicalKnight at 11:43 AM on March 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
The bargain that's supposed to happen with for-profit entities is that they assume the financial risk of occasional quarters and years when families are too stubbornly stable and adequate to provide children in crisis, and that they be ready for those times when the kids come flooding in.
But as the Mother Jones article linked above points out, the way they do so is not by maintaining a large pool of capital but rather by maintaining a long list of potential foster parents, which creates a perverse incentive to overlook possible red flags. (Trigger warnings in that MoJo article? And how!)
(That's also assuming, of course, that the number of children needing family services fluctuates so wildly that the problem exists at all.)
posted by Gelatin at 11:46 AM on March 6, 2015
But as the Mother Jones article linked above points out, the way they do so is not by maintaining a large pool of capital but rather by maintaining a long list of potential foster parents, which creates a perverse incentive to overlook possible red flags. (Trigger warnings in that MoJo article? And how!)
(That's also assuming, of course, that the number of children needing family services fluctuates so wildly that the problem exists at all.)
posted by Gelatin at 11:46 AM on March 6, 2015
And non-profits are not supposed to retain financial cushions if they want to be accredited as non-profits.
Slight derail, but that's not the case at all. The major difference between non-profits and for-profits is that non-profits don't give any extra money back to their "investors" (i.e., donors). Charity Navigator gives non-profits a higher grade if they retain financial cushions (3-page PDF):
Slight derail, but that's not the case at all. The major difference between non-profits and for-profits is that non-profits don't give any extra money back to their "investors" (i.e., donors). Charity Navigator gives non-profits a higher grade if they retain financial cushions (3-page PDF):
In order to garner the most points toward a top rating by Charity Navigator, most nonprofits would need a [Working Capital Ratio, defined as (Short Term Assets – Short Term Liabilities) / 12 Months Expenses] greater than 1. This is the equivalent of 12 months or more of Working Capital.posted by Etrigan at 11:49 AM on March 6, 2015 [7 favorites]
But as the Mother Jones article linked above points out, the way they do so is not by maintaining a large pool of capital but rather by maintaining a long list of potential foster parents, which creates a perverse incentive to overlook possible red flags. (Trigger warnings in that MoJo article? And how!)
I'm not saying the founders of Mentor were correct in their arguments. Just that they probably arrived at this reasoning in good faith.
(That's also assuming, of course, that the number of children needing family services fluctuates so wildly that the problem exists at all.)
Look at which levels of government are in charge of the foster care system in your area. A lot of this work is at the municipal level.
posted by ocschwar at 11:51 AM on March 6, 2015
They had a meeting in Texas, and at that meeting they agreed that $22 a day was plenty of money to adequately care for a two-year-old. Not even a dollar an hour. It's ridiculous on its face.
Just remember y'all, taxes are too high and collective action for public goods is SOCIALISM!
posted by ob1quixote at 11:58 AM on March 6, 2015 [12 favorites]
Just remember y'all, taxes are too high and collective action for public goods is SOCIALISM!
posted by ob1quixote at 11:58 AM on March 6, 2015 [12 favorites]
The bargain that's supposed to happen with for-profit entities is that they assume the financial risk of occasional quarters and years when families are too stubbornly stable and adequate to provide children in crisis, and that they be ready for those times when the kids come flooding in.
Having worked in for-profit entities my whole adult life, I can tell you this is utter bullshit. They are never ready for the flood times.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 11:58 AM on March 6, 2015 [17 favorites]
Having worked in for-profit entities my whole adult life, I can tell you this is utter bullshit. They are never ready for the flood times.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 11:58 AM on March 6, 2015 [17 favorites]
Just that they probably arrived at this reasoning in good faith.
Well, maybe, but I am no longer interested in how sincerely people put their faith in supply-side for-profit economics; after a certain point, merely maintaining that faith requires a denial of reality so staggering as to render their claims inherently suspect.
Not to let government off the hook, either; the fact that it's private companies that screw up when kids get damaged or killed lets government officials duck responsibility, too, which is another reason the relationship is so insidious.
posted by Gelatin at 11:58 AM on March 6, 2015 [6 favorites]
Well, maybe, but I am no longer interested in how sincerely people put their faith in supply-side for-profit economics; after a certain point, merely maintaining that faith requires a denial of reality so staggering as to render their claims inherently suspect.
Not to let government off the hook, either; the fact that it's private companies that screw up when kids get damaged or killed lets government officials duck responsibility, too, which is another reason the relationship is so insidious.
posted by Gelatin at 11:58 AM on March 6, 2015 [6 favorites]
Indeed; the cause of solution for all these problems is more tax cuts!
posted by Gelatin at 12:00 PM on March 6, 2015
posted by Gelatin at 12:00 PM on March 6, 2015
Having worked in for-profit entities my whole adult life, I can tell you this is utter bullshit. They are never ready for the flood times.
Well, I've worked for a PE firm. Hence my belief that what came after an encounter with PE usually does not reflect what came before..
posted by ocschwar at 12:16 PM on March 6, 2015
Well, I've worked for a PE firm. Hence my belief that what came after an encounter with PE usually does not reflect what came before..
posted by ocschwar at 12:16 PM on March 6, 2015
privatization is more efficient
I guess depending on how you define efficiency. This company seemed very efficient at processing applications and getting money for the owners/shareholders/investors.
posted by jeather at 12:21 PM on March 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
I guess depending on how you define efficiency. This company seemed very efficient at processing applications and getting money for the owners/shareholders/investors.
posted by jeather at 12:21 PM on March 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
Just wait til the private foster care companies and private prison companies and giant farm conglomerates merge into one horrifying chimera with complete control over our lives.
I'm only half kidding.
posted by bleep at 12:33 PM on March 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm only half kidding.
posted by bleep at 12:33 PM on March 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
Just be glad that there's no scientific or engineering validity to soylent green.
posted by sammyo at 12:41 PM on March 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by sammyo at 12:41 PM on March 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
I feel like the privatization schemes are always cooked up by politicians who have heard of private enterprise but never experienced it directly. Unless you are offering some kind of product that no one else has, you are going to be all about pushing sales and minimizing costs. The market player that is able to push the greatest amount of throughput in terms of sales and can create the greatest downward pressure on costs is going to win. Because the government is contracting for what are essentially commodity services, this is the only model that a private business providing these services can engage in to maximize its profits.
And then, yes, the advantage of private enterprise is that the bad players will eventually go out of business. But how many kids have to die before the government cuts off the gravy train and tells the contractor, "You can keep your millions in profits, but we aren't giving you ONE PENNY MORE!"? And how many contractors will decide that this was a good deal and a success?
posted by deanc at 1:24 PM on March 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
And then, yes, the advantage of private enterprise is that the bad players will eventually go out of business. But how many kids have to die before the government cuts off the gravy train and tells the contractor, "You can keep your millions in profits, but we aren't giving you ONE PENNY MORE!"? And how many contractors will decide that this was a good deal and a success?
posted by deanc at 1:24 PM on March 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'll say that after having followed fosterhood's nightmarish experiences with the public foster care system for several years, I'm by no means convinced that private foster care agencies have a monopoly on horrifyingly poor decisionmaking, lack of due diligence, misappropriation of funds, and harmful treatment of vulnerable children. Single shocking cases get clicks and all, but I wish there had been more comparative data included on the overall performance of private vs. public foster agencies in global terms. This Mentor operation seems awful, but is it more or less so than its peers in the marketplace? And is their performance better or worse, across the board, than that of the state-run agencies they replaced?
posted by gallusgallus at 1:31 PM on March 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by gallusgallus at 1:31 PM on March 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
And then, yes, the advantage of private enterprise is that the bad players will eventually go out of business.
In a perfect world, which we don't live in. In the real world, many factors can cause a "bad player" to remain in business far beyond when they should have faded away.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 1:36 PM on March 6, 2015 [5 favorites]
In a perfect world, which we don't live in. In the real world, many factors can cause a "bad player" to remain in business far beyond when they should have faded away.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 1:36 PM on March 6, 2015 [5 favorites]
In a perfect world, which we don't live in. In the real world, many factors can cause a "bad player" to remain in business far beyond when they should have faded away.
I guess I should have added that they will go out of business in the "long term." Which, as Keynes reminds us, is when we (and the foster children) are dead.
posted by deanc at 1:47 PM on March 6, 2015
I guess I should have added that they will go out of business in the "long term." Which, as Keynes reminds us, is when we (and the foster children) are dead.
posted by deanc at 1:47 PM on March 6, 2015
I continue to be delighted with Buzzfeed's foray into investigative journalism. Who would have thought.
posted by Jacqueline at 2:02 PM on March 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Jacqueline at 2:02 PM on March 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
In Massachusetts, former governor Bill Weld was so into pushing privatization for everything that the legislature (which has a serious nepotism problem, natch) passed a law forbidding it. Now people are making noises about getting rid of the law, so that they can privatize the clusterfuck that is the T. Oy.
posted by Melismata at 2:08 PM on March 6, 2015
posted by Melismata at 2:08 PM on March 6, 2015
His stories have often made me wonder whether orphanages wouldn't actually be better options than foster care.
I've thought about this a lot. We hate orphanages because of Dickens, but we also fail to note that the problem there is not the fact of orphanages, but the fact of orphanages in Britain in the 1800s.
posted by corb at 2:30 PM on March 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
I've thought about this a lot. We hate orphanages because of Dickens, but we also fail to note that the problem there is not the fact of orphanages, but the fact of orphanages in Britain in the 1800s.
posted by corb at 2:30 PM on March 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'll say that after having followed fosterhood's nightmarish experiences with the public foster care system for several years, I'm by no means convinced that private foster care agencies have a monopoly on horrifyingly poor decisionmaking, lack of due diligence, misappropriation of funds, and harmful treatment of vulnerable children.
My thoughts too. If there's a paucity of willing & qualified foster homes, and the kids keep coming, any agency is going to feel hard pressed to redefine "qualified."
What's more, no outfit like Mentor is going to inspire and prevail upon a family to get into the hazing ritual that is foster parenthood. That's definitely a task for non-profits and do gooders. But those families that are willing and able, they can be matched with kids pretty quickly and efficiently by a for-profit agency. Being for-profit doesn't necessarily mean an obsession with the Excel spreadsheet at the expense of everything else. Until you're touched by the blight that is private equity. At that point, it certainly DOES mean precisely that.
posted by ocschwar at 2:31 PM on March 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
We hate orphanages because of Dickens
I hate orphanages because of the former Soviet Union, personally. And because I grew up in Israel, which is dotted with decommissioned orphanages from the 50's. Orphanages are terrible. Even if the kids have only had their lives ruined by Nazis murdering their parents, with nothing more happening to mess their heads and not just their lives, orphanages are terrible.
posted by ocschwar at 2:33 PM on March 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
I hate orphanages because of the former Soviet Union, personally. And because I grew up in Israel, which is dotted with decommissioned orphanages from the 50's. Orphanages are terrible. Even if the kids have only had their lives ruined by Nazis murdering their parents, with nothing more happening to mess their heads and not just their lives, orphanages are terrible.
posted by ocschwar at 2:33 PM on March 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
I feel like the privatization schemes are always cooked up by politicians who have heard of private enterprise but never experienced it directly.
No, plenty of them have experienced it and either A) been lucky (because the ones who are barely hanging on generally don't have the time, money, or connections to get into politics) and/or B) been part of a going concern (e.g., third-generation family business, or starting in middle management of a large corporation) where they didn't really learn how difficult building a business is.
posted by Etrigan at 2:54 PM on March 6, 2015
No, plenty of them have experienced it and either A) been lucky (because the ones who are barely hanging on generally don't have the time, money, or connections to get into politics) and/or B) been part of a going concern (e.g., third-generation family business, or starting in middle management of a large corporation) where they didn't really learn how difficult building a business is.
posted by Etrigan at 2:54 PM on March 6, 2015
The difference between for-profit and non-profit is not that non-profits are staffed by do-gooders who are good at inspiring while for-profits are staffed by quick, efficient people. Either type of company can be staffed by inspirational do-gooders, or quick, efficient people, or all of the above, or none of the above.
Here are the six ways non-profits can lose their non-profit status:
1 - serving private interests
2 - lobbying activities
3 - political activities
4 - moneymaking activities unrelated to the charitable mission
5 - failing to file a form every year with the IRS (for-profits have a different form they have to file), or
6 - giving up on its charitable mission and mainly doing other things instead.
Note that for-profit companies are perfectly free to do numbers 1-4 and number 6. Which of these is a good reason to go with for-profit instead of non-profit for placing foster kids?
posted by Bentobox Humperdinck at 3:15 PM on March 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
Here are the six ways non-profits can lose their non-profit status:
1 - serving private interests
2 - lobbying activities
3 - political activities
4 - moneymaking activities unrelated to the charitable mission
5 - failing to file a form every year with the IRS (for-profits have a different form they have to file), or
6 - giving up on its charitable mission and mainly doing other things instead.
Note that for-profit companies are perfectly free to do numbers 1-4 and number 6. Which of these is a good reason to go with for-profit instead of non-profit for placing foster kids?
posted by Bentobox Humperdinck at 3:15 PM on March 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
we also fail to note that the problem there is not the fact of orphanages, but the fact of orphanages in Britain in the 1800s.
No, we hate orphanages because they are, as an institutional model, damaging to the development of children. While foster homes may be individually damaging to children, the model is vastly better for those in care.
posted by DarlingBri at 4:25 PM on March 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
No, we hate orphanages because they are, as an institutional model, damaging to the development of children. While foster homes may be individually damaging to children, the model is vastly better for those in care.
posted by DarlingBri at 4:25 PM on March 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
But would orphanages be damaging to children's development if they weren't shitty? Because the overwhelming information coming out of the foster system seems to be terrible havens of solitary abuse and neglect.
posted by corb at 4:26 PM on March 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by corb at 4:26 PM on March 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
...the number of children needing family services fluctuates so wildly...
While the numbers fluctuate wildly, it's still predictable when you factor election years, amirite?
Just as a wild guess, could we possibly cut the need for foster services by doing something as crazy as actually helping families in need?
Not that I'm naive enough to think things like availability to needed physical and mental care, further education, decent housing, affordable child care, a living wage, and all that jazz--for the parents--might make some sort of difference in the lives of kids.
posted by BlueHorse at 6:06 PM on March 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
While the numbers fluctuate wildly, it's still predictable when you factor election years, amirite?
Just as a wild guess, could we possibly cut the need for foster services by doing something as crazy as actually helping families in need?
Not that I'm naive enough to think things like availability to needed physical and mental care, further education, decent housing, affordable child care, a living wage, and all that jazz--for the parents--might make some sort of difference in the lives of kids.
posted by BlueHorse at 6:06 PM on March 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
Has any human society solved the problem of not abusing children en masse? I would hesitate to recommend orphanages as plenty of boarding schools are cesspools of abuse. Heck, look at all the problems colleges have with keeping girls safe and giving a shit. It seems like we can't be trusted.
posted by bleep at 6:17 PM on March 6, 2015
posted by bleep at 6:17 PM on March 6, 2015
Jesus Christ on a fucking cracker, what is it going to take for your assbag politicians (and ours, to an extent, but AFAIK foster care is a government-run thing here) to understand that there are in fact areas of human civilization that need to be removed from the profit motive?
You are caring for goddamn children whose home lives are so bad they need to be taken away from their parents, and you think "hey, it would be really great if I could get myself a piece of that pie"? Seriously?
Government is not a fucking business. Caring for the sick and the old and the young and everyone who needs caring for is not a fucking business.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:27 PM on March 6, 2015 [5 favorites]
You are caring for goddamn children whose home lives are so bad they need to be taken away from their parents, and you think "hey, it would be really great if I could get myself a piece of that pie"? Seriously?
Government is not a fucking business. Caring for the sick and the old and the young and everyone who needs caring for is not a fucking business.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:27 PM on March 6, 2015 [5 favorites]
But would orphanages be damaging to children's development if they weren't shitty? Because the overwhelming information coming out of the foster system seems to be terrible havens of solitary abuse and neglect
Well, yes. Developmentally, children need to bond with a primary carer. Someone working an 8 hour shift 5 days a week doesn't provide this. A parent in a home environment provides this. Additionally, an orphanage is an institution, and children raised in institutions are institutionalised.
Because the overwhelming information coming out of the foster system seems to be terrible havens of solitary abuse and neglect.
You are looking at this through a media lens, in isolation. Abuse in foster homes is actually a subset of the wider problem of child abuse. If you look at the stats from Texas for example, 3.3% of abused children are victimised by adults in the category "other" -- which includes foster carers.
Institutional abuse is just as real and just as prevalent, and orphanages will not protect children from institutional abuse.
posted by DarlingBri at 6:28 PM on March 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
Well, yes. Developmentally, children need to bond with a primary carer. Someone working an 8 hour shift 5 days a week doesn't provide this. A parent in a home environment provides this. Additionally, an orphanage is an institution, and children raised in institutions are institutionalised.
Because the overwhelming information coming out of the foster system seems to be terrible havens of solitary abuse and neglect.
You are looking at this through a media lens, in isolation. Abuse in foster homes is actually a subset of the wider problem of child abuse. If you look at the stats from Texas for example, 3.3% of abused children are victimised by adults in the category "other" -- which includes foster carers.
Institutional abuse is just as real and just as prevalent, and orphanages will not protect children from institutional abuse.
posted by DarlingBri at 6:28 PM on March 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
gallusgallus: "Single shocking cases get clicks and all, but I wish there had been more comparative data included on the overall performance of private vs. public foster agencies in global terms."
From the Mother Jones article (emphasis added):
From the Mother Jones article (emphasis added):
Nationally, no one tracks how many children are in private foster homes, or how these homes perform compared to those vetted directly by the government. As part of an 18-month investigation, I asked every state whether it at least knew how many children in its foster system had been placed in privately screened homes. Very few could tell me. For the eight states that did, the total came to at least 72,000 children in 2011. Not one of the states had a statistically valid dataset comparing costs, or rates of abuse or neglect, in privately versus publicly vetted homes.posted by mhum at 6:34 PM on March 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
Family courts and "services" are a big buisness, and the foster system is just an ancillary appendage to this behemoth chimera of corporations grafted to the Judiciary.
They go after the family because that's where the money is. They go after children because kids without parents make great fodder for the prison system and the military.
Most people would agree children need to be protected from abusive family, and the legal system provides a barrier of last resort against child victimization. But after a few weeks of watching these courts in action I've come to realize we'd better off on balance if we abolished the system entirely and the state never got involved at all. It's that bad.
posted by clarknova at 8:34 PM on March 6, 2015
They go after the family because that's where the money is. They go after children because kids without parents make great fodder for the prison system and the military.
Most people would agree children need to be protected from abusive family, and the legal system provides a barrier of last resort against child victimization. But after a few weeks of watching these courts in action I've come to realize we'd better off on balance if we abolished the system entirely and the state never got involved at all. It's that bad.
posted by clarknova at 8:34 PM on March 6, 2015
« Older B4-XVI | It's Never OK Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
The victim's father, Joshua Hill, told KXAN that his daughter was placed in foster care "because her mother and I smoked pot at the time." An examination of court records by the station revealed that the girl's mother had a medical condition that did not allow her to be left alone with the child.
In a separate interview with KVUE, Hill said he and his wife only used marijuana while their daughter was asleep, and that she never came to harm while in their care.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:20 AM on March 6, 2015 [1 favorite]