Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Baseball open thread: Freaky Cub birds edition
Next Post: Cullerton: Caterpillar CEO said he wanted “stability” - Says room for compromise on key workers’ comp proposal
Posted in:
* Democratic Sen. David Koehler’s new amendment is creating a bit of an uproar…
Religious child welfare agencies. A child welfare agency that is religiously based or owned by, operated by, or affiliated with a bona fide religious organization may decline an adoption or foster family home application, including any related licensure and placement, from a party to a civil union if acceptance of that application would constitute a violation of the organization’s sincerely held religious beliefs.
Koehler sponsored the civil unions bill in the Senate. Two other, far more conservative Democrats, Bill Haine and Ed Maloney, are co-sponsoring the new bill, which is set for a hearing in the Senate Executive Committee tomorrow.
* From the ACLU…
The federal equal protection clause bans the government from allowing private agencies to practice discrimination when choosing families for adoptive children. The obligation to license foster parents and to screen adoptive parents is the state’s. When the state delegates part of that duty to a private agency the state remains responsible to make certain that the process is consistent with state and federal law, including the 14th Amendment; religiously affiliated agencies should not be permitted to discriminate, especially when doing so can hurt children by excluding a whole class of loving families.
* More react…
Anthony Martinez of The Civil Rights Agenda (TCRA) spoke to Windy City Times, saying that, “We know this is an attack on the civil-unions bill. We’re seeing a re-presentation of that bill through an amendment to another bill, originally intended to expand the civil rights of the blind.”
According to Martinez, “If an agency decides to not provide service, they can turn [the parents] away through the process of a referral.” Martinez was also clear about the origins of the amendment, saying that it was definitely an attempt to undermine the civil unions bill: “We know that the Catholic Caucus and the Catholic Diocese is involved in this bill and advocating for it and really trying to push it through. They are the most vocal opponents of the civil unions bill.”
According to both Rick Garcia, who is also following the bill in Springfield, and Martinez, this amendment is a watered-down version of a previous version. Speaking with WCT, Garcia said, “What it really wanted to do was exempt any religious organization or any religious individual, anyone who holds deeply held religious beliefs, that’s how they put it, would be exempt from the Illinois Human Rights Act. That piece didn’t make it into this amendment. So we have this bill that would allow faith-based foster and adoption institutions that would discriminate. Any agency that takes state or city or federal funds has to obey the law. That is a slippery slope that we do not want to go down.”
* And co-sponsoring Sen. Haine had this to say…
“The civil union bill complicates matters a bit because the civil union bill changes the definition of a spouse,” Sen. Haine said. “So, the Catholic Conference, the Roman Catholic Church and some of the other denominations [with] adoption services, had historically not placed children in households where there’s a couple and they aren’t married. Sexual orientation’s never been brought up.”
Haine said the groups he spoke to, who work with “hard to place” children, want to continue offering adoption and foster care services but do not want to approve applications that are inconsistent with their “right of conscious” and religious beliefs. Traditionally, he said, these organizations place children in married households only.
Unlike the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Haine voted against the original civil unions bill in the Senate because he feared it “would create problems such as this.”
Thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 12:51 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Baseball open thread: Freaky Cub birds edition
Next Post: Cullerton: Caterpillar CEO said he wanted “stability” - Says room for compromise on key workers’ comp proposal
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
If their “right of conscience” forbids them placing children with legally recognized couples for the purposes of adoption or foster care — services that are paid for with taxpayer dollars — they should get out of the adoption and foster care business.
But let’s be ABSOLUTELY clear about one thing: there was NEVER any requirement in state law that foster parents be married or adoptive parents be married prior to the passage of the civil unions bill.
Plenty of other agencies were placing kids with non-married individuals prior to that.
The “requirement” that foster parents and adoptive parents be married was put in place by Catholic and conservative Lutherans within their agencies and served only one purpose: to institutionalize discrimination against same sex couples.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 1:11 pm
If the churches want a say in our law, we ought to be able to regulate the churches. I’d do it via taxation, the state needs the money.
Comment by Cheryl44 Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 1:14 pm
when I was investigating adoption, I called one agency that told me that, as a Presbyterian, I wasn’t considered Christian enough — only born-agains.
Comment by soccermom Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 1:29 pm
If Sen. Haine is correct that the churches did not place children in homes without married couples, and since the state did not grant married status as part of the civil union bill, the churches are being 100% consistent in their approach. Have there been any court cases brought against the churches by unmarried couples of any sexual persuasion that have challenged their position, and what were the results of the cases?
YDD points out,
“Plenty of other agencies were placing kids with non-married individuals prior to that.”
Is there not room for both the churches and these other agencies to coexist?
Comment by Cincinnatus Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 1:36 pm
Does the hierarchy of the Catholic Church have any sort of track record when it comes to the protection and safety of vulnerable children? Been anything in the news on that?
Judge not lest ye be judged.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 1:37 pm
YDD is correct. It should be about the kids and placing them in a strong, safe, loving environment. If the conservative Christian groups would rather it be about church doctrine then maybe they should not be in that business. Having adopted children I know that there are too many out there that need help and an obstacle like this just hurts them.
Comment by Spliff Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 1:40 pm
Right now the protection of children in IL is handeled by DCFS, which contracts out to sevral religious organizations to aid them.
DCFS record is horrible, these prvate contractors provide much better service and support, and they are subsidzed by donations etc. DCFS cant do it.
I have no problem with these groups beinbg free to provide needed community services, subject to their beliefs. You can go to DCFS for the services if the local private religious groups are unwilling to assist.
If religious organzation wants to help feed the poor, protect children, provide foster homes and adoptive families more power too them. We ned more o these services not less. They are a private enterprise, most often sustained by more then the state dollars 9so the state can not replace them by just spending the money inhouse) and no one is forced to rely on their services.
I support same sex marriage, and I support a religious based community support center like lutheran family services or catholic charities right to refuse service to individuals.
Tolerance needs to mean more in our society then believe in nothing. We are establising a nw government based anti-religion. This was never the intent of the anti establishment clause, to disenfranchise religion. The purpose was to prevent the governemt from following England and making its governemtn backed religion.
Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 1:43 pm
Wow guys, you really want churches out of this business then I guess. So can they have any ‘bias’? Can they require clergy to be hetero, male as long as they take a single state dollar for anything?
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 1:43 pm
legislative equivalent of “White Noise.”
Comment by amalia Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 1:45 pm
- Can they require clergy to be hetero, male as long as they take a single state dollar for anything? -
Please, this is a pathetic straw man. If the church takes public money for part of their operations, those operations should be subject to state laws. No one is forcing any lifestyle on them, just keeping them from forcing their lifestyle on others with state money. I disagree with the exemptions, equality shouldn’t have exceptions.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 2:10 pm
@Ghost -
If Catholic Charities or any other group wants A STATE CONTRACT to provide taxpayer-funded services, they don’t get to decide who they serve and who they don’t: the taxpayers do.
As for Catholic Charities wanting to “protect children,” I don’t think that Catholic Charities wants that issue raised.
But since you did bring it up, Let’s talk about Maryville Academy, shall we?
Catholic Charities operated 21 group homes for 14,000 kids until about eight years ago.
An 11 year-old girl in their care was gang-raped at one of their facilities and Catholic Charities officials failed to file a police report, even though they knew about the incident.
And then it was FINALLY closed:
Maryville came under fire last year following the February 2002 suicide of 14-year-old resident Victoria Petersilka after it was alleged that staffers had tampered with reports on the circumstances preceding the death to try to protect the agency from liability. A consultant for Maryville last year warned the institution’s leaders that submitting false reports to the state could violate federal law.
The subpoena only further darkened an already gloomy day in the history of Maryville as Samuels–citing more than a year of turmoil that included Petersilka’s suicide, a pair of sexual assaults, perpetual violence and problems with youths running away–announced that he did not think state wards living there were protected.
“This is not a safe environment for our kids, especially the most vulnerable of those kids,” Samuels said. “Maryville has had chance after chance to solve its problems. They have not taken full advantage of those opportunities.”
Most notably, he said, a report completed this week from a pair of state-paid monitors said Maryville had failed to address seven of nine serious problems, dealing directly with the treatment of children, that the facility had been warned about early this year.
So please, no sermons on how Catholic Charities is trying to look after the best interests of kids.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 2:10 pm
YDD, I think you’re comment is right on target. However, if the Catholic and Lutheran churches get out of the adoption business, that’s going to leave a very big hole to fill in the adoption service sector. They are the two big players in adoption, and if they refuse to participate, lots of kids are going to be worse off because of it.
Politics aside, that’s a real threat.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 2:12 pm
If the Churches want to be able to discriminate in their social work, they can by making it entirely privately funded i.e. no public money. That’s what the LDS church does in MA and notice, they’re still handling adoptions there and the Catholic Church isn’t.
What kind of charity is it anyway to take public money to provide services? Sounds more like being a state subcontractor than being a charity.
Comment by cermak_rd Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 2:14 pm
YDD is so over the line, it’s pathetic. Let’s just say Catholic Charities and every human being makes mistakes. Their mission is honorable. They want to help kids who have no homes. Let them continue to do it.
Comment by Tom Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 2:30 pm
@47th Ward -
According to this report Catholic Charities placed THREE adoptions in FY ‘10.
It is laughable to think other agencies couldn’t fill that gap.
And Lutheran Children and Family Services?
# 127 domestic adoptions
# Supervised 1,098 children in foster care
BTW, y’all are gonna love this quote from LCFS’ website:
LCFS’ eligibility guidelines follow those required by Illinois law and the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services and are generally very broad. There are no requirements regarding marriage, divorce, religion, upper age of parents or number of children. LCFS can assist both single and married adults residing in Illinois in completing an adoption.
As long as they aren’t gay.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 2:32 pm
Thanks YYD. Next time I volunteer at any one of the local catholic charities (St Johns Breadline, St Martin de Poores), I’ll be sure and look at all the bad catholics there and all the evil that they do.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 2:37 pm
@Tom -
How is it over the line?
When a construction company in Chicago breaks the law, fails to live up to standards, do we just say “aw shucks” and change the law for them?
Why should someone with a contract with DCFS be held to a lower standard?
There should be only one standard for DCFS — the Best Interest of the Child — and unless someone is willing to argue that a child is better off bouncing around the foster care system than they are being adopted into a home where the parents are joined by a civil union, the position of Catholic Charities is untenable.
I mean, what exactly is their argument?
Gay parents are inherently bad parents?
Need we be reminded that none of these abused and neglected children are coming from heterosexual couples?
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 2:40 pm
I meant “all of these abused and neglected children are coming from heterosexual couples.”
Sorry.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 2:41 pm
Thanks for the info YDD. That’s odd, because the DCFS website somehow thinks the Chicago Catholic Charities placed 173 children into adoptive homes in the previous year, and Lutheran Social Services placed more than 200 in the previous year.
http://licensedadoptionagencies.dcfs.illinois.gov/
But I’m sure your facts are straight. Who knows when the state last updated its webpage?
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 2:46 pm
Considering how long it takes the state to pay these guys it is charity.
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 2:50 pm
@ Anonymous -
Notice I said Catholic Charities, not Catholics.
The irony is that Catholics have the highest support for not just civil unions but fully legalized marriage for same-sex couples of any religious group.
Even the most devote Catholics - those who attend mass weekly - support gay marriage and civil unions:
among those attending Mass weekly or more, only 31 percent were against legal recognition of homosexual unions; 26 percent favored same-sex “marriage” and 38 percent favored civil unions.
Unfortunately, Catholic leadership is about 50 years behind their parishioners on a bunch of issues, and equal rights for gay Americans is one of them.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 2:51 pm
===Unfortunately, Catholic leadership is about 50 years behind their parishioners on a bunch of issues===
Yes, well it isn’t a democracy and dogma isn’t determined by popularity contests. The tail doesn’t wag the dog.
Back to the topic: I still contend that religious-affiliated organizations will abandon the state’s adoption program if no exemption is allowed. That might be fine, but we should fully understand the consequences of that decision. How long will it be before other groups fill the void and what happens to the children caught in the middle until a solution is found. To me, that’s the heart of the matter. The rest is politics.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 3:00 pm
@47th Ward -
Don’t confuse Lutheran Social Services and Lutheran Children and Family Services — two VERY different agencies, and as far as I know Lutheran Social Services does not support the Haine Bill.
I should be clear though…I don’t think this is as much about adoption as it is about managing foster care programs.
Adoptions are a very small piece of the “business model” for most large non-profits, except those like The Cradle which specialize in adoptions — and have been placing kids with LGBT parents for a long, long time.
I don’t know what the state’s current contract is for foster care with Catholic Charities or LCFS, but I’m guessing they dwarf any payments made for adoption services.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 3:01 pm
@47th Ward - Given that DCFS is about the only agency whose budget can’t be cut — due to a federal court order — I’m sure that the other agencies will be more than happy to take over those case files.
Contracts are up for renewal July 1st.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 3:21 pm
==I still contend that religious-affiliated organizations will abandon the state’s adoption program if no exemption is allowed. That might be fine, but we should fully understand the consequences of that decision. How long will it be before other groups fill the void and what happens to the children caught in the middle until a solution is found. To me, that’s the heart of the matter==
I don’t know what the count is by agency, but based on the names of the agencies, approximately 40% are religious-affiliated, a pretty sizable chunk. http://licensedadoptionagencies.dcfs.illinois.gov/
If the religious agencies had to opt out of continuing to be involved with adoption, I wonder what happens to prospective adoptive families who are in the middle of the process of adopting a child / children in the middle of waiting for an adoptive family?
Comment by Robert Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 3:22 pm
===Lutheran Social Services and Lutheran Children and Family Services — two VERY different agencies===
I realize that YDD. They both are listed by DCFS as adoption service agencies. Lutheran Social Services placed 222 children and Lutheran Children and Family Services placed 60, again, according to DCFS. Click on the link I posted above for more info.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 3:23 pm
Is it just me, or do others notice that there is often a litany of anti-everything legislation that surfaces after the Cardinal visits Springfield?
Cherry pick who can be a foster parent? mess with kids? what’s next?
You would think they have spent enough money in court in the last decade defending their flocks “actions”….. but here they go again.
. CC is playing with fire and will spend more money in court than anywhere else.
AG Madigan has been looking at this issue after the LCFS debacle…
time for her to weigh in before this bill sees the light of day.
Comment by onlyinspringfield Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 3:33 pm
@47th Ward –
My point is that Lutheran Social Services of Illinois does not support the Haine bill…you cited their adoption placements.
@Only In Springfield -
One would hope that AG Madigan will be appearing in opposition to the bill in committee.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 3:40 pm
- Perhaps a prominent gay organization like NAMBLA -
Nice fear mongering, but I think Catholic Church supporters should probably stay away from the whole man/boy love thing…
Comment by Small Town Liberal Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 3:49 pm
YDD, I thought your earlier point was that I was confusing the two agencies. I have no idea which organizations are supporting or opposing the bill, nor do I much care. I just think policy makers should fully understand the implications for adoptions if no exemption is in place.
Maybe they do, and maybe they agree with you that others will pick up the slack. A definitive answer from DCFS and the other agencies would make me feel better that Haine’s bill isn’t needed.
Sorry YDD, as far as I know, you’re just a blogger. I’m not willing to take your word for it.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 3:50 pm
What’s the difference?
Comment by Obamarama Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 4:02 pm
I’m a liberal Catholic and pro-civil unions, in favor of same-sex couples adopting, pro-LGBTQ rights. However, I think it’s not unreasonable to provide some exemptions for religious organizations that facilitate adoptions. I’d rather have more agencies involved in meeting that very important need, rather than fewer. Something tells me there will be plenty of agencies (both sectarian and religiously affiliated agencies of a more liberal stripe) to work with all sorts of couples. I’m just really resistant to the idea of telling Catholic Charities and Lutheran Family Services (etc.) to just stop working on a project that benefits children. Yes, they do receive some government funding in these efforts, but I wonder if anyone really believes those groups are doing it for the dough rather than for the children who need families.
As for the Catholic bashing that’s demonstrated in several of the posts above: Yes, the church certainly has many mistakes to own up to (big mistakes, cover-ups, etc.), and yes, there is rampant hypocrisy in the church. But if someone wants to blast away at all things Catholic and claim at the end of the day that he or she is tolerant, open-minded, progressive — hey, Catholic bashing goes back a couple centuries in this country; you’re not nearly as cutting edge as you might imagine.
Comment by Steve Downstate Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 4:11 pm
@47th Ward -
See this article by attorney Leslie Fenton, citing opposition of Catholic Charities and Lutheran Child and Family Services:
“LCFS caught flack from the public several months ago for refusing to place a gay teenager who was living on the streets in a household headed by a gay couple - because they were gay.”
Lutheran Social Services of Illinois, affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, embraces LGB clergy, and adopted an official policy in 2009 that:
“supports legislation and policies to protect civil rights and to prohibit discrimination in housing, employment, and public services. It has called upon congregations and members to welcome, care for, and support same-gender couples and their families and to advocate for their legal protection.”
And yes, we SHOULD understand the implications for adoption — although the bigger implication is on the foster care system.
But the very implication of this bill is that these agencies intend to violate what was the intent of the civil unions bill — to erase discrimination against gay Americans — and they want to reinstate that discrimination using our tax dollars.
Sure, hey, why not. BTW, the Salvation Army says they’d like to be able to refuse services to gay homeless youth.
And a buddy of mine wants a state contract to do road construction but he refuses to hire minorities — sure, its not a religious belief, but why should someone have to form a church in order to get religious protection for their bigotry?
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 4:12 pm
47th,
Apparently, we are now at a point in our (rhetorical, not you and I) deliberations where there can be no room for any variation in thought, belief or action if someone feels excluded or somehow have their sensibilities offended. We (again rhetorically) are now at a point where we are arguing what is best for select communities of individuals and not for the actual children trying to be placed.
We have seen straw men established saying that the Catholic Church somehow lacks the moral authority about children because of past abuses by priests, totally ignoring the fact that there are abuses that can be attributed to any other large group, say educators, who I am willing to bet a fin have a larger number of abusers than priests. Yet we would never say that teachers lack the moral authority to teach our youth.
I feel you are really shoveling poo-poo against a tide of public opinion in a manner you can never win. You are trying to point out reasons why it may be acceptable to allow for exemptions to certain requirements when the overall good is being served, especially considering that we are talking about the most fragile group of people, kids needing adoption.
You are absolutely right. People had better think about the unintended consequences of the positions they take. The hard line position against the exemption removes a cost effective solution to placing children since the charities at least are partially funded by their contributors as opposed to a fully state run program. And I would have no problem if a group of LGBT supporters were to set up an organization to place children among qualified homes.
I repeat my previous question, “Is there not room for both the churches and these other agencies to coexist?”
Comment by Cincinnatus Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 4:13 pm
- I repeat my previous question, “Is there not room for both the churches and these other agencies to coexist?” -
Absolutely, but the churches apparently don’t want their adoption services to exist without state money. Their call.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 4:18 pm
If Catholic Charities were forced out of providing adoption services, couldn’t somebody else get the contract? Why couldn’t the contracts just be shifted to an organization that would follow the law?
I’m just not sure that CC would give up their contracts and if they did, I’m sure another organization would be more that willing to pick up the slack.
Comment by late to the party Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 4:22 pm
late to the party said,
“I’m just not sure that CC would give up their contracts and if they did, I’m sure another organization would be more that willing to pick up the slack.”
Then why isn’t that already happening? If someone can provide a superior service at less cost to the government, they should be selected to perform the job. Yet CC gets the contract.
It is either because they provide the superior service at lower cost, there is incompetence in the people and agencies awarding the contract, or government workers and legislators are being corrupted by special interest money. I see no other reasons that CC is getting the nod.
Comment by Cincinnatus Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 4:31 pm
@lgbt - You are so OBVIOUSLY a troll that I’m surprised Rich hasn’t tracked your IP address and banned you already.
@Cincinnatus - When did anyone bring up sex abuse by priests? More importantly, where is the argument or evidence that placing children into a two-parent home where those parents are united by a civil union is inherently harmful?
On the contrary, your argument, or atleast the argument of Catholic Charities and Lutheran Child and Family Services is that they will refuse to place a child with an LGBT couple even WHEN its in the child’s best interest.
That’s exactly what LCFS just did with a homeless gay teen. And let’s keep in mind that 1 in 5 homeless teens are LGBT.
LCFS goes so far as to place children in a single parent household for adoption. Just as long as that parent isn’t gay.
If someone has ANY public policy argument other than “Some folks want to discriminate using taxpayer dollars under the umbrella of religious freedom, so we should let them,” I’m still waiting to hear it.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 4:36 pm
==The hard line position against the exemption removes a cost effective solution to placing children since the charities at least are partially funded by their contributors as opposed to a fully state run program. And I would have no problem if a group of LGBT supporters were to set up an organization to place children among qualified homes.==
I agree with your argument to a point. We shouldn’t just take a solution because it is seemingly cost effective. It’s not always the best solution. If the solution is cheaper, but breaks the law, then it is not the best option. I also don’t think we should go changing laws just because it offers the cheapest (and not best) solution.
The point of the proposed law is to satisfy the churches doctrine, not to create a low-cost solution to a public policy issue. Nor is the point to create the best outcome for children. Narrowing the field to one type of household will exclude qualified adoptive parents, keeping kids in foster care, for which the state then pays for.
The most cost-effective solution would be to get as many kids into as many qualified homes as soon as possible and out of state paid care. Restricting the candidate pool will not achieve those goals.
Comment by late to the party Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 4:39 pm
Cincy -
I’m not saying CC doesn’t do good work in general nor am I saying that they are not doing a good job of placing children.
Until the Civil Union bill, they were following the law. Now that the law has changed, they don’t want to follow the new law and would like an exemption. I get that.
I just think that if the contracts were made available others like LSSI may be able to provide the same services. The fact that it’s not happening is because CC already has the state contracts.
Comment by late to the party Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 4:46 pm
Look, for decades the Catholics and the Lutherans have served this particular population, primarily because no one else would. By many accounts, they’ve done a good job. And they are certainly replaceable, just like any other contractor.
If they don’t want to follow the law regarding nondiscrimination, they shouldn’t be in this business. I get that. I think they get that too.
But given their market share, for lack of a better term, policy makers need to be sure there is a smooth transition. Maybe Haine’s bill with a sunset provision, or another compromise could work. There are hundreds of children in the system, and if we yank contracts on July 1st to two (or more) major service providers, we better have a good plan for the transition.
If we don’t have a good plan ready to go, then let’s not dismiss Haine’s bill out of hand. Two very large players are prepared to walk away from serving the state. We can get hung up about the reasons they won’t work with DCFS or we can talk about how best to replace them. Not what’s best for them, but what’s best for the children in their care.
I have no doubt that they will obey the law and thus turn their back on DCFS. That’s why I’m concerned.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 4:49 pm
“It is either because they provide the superior service at lower cost, there is incompetence in the people and agencies awarding the contract, or government workers and legislators are being corrupted by special interest money. I see no other reasons that CC is getting the nod.”
Contracts are not competitively bid. In fact, all providers within a region are reimburse at identical rates for identical services.
Typically, the money is just “spread around”, although there has been some consolidation of contracts in recent years.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Apr 12, 11 @ 4:51 pm