To the editor:
I am writing this because I have serious concerns about the impact the Governor’s curtailment order of December 2007 and his proposed supplemental budget will have on Maine’s most vulnerable children. I have worked helping abused and neglected children in Maine for the past 18 years. I have worked as a Child Protective Services worker for the state. I have worked in group homes with children who could not be placed in community-based foster homes. I served as a volunteer on the board of directors of the Aroostook Council to Prevent Child Abuse for nine years, two of these as president. For the past 10 years I have worked as a manager for a community-based mental health agency whose services include treatment foster care, outpatient mental health treatment for children who have been abused and neglected, supervised visitation for foster children and their families, parenting education, and in-home services to parents.
The Governor’s curtailment order included the provision that as of February 1, 2008 foster parents would no longer receive paid respite services and that foster parents themselves would have to pay for this service. The impact of this is great. Children in foster care often have serious emotional and behavioral problems. If foster parents do not get the breaks that they need it is more likely that more children will move from home to home. It is well known that the more placements that a child has the more difficult it is for the child to heal from the damage of past abuse. Children who move frequently tend to remain in foster care longer. How does this save money?
Another component of the Governor’s curtailment order that is effective Feb. 1, 2008 is that children in foster care will no longer each have a recreational fund. While the Governor says that DHHS caseworkers will now oversee what recreational funds are spent on these children and that will result in cost savings this assertion makes no sense since DHHS caseworkers already must approve any recreational expenditures. The savings will come from giving these children less, much less.
The proposed savings all but eliminate recreational funds for Maine’s foster children. Recreational funds are used to purchase items like bicycles, educational items, and other items that most children have. Recreational funds are also used for things like dance, music lessons, or a week at summer camp.
The announcement of the curtailment order less than a week before Christmas was insensitive to Maine’s foster children. It was also a slap in the face to Maine’s foster parents who work hard and endure much to help our most victimized and vulnerable children. Without these foster parents many of these children would be living in group homes and residential facilities that are more costly and for many children less effective. How does this save money?
The Governor’s curtailment order also included a reduction in the subsidy amount to families that have adopted special needs children from the foster care system. To many adoptive families this is seen as a reneging on an agreement made when they decided to adopt a child. Most of the children who are adopted out of the foster care system are adopted by Maine’s foster parents. The Governor’s curtailment order will result in less adoptions. Many children will remain without a permanent family and will remain in foster care longer. How does this save money?
The Governor’s curtailment order also further reduces funding for visitation between children in foster care and their parents as of Feb. 1, 2008. The foster children served through visitation programs are generally younger children who are in traditional non-treatment foster care. The Governor’s curtailment program reduced state funding for these programs by $75,000. While this may not sound like a large amount since it is spread out statewide it is on top of a 30 percent reduction that was effective Oct. 1, 2007.
Visitation between foster children and their parents is an essential part of helping to reunifying children with their families and helping to determine whether safe reunification is possible. Supervised visitation contains a teaching and assessment component. Less visitation can mean that children will remain in foster care longer. Children who remain in foster care without permanency are more likely to be require more costly treatment foster care. How does the reduction in funding for visitation services save money?
As if to add insult to injury the Governor’s supplemental budget for July, 2008 includes continuing the cuts in his curtailment order and a further 30 percent reduction in payments to foster parents. This will result in there being less foster families and many children will remain in unsafe situations or wind up in costly residential facilities. How does this save money?
I am requesting that you do whatever you can to help rescind the cuts to children and foster parents in the Governor’s curtailment order and that you oppose the Governor’s proposed cuts to them in his supplemental budget.
The state is experiencing budget shortfalls and cuts and choices need to be made. The state of Maine is the legal guardian of these children. When a healthy family falls on hard times the children eat first. They are not the first place one looks for savings.
Maine’s foster children should not be given a smaller portion. They should not be pushed away from the table because their voice is not as loud as the voice of others. The Governor was ill advised in his decision making and he owes an apology to Maine’s foster children and to the families that take care of them.
Amity