The Family First Prevention Services Act - Good News!!

in familyprotection •  last month

I have very good news to share with you today. During my research for family protection I discover that President Donald Trump signed a new law in February this year.

A new Law called The Family First Prevention Services Act.

images.jpeg

New Yorkers gather in Foley Square in NYC on Saturday, June 30th, 2018 and march towards the Brooklyn Bridge in support of Families Belong Together, an organization resisting Trump's zero tolerance immigration policy. Photograph by Matt Bernstein for W Magazine

This new law make provision for keeping families together by providing more money for families in crisis.

Families in crisis will be assisted by

  • at home parenting classes
  • substance abuse treatment
  • and mental health counseling

The law put limits on the placing of children in Foster care or group homes. If applied properly this law will bring the biggest reform of Foster care in nearly four decades.

This new law, is based on the belief and also on studies that were done which findings were that children from troubled homes almost always fare better with their parents as in Foster care or in group homes. This new law have the potential to change the whole troubled Foster care system in the USA.

This law "was tucked inside a massive spending bill President Donald Trump signed in February." Although few people outside the child welfare circles paid any attention to this new law it will still force States to adjust their spending of their annual 8 billion budget in Federal funds for child abuse prevention.

()

IMAGE: JOANNE RATHE/THE BOSTON GLOBE VIA GETTY IMAGES

The Family First Act now caps federal funding for group homes. There were no limits before but now Federal government will not pay for a child to stay in a group home longer than two weeks. There are some exceptions like teens who are pregnant or parenting.

It’s a really significant reform for families,” said Hope Cooper, founding partner of True North Group, a Washington, D.C.-based public policy consultancy that advised child welfare agencies on the new law. “The emphasis is really on helping kids stay safe with families, and helping vulnerable families get help earlier.”

The new act were embraced by most child welfare advocates but are not so popular with States that rely heavily on group homes. They now fear that they won't have enough money for the group homes

Compliance guidelines will only be released by Federal government in October. Most states are still figuring out how this law will affect their current systems. They expect the impact to be drastic especially in States like Colorado and other states that have a lot of group Foster homes.

I for one was very excited when I read about this new law and I really hope from the bottom of my heart that this will make the difference for parents and children in the USA.

Please support @familyprotection here on steemit. You can donate directly to their wallet to support this community.

Thank you for reading and please try to do your bit to bring change all over the world.

Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/05/05/foster-care-family-first-prevention-services-act-trump/573560002/
Images as indicated.

FB_IMG_1536150801809.jpg
@hope777

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  
Thank-you @hope777 for submitting this post with the #familyprotection tag. It has been UPVOTED by @familyprotection and RESTEEMED TO OUR Community Supporters.

"Child Protection Agencies" are taking children away from their loving families.
THESE FAMILIES NEED PROTECTING.

(If you feel that our community has brought more rewards and attention to this post, please consider contributing a portion of those rewards back to our cause.)

Curated for #informationwar (by @commonlaw)

  • Our purpose is to encourage posts discussing Information War, Propaganda, Disinformation and other false narratives. We currently have over 8,000 Steem Power and 20+ people following the curation trail to support our mission.

  • Join our discord and chat with 200+ fellow Informationwar Activists.

  • Join our brand new reddit! and start sharing your Steemit posts directly to The_IW!

  • Connect with fellow Informationwar writers in our Roll Call! InformationWar - Contributing Writers/Supporters: Roll Call Pt 11

Ways you can help the @informationwar

  • Upvote this comment.
  • Delegate Steem Power. 25 SP 50 SP 100 SP
  • Join the curation trail here.
  • Tutorials on all ways to support us and useful resources here

It definitely sounds hopeful and encouraging. Perhaps we ARE moving forward. Thanks @hope777

·

Thank you for commenting @enjoywithtroy! I really hope and pray that this law will bring change!

I am hopeful that it will turn out as good as it appears on the surface. My concerns are who is the funnel to put families in the parenting classes (CPS?), what do these classes will focus on? Based on some of the social arguments taking place these days over such things as home schooling, vaccinations etc I fear it will be a further push to brainwash parents into compliance against their families best interests. I hope I am wrong, but after decades of watching these programs created using feel good names with feel good objectives that achieve the opposite of what everyone thought the laws applied to, I am skeptical now till I see proof.

Also, based on all the experiments on and desire to drug so many kids/people I fear anything that mandates the mental un-health fields involvement.

·

I second, skepticism. Is it truly a law? Looks as if the title specified has been introduced, but not actioned?!

I'm hoping this turns out to benefit families that need it, instead of a tool to use against families.

·
·

Thank you for commenting well as I said above only time will tell and I want to try and be positive. At least if it is a law then the lawyers that represent parents also have more backing in their cases.

·
·
·

Youre great @hope777 i know you want to keep positive. Keep up the good work. Are you still active with that advocacy group?

·
·

It was passed, there is question to it being a unfunded mandate. I think that that concern comes from the perspective of the additional man power (paper work) that will be required by the government to be sure all group homes are not just licensed but certified, otherwise funding options for mental/substance abuse issues will come from the Title IV-E program run through the social security administration. Shouldn't be a incredibly extra expense because basically what this program does is spend what would have been spent if the child/children were removed anyway but it will be spent before hand instead of afterwards. Before children had to be removed before such services could be rendered. If child/children aren't living in dire straights and the only problem seems to be a mental/substance abuse problem there may be a chance the parent can recover without the lost of said child/children. On the other hand though it could also prove to hasten the paste at the amount of time children sit in foster/group care, remember the child/children will still be at home during the process the parent goes through to correct whatever the situation may be. That means that all pertinent information required by caseworkers to warrant removal, placement and/or termination of rights will be already done by psychologist and health care officials before removal if the parent fails. In some cases this is going to turn out to be more of a bonus of savings for the government(s) involved then a plus for some parents.

·
·
·

The words expedite intra-state adoptions should instill fear into you.

I have read the act, its more of the same. I remain skeptical. They seek to hasten adoption rates, while capping funding for foster homes.. this is the problem; going to be blunt about it. People need to learn the difference between, law, provisions, acts, and legislation.

·
·
·
·

That's why I said this is going to turn out to be more of a bonus savings for the government. If I had said it like you did someone on here would have countered me with "I am sure you think that's a bad thing". Well technically yeah but not in the same sense that they think of it as a good thing. They think this will limit the available foster homes. It won't, it only serves as a cap from increasing because of the opioid epidemic, if they can rehabilitate parents off drugs through programs it will cost them a lot less money, for those who can't be rehabbed it will serve to move children through the process to adoption faster, which just means less time in foster care which means more open beds in foster homes faster to process kids, once processed into adopted homes they will save because adoptive parents only get title money but do not receive all the other entitlements available to foster children, like medical, dental, psychiatric care, etc., clothing allowances etc., etc.

None of it instills fear in me, it should though to parents to wake up and work on the issues that brought them to attention of the authorities in the
first place. There's a extremely small chance that CPS is (in the US at least) in the wrong when they removed kid(s), if CPS is knocking on someone's door there's a good chance that knock was warranted to at the least serve as a wake up call whether they remove or not.

·
·
·
·
·

Now according to HR1985 (thinking before coffee is dangerous) children can be placed for adoption intra-state. So they could be place for adoption in two weeks in any state. This is terrible for parents.

·
·
·
·
·
·

I can't find anything on it as being passed yet...do you have any links?

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

I stand corrected 1892

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1892

See that, 1892 is a related bill that original (not hope777) publisher put a ton of spin on. Remember that provision from CPS post actually awarded bonuses to adoption rates. That element (conspiracy in my eyes- incentive) will spell disaster. Who can see a judge in less than two weeks? Im for rehabilitating those who need it, but these bills really heighten powers.

·

Thank you for your comment @practicalthought, as always you are a deep thinker about these issues. And I get your point about who will be presenting these classes to the parents but at least it is a step in the right direction. At least the funding for Foster care homes i now limited because we all know most of the times it's about the money. We will have to wait till later in the year to see what guidelines the government will give for this law to be properly applied. The other amendment that I wrote about previously that will secure parental rights on things like vaccinations and homeschooling will hopefully sort out the parental right to choose for your children.

Im happy to read this post..
thank you for posting this new law about family..
God bless you and your family..

To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.

Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.

truly a very good news :)

Most inaccurate information from the misinformed masses.

The law put limits on the placing of children in Foster care or group homes.

No this law does not place limits on putting children in foster care or group homes. If a setting upon which a child/children are living is deemed as unsafe/uninhabitable children can still be removed before other services are rendered.

This new law, is based on the belief and also on studies that were done which findings were that children from troubled homes almost always fare better with their parents as in Foster care or in group homes

No this law was in direct response to the opioid epidemic. It makes available funds that would not have been available until after children were removed for mental health, substance abuse issues. Some parents suffering mental and substance issues could be served by having the resources available prior to removal, if the mental, substance abuse issues don't resolved within a set period of time, with some stating (because official guidelines are not out yet) short duration to upwards of 12 months the child/children can still be removed.

The Family First Act now caps federal funding for group homes. There were no limits before but now Federal government will not pay for a child to stay in a group home longer than two weeks.

No there is no caps or limits on funding. This only increases the allowable uses for Title IV-E, this will actual increase the amount going into the program, to make sure states do not have to allocate or lose funds to this new mandate they can be reimbursed any amounts shown in prior fiscal year 2014 for additional money spent on prevention services.

The federal government funding of children entering institutions will be met the same as always as long as group homes become accredited. The group home will have to be a qualified treatment program, to receive funding the group homes have to be licensed and seek accreditation by a approved non profit independent accreditation organization. As long as that criteria is met they will receive funding.

·

The information come out of my source of a story that was published in the USA today and I also read other sources that were reporting on this and it was more or less the same. Please feel free to make your own post about this law to inform @familyprotection.

·
·

If you went and read the law yourself you would have found that only group homes that are not accredited and licensed face the two week requirement, that is also where the concern stems it could cut into state budgets because it's shared based revenue, the cost isn't covered one hundred percent by the government, it's a cost sharing endeavor. So if states want to put kids in groups homes that are not accredited they will not get a federal fund match. Accredited means they have licensed professionals working there that are licensed to treat these kids professionally. As a example a group home cannot be a independent living center for older teens just supervised by a adult, there must be access/plans in place for professionally licensed care. It also does not forbid extended families from receiving monies as kin ship care, though some states do already forbid help based on kin ship care I am not positive IV-E entitlement program does and so far do not see it listed. The intent of the law is to keep children from entering foster care/group homes, if a home setting is not a viable option and a relative steps up to take the children they will not be reimbursed during the period of professional services rendered. Meaning if you volunteer to take in the child/children you will only be covered for professional services rendered. If the parent fails to rehab or change whatever it is that warranted the removal it does not state that at that point that family members fostering will not be eligible for monies. The objective is is to find ways first that child/children do not enter foster care, all this acts does is provide professional services that wasn't available unless children were removed with no income based priorities attached either. Meaning if wealthy grand parents took the child/children reimbursement for professional services rendered would not be income based, they would get reimbursement. It upgrades the status required of group homes to provide professional services, which could be a good thing if some homes, as I am sure there are some, just take kids for the sake of making money but don't provide support services.

Yes I could write a article on it but it wouldn't be based upon a article translated by some women, who if you probably dug a little deeper gets federal funding of some type to run her children advocacy organization, (that's speculative on my part), to a reporter whose half listening and doesn't get it straight and come out smelling like the bed of roses they like to hear on here. If I was going to write about a law at least I'd go look at it first, view various other "professional" resources, like those coming from those who this act will actually affect to get a proper perspective on the intent of the law, the fact it's not the light at the end of the tunnel most on here are expecting, and in my own personal opinion works out more of a benefit to the government if they actually move to take the child/children, (because all the professional evidence will already be in hand at that point to bolster CPS claims) my article wouldn't make ten cents on here. You, though, just like the reporter and the advocacy woman all get some money ...and hey, isn't that what it's really all about?....isn't that the claim?...it's all about the money and not really about the truth.

This post was upvoted and resteemed by @thethreehugs. Thank you for your support!