From the Baltimore Sun
Critics aim to reduce secrecy in foster care
 Children: Advocates strengthen call for public review of records as group home problems come to light.
April 17, 2005
By Jonathan D. Rockoff, Sun Staff
Getting detailed information about foster children is difficult. So is finding detailed information about the group homes where they live.
All of that makes it very challenging to hold accountable the companies that are entrusted and paid to take care of the children - and the state regulators who are supposed to monitor that care.
"Everything right now is done with this shroud of secrecy, and there's no way to oversee the overseers," said Kathleen Hughes, a managing attorney at the Maryland Disability Law Center, a private watchdog group that the state has designated to look after the interests of the disabled.
In a series of articles last week, The Sun described the state's failure to adequately safeguard the 2,700 foster children living in 330 privately run group homes. Regulators, the newspaper found, weren't properly overseeing care, spending and staffing at the homes.
Youths placed by state agencies in the homes are among Maryland's most vulnerable. They are victims of abuse and neglect, or they had been in trouble with the law. Some have complex medical needs and require round-the-clock nursing.
State law, however, largely blocks public review of the handling of their cases, even after they have died.
Advocates, who suspect this is a problem nationally, say they've long promoted improving public access to foster childcare records without violating any privacy rights of the children or their families.
They've talked with lawmakers about a number of ideas. They suggest the situation could be improved by giving lawyers representing the interests of foster children the authority to decide what information can be released, by establishing a watchdog agency that could review the records at the department of human resources or by giving county "child fatality review teams" that examine deaths of foster children the responsibility to share more information with the public after their investigations.
In Maryland law, Article 88A only allows disclosure when prosecutors have filed child abuse or neglect charges - a rarity, advocates say.
In such narrow circumstances, the state may give a limited amount of information, including the name of the child and the date and circumstances of the alleged abuse or neglect, along with the findings of an investigation into the allegations.
Advocates complain that the information disclosed is too limited. They say the public can't review the actions of the social services workers assigned to the children.
Camille B. Wheeler, a former director of Baltimore County Department of Social Services, said confidentiality shouldn't apply after a child has died, and she said it is in the child welfare system's interest to discuss a death.
"The public gets a worse impression not knowing what went on or what happened," she said. "It's like saying no comment - it's an admission of guilt."
Department of Human Resources Secretary Christopher J. McCabe, whose agency oversees more than half of the children's group homes in Maryland, acknowledged the importance of openness while testifying in Washington last year about flaws a federal review was finding with the state's foster care system.
"All states show the need for improvement, and I believe that the foundation for change begins with transparency, owning up to our weaknesses, while recognizing the inherent challenges in human service work as we seek to serve those most in need," McCabe testified before a House Ways and Means subcommittee.
State health officials give three responses to complaints about the withholding of records.
First, they say more than the child's privacy is at stake - there's the protection of the child's family and the reporter of any possible mistreatment.
"Even alleged abusers may have a degree of legitimate privacy interest unless and until their guilt is established by law," said Michael Walsh, a spokesman for the Governor's Office for Children, Youth and Families, which recently led efforts rewriting state regulations on group homes.
Second, the officials say that the restrictions don't mean child neglect, mistreatment and death go without scrutiny, citing as many as a half-dozen different investigations that may result.
But The Sun investigation found that at least three children's deaths lacked thorough government reviews, and regulators didn't investigate two of them at all.
Lastly, the officials say that the limited access to Maryland records stems from federal law, which threatens states with the loss of millions of dollars in child welfare funding if they release confidential information.
Yet Walsh, of the Governor's Office for Children, Youth and Families, concedes that federal regulations "provide somewhat more flexibility" in releasing information than Maryland law allows.
State law, Walsh said, "has never been amended to the maximum limits allowed by federal law." Child advocates say the stringency with which regulators have interpreted federal law doesn't help youths receive good care at group homes.
"It protects the agency," said Linda Koban, a former juvenile court official who oversaw the cases of foster children living in group homes. "That's all well and good as long as everybody is supposed to be doing what they should and the care is good," but not when the system fails children.
Although lawmakers required one state agency, the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, to report deaths and serious injuries to the Maryland Disability Law Center, the nonprofit group regularly faces roadblocks, its lawyers say. "We have a very difficult time getting records from them," Hughes said. She suspects the agency is trying to hide sloppy oversight. "From the records I've seen, the investigations are not necessarily timely, thorough, on point," she said.
The newspaper's investigation found that regulators weren't properly monitoring the state-licensed and -funded homes, allowing some to mistreat or neglect children without investigation or consequences. Many group homes employ unqualified or poorly trained workers, including some with criminal records. With virtually no oversight of how they spend state funds, a number of operators enrich themselves, relatives and friends.
While The Sun eventually examined 15,000 pages of state records, the paper's reporters faced obstacles obtaining them.
Local departments of social services, which are branches of the Department of Human Resources, initially cited Article 88A in rejecting requests to review the case files of children assigned to group homes who died while in state custody.
Months later, the department allowed reporters to review two of three files, but advocates say that almost never happens.
"The Department of Human Resources has had the luxury of not coming under public scrutiny because of its complex web of confidentiality shields," said Jann K. Jackson, executive director of Advocates for Children and Youth. "It's easy to let things slide if it's never going to come to public light."
Under the Public Information Act, reporters were able to study the licensing and inspection records of 25 group home companies that ran 120 homes. But the Human Resources and Health departments sometimes waited past the 30-day deadline for releasing the documents. In some cases, DHR waited months.
In addition, the department either failed or refused to answer some questions. Asked how inspectors could have missed a group home operator's lack of qualifications, spokesman Norris P. West said, "The litany of queries has really become onerous and overwhelming for our staff."
Neither he nor the department ever answered the question, which was first asked in November.
For expanded coverage, including multimedia and stories in the series, go to www.baltimoresun.com/ grouphomes
Subscribe to the Hartford Courant today and receive up to 50% off!
|
|
E-mail story
