John J. Salmon, Chief Counsel 1214 South Gramercy Place Dear Chief Counsel and Committee Members: This and the attached letter are submitted to you as testimony on the impact Here in Los Angeles County, the impact is already so severe that the thought of further cuts is blood chilling. Deaths from parental child abuse are definitely up. Children over the age of eight are on their own---simply not being taken into the out-of-home care system if their parent(s) are beating, burning or breaking them. To be taken into the system in Los Angeles County, right now, signs of physical abuse (bruises, cuts, burns, broken bones) must be apparent. Even for children under the age of eight, their having been starved, kept in filthy surroundings, kept locked away from contact with other people, not clothed adequately---or otherwise neglected---are not grounds for their removal from neglecting parents and placement in out-of-home care, while help and services could be given to the parents. These factors may not show up in statistics yet, but they are collected from reliable sources within the county Department of Public Social Services. Case loads here have doubled since January. The cutbacks imposed by this administration are so rapid and so severe that the agencies and departments effected by them are unable to respond appropriately. Instead, they are being forced to shut off services to certain children, drawing ever shrinking lines around the groups of children they can serve. Workers are being asked to serve larger numbers of children than is humanly possible. The entire field of Child Welfare will suffer as the stress of impossible expectations, and frustration of seeing children die because their parents could not be given the psychological help they needed, and anger at watching children grow up in out-of-home care instead of having their parents rights terminated by the courts and being placed in adoptive homes, cause the dedicated, caring professionals to leave the field to preserve their sanity. 2 Adoption is the most cost effective aspect of Child Welfare. Each time a child is adopted, instead of growing up in foster care or institutional care, thousands of tax payers dollars are saved. Even a special needs child adopted with the aid of a subsidy given to his/her new family, saves money. A worker is no longer assigned to the child's case, so administrative and personnel costs are eliminated, and additionally, subsidies are rarely equal to the foster care payment for the same child. This administration, by recommending the block granting of the Child Welfare and Adoption Assistance Act of 1980, PL 96-272, is rendering it impotent, even in the most financially affluent states. The provisions of this act should be used as models for the improvement of human services in this country. It is designed to require efficient use of funds, to demand improvement of services where they are lacking and to concentrate efforts on the areas that will make a difference for children. It offers states financial rewards for compliance with its improved service requirements over a feasible time frame, and at the same time contains stiff penalties, termination of federal funding, for noncompliance. It is an Act which deserves the opportunity to demonstrate its logical, cost-effective plan in action. Children are suffering today in this nation because of the cuts made The Child Welfare and Adoption Assistance Act of 1980 must not be placed in a block grant, and deserves full funding so that its provisions may be fully implemented. Sincerely, Katherine Miller Katherine Miller Adoptive parent President, Open Door Society of Los Angeles Member, California Children's Lobby Secretary, California Association of Adoption Agencies, Southern Region Member, California Foster Care Network Member, North American Council on Adoptable Children Member, Southern Christian Leadership Council Institute Legislative Chairperson, California Adoption Advocacy Network Your organization has just demonstrated the hypocrisy that has led us to choose to raise our family in the absence of any commitment to organized religion. Instead of giving Mr. Reagan an award for "courageous leadership in governmental, civic and humanitarian affairs," your organization ought to be leading the efforts to publicly chastise the man for depriving the children of the United States of decent health care, adequate food and shelter and quality education. Do you honestly believe that he demonstrated "courageous leadership" when he: Cut $3 million from the childhood immunization program for 1982, and proposed a further $ 2 million cut for 1983---needlessly endangering the lives of children with diseases we have controlled for years. + Did not cut the $ 1.4 million the Defense Department spends for shots and other veterinary services for pets of the military, plus the added millions of public dollars that pay for the transportation of pets for military personnel. Eliminated the Child Nutrition Equipment Assistance program of $15 million + Allowed the Army's plan to give away new industrial machines to defense contractors for a $ 58 million cost in moving and installation expenses alone, instead of encouraging these huge corporations to purchase what they need to meet their contracts on the open market. The granting of a "blank check" to this country's military-industrial complex is leading to unmonitored, unexamined abuses of public funds that make the fraud which has occurred in the welfare, food stamps and Medicaid programs look minuscule in comparison. The Reagan administration is literally "throwing the baby out with the bath water," as it eliminates social programs and robs our future generations. 2 Adoption is the most cost effective aspect of Child Welfare. Each time a child is adopted, instead of growing up in foster care or institutional care, thousands of tax payers dollars are saved. Even a special needs child adopted with the aid of a subsidy given to his/her new family, saves money. A worker is no longer assigned to the child's case, so administrative and personnel costs are eliminated, and additionally, subsidies are rarely equal to the foster care payment for the same child. This administration, by recommending the block granting of the Child Welfare and Adoption Assistance Act of 1980, PL 96-272, is rendering it impotent, even in the most financially affluent states. The provisions of this act should be used as models for the improvement of human services in this country. It is designed to require efficient use of funds, to demand improvement of services where they are lacking and to concentrate efforts on the areas that will make a difference for children. It offers states financial rewards for compliance with its improved service requirements over a feasible time frame, and at the same time contains stiff penalties, termination of federal funding, for noncompliance. It is an Act which deserves the opportunity to demonstrate its logical, cost-effective plan in action. Children are suffering today in this nation because of the cuts made The Child Welfare and Adoption Assistance Act of 1980 must not be placed in a block grant, and deserves full funding so that its provisions may be fully implemented. |