GAHSC

In review of the paper on funding methodologies, Work Group#3 Innovative Financing Paper Findings, I question the premise of the paper on innovative funding as presented in the “Issue.”

I quote:

“Issue: In a seamless system of placements that are appropriate, community-based, and community supported what can the state do to ensure that financial resources are maximized and that all available funds are accessible to the child as they move throughout the continuum of placements and services?”

This presentation of the “issue” assumes we have sufficient resources and that only “available” funds will be accessible to the child. This begs the question. Let’s put on the table funding levels.

In all our recommendations, we have not identified in our findings what it means to be sufficiently resourced and funded in child welfare. Granted, there will never be enough money for what we want to do. Granted, we must become more efficient and more effective than we ever have been. We must have accountability for the services that we render with good outcomes.

Efficiencies in child welfare management are in our recommendations. Best practice and effective casework is in our recommendations. Outcomes and performance contracting are in our recommendations. Funding levels are not. If we take off the table funding levels, then we are taking off the table a major piece of our vision for children. We must identify what the baseline in funding should be in regard to our level of poverty, population diversity, and current population of children.

In all the demonstrations of effective child welfare management brought before the Action Group, (ie. Iowa and Illinois) we have not demonstrated that Georgia is inefficient in how we are managing our money. Certainly, we can do a better job at identifying 4-E eligible children. We can do a better job at identifying federal dollars for treatment services. We can do a better job at using educational dollars to educate our foster children. Even these efforts take resources.

Much of our failures lie in the fact that we are under-resourced. Problems with case management, data management, auditing, social work, training, recruitment, and retention have roots in the failure to adequately resource child welfare. We are asking too few people to do too many things. Every report on child welfare since 1994 has regarded under-funding as a major issue. Children are being hurt as the result.

The message that I am hearing in the paper is: let's improve the system with the resources that we have. With the resources that we have, we will never get to where we want to go. Our vision must include a commitment to adequately fund the child welfare system that we want. Let's determine that number and create a vision to get there in the most efficient and effective manner possible. The Governor’s charge to our group did not skirt the issue of funding. Neither should we.

I would suggest that the issue is:

“In a seamless system of placements that are appropriate, community-based, and community supported what can the state do to ensure that sufficient financial resources are available and maximized and that ~~all available funds~~ they are accessible to the child as they move throughout the continuum of placements and services?”

Normer Adams
GAHSC

Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children