Invest in Community- Building and Family- Strengthening Approaches Investment in poverty-reducing initiatives is an essential aspect of reparations family policing impacted Black families. The federal government can and must take swift and dramatic action to immediately begin divesting Federal funding from these harmful policies and approaches by changing the incentive structure to support state intervention in ______________ 31 The Children’s Village, Jeremy C. Kohomban, $574,456; The New York Foundling, Bill Baccaglini, $522,600; The Children’s Aid Society, Phoebe Boyer. $415,823; Ohel Children’s Home and Family Services, David Mandel, $470,547; JCCA (formerly known as Jewish Child Care Association), Ronald E. Richter, $437,557; Rising Ground, Alan Mucatel, $399,301; Leake and Watts Services, Inc., Alan Mucatel, $399,301; New Alternatives for Children, Inc,Arlene Goldsmith, $387,246; Graham Windham, Jess Dannhauser, $345,950 (former); Jewish Board, Jeffrey Brenner, $330,803; Catholic Guardian Services, Craig Longley, $312,700; Sheltering Arms NY, Elizabeth McCarthy, $311,242; Cardinal McCloskey Services, Beth Finnerty, $304,214; SCO Family of Services, Keith M. Little, $301,685; Cayuga Centers, Edward Meyers Hayes, $289,146; St. Dominic's Home, Judith Kydon, $285,658; The LGBT Community Center Foster Care Project, Glennda Testone, $275,294; Little Flower Children and Family Services of New York, Corinne Hammons, $259,441; MercyFirst, Renee, Skolaski, $259,126; Lutheran Social Services, Damyn Kelly, $256,185; Good Shepherd Services, Michelle Yanche, $247,65; HeartShare St. Vincent's Services, Dawn Saffyeh, $239,974; Forestdale, Inc., William Weisberg, $238,783; Seamen's Society for Children and Families, David Gaskin, $235,000; Coalition for Hispanic Family Services, Denise Rosario, $215,960; Graham Windham, Kimberly Hardy Watson (current), $201,623; Martin De Porres School, John Galassi, $168,895. 32 Torn Apart 33 Emilie Stoltzfus, Child Welfare: Purposes, Federal Programs, and Funding , Congressional Research Services, page 1, (updated April 2022), https://crsreports. congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10590.https:// crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10590 34 Emilie Stoltzfus, Child Welfare: Purposes, Federal Programs, and Funding , Congressional Research Services, page 1, (updated April 2022), https://crsreports. congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10590. 35 Systematically Neglected, pp. 7-10 36 Id. at 9 (“The new federal funding made available under Title IV of the Social Security Act [in 1962] could only be used for out of home placements . . . It could also not be used to support the removal of children from middle-income families, because that law required that a family be eligible for [Aid to Dependent Children] . .. in order for a portion of the costs of foster care placement to be reimbursed by the federal government.”)
per year in salary alone. 31 Roberts observes that “[t]hose in power have no interest in fundamentally changing a system that is benefitting them financially and politically, one that continues to serve their interests in disempowering Black communities, reinforcing a white supremacist power structure; and stifling calls for radical change.” 32 Federal funding incentivize child-taking. In 2018, states spent about $33 billion on “child welfare activities.” 33 While the majority of funds spent on these activities are provided by state and local governments, the federal government infuses a substantial amount of taxpayer money into the foster industry. The biggest source of federal funds—comprising more than half of all federal child welfare expenditures—is Title IV-E of the Social Security Act; in 2022, the federal government gave states: • $11.7 billion: 87 percent ($10.[KB4] 283 billion) for family separation (foster care, adoption, guardianship payments) • 7 percent ($827 million) for front-end pipeline “child protection services” and “family services” • 2.2 percent ($263 million) for “grants, research, technical assistance and incentives) • 1.7 percent ($186 million) for “services to older and former foster youth” • 1 percent ($112 million) for “prevention services.” 34 Foster care is the largest category of Title IV-E spending. It entitles states to uncapped federal reimbursement for a set percentage of the costs expended for custodianship of “eligible children.” Eligible children are those who meet decades-old poverty level limits and only those who have been removed from their homes. 35 The law thus targets the poorest families for federal reimbursement to the states. 36 Due to historical and structural racism, the impact of these policy choices predictably falls disproportionately and most harshly on Black children and families.
42 | FIJ Quarterly | Summer 2022
Powered by FlippingBook