The Politics of Foster Care Administration in the United States

Rebecca H. Padot

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• eBook ISBN: 9781317693390
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Government-by-proxy and intergovernmental relations profoundly affect the public administration of foster care. Using examples from foster care systems in the states of Delaware, Michigan, New York, and Rhode Island, Rebecca Padot eloquently combines a rigorous methodology and theory work to expose the conditions under which foster care outcomes can be improved. The cases selected suggest that the federal government has increased its focus on measuring the performance of state programs while simultaneously decreasing its funding of state foster care programs and offering the states very little management or mentorship. Padot turns the page and recommends administrators place a greater priority on building community partners, integrating the advice of mentors, providing leadership from public managers, and cultivating relationships with the federal government.

An original and timely resource for scholars and practitioners, this book represents a significant contribution to our understanding of how leadership and management variables may be associated with more positive foster care practices and performance in the United States.

Acknowledgments

By sharing their experiences for this study, the following individuals will help to improve foster care and increase government effectiveness. In Delaware, I extend my gratitude to John Bates, Elizabeth Bouchelle, Tania Culley, Cari DeSantis, Del Failing, Vincent Giampeitro, Carlyse Giddens, Sandy Johnson, Michael Kersteter, Arkadi Kuhlmann, Chandlee Johnson Kuhn, Ruth Ann Minner, Leslie Newman, and Meghan Pasricha. In New York, I offer special thanks to Michael Arsham, Francis Ayuso, John Courtney, Kelly Garvey, Sarah Gerstenzang, Richard Hucke, Nancy Martinez, LaTrella R. Penny, Nicholas Pirro, and Deborah Rubien. In Rhode Island, I am grateful to Julie DiBari, Anne Fortier, Lisa Guillette, Dorothy Hultine, Patricia Martinez, Dana Mullen, Heidi Mulligan, Maureen O’Shea, Maureen Robbins, Kevin Savage, Jenifer Silva, Sarah St. Jacques, and Philip Steiner. In Michigan, I owe special thanks to Ishmael Ahmed, Mary Chaliman, Maura D. Corrigan, Kate Hanley, Patrick Heron, James Novell, Patrick Okoronokwo, Gayle Robbert, Janet Snyder, Vicki Thompson-Sandy, Victoria Tyler, Marianne Udow, and Jane Zehnder-Merrell. Hailing from all areas of the United States, I send my appreciation to Christine Craig, Lisa Pearson, Brent Thompson, Carole Thompson, Muna Walker, Barbara Wilson, and Harry Wilson.

I am grateful to many foundations and organizations for considering my research worthy of support. Thank you for granting me the following designations: PRRUCS Fellow, Earhart Fellow, Mumford Fellow, Bradley Fellow, and Fox Distinguished Graduate Fellow. Without these funders, this study would not have been possible.

The Pew Charitable Trusts taught me how to champion philanthropic performance measurement and return on investment community service, and for that I am grateful. Allowing me to serve on a portfolio of programs that assisted at-risk youth, universities, and other social impact endeavors was an extraordinary opportunity. Thank you to my supervisors Dr. Sulc and Dr. Lugo for your commitment to social science, performance measurement, and the social good. Much gratitude to Dr. Sulc for your feedback on an earlier draft of this study.

To a public administration scholar who has written countless books upon which we now build our theories, I am grateful to Professor Donald F. Kettl, who served on my committee both during his time as executive director of the Fels Institute of Government at the University of Pennsylvania and also as professor and dean of the University of Maryland School of Public Policy. Both his assistance with the research design and implementation of this study and his mentoring in the fields of public policy and public administration research have been invaluable.

To Professor Jack Nagel, who served as associate dean for graduate studies and associate dean for the social sciences at the University of Pennsylvania during the bulk of this study, thank you for your profound role in shaping this study, some of which was during your time as committee chair. I thoroughly enjoyed serving as your teaching assistant and appreciated your dual commitment to students and research.

My greatest debt is to Professor John DiIulio, Frederic Fox Leadership Professor of Politics, Religion, and Civil Society and professor of political science, University of Pennsylvania, who guided me through multiple graduate programs and oversaw my research and teaching. He went well beyond what is required of an academic advisor and what one is generally rewarded for as a professor. His combination of leadership, commitment to students, partnership with his spouse, penchant for community service, and rigorous social science is a model I aspire to emulate.

To my University of Pennsylvania PRRUCS and Fox research families, much appreciation to Catherine W., David H., Sheria S., Cindy B., Lia F., Stephen D., Chuck B., Wilson G., Joe T., Hara S., Marc S., Mark H., Mary S., and Laura T. You have truly added the word “family” after the word “research.”

I send heartfelt appreciation to Dr. Mulhern for his guidance during my studies at Penn’s Fels Institute of Government. Countless thanks to junior fellows Jennifer S. and Miguel G. and to senior fellow Clinton O. Appreciation also to some of Penn’s other faculty, Elizabeth Tuleja and Rogers Smith, for their roles in my academic development. Thanks to Pat K., Carlton J., Sergio S., Michael J., and Brian T. for their roles in shaping my academic journey.

Thanks to the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives for allowing me to present initial findings. I am grateful to Carl Cannon for taking an interest in my research while he was at The National Journal.

Special thanks to Routledge Press, editor Natalja Mortensen, and to her team, Darcy Bullock, Colleen Roache, Kathleen Laurentiev and Lynne Askin-Roush. Special thanks to Natalja for championing this project. May many foster children be better served as a result of her and the board’s decision.

Thanks to Peter Agree of the University of Pennsylvania Press for offering wonderful insights on an earlier draft. Also thanks to the PRRUCS editor for an earlier round of edits.

Thanks to Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago and The Casey Young Adult Survey for the findings cited in this book and for your overall contributions to the field of foster care.

My fondest thanks is reserved for my husband, Chris, whose love gives me the stamina to work so many hours on projects that serve the social good. I am truly honored to be your wife.

1 A Public Administration Framework for Foster Care

DOI: 10.4324/9781315777412-1

As political scientist Herbert Kaufman observed in his famous 1960 study of the U.S. Forest Service, public policy is “enunciated in rhetoric” but realized or not “in action.”¹ Kaufman’s point was echoed and elaborated upon by political scientists Donald F. Kettl and James W. Fesler in the opening of their classic textbook, The Politics of the Administrative Process: “Any road map of how government does what it does has to start with public administration. Policymakers might make policy, but their ideas, big and small, rarely have any meaning apart from their execution.”²

Kettl and Fesler defined “public administration” as “the process of translating public policies into results.”³ Whether referred to as public administration, public management, or public bureaucracy, what political scientist James Q. Wilson has described as the systematic study of “what government agencies do and why they do it” has a long, distinguished tradition within political science and is very much alive today.⁴

From the Forest Service to the Federal Reserve,⁵ from maximum-security prisons to public schools,⁶ from big-city police departments to U.S. military special operations forces,⁷ from the Securities and Exchange Commission to the myriad federal agencies that are responsible for health care finance,⁸ and on issues ranging from homeland security to social welfare to environmental protection,⁹ political scientists study how federal, state, and local government agencies succeed in “translating political decisions into practical steps.”¹⁰

This study is offered in line with the tradition of political science research that focuses upon public administration, but with at least three distinctive features.

First, this study focuses on an important area of public policy and administration that political scientists have hitherto largely ignored, namely foster care, which is defined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as “24-hour substitute care for all children placed away from their parents or guardians and for whom the State agency has placement and care responsibility.”¹¹

The lack of attention that political scientists have given to foster care is difficult to understand. Each year 650,000 children are placed in the care and custody of public foster care agencies.¹² On any given day, government foster care employees are entrusted with making life and placement decisions for approximately 400,000 children.¹³ Each year, about 250,000 children enter foster care, and roughly 250,000 exit the foster care system.¹⁴ Foster care involves about $4.3 billion in annual federal spending,¹⁵ and at least $4.1 billion in annual state and local spending.¹⁶ More than 69,231 federal, state, and local public employees work directly for child welfare agencies that are involved with foster care.¹⁷

This study treats “government by proxy”¹⁸ or “third-party government”¹⁹ not as a theoretical construct, but as a hard empirical reality that profoundly affects the public administration of foster care in ways that cry out for preliminary description and analysis.

As recently as two decades ago, many scholars did not question the extent to which the federal government administered its programs largely through state and local governments, for-profit firms, and nonprofit organizations, nor did they question the significance of attendant financial and managerial arrangements.²⁰

But today, only a public administration “doubting Thomas” could fail to recognize the vast extent and tremendous significance of Washington’s proxy-government cast of characters, which now plainly goes far beyond mere “privatization” or “outsourcing” and reaches consequentially even to U.S. military organizations and intelligence operations abroad.²¹

In the same vein, this study considers “intergovernmental relations” and “administrative federalism” to be virtually synonymous with “public administration” when it comes to the actual, everyday implementation of public policies that are funded in whole or in part by the national government. As we shall see, even with the large role that HHS plays, foster care has been, and continues to be, administered mainly by state governments, with interesting and consequential differences in the public administration of foster care from state to state.

In addition, this study documents and zeroes in on state-to-state variance in the public administra...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half-Title Page
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Acknowledgments
• Appendix
• Index