I start from the premise that al1 those involved in  the

child welfare system, from the Secretary of SRS,  to the new-

est file clerk of the private providers, are well intentioned

and want to see that the needs of children in this state  are

met.   There are certainly many ways of achieving this  goal;

however,  privatization of all child welfare services in this

state took place on a chaotic fast track without public  dis-

cussion  and  input.   My perspective as  to  the  impact  of

privatization is limited only to my county,  although I  have

anecdotal information from other counties. 

      State  administrators   with   SRS   determined    that

privatization  would occur and determined the time frame  for

it.  When it became apparent that there was same confusion as

to the terms of the initial contract,  the adoption contract,

and when more prudent individuals might have slowed down  the

privatization process for foster care,  an enormous  venture,

administrators  kept it on track and pushed it ahead  to  its

target  dates.   Therefore,  private foster care  contractors

were given an overwhelming task.   Although the provisions of

the foster care contract are artfully framed and will be met,

the  children and families involved are not being  served  as

well as they were by the public agency.

     Please look at Attachments A and B.


Page 2

     In Douglas county before privatization in March of 1997,

we had over sixty (60) foster homes as well as numerous group

homes.  By October 17,  1997,  we had only twenty (22) foster

homes; some of those foster parents are continuing only until

the children who have been with them on a long-term basis are

either adopted or returned home.  In addition,  we have  lost

three of our group homes.  To determine the reasons for this,

you will need to talk to those who are foster parents or have

been foster parents as to the impact of privatization on them

and their families.   The bottom line,  however,  is that our

children  from  Douglas  County are  not  placed  in  Douglas

County.  Between March 1st and August 1st only three  Douglas

County children were initially placed in Douglas County  fos-

ter homes.  Seven children were placed in relative placements

in Douglas County, but these relative placements were located

by SRS workers prior to the children's removal.  Although un-

der  contract  compliance definitions 94% of  these  children

were  placed  within the region,  only 29%,  including  those

placed  with  SRS-located relatives, were placed  in  Douglas

County,  and 71% were not.  Placement of Douglas County  kids

in Brown,  Wyandotte, and Atchison Counties does not meet the

stated contract goal of maintaining family,  county,  or cul-

tural  ties.  These distant placements make the provision  of

services  difficult  and require that  our  private  provider

spend too much time dealing with transportation issues rather

than the all important issues of visitation and therapy  nec-

essary for either reintegration or healing.


Page 3

     Privatization,  in my view,  has led not to the  healthy

free  competition one might expect;  instead it  has  created

enormous   service   monopolies  in   this   state.    Before

privatization we had four or five family preservation choices

in our county.  I am not unhappy with the quality of services

provided by our family preservation subcontractor.   However,

we  no longer have the choices that we had  before.   Another

example of this monopoly is that in the past if we had  ques-

tions  as to abuse or neglect or quality of services  in  one

placement or with one provider,  we would attempt not to send

our children to that entity until problems were resolved.  We

have had three confirmed sexual abuse incidents in a facility

operated  by our private provider.  However,  we have had  to

continue to send our children to that facility, including the

children who were abused in that facility, because we have no

other options or alternatives under the contract.   Our  pro-

vider operates the only show in town.  See Attachment D.


     As  you may be aware,  the Kellogg grant and the  Kansas

Families for Kids program really emphasize the concept of one

child welfare team\one worker per child during the time  that

child is in the system.  In March, 1997, our private provider

was put in the unpleasant position of having to hire one hun-

dred new workers,  many of whom had no training in the  field

of  child welfare law and/or services.   The  contractor  has

done  what it needs to do as far as sifting  through  workers

who do not belong in this field, but that has meant that many

children  have had at least three workers since March and  in

at least one case a child has had six different case managers


Page 4

in a little over six months.  Services are delayed every time

workers change.  For example, two little three and four year-

old boys had no visits with their parents for over four weeks

from the day they were removed; this time period included one

child's birthday;  they have had three different social work-

ers and no assigned case manager.

     As an aside, the workers put in twelve hour days and are

on  call with pagers twenty-four hours a day,  seven. days  a

week.  They burn out quickly.

     Because there are now different adoption  subcontractors

throughout the state and they are not identical to our foster

care contractors, if a case transitions to adoption the chil-

dren now have another case worker at a time that can be  most

traumatic, just when their parental rights are terminated and

they are leaving a long term foster home.  The  privatization

of adoption services in many ways has been positive for  kids

in  this state.   It allows an entity to prioritize  adoption

services;  under the old system,  SRS workers were constantly

dealing with crises and with day-to-day services for children

in  foster care.  Very often children in stable  pre-adoptive

placements  did not have adoptions finalized  quickly.   How-

ever, privatization has created false and artificial barriers

and requires that there be case worker changes simply because

a case goes to an adoption case plan.

     In addition,  barriers are created by privatization when

various  factual scenarios  occur which are not uncommon with


Page 5

the  families  we see.   A specific example would be  one  in

which children are in custody in one county with Contractor A

as  children in need of care and the mother goes  to  another

area  to receive inpatient drug/alcohol treatment.   She  may

give birth in that area to a new child or take an infant with

her  to treatment.   If the child in the new area  goes  into

custody  he or she goes to Contractor B who will in  turn  be

financially responsible for that child and will have to  sub-

contract with the provider in the original area in order  for

the siblings to be placed together.  If the mother returns to

the area where the siblings live,  the case logically belongs

where  the siblings are but the private provider  system  has

created almost as much bureaucracy as the Interstate  Compact

in  order to transfer the case and subcontract  for  services

within this state.  Given that factual scenario we have found

it simpler and faster to dismiss a case and refile it in  our

area.

      I have real concerns as to whether or not our  children

are coming into custody as they need to for their own protec-

tion  in our county because the experienced case  workers  at

SRS (a) know of the overwhelming task our private provider is

facing;  (b)  know that our children will be  placed  out  of

Douglas County;  (c) know about staff turnovers and delay  in

services; and (d) know that when our children are placed some

of  them have been sleeping in hallways and all will go  into

temporary  "gateway"   placements before they can go  into  a

more stable placement.


Page 6

     Before  privatization,  our workers far  young  children

would  more often than not have pre-located foster homes  for

those children where the children would be able to remain un-

til the issues involving their case would be resolved.   This

type  of  communication and pre-removal  planning  apparently

does  not exist between our local SRS office and our  private

provider.   I do not know the reason for this,  but even most

very  young children now go into temporary homes before  they

go into their actual foster care placements.

     As you review privatization you need to look at the out-

come  goals stated in the contract.   One of those  goals  is

that children experience a minimum number of placements.  See

Attachment  C.   Examine how moves are counted for our  chil-

dren. A move is a move is a move.  Think of a university stu-

dent who is older and better able to handle these moves;  how

would  that student function academically and socially if  he

or she moved on the same campus from Naismith Hall to GSP  to

Templin  to a fraternity to McCollum within a ninety day  pe-

riod?  Every single item belonging to that student would need

to be moved and the student would need to readjust, get reac-

quainted,  and  learn the rapes of each of those  new  place-

ments.   For these children every move is a move,  and  every

move needs to be looked at very carefully.  Moves create some

serious long term consequences for kids.   They stop connect-

ing to people because there's no point to it.   In  addition,

evaluations and therapy do not occur when children are moving

from place to place.  Of 211 kids in care in our county, 123


Page 7

have moved 423 times but many of those moves do not count un-

der  the contract definition (SRS data).   Two children,  one

and two years old, have moved four times in six months.

     I suspect that the actual costs of privatization of fos-

ter  care is more rather than less than the cost of  the  old

system.  It would be interesting to note whether or not there

has been an actual decrease in the number of SRS employees in

the child welfare area since December of 1995,  the last  of-

ficial  count date before privatization began in  1996.   Not

only does SRS have employees in this field,  the  contractors

have employees.   Our contractor, also a group home provider,

is  putting children in group homes rather than  foster  home

since we have lost so many foster homes.   Group home  place-

ments cast more than foster home placements.  The bottom line

is that I question whether the money is making it through the

funnel  to  provide needed services for  children  and  their

families  or whether the money is being used to  support  es-

sentially two levels of agencies.

     Finally,  it will be impossible to compare  the  results

obtained by the foster care contractors to the results  under

the  old system.   This is because the definitions have  been

manipulated  and the standards for the private providers  are

lower than the standards were for public SRS workers.   It is

my further understanding that SRS is again changing  computer

systems.   We never have been able to count on much  accuracy

from  that system before,  so I do not know how we  can  make

accurate comparisons.


Page 8

     Now that privatization has been  accomplished,  and  all

of our former service variety and foster homes no longer  ex-

ist, if contracts are terminated due to lack of success,  and

bids go out to new contractors,  I can see no way to avoid  a

repetition of the chaos we are working through.  The old sys-

tem  has been completely dismantled and the safety net  which

formerly existed for children is no longer present.   Any new

system would have to be created from scratch, and the private

system would need to be repaired and remodeled.

     To  truly evaluate the impact of our present  system  on

children and their families,  people involved in this  system

need to have input.   This would include biological families,

children, foster parents, mental health professionals, courts

and guardians ad Litem.  In this evaluation process we cannot

rely on written surveys because some users of the system  are

not proficient at writing and reading and they do not respond

to long detailed written surveys.  It would take time and en-

ergy for individuals to locate and talk to these people about

the impact of this entire process.

     This legislative committee should also hear from citizen

review  board  members and CASA's concerning  their  observa-

tions. I know that SRS workers who have been given the job of

case  managers are hesitant to speak out as to what they  see

going  on under privatization and its impact on  children  in

this state due to pressure they feel from administrators.

      It is possible that privatization could work for  chil-

dren in  this  state.   However,  the speed with which it was


Page 9

accomplished has caused the chaos which exists for the  agen-

cies  trying to provide good services for kids.   I  am  con-

vinced  that our private contractor wants to do the best  job

possible  for kids.  However,  I think that entity  has  been

given  an impassible task due to the numbers of  children  in

foster  care,  time frames,  and personnel issues which  were

sure to surface.

     If  any  member  of this committee  wishes  to  come  to

Douglas County and sit in court or sit in on a citizen review

board hearing you are always welcome.  Please just call (785)

832-5230 and we will be happy to make a schedule available to

you.  Thank you for your time and attention you have given to

this issue.