Georgia’s child welfare system has seen some notable changes in the past decade, but mostly due to tragic situations. See, the issue is our system is reactive, as Melissa stated in class this week. A child dies, it’s found that there was some DFCS involvement, America goes into a frenzy casting stones at DFCS, the government counteracts with a new policy. This isn’t to say that there isn’t some fault on both sides (colossal case loads have haunted my thoughts of one day working for DFCS and the media loves to make us hate someone), but the blame may be too heavy on one side.

            The high profile death of Terrell Peterson in the late 90s, spurred us into new child welfare policy at the start of the decade. The Child First Collaboration Committee was charged with bringing change in the Georgia’s child welfare system, along with a fat check to help. This resulted in big increases in the number of children reported to DFCS, which makes it seem that DFCS wasn’t doing their job in the first place, but that’s a quick judgment.  Like Melissa said, there’s a panic mode that everyone goes in and then they report everything, kind of similar to when there’s a terrorist attack and idiots accuse every Middle Eastern person they see on the street (I digress).

            Then in 2006, diversion (or family support) was introduced to decrease the number of cases that CPS takes on after investigation, which it did. The implementation of a service to help families with children that are in safe care caused the number of substantiated and unsubstantiated reports to decrease.  After 2007’s poor CFSR (Child and Family Services Review) conducted by the Federal Children’s Bureau, Georgia moved into a 2-yr program improvement plan, as required by the CB for states who don’t meet the requirements of the review. It was reported that by 2011 Georgia had improved in all areas of needed improvement. Though with two waves of big policy change in the past decade and reported improvement, it seems that we are about to enter into another one.

These changes are at the foundation of the services that caseworkers provide, let alone the caseworker position itself. How reports regarding children are funneled, whether they are substantiated, unsubstantiated or diverted, have the most significant effect on caseloads and the amount of work for caseworkers. Large caseloads require more variations in services, because you can’t send everybody to one service and the services provided are dependent on policies set in place, therefore the effects of the policy changes comes full-circle to the caseworker.

Which is all why child welfare policy is so important for social workers, children and families. Social workers are the link between child welfare policy and children and families. This is the level at which policy is put into practice. Child welfare policy has everything to do with children and families because that is who child welfare policy is all about. When a child is in danger, child welfare policy dictates what options are there.

I’m sure we’d like to think the Affordable Care Act is able to change everybody’s story. It’d be great if the lady in the “Sick in America” could stay in the “Land Of The Free” because her medical expenses were taken care of, and the man who lost his management position wouldn’t have to live in a bubble waiting to turn 65 in order to get any healthcare, and the Baltimore man wasn’t digging himself more and more into debt to remain alive.  But, I think there is a shallowness to our definition of change.

While the ACA will allow for everyone to be able to acquire healthcare, it doesn’t necessarily mean everyone will be able to afford healthcare, especially those with current health concerns. See, the issue is those crazy, outlandish deductibles. I went onto the ACA website and took the opportunity to indulge my current baby fever (don’t judge me). For a family of 3: 24 y.o. male, 23 y.o. female, and 1 y.o. child residing in Fulton County, making about $40,000 a year, the estimated monthly premium started at about $141 for our entire family, which is pretty good. We qualified for the CHIP, Children’s Health Insurance Program for our one child, which provides free or low-cost health coverage and had completely open enrollment. We, also, qualified for a solid tax credit, which brought our monthly premium from $317 to $141, which after more carousing of the ACA website, I found was nearly $60 more than what an identical family in Douglas County would pay. But the ultimate blow that breaks the bank came with a glance at the deductible cost. The lowest deductible is $12,600, which is ridiculous for a family making this amount. So, while the premiums are appealing, families with this plan better pray they never have to look a doctor in the face. All this said, it seems that the goals of the ACA are extremely superficial. It seems to be all about being able to SAY “all Americans have healthcare”, despite the fact that none of them can keep their heads above water.

The government doesn’t care about those in poverty. Dependence on government assistance, ultimately the government itself, places the poverty-stricken under government control. The government completely controls what happens to them and that’s exactly how they want it if they are going to be dishing out money and social policy can’t do much about that. As cynical as this statement is, overflowing with indignation and ignorance, it has summed up my unspoken thoughts on poverty and what the government is doing about it. Reading Deparle sent this notion into two opposing streams of thought. On one side, the government does care about poverty, but for reasons linked more closely to elections, budgets and public image rather than genuine concern for people’s lives. Therefore, the government will turn an ear to social policy when there is something at stake. For example, in American Dream, Clinton’s plight to end welfare as we know it, was heavily influenced by his presidential campaign and that “half this election is about winning the southern black vote”(Deparle, p.8). With such a huge issue driving his campaign, upon becoming President he had no choice but to do something about welfare, it was the platform on which his entire campaign stood. His comment, “We should insist that people move off the welfare rolls and onto the work rolls” (Deparle, p.1) clearly shows how limited his understanding of poverty was. And on the other side, the government does not necessarily “care”, depending upon how care is defined. Instead of caring, the government is simply burdened by poverty, it’s like that little brother who is always in the way. They wouldn’t do anything about it, if poverty weren’t always tugging at its shirt. In writing this, I see how similar these streams of thought actually are…ok they are the exact same. After reading Deparle, I came to the conclusion that social policy has the ability to combat poverty if the government has specific need for it. Sadly, social policy makers have to be privy to this and surge in when those opportunities arise.

Angie’s having to hide her fast-food job clearly highlights the liberty-welfare tradeoff. She knew if it was found that she was working, her welfare would be cut off and she’d no longer be able to support her children. She had to sacrifice her liberty to work in order to maintain a welfare check (which is given to families struggling to find work, how backwards is that?), neither of which would support her family on it’s own. The system is not designed for participants to leave, their only options are either to barely make it on welfare or barely make it on a minimum wage job. This leaves little to no room for re-attaining freedom, especially with no educational advancement opportunities. “Without the security of having one’s basic needs met, a person can’t make free choices” (Stone, p.126). Jewell, Opal and Angie all had little education or specialized training, so jobs were extremely limited. They were in permanent survival mode and, of course, they weren’t carrying dreams of being doctors or lawyers, because that was unlike anything they’d seen around them. For these reasons, I do think Deparle believes there is a liberty-welfare tradeoff, because he records this tradeoff in each of these women’s story. Stone (2012) states “Government can provide rights to protect dependent people from domination “(p.127), but who is protecting them from the government?

Growing up in a house full of three strong-willed girls, the ongoing debate among my sisters and I was “Who really is the smartest?”. Now we all know well who this title goes to (me, of course), but my youngest sister’s most consistent and possibly strongest argument was, “But I AM the only one who went to Pre-K”. At the time, this statement usually resulted in some eye-rolling and bullying directed toward the baby of the family, but a recent article on the New York Times website got me thinking about why only one of my parent’s children attended Pre-K and if it was even a big deal (her most recent report card says otherwise).

The New York Times published an article about the push for increased funding of Preschool programs, which has been a hot topic every since President Obama discussed it in that long broadcasting that interrupted my Tuesday night shows. As research grows about the positive effects of Preschool on a child’s development, programs are becoming more attractive to both liberals and conservative (yes, they actually agreed on something). Prepare yourself for this next shocker, Georgia has been one of the states identified as a national model of preschool access and quality (why we should celebrate) (NY Times, Perez-Pena & Rich, February, 2014). The support for Preschool programs from all directions, including legislators, is pretty amazing and states are expanding and creating new, innovative programs. But all that glitters ain’t, you know the rest….so, different sides have different reasons for supporting preschool programs, for example here:

“Analysts also see politics behind the shift at the state level, with preschool appealing particularly to women and minorities, groups whose votes are needed by Republicans”. (NY Times, Perez-Pena & Rich, February, 2014)

But hey, whatever, we’ll take what we can get. Now, of course, all this camaraderie over putting America’s 4-year-old population on the fast-track to Harvard had to end somewhere. Democrats and Republicans have differing opinions on whether the specifics of early childhood education should be handled by local, state or federal government (NY Times, Perez-Pena & Rich, February, 2014).  My question is “will this seemingly small, but at the same time, enormous, detail slow down the advancement of all of these preschools?”. That’s what seemed to happen to H.R. 1368.

H.R. 1368 or the “Prepare All Kids Act” is a bill “to assist States in providing voluntary high-quality universal prekindergarten programs and programs to support infants and toddlers” (H.R.1368, 2013). Introduced by Carolyn Maloney of Congress, H.R. 1368 emphasized the diverse benefits of preschool including crime deterrence and the promise of future jobs, both of which are still motivating factors of those talking up preschool today (Project Vote Smart, Maloney, 2007). Logistically, the bill looks to assist states (Republicans won’t like that) in providing at least one year of high quality pre-kindergarten education available to all children, and free for low-income children. While these goals sound extremely similar to the goals of the aforementioned article published this year, this bill doesn’t have a hot track record. As an amendment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, H.R. 1368 was originally introduced on June 26,2007 and died after being referred to committee, reintroduced three more times in 2009, 2011, and 2013 by Maloney and currently has been referred to committee….again (H.R.1368, 2013).

With preschool talk on the horizon, I wonder if this bill will finally have its chance.

*Freeman, A. (2012, November 27). High School Graduation Rates Revealed: The 5 Best and 5 Worst States. TakePart. Retrieved February 04, 2014, from http://www.takepart.com/photos/high-school-graduation-rates/its-not-a-state-butthe-bureau-of-indian-education

*H.R. 1368–113th Congress: Prepare All Kids Act of 2013. (2013). In www.GovTrack.us. Retrieved February 3, 2014, from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1368

*Maloney, C. (2007, June 26). Project Vote Smart. Maloney Introduces “Prepare All Kids Act” Retrieved February 4, 2014, from http://votesmart.org/public-statement/275317/maloney-introduces-prepare-all-kids-act#.UvBdZHewJJo

*Perez-Pena, R., & Rich, M. (2014, February 3). Preschool Push Moving Ahead in Many States. New York Times. Retrieved February 4, 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/04/us/push-for-preschool-becomes-a-bipartisan-cause-outside-washington.html?ref=politics

Welcome to your brand new blog at sites@gsu.edu!

To get started, edit or delete this post and check out all the other options available to you.

For assistance, visit the comprehensive support site, check out the Edublogs User Guide guide or stop by The Edublogs Forums to chat with other edubloggers.

For personal support, you can attend Georgia State’s training on Edublogs or stop by The Exchange for one-on-one support.

You can also reference the free publication, The Edublogger, which is jammed with helpful tips, ideas and more.