The National Physicians Center for Family Resources (NPC) is promoting an alternative to long-term foster care called the “Youth Communities Initiative.” Specifically designed to address the issue of permanency for children in state care, this initiative focuses on the older child (age 7-17) who has been in the system more than once and has had, or is in the process of having, parental rights terminated. These are the children who are least likely to find a permanent home in our society.
This initiative encourages the formation of public/private partnerships between states and local communities aimed at providing permanency within “Youth Communities.” The plan also involves a transition from partial public/taxpayer support to private support by the business, faith and volunteer communities.
In a civilized, perfect world, all children feel safe and belong to a stable, nurturing family. They grow up to become productive and successful members of society and begin the same cycle of stability in their own homes. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a perfect world.
The United States is considered to be one of the most civilized nations on earth, yet has one of the highest rates of abuse and neglect in the industrialized world. With over 700,000 abused and neglected children entering state care at some point in 1999, a population of children nearly equal to the population of San Francisco proper must be cared for by foster parents, group homes or residential treatment centers. The cost of public agency child welfare is approximately 12 billion dollars per year—the total budget of some countries.
For more than two decades, the nation’s Child Protective Services (CPS) has attempted to deal with the tragedy of child abuse and neglect. Though recent statistics suggest the rates of substantiated child abuse cases have decreased somewhat to just under one million per year, this is still a disturbingly high number. In addition, the Third Annual Incidence Report on Child Abuse and Neglect notes that nationally, only a little more than 25% of cases substantiated (under the Harm Standard) were further investigated by CPS agencies—meaning one million is probably a low estimate.
Approaches to dealing with abuse and neglect have been described by many child welfare experts as “pendulum swings.” In the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, it was common practice to quickly remove children from homes when there was even the suspicion of maltreatment. However, this practice soon created an overloaded foster care system. Within a few years, the philosophy of protection shifted rather dramatically toward the Family Preservation/Reunification model. This shift was due in large part to the sheer number of children being placed in state care. Some child welfare advocates charged that many children were being unnecessarily removed from their homes and then shuffled from one foster home to another, sometimes spending years with no permanency.
The Family Preservation/Reunification model promised to help remedy this problem by providing a variety of services to “at risk” families in their homes. These services were designed to assist caretakers or parents and to improve unhealthy environments, allowing children to remain in their homes or be returned there after the family was stabilized.
As the Family Preservation model became more prevalent nationwide, a new problem emerged. Efforts to keep families intact caused many children to be left in or returned to unsafe environments, where some were re-victimized or even killed. To address this new crisis, child welfare agencies began instituting safeguards such as Quality Assurance Committees and partnering with CASA workers (Court Appointed Special Advocates) in order to provide greater protection for children.
Although these safeguards were in some ways effective, too many children continued moving in and out of the system, (the “In and Out Syndrome”) unfortunately becoming victims of the Family Preservation paradigm instead of its beneficiaries.
Enter the Adoption and Safe Families Act; designed, in part, to limit the amount of time children were permitted to remain in foster care before permanency was required. This Act also allowed states to quickly petition for termination of parental rights in the more egregious cases of abuse and neglect, hopefully freeing children for adoption or permanent foster care sooner.
Although compliance with the stipulations of this Act makes more federal funds available to child welfare agencies, many states still remain almost totally focused on family preservation. In addition, because of legal red tape and reluctance on the part of the state (including the courts) to permanently remove children from their biological parents, termination of parental rights, even in the most serious cases of abuse, often takes years to complete. This leaves children technically free, but not actually free for adoption. As these children in limbo grow older, they are less likely to ever be adopted or even find long-term foster homes, especially if they are in sibling groups or become known as “special needs children.” “Special Needs” is not only a term used to describe certain children in state care, it is also a class of children the system seems to be unintentionally creating.
There are 69.8 million children under age 18 in the United States. In 1998 nearly three million cases of abuse and neglect were reported. Most of these cases did not involve serious physical injury or sexual abuse. Nevertheless, with nearly 700,000 children requiring some type of state care during 1999, provisions had to be made for those children, some for brief periods of time and others permanently. While adoption rates remain low in most states, the number of children in foster care is increasing. One in four foster children remains in care 4.3 years or more; one in ten longer than seven years. One in three are moved at least once a year, though some experience multiple moves each year.
Approximately one in every three children who enter state care and are sent back home return to the system at some point. This “In and Out Syndrome” has caused great alarm among public health officials and child advocates as these children who are revicitimized become more and more difficult to place. They often require multiple moves and rarely find permanent homes.
Recently, an advocacy group known as Children’s Rights began challenging these multiple moves by filing class action suits in at least nine states. In Tennessee the suit alleges more than 2,000 children were moved ten times in one year and demands the state spend millions of dollars to remedy the situation. In Washington D.C. a similar suit pushed the child welfare system into federal receivership. This new round of class action suits is similar to suits initially filed in the 1980s that spread nationwide and became a major factor in the emergence of the Family Preservation Model.
Everyone agrees that a safe and permanent environment encouraging positive growth and development is unquestionably the most important goal for children in state care. Unfortunately, this type of home will never be a reality for many children – because even if termination of parental rights is accomplished, older children, sibling groups and “special needs children” will often still find no permanency. “Youth Communities” are designed to serve this population of children.
The idea of a “Youth Community” is not new; this concept has taken various forms during the last two decades. These communities, usually called group homes or residential education centers, generally employ house parents who attempt to provide structure in a home-like atmosphere for a limited number of children.
The major difference between this traditional type of group care and the “Youth Community” concept is that “Youth Communities” are intended to be permanent homes funded through public/private partnerships. Such partnerships include a combination of state and federal taxpayer funds and community support in the beginning, with the goal of transitioning entirely into community sponsorship. “Support” is not limited to money, but also includes educational resources, books, food, clothing, day care, mentoring programs, and volunteer assistance.
Another function of “Youth Communities” is to offer life skills training so that children leaving community care will have the foundation necessary to become productive members of society. Without this firm foundation, many will simply reenter state care via the welfare system. In addition, “Youth Communities” can offer support in the form of grants, scholarships and tuition assistance for post high school education, including college and technical training. Ideally the commitment of “Youth Communities” will last until children satisfy all of their educational goals and are truly prepared to be independent.
“Youth Communities” are not intended to take the place of all foster care or group homes and are not meant to discourage adoption. They are instead a new offering in the sampler of services for children who might otherwise move from home to home or languish in foster care until aging out at 18. Youth Communities address the needs of these “In and Out” children who rarely find permanent homes.
The “Youth Community” is a much-needed option for the lost and looking children in America. They are lost in the system and looking for a home – a permanent place to belong. For many children the neighborhood-like structure and permanency of “Youth Communities” will mean the difference between belonging, security and hope for the future, or hopelessness and despair.
The National Physicians Center (NPC) is committed to promoting the development of these communities nationwide with the assistance of government officials and community leaders. The NPC is continuing to explore the “best practices” of successful residential centers, group homes and boarding school-type arrangements now operating around the nation. Some model communities include the Milton Hershey School and Scotland School in Pennsylvania as well as Big Oak Girl’s and Boy’s Ranches and Grace House in Alabama. Research and much anecdotal evidence suggest the overall outcomes for children in these settings are far superior to those of similar children in state care.
The “Youth Communities” model offers a positive physical, emotional and spiritual environment for children, who will otherwise disproportionately become America’s criminals, teen mothers, substance abusers and welfare recipients. Even more tragically, some will repeat the same cycles of abuse and neglect in their own families. In short, the permanency offered by “Youth Communities” provides what Dr. Abraham Maslow (Father of Developmental Psychology) described as being nearly as important as the physiological need for food and water; that is a sense of security and belonging, something we all need to thrive.