Opinion
Kansan
Published daily since 1912
Jodie Chester, Editor Marc Harrell, Business manager
Gerry Doyle, Managing editor Jamie Holman, Retail sales manager
Ryan Koerner, Managing editor Dan Simon, Sales and marketing adviser
Tom Eblen, General manager, news adviser Justin Knupp, Technology coordinator
4A
Monday, November 16, 1998
Editorial
Privatization of foster care system could be a mistake for Kansas
In 1996, Kansas digressed from the trodden path by becoming the first state to privatize completely child welfare services. Two years later, this unprecedented, experimental move has not turned out as well as state legislators predicted.
Recently, researchers at the KU Beach Center on Families and Disability received a $3.2 million federal grant to study the effects of privatization on the foster care system. Their findings may paint a grim picture.
indigenous children. Almost 5,000 children are scattered in group homes, hospitals or with often-temporary foster parents under the umbrella of the state's foster care system. To rid itself of the alleged headaches and costs associated with operating the system, the state shifted responsibility for foster care to private agencies that run the social service as a profit-oriented business.
The implications of handing over helpless children to a business venture should have been telling enough to force the state to stick with a government-run system, but the financial liabilities, difficulties and costs of providing efficient foster care services seemed — from the state's perspective
— to outweigh any resulting disadvantages.
Admittedly, the state did not possess an impressive track record in its operation of the foster care system. But this did not mean that it was incapable of creating an efficient system through the application of additional funds and efforts. Furthermore, there is no evidence that privatization has achieved either increased efficiency or higher quality of care.
The conservative ideology that private is better than public was undoubtedly a driving force in the privatization of child welfare services. But whatever led the state to get out of
The University received a $3.2 million grant to study the effects of privatization.
the business of providing human services — whether it was politics or just a shifting of the buck to hold down costs and sidestep responsibility — it may prove to have more disadvantages than benefits.
The managed care approach to foster care creates limitations. First, private agencies have only a limited amount of money and cannot afford to run the system on a deficit. The agencies are restricted by the set amount of government subsidization they receive.
When the system was state-run, significant pressure could force the state to allocate additional money through supplemental appropriations or a transfer of funds. The bottom line is that the state's primary responsibility was to ensure the children received proper care, while business-oriented private agencies' primary goal, whether explicit or implicit, is to rake in profits.
A parallel example of the disadvantages of privatization is apparent by the severe criticism directed at the managed care health care market.
Although this health care system generally has increased efficiency and removed bureaucratic red tape, the profit-driven motives of private health care agencies force them to cut and contain costs, and consumers (in the case of foster care, the children) often come out on the short end of the deal.
A second problem with privatization is the relinquishment of accountability. It is almost impossible to hold a private agency accountable for bluders within the system that may result in harm to the children or families. On
the other hand, in a state-run system, legal remedies are clear and easily can be implemented to ensure accountability, a key factor in any system of social welfare.
The private agencies receive roughly $13,000 to $15,000 per child, per year. This amount is only minimally sufficient, if at all, for the proper care of a child. And only a percentage of this allocation finally funnels down to the group homes or foster parents.
The ultimate goal is to remove as many children as possible from the foster care system. Besides the obvious reasons for trying to minimize the foster population, studies have proven that children in foster care generally perform at a lower levels than their peers in school and are less likely to attend college.
Other states have taken the more moderate road by establishing regionally privatized programs on a small scale instead of full-fledged privatization. These states are watching intently while Kansas uses its foster children as guinea pigs by throwing the whole system to the business-oriented wolves. Other states should not hold their breath.
The state's goal of reintegrating 680 children with their biological parents within 60 days of their placement in the foster care system has been a miserable failure under privatization. The system is operating only on a 20 percent success rate.
But the question is: Which can reach these goals in a more humane manner — a private or state entity? Evidence points to the fact that a system of state-run social services actually might work better. Perhaps the state should re-evaluate privatization and pull some responsibility from private agencies before the going gets too rough.
Nadia Mustafa for the editorial board
Kansan staff
Ann Premer ... Editorial
Tim Harrington ... Associate Editorial
Aaron Marvin ... News
Gwen Olson ... News
Aaron Knapf ... Online
Matt Friedrichs ... Sports
Kevin Wilson ... Associate sports
Marc Sheforgen ... Campus
Laura Roddy ... Campus
Lindsey Henry ... Features
Bryan Volk ... Associate features
Roger Nomer ... Photo
Corie Waters ... Photo
Angie Kuhn ... Design, graphics
Melissa Ngo ... Wire
Sara Anderson .. Special sections
Laura Veazey ... news clerk
News editors
Advertising managers
Stacia Williams . Assistant retail
Brandi Byram . Campus
Micah Kafitz . Regional
Ryan Farmer . National
Matt York . Marketing
Stephanie Krause . Production
Matt Thomas . Production
Traci Meisenheimer . Creative
Tenley Lane . Classified
Sara Cropper . Zone
Nicole Farrell . Zone
Jon Schlitt. . Zone
Shannon Curran . Zone
Matt Lopez . Zone
Brian Allers . PR/Intern manager
Broaden your mind: Today's quote "Trifles make perfection, and perfection is no trifle." — Michelangelo
**Letter:** Should be double-spaced typed and fewer than 200 words. Letters must include the author's signature, name, address and telephone number plus class and home-town if a University student. Faculty or staff must identify their positions.
How to submit letters and guest columns
Guest columns: Should be double-
spaced typed with fewer than 700 words. The writer must be willing to be photographed for the column to run.
All letters and guest columns should be submitted to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Staufer-Filr Hall. The Kansan reserves the right to edit, cut to length or reject all submissions. For any questions, call Ann Prerem (premer@kansan.com) or Tim Harrington (tharrington@kansan.com) at 846-4810. If you have general questions or comments, email the page staff [opinion@kansan.com] or call 846-4810.
Perspective
War on drugs overlooks need for love, programs
A musclebound man in uniform wrapped his arm around me in an elementary school library.
"Hey, kid, you want some drugs?" he said with a smile.
"No, my parents told me it was wrong, so I don't do drugs," I said with a self-conscious giggle.
"Come on, just try it, it's no big deal."
"No. No. No. No." I used the broken record technique, and my fifth-grade class broke into the joyous first verse of the "Just Say No" theme song — a glorious ode to my drug education.
John Wilson
ponior@kansan.com
The billions of dollars poured into our generation's drug education
taught me how to "Just Say No" to a uniformed policeman in the middle of a library. That makes so much sense in the real world—and the advocates against drugs wonder why we can't stop the drug problem.
Our drug education hardly serves as evidence of progress in our War On Drugs. We learned the "cold shoulder" and "repeated refusal" techniques. We learned that all drugs are bad without being educated as to what a drug actually is.
They said it always would be easy to "Just Say No." Do our government officials ever walk through the real world, or do they merely propose programs to make the tax payers think something is being done?
"Sorry our simplistic programs don't work, but at least we're trying."
That's not good enough. How do those powerful people in charge of the government's antidrug organizations want us to react when our best friend offers us a joint?
Guess they never quite thought that far.
Guess they never quite quote us. Our generation was bombarded with several well-intentioned anti-drug programs, such as Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" and former Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates' D.A.R.E. program. The D.A.R.E. program has become the chief avenue for educating our nation's youth.
with more than half of American school districts involved.
D. A.R.E., or Drug Abuse Resistance Education, was formed in 1983 and involves police officers coming into the schools and teaching a 17-session program. Journalists have estimated the program costs $700 million each year, much of which comes from our tax dollars.
National trends still point toward more drug use among the vouth.
The U.S. government launched a $2 billion anti-drug media program last summer designed, as President Clinton said, to knock America upside the head about the drug problem.
From a drug addict shaking on the floor in a bathroom to a girl bashing apart her home with a frying pan (a lame reference to the earlier egg-frying-in a pan commercials), the ads suggest that the government continues to use the same old ineffective techniques: Scare the hell out of the dumb public with nonsensical demonization without addressing why people take drugs in the first place.
I propose a more comprehensive approach than the zero tolerance/D.A.R.E.babble. Use the wasted billions to improve inner-city schools and offer college and trade school scholarships. Give people hope, and give them positive alternatives.
families need help, and our lives need to be better. Friends of mine that abuse drugs started using because they were unhappy. They use drugs to numb themselves. Mere education isn't going to help those people.
The heap of D.A.R.E. money should be used to both educate the masses about drug use and give more people a chance at success. We must show children that no matter what anyone teaches them, it is their decision whether to take a drug. We should offer compassion rather than alienating the people who need us most.
This is where we will save people. Self-esteem and happiness can't be built on superficial drug training. We have to mature as a nation and offer youth programs that work in the real world that we live in.
Then, we'll be a lot closer to winning our War On Drugs.
Wilson is a Lenexa senior in journalism.
Foreign-language requisites loom for lingually challenged
Foreign languages are difficult for me. I guess it has to do with how my brain is hooked up, but I just can't seem to learn to speak anything other than English.
to speak anything other than
In fourth grade. I taked
in fourth grade, I tried taking French, but I just didn't pick up on it too well; I didn't learn a thing. Maybe it was because of my hyperactivity, or perhaps the teachers had such thick French accents that I couldn't understand them even when they spoke English. Whatever the cause of my difficulty, they took me out of French class and stuck me in creative writing instead.
Carrie Johnson opinion@kansan.com
in sixth grade. I started taking Spanish. In that class I at least learned a little — like
least feel new it time—like how to ask what time it is, and how to order food in a restaurant. But that was too bland and boring for me. To make Spanish more fun, I added some words from the Spanish dictionary to my vocabulary. It's interesting how four-letter words are usually five or six letters in Spanish. My teacher didn't agree.
my sophomore year in high school, I had to choose which foreign language in which enroll. I had taken three years of Spanish in middle school, but because I could only order tacos or insult people, I was pretty much starting from scratch, anyway. Instead of continuing on with Spanish, I decided to try out German. I'm of German descent, and I thought maybe getting in touch with my heritage might make learning the language more interesting.
The first semester of German was fine; it was mainly a review of what little I had learned in high school. The second semester, though, was just too difficult for me. It went at a much faster pace, and I just couldn't keep up.
For a while, I was captivated, and I did fine. I could order up a bratwurst and beer with the best of them. However, the newness wore off. Soon I was just copying my class work off the freshman who sat next to me and drawing obscene graffiti in my textbook. After being in German class for three years, I was set free by graduating high school. I headed up to the University of Kansas.
I know that to my bachelor's degree, I'm going to have to complete one language or another to the fourth level. Seeing as how languages are so hard for me, I know it will be difficult. I think next year I'll try French — it's supposed to be easier than German, and my brother is practically fluent, so I can always call him for help.
It's not that I'm a quitter; it's just that I could have done so much better in that class if there had been a nice high school freshman in there to copy off of.
During orientation, they asked me which level of German class I wanted to enroll in. I told them I had taken three years of it in high school. They asked me if I had mastered something called "dative." I told them I didn't know what that was. They stuck me in the beginning class.
I just wish I could bring in a high school freshman to copy off of.
I dropped out the last day I could without get ting a Won my report card.
Johnson is an Oklahoma City sophomore in English.
Feedback
Hollywood not fairly portrayed
I read the article about Lawrence's theaters in the Kansan and most of the statements are uninformed opinions or just incorrect.
It needs to be understood that Hollywood Theaters did not close down Hillcrest to spite students or the community. The owner of the building would not help with air conditioning repairs nor was he willing to decrease the monthly rent of the building to help offset necessary repairs for the building. When a company can not make a profit on an establishment, the only logical thing to do is to close for business.
May I remind students that the Hillcrest Theaters was not a dollar theater until Hollywood Theaters bought it. This was intended to be a better
deal for the community since the Cinema Twin only had two screens compared to the five screens the Hillcrest had to offer.
The Hillcrest, and other theaters for that matter, show very little or no profit when people insist on trying to bring in their own food. The admission prices go to the movie companies while concessions go to the theater company.
Actors get their money from somewhere, don't people know it comes from their pockets when they go see a movie? I didn't hear students complaining that Jim Carrey got $20 million per movie. This is why admission is so high.
And as far as the article stating that only small towns can get away with an increase in admission prices, when was the last time you went to the coast to see a movie? Big cities
charge between $7 and $9 for a ticket.
The price increases would be of bigger concern if movie going was a necessity. If you can't afford to see every movie that comes out, wait to rent it or simply don't watch the movie. I can't afford the time or the money, so I pick and choose what I would like to see. Companies are not obligated to give student discounts, so be happy, or at least content, with the discount offered.
The dollar theater was nice, but as a former employee at the Hillcrest Theatres, I can assure you that customers still had consistent complaints about the Hillcrest prices or lack of "newer" movies.
Kristel Cosner
Lawrence senior