the point of the post wasn't the statistics............they can be
debated endlessly by the simpleminded.............likewise, the notion
that some bureaucratic glassware should be viewed as half full or half
empty is equally irrelevant..............the newsworthiness is that a
mainstream american television network devoted an hour-long segment of
prime time programming and web site space to questioning the once
sacrosanct system of foster care............as they might say at abc
news, "that's the real story behind the story".............

xkatx wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
abc's primetime did a june 1 story on "the crisis of the foster care
system"..............among abc's conclusions were 52 percent of foster
children suffered from post-traumatic stress (a rate twice as high as
soldiers returning from war).............thirty percent of the homeless
have been in foster care............ twenty-five percent of those in
prison are foster care alumnus............. like welfare, foster care
is intergenerational (children growing up in foster care can become
mothers with children in foster care........... "the highest ranking
federal official in charge of foster care, wade horn of the department
of health and human services, is a former child psychologist who says
the foster care system is a giant mess and should just be blown
up"............."there are no provisions for treatment, prevention,
family support, or aging out - just for supporting things as they
are"..........that status quo costs taxpayers $22 billion a year and
works out to $40,000 a year to keep a child in foster
care....................beyond abc's findings, the per annum cost per
child in foster care would keep a child in a good boarding
school............

Although I'm not going to debate statistics or argue about anything (I know
for a fact how our system in this part of Canada works, and although I don't
know how ABC's info adds up to how we are over here - but I am assuming
numbers are not far off) You have to think of what's the lesser evil.
The costs are so high. It's tiresome to a point, but in order to just up
and dispose of any foster system, you need to no longer have a need for it.
Is the money worth it for the statistics to be basically horrible as far as
everything goes, or is it better to allow children to be in crisis
situations? Every foster home and foster parent or family has guidelines,
and they're fairly strict as far as every day life goes for the homes. How
would numbers sit if there were no alternatives (such as foster care)?
Would abandon rates go up? Would welfare numbers go up? Would there be
even more cases of abuse, neglect, would the situations be better or worse
if you assume society is the same minus foster care?
No, I don't know those answers, but it is something to ponder.
A good boarding school may offer a child less harm, a better education, more
support, but when the home situation is generally not good, and without
foster care to help a percentage, how would the statistics stand for
homelessness, prison numbers, welfare rates, etc...
If you think of it according to numbers, only 48% don't suffer pts, 70% will
wind up with some sort of roof over their head, 75% stay out of jail.
Also, I'm not at all agreeing to the comment about children growing up in
foster care can become mothers with children in foster care. There *is* a
dad for every child as well.
Anyways, is there really a better answer, alternative, way to go about the
obvious problems that are clear?