How California Law to Help Foster Kids Created a Bottleneck in Care

The CCR (Continuum of Care Reform) Act was passed back in 2015, with the aim to phase out group homes and push for family placement of foster kids instead. Back then, the law was well-intentioned – it primarily focused on increasing placement stability, decreasing reliance on congregate care, and reducing the time taken to place youth in family-based care.

But unfortunately, the unintended consequences of this law have left 58,000 youth foster care systems in California overburdened and stressed.

After the law was introduced, group living was reserved only for children with the highest behavioral needs. In these group homes, short-term residential therapeutic programs (STRTPs) were introduced to offer intensive mental health treatment to children and youth in the foster care system. Ultimately, these children were placed back with their birth families, foster families, or if need be, relatives.

The whole foster care system dramatically changed, and the number of children living in congregate care systems dropped significantly. Some group homes stepped up and transitioned into implementing the new system, but many homes could not. Due to this, many group homes could not continue offering requisite services and ultimately shut down.

This led to a decrease in the number of group homes and the State is now finding it extremely difficult to recruit foster families to cater to the rising number of children requiring placement in the foster system. The Californian foster care system is now facing a shortage of 4000 beds in group homes.

Santa Rosa family law attorneys and youth welfare advocates are of the opinion that the state underestimated the costs of creating operating facilities for children with increased behavioral and mental health needs. Children who actually required special care and facilities were instead placed in a one-size-fits-all setup. These centers were not adequately funded, making it difficult for the current foster care system to sustain and function effectively.

The bed shortage has resulted in a disparity, with 8-10 kids on the waiting list for one available spot. The situation is getting only dire by the day, considering the additional roadblocks that are burdening the foster care system. Existing group homes (that managed to sustain and survive the CCR reforms) do not have the funds to afford an expansion. Even though these homes are partly funded by the state, managing the uncovered costs all by themselves is no cakewalk.

Even if the existing homes did manage to expand, they face another obstacle – the Medicare and Medicaid Act of 1965, which states that any residential mental health facility with more than 16 beds would be considered to be an ‘institution of mental disease’. Such institutions would lose Medicaid dollars, which again, puts homes looking to expand their foster facilities in a fix.

Thousands of children who require special care and attention are now being pushed into restrictive, non-therapeutic, and unlicensed shelters. These vulnerable children will not receive the assistance they require at the right time, and will keep bouncing from one placement to another until they are old enough to be independent, and not reliant on the foster care system. The bottom line is – these children will not receive timely assistance, which is the whole objective of the foster care system. So where exactly is the California foster care system heading?

The spokesperson of the Department of Social Services, Scott Murray states that CCR has been a success, and has resulted in more children being placed with their own relatives or home-based systems rather than group homes.

But the ground reality is far different – the kids are not getting what they actually deserve – love, support, and a chance to live their childhood. And this is enough of an indication that the State needs to step up, consider reforming the enactment or increase the budget for existing foster care systems. The latter is in the pipeline, but the question of how equitable the distribution of funds will be, still remains.