Hawaii’s foster families, who care for our most vulnerable children, should finally get a well-deserved raise. Their lawyers will not.
After several years of legal wrangling, state House Finance Chairwoman Rep. Sylvia Luke indicated this week that the Legislature is likely to agree to increase payments to foster families.
The increases would settle a class-action lawsuit, filed in 2014 after years of fruitless lobbying efforts to raise the pay. The suit accused the state of violating the federal Child Welfare Act by failing to cover the minimum costs of a foster child’s basic necessities. For 24 years, the stipend in Hawaii was fixed at $529 a month. The plaintiffs argued that just keeping up with inflation would have increased that amount to $950.
That’s not what foster parents will get. Still, the new rates are better, and are tiered: $649 for ages 0-5; $742 for ages 6-11; and $776 for ages 12 and up. As any parent knows, older kids cost more than younger ones.
A settlement actually was reached in 2016, but Luke last year cut the funds to pay for it, objecting to the $1.1 million in attorneys’ fees included in the deal. This time, Luke said the lawyers will settle for $850,000, a far cry from the $2.9 million in costs incurred by plaintiffs’ three law firms over the course of the litigation.
So while nobody got everything they wanted, it’s still good news for the estimated 2,000-plus children in Hawaii’s foster care system due to family abuse and neglect problems.
Child welfare in trouble again
It is wholly discouraging that the state’s Child Welfare Services agency has failed — again — to meet thresholds in all seven outcome categories reviewed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The dismal evaluation of CWS in 2017 showed no improvement from 2009, the last time the federal agency evaluated operations. The assessments were made on category outcomes, such as:
>> Children are first and foremost protected from abuse and neglect.
>> Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate.
>> Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs.
In each of the categories, a sampling of cases was assessed, and if CWS failed to meet compliance thresholds in 95 percent of the cases, it fell short of substantial conformity with federal standards. A few percentages off might seem forgivable — until it’s remembered that each shortfall represents a failing that affects Hawaii’s most-vulnerable keiki.
The report outlined a Child Welfare system of ongoing dysfunction, with significant turnover and vacancies. Turnover was especially high among supervisors, which affects stability and work-standards adherence — and at the end of 2017, about a quarter of CWS’s 180 jobs for social workers and human-services professionals were vacant.
Clearly, this is tough work, made tougher still by churn and understaffing. One bright spot is a recently revived partnership with the University of Hawaii to train social workers for employment, which yielded nine graduates last year now working for the state agency. It’s still a heavy lift, but any such efforts must be pursued and strengthened, as CWS works on an improvement plan to address the bleak review. Too many young lives — neglected, and more seriously, abused — are counting on Child Welfare to live up to its name.
Keep your pet outside the store
Common sense, one would think, would restrain pet owners from bringing their animals into public places, such as grocery stores and eateries, by misrepresenting them as “service animals” that help disabled people. But alas, common sense is being left at the door, based on the increased presence of animals inside business establishments.
This growing problem has spurred Sen. Russell Ruderman to sponsor Senate Bill Opens in a new tab2461 Opens in a new tab, which tries to clamp down on service-animal misrepresentation with fines of $100 to $500.
More than 15 states prohibit misrepresentation of a service animal by either civil or criminal penalties, or both. Not all customers at a place of business are pet lovers, and untrained dogs or other animals raise concerns over the food and sanitation code, and can distract or even attack legitimate service dogs.
Supporting SB 2461 should not, by any means, be seen as lack of support for legitimate service dogs in public establishments, or as an attempt to infringe upon the rights of disabled people.
It is a fair question to wonder how enforceable such a law might be — but at the very least, it would serve as a deterrent where there currently is none. More awareness, too, would be a welcome result.
