It’s Just Kindergarten – Is Attendance Really That Important?

Image

Many families do not prioritize attendance because they may not appreciate the high marginal value of every school day, the dangers elementary school truancy and absenteeism create for their child’s long term success and opportunities, and that school attendance is legally required.  However, elementary school provides a brief window in which to teach children the fundamental skills they will need to lead productive and happy lives.  It is where we diagnose a child for vision, hearing or learning impairments.  Above all, it is where we build a foundation for academic success and set children on a path to good health and economic security.

Late last month, California’s Attorney General, Kamala D. Harris released a new report, “In School and On Track, The Attorney General’s 2013 Report on California’s Elementary School Truancy and Absenteeism Crisis.”  The Attorney General announced that this is only the first of several reports.  Because the link between elementary school truancy rates can be so closely correlated with high school dropout rates and crime rates, California’s Attorney General’s Office will produce annual reports tracking truancy and chronic absence in elementary schools across the state.  Many of the statistics of the Report are simply jaw-dropping.  For example, did you know that high school dropouts cost California $46 billion each year?  A summary of the report’s key findings is below:

School Budget Impact of Truancy

  • School districts lose $1.4 billion per year based on student absences because school funding is based on student attendance rates.
  • San Diego County Schools lost almost $95 million in the 2010-2011 school year due to absenteeism.  That equates to $211.20 per student that was lost over the course of the year.

Dangers Truancy Creates for Your Child

  • Truancy (being absent or tardy by more than 30 minutes without a valid excuse on 3 occasions in a school year), especially among elementary school students has long-term negative effects.
  • Students who miss school at an early age will fall behind their classmates.  Students who miss a lot of school in the early years are likely to become disengaged from their studies and struggle academically, develop behavior problems and, in later years, to drop out of school entirely.
  • First grade students with 9 or more absences are two times more likely to drop out of high school than their peers who attend school regularly.
  • For low-income elementary students who have already  missed 5 days of school, each additional school day missed decreased the student’s chance of graduating by 7%.
  • High School dropouts can be predicted with 66% accuracy based on attendance data in the third grade.
  • According to one study comparing the scores of more than 600 kindergarten students on a school readiness exam and a 3rd grade reading test, students who arrived at school academically ready to learn but then missed 10% of their kindergarten and first grade years, scored an average of 60 points below similar students with good attendance on 3rd grade reading tests.  In math, the gap was nearly 100 points on tests with 400 points possible.
  • Increasing graduation rates in California by 10% would result in 50,000 additional graduates annually, 500 murders prevented each year, and 20,000 aggravated assaults prevented each year.

Truancy is Against the Law

  • Truancy is against the law.  California’s Compulsory Education Law requires every child from the age of 6 to 18 to be in school – on time, every day.
  • Because of the long-term negative effects of elementary school truancy, there is currently a statewide push for prosecutors to accept referrals for truancy prosecutions of parents when an elementary school child is involved.

About the Author: Christina Riehl is a Senior Staff Attorney in CAI’s San Diego office. She conducts litigation activities; performs research and analysis regarding CAI’s legislative and regulatory policy advocacy; assists in the research and drafting of CAI special reports; and serves as an Educational Representative under appointment by the San Diego Juvenile Court. Before joining CAI, Riehl worked as staff attorney with the Children’s Law Center of Los Angeles, where she represented minor clients in dependency court proceedings. Prior to that, she interned with the Honorable Susan Huguenor, formerly the presiding judge in San Diego Juvenile Court. Riehl is a graduate of the USD School of Law, where she participated in the CAI academic program. 

 

Advertisements

The Emerging Impact of Sequestration on the Nation’s Most Vulnerable Children

sad girl sitting with teddy bear

On Wednesday, July 24, there was a Budget Summit held in DC by First Focus.  In the Children’s Budget for 2013, child welfare spending took a big hit in programs that attempt to prevent child abuse and keep families unified. The overall budget numbers for the first time give some context to the impact of the sequestration cuts. The human cost is likely immeasurable and invisible to many but in terms of actual spending numbers the report indicates that children now receive less than 8 percent of the federal budget. Since 2010 spending has fallen by $35 billion and when spending is adjusted for inflation it has decreased by 16 percent just since then. Discretionary spending, which is separate from mandatory, entitlement and tax spending and is appropriated each year by congressional action, has declined by 13 percent.

In terms of the child welfare spending;

Title IV-B part 1Child Welfare Services (CWS) funding is cut to $262 million in this fiscal year down from the total of $280 million in 2012. That reduces CWS to its lowest actual spending level since 1990 when it was funded at $252 million. If that 1990 total had kept pace with inflation it would be more than $427 million. CWS is a flexible fund that can be used for a range of services. In FY 2010 the biggest categories of spending in CWS were:

  •  Child protective services –services to prevent and investigate child abuse
  •  Family support—to prevent child abuse by supporting the most vulnerable families 
  • Reunification services—to help reunify a foster child with his or her family 
  • Foster care maintenance—a limited number of states are allowed to use these funds for foster care 

Title IV-B part 2, with the Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) cut to $387 million in this fiscal year, down from the total of $408 million in 2012. This program, newer than CWS, has had a better financial history. It peaked at $455 million in FY 2007. PSSF is a more complex funding stream as the totals here include $20 million for workforce development, $20 million for substance abuse treatment and $30 million for the state courts. What remains is the funding for the program’s main purposes. In this category total funding was approximately $338 million in 2012 with that being reduced to approximately $321 million for the four main services:

  • Family preservation—intensive work for families in crisis to prevent the placement of children into foster care
  • Family support—to prevent child abuse by supporting the most vulnerable families 
  • Reunification services—to help reunify a foster child with his or her family 
  • Adoption promotion and support—to support families that have adopted including providing post adoption services 

The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) funding is cut to$87 million down from $93 million in 2012. In 2012 state grants were funded at $27 million, discretionary grants were funded at $25 million and community based child abuse prevention grants were funded at $41 million. Funding for the three programs peaked in 2005 when it totaled $111 million. CAPTA includes a number of mandates on state child protective service systems including mandatory reporting of child abuse, legal representation, research and prevention:

  • State grants—are intended to fund state child protective services
  • Discretionary grants—provide research into child abuse and child maltreatment 
  • Community-based child abuse prevention—funds, through various local programs to prevent child maltreatment from occurring 

There are also a number of other child welfare programs that are reduced including the Adoption Incentives fund, the Adoption Opportunities Act, the Abandoned Infant program as well as child abuse programs in other areas of the budget such as funding for the Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) program and the Children’s Advocacy Centers for maltreated children.

The entitlement programs including Adoption Assistance, Foster Care and Kinship Care are exempted from the cuts as are entitlement programs adjusted according to state claims based on children in care. A fact not overlooked by those who are concerned about any discussion to convert the entitlement programs into flexible funding block grants.

Authors: Amy Harfeld and John Sciamana

A Call for Childcentric Philosophy and Politics

Image

I have long been a registered Republican, but now find both parties to be unacceptable sources of reliable policy for children and the future they represent.

Both parties, but particularly the Democrats, are amassing unprecedented future obligations for our children and their children, primarily for the care and comfort of my generation — the Boomers.  We are, in contrast to the Greatest Generation of our parents and grandparents – perhaps the most self-centered grouping of adults in American history.  The Social Security benefits we have not paid for, and the Medicare deficit – financing everything from joint replacements to Viagra – portend trillions in future obligation.  The amount in under-funding there, adding in the smaller federal deficit, rises to above $60 trillion within the life of those children now being born.  Merely the interest on that deficit at 5% will be almost half of family income – before other taxes.  But liberals will not talk about it, and even conservatives avoid mentioning the two most costly programs, preferring to blame food stamps or other investments in children that are trivial in amount and have some ethical basis.  Beyond that, liberal ideology favors “top down” bureaucracy, services performed by those with “caseloads” (relegating even foster children to too many institutional caregivers), and dependence on public employee unions.  Add to that the politically correct tolerance for infinite adult license – including abandonment of a child’s simple right to be intended by two people.

At the same time, we have a Republican Party that has forgotten its roots, and now serves as tribalistic defenders of privilege and excess.  They are self-indulgent takers who worship words like “freedom” and stand tall before the flag, but forget that those hitting the beaches at Iwo Jima were sacrificing for all of us.  Of course we best respect individuality (which makes their lemming-like group obeisance to each other rather ironic), but we also know we are a community.  A lot of people, strangers, and including those Marines through history, have contributed to where we are now.  And yet we don’t pay attention to the children the state seizes for their protection,we don’t invest in the children of all of us, and we even go so far as to defend a system of health care that means if a child is ill, an uncovered family risks likely bankruptcy if she spends more than a few days in a hospital.  My Party has become an ignorami tool of monied interests, and is at least equally irresponsible.

Conservatives do favor use of the market to allocate resources efficiently, recognizing it as a presumptive means of efficiency and of “bottom up” economic democracy.   On the other hand, current conservatives fail to heed their own economic theorists who identified market flaws needing correction, including natural monopolies, imperfect information, and external costs. As to the last, these costs occur where the market fails to assess damages imposed on others, such as a product that causes sickness or a manufacturer who pollutes to ruin fishing downstream.   The market is an important construct, but it is fashioned by humans and influenced by rules of liability and mankind created inequities.  It is not a deity. Indeed, the classic Renaissance satire of Candide by Voltaire skewers the “Optimist” philosophy that all that happens is perfect because God controls all and wills it.  Neo-conservatives largely replace “deity” with “the happenstance of the current market” in their equally vulnerable worldview.  The market is a useful human construct with rules about who is liable for what costs that the market may or may not assess by discretionary decision, e.g., rules of liability, public assessments, criminal prohibition or any number of influence-factors.   Such “external costs” can include health consequences that are caused by a product’s use, environmental harm to others or other costs to be borne by those in the future.  Environmental depredations, now at unprecedented levels, the consumption of limited resources and other policies that sacrifice those in the future for present comfort – these are costs that may be prevented through straight prohibition or other adjustments not requiring “licensure regulation” or other “prior restraint” intervention.

They may also be addressed through fees.  These amply supplement the market while retaining its efficiency features.  Such fees would be set to measure the costs of denial or harm to future generations.  They should start low to allow recovery of existing sunk cost investment, but should increase substantially in an advance-noticed format as time passes to allow for the efficient reallocation. This mechanism recognizes future costs and internalizes them through market forces efficiently amended (or corrected) by those assessments.  The revenues from those fees could then ameliorate the harm — while the external cost continues to accrue damage, and to stimulate approaches that are less costly to those who follow us.  Accordingly, global warming and the consumption of the earth’s limited supply of carbon could be ameliorated through an international carbon fee starting low, but accelerating in amount as years pass. The revenue would be used for solar power or other external benefit subsidy, or to ameliorate the damage from removal and damage during the interim period where damaging exploitation or production continues.

The lodestar for all of us is the supervening obligation owed to those who follow us in the millennia to come.   It is interesting that we all have such acuity in seeing the selfishness, irrationality and cruelty of our predecessors (whether the inquisition, slavery or unjustified wars).  Our point of view in making systemic decisions should be as follows:  What will be the future view of it and of us in five or more centuries.  Our founders risked much for us.  How will those who follow us in 250 years view our record?  We have been impressive in communications, transportation and computer technology.   But that may not be the crucible of future ethical judgment.

Exacerbating the child-friendly reform of American public policy is the influence of corporations and the decline of democracy.  In particular, Citizens United   egregiously equates these statutorily created “persons” with human persons in their political right entitlement.  But corporations consist of collections of capital devoted to some invested purpose, and with officers and lobbyists necessarily (and properly) serving the present financial interests of stockholders funding it.   Such a focus is not itself a criticism – that is what they are intended to do.  But that persona is very different than that of a human directed democracy.  The latter is properly controlled by individuals who are concerned about diffuse and future interests. The corporation necessarily seeks to “free ride” for maximum profit, and to take exhaustible resources or impose costs on others or on the future—particularly where it serves the protection of the capital investment that is its necessary lodestar.   That bias is intended and may manifest much advantage in productivity.  But elevating such entities to the enhanced political rights of humans pushes the needle radically in a direction against those who are unorganized and who depend upon future commitment.  Those interests were already at risk before the elevation of corporations for purposes of political contribution and influence.  Indeed, CAI has been lobbying for children for 23 years in Sacramento and in D.C., and we know that legislative bodies are increasingly passive.  Even the language of modern civics reflects the change: the “sponsors” of legislation are no longer the legislators introducing it, but the interest groups actually writing it.  And the negotiations are undertaken by “stakeholders.”   Children are often absent.  They provide no votes or campaign money.  They are diffuse and represent future interests, the place you kick the can down the road to. They have few advocates; in fact, the elderly lobby AARP alone spends 25 times as much on lobbying in D.C. as do all child advocates combined.

We have work to do and we face difficult odds when confronted by two parties who have largely abandoned children, except for photo ops and rhetoric.  We need to resurrect a strong sense of ethical imperative to measure all that we do under a primary lens:  What are we passing onto our legatees?

About the author:  Professor Robert C. Fellmeth is a tenured law professor at the University of San Diego (USD) School of Law and is Founder and Executive Director of USD’s Center for Public Interest Law and its Children’s Advocacy Institute. He is the holder of the Price Chair in Public Interest Law at the USD School of Law, one of two such chairs in the nation.

Critical Issues of Child Privacy At Stake in Problematical Fraley v. Facebook Federal Court “Settlement” Order

Image

The federal district court of Northern California, and perhaps eventually the Ninth Circuit, are about to decide a seminal case on child privacy in the internet age.   It is a case that raises not only issues of national policy toward children and parental rights, but also issues of class action monitoring.  For these cases require a kind of active monitoring not normally a part of judicial practice in common law jurisdictions.    Courts in this country are structurally passive.  They decide cases brought by contending parties.  We assume that the proper precedent or ruling will come from the range of advocacy the parties provide.

Enter the abusive class action, with the current case of  Fraley v. Facebook as Exhibit 1.  This case was brought in name by the “class of Facebook” subscribers, including a subclass of millions of child-users aged 13 to 18.   It seeks damages for alleged improper use of names and photos for a “sponsored stories” practice of publishing to one’s “friends” –  a  commercial endorsement of some sort – without effective advance consent.   Facebook gets paid for it.  Under the final proposed settlement now before the court, this allegedly unfair practice would yield the following financial terms: (a) a rather token system of less than $10 to each “claimant”, (b) possible awards to multiple consumer/privacy groups who might otherwise oppose it – as cy pres financial grants, and (c)  $7.5 million to the firm for the class.

Besides these monies, what will be the critical court order dictating actual future practice?  It first removes the reference  to “prior consent” for the expropriation and sale of a Facebook members’ postings that was in the prior version of Facebook’s “terms and conditions.”   Now it provides for the opposite, an explicit and blanket advance waiver of any compensation, and of blanket permission for ANY expropriation of ANY posting or photo put on Facebook – to be selected and arranged by it, with completely unfettered discretion.  It applies to any member, including children.  To repeat for the “that can’t be true” reader:  Facebook can take any information posted, any photo, any combination, and repackage it, take money for it, and send to whomever it wishes, including potentially millions of recipients.

The limitations on this license are illusory.  They include an alleged caveat that Facebook will respect destination limitation imposed by the member.   But the “limits” to exposure of postings is not readily apparent and most importantly, the default value unless you act to change it, is “public” – no limitation.  And nobody is now going to get any advance notice that such an expropriation will occur, know what it will consist of, when it will happen, or to whom it will be sent.   Nothing.  Nada.  It just does it, as it pleases and to whomever it wishes.  To be clear, this blanket advance waiver applies to any child who has not notified Facebook that a parent is also a Facebook subscriber, obviously the vast majority of kids.  It purportedly constitutes advance consent (by a minor unable to enter into most enforceable contracts) without any notice in advance of a repackaging and publication, without any review or consent by parents, without any  notice that it happened.  You might learn post hoc, if someone tells you about it, but you will not know who got it.  And anyone who gets it can copy and paste and re-transmit it to anyone else.  And as with the internet in general, it tends to stay.  It is not erased periodically.

The public policy offense here is especially egregious for the children who will suffer this privacy incursion.   Kids will have their postings sent in some unknown format and arrangement and purpose to – who knows?  Regrettably, kids are not always completely mature in their postings, often intend for only a few to receive one, and suffer heightened emotional turmoil when they are embarrassed by the revelation to large numbers of unintended persons of something intended for private viewing, or perhaps better not sent at all.   It is not an accident that California law requires children (not adults) to get parental permission for a tattoo.  Parents are justifiably and legally in the proper position to protect and guide their children and that task is not best delegated in blank-check format to a third party commercial interest.  But under the proposed final settlement, most parents will have no ability to monitor and limit their child’s on-line tattoo.  They will not know about it, and they will not be asked.

This little “arrangement” between Facebook and the child “subclass” is hardly an improvement from current practice.  It will take the form of a little missive in the middle of the adhesive “terms and conditions” sign off we all make without scrolling through the document.  And this document has now been renamed the “rights and responsibilities” message and includes 18 detailed provisions in tiny print that requires 10 big scroll clicks to get through.   This one will fit in under #10, after your fifth scroll down,  mislabeled, and as Facebook well knows, unread by 99% plus of all new subscribers and 100% of all current subscribers (indeed, it is not even accessible from the member’s own existing Facebook page).

So, far from being “fair, reasonable and adequate” (required of class action settlements), this is a fraudulent remedy that is worse than the previous posture of the class (and particularly the subclass of children) prior to this suit.  Indeed, the practice of expropriation that led to this suit and its rather transparently fake “remedial fund”–  would be entirely approved were the new clause previously in effect.  So instead of enforcing the law and obtaining both restitution and assurance of future compliance, we have a federal court being asked to officially approve future violations of the very type that brought the case before it.

And that is just the start of the problems here.   On the minors side, we have especially egregious public policy offenses.  This subclass of millions of children is in a different legal posture than are the adults.   As noted above, children cannot agree to a contract of this sort.  Facebook has stipulated that California law applies to its practices and this settlement.  And while more than 17 states have similar laws, California has perhaps the clearest statutes requiring parental consent before any such privacy incursion can occur lawfully.   The issue is addressed in Civil Code Section 3344 and in various sections of the Family Code.  California’s Family Code statutes specifically address the illegality of a “delegation” to someone other than a parent or guardian of use of a child’s information/likeness.

So how does Facebook surmount these provisions in court?   It actually argues with a straight face (an occupational necessity for attorneys) that the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) entirely preempts all state law pertaining to child internet use and privacy. COPPA explicitly pertains only to children 0 to 13, and it prohibits Facebook and others from even allowing a subscription to any such child without prior parental permission.  Nothing from such a young child may even be “captured” or “collected” by the internet entity.   These children are (purportedly) not properly on Facebook at all, and its policy is at least facially not to accept them.   So counsel actually stands up in court and declares that this high “floor” of protection directed only at children 0 – 13 means that all laws and protections for children 13-18 are extinguished.   I kid you not, that is what they argue.   And what case do they cite?  The Arizona immigration decision holding that states cannot interfere with federal immigration policy.  Really?   Protecting children is hardly an occupation of the field by the United States government as are matters of national entry and citizenship.   But that is the precedent cited.

But here is why this whole minuet playing out in the courtroom of Judge Richard Seeborg is so discouraging.  The class attorney is asking for $7.5 million in fees, lead counsel asking for $980 for every hour he apparently breathes, with a multiplier.   But it gets worse.  Because one of the sections invoked in the case (Civil Code Section 3344) is a “fee shift” statute that requires unsuccessful plaintiffs to pay the legal fees of the defendant!   So in every deposition of class representatives, Facebook attorneys, sounding a bit like minions of Al Capone, berate the class representative: “has your attorney informed you that if you proceed with this action and lose, you will have to pay OUR fees” (likely also millions)?   And that examination went on at length for each of them!  So… if you take Facebook’s convenient terms for future privacy gambolings the class attorney gets millions, if you persist and we win, we hit class counsel in the other direction –  with our cost bill – and all of the class reps become bankrupt.

Now this is the setting for the proposal before the court.  The tendency of most courts is to not appreciate the actual economic dynamics at play.  It is tempting to get lost in the interstitial complexity of “how much should the class attorneys get?” and “should the class reps get $2,000 in incentive payments each or $5,000?   Or is the notice adequate?   Or, what if Facebook changes “Sponsored Stories” and calls it something else or does it a bit differently?   [An irrelevant concern since the proposed final order allows it to go way beyond any “sponsored story” configuration.]  But these questions dominated the hearing for final approval.  Nor was the court told accurately that the lead class representative Fraley resigned from the case, citing their concern for “privacy” and the utter failure of the proposed settlement to provide it.

Courts, including this one, are hesitant to violate the traditional passive posture of judges, and to presume to second guess counsel and parties.  The court here asked: “what is the difference between a minor and an adult who is the subject of a sponsored story reference?”  And when reminded that children are in a different category, noted that “adults also” make imprudent posts.   And, indeed, if all this case were about was Facebook saying that 13 year old Johnny or Mr. Smith “likes Big Macs,” maybe it does not warrant being the proverbial “federal case.”   But, as noted, this order goes way, way beyond sponsored story license.  It is an open book license.  Kid postings are all clay for Facebook, with attribution, with widespread exposure and without prior approval of kids or parents.   That is what this case is about.   And it is also about the proper functioning of our courts.

In this case, we have suggested a simple change that is easy to do: Just have Facebook copy and paste what it intends to send out, add a description of the recipients, and send it to parents with an “I consent” button.   If no parent has been identified or is available do not send anything.  If the button is clicked by someone claiming in good faith to be a parent, send it.  The court seems to view such an alternative as “interfering” with the parties and their arrangements.

But there are all sorts of alternatives possible that might create some bona fide prior consent.  Nor is such a change a matter of “nit picking”, how can the present blank check delegation be “fair, reasonable and adequate” when it is overly broad, worse than the situation pre-litigation, and violative of the law?

This is a case where those critically affected are not really before the court.   Often, objectors are looked upon as intruders, and they do sometimes have their own agendas.  But, on the other hand, the class action mechanism has the flaw that only the courts can police – one manifested here in spades.   You do not intervene on behalf of the state, and enter a court order sanctioning the violation of the common law, numerous statutes, privacy rights, child rights, parental rights – many of them with constitutional dimension.   You best not do so with the rationalization that you are just mediating between two contending parties and what they propose is not only presumptively, but is dispositively, “fair, reasonable and adequate.”

About the Author: Robert C. Fellmeth is the Price Professor of Public Interest Law and Executive Director of the University of San Diego School of Law’s Center for Public Interest Law and its Children’s Advocacy Institute. 

Transition Age Foster Youth


Group_PhotoTAY

Transition age foster youth are those youth in the foster care system who are approaching the age at which they will age out of foster care. The term also refers to those youth who have recently aged out of the system and are transitioning into adult life.

Over the years, transition age foster youth have not fared well upon aging out of the foster care system. They experience high rates of homelessness, too many do not even complete high school or obtain their G.E.D. Those who do complete high school rarely obtain a college degree. Rates of mental health issues are high among former foster youth. Unemployment numbers are high and when they  are employed, they earn far less than their peers.

The Children’s Advocacy Institute has been engaged in advocacy to improve outcomes for transition age foster youth for several years. The laws and policies in this area are improving, but there is still progress that needs to be made.  This new video on CAI’s website brings to light the obstacles facing transition age foster youth, it highlights the progress that has been made, and the issues that remain to be addressed.  The page also contains a number of resources and reports, including CAI reports, on the issue of transition age foster youth.

Senate Finance Committee Hears Antwone Fisher and Examines Family Finding and Reauthorization

Image

On Tuesday, April 23 the Senate Finance Committee held its first hearing of the year on child welfare. The focus of this hearing was on the issue of youth and family finding more generally and the reauthorization of the Family Connection Grants more specifically. The witnesses included Antwone Fisher, Author, Director and Film Producer, Gary Stangler, Executive Director, Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative, Eric Fenner, Westerville Ohio Managing Director, Casey Family Programs, and Kevin Campbell, Founder, Center for Family Finding and Youth Connectedness. The star witness was Antwone Fisher, the subject of a 2002 movie, The Antwone Fisher Story which was based on his autobiography, Finding Fish.

As a child Fisher was in foster care and after moving into adulthood and the US Navy he later discovered he had relatives living very close by throughout his placement. Committee members were interested in Fischer’s real life and very difficult experiences but also about how to do a better job tracking down family members when children are in the child welfare system. Kevin Campbell spoke to his successful efforts in helping to match children with their families. In his comments he said that as he was preparing for his testimony he was able to identify 62 of Fisher’s relatives within 10 minutes at a cost of $15.00 using the technology and methods he developed on family finding.

He proposed that designated funds be used to train and implement practices that successfully notify and match relatives to children in the child welfare system. Gary Stangler spoke to the changing work in trying to assist youth in foster care. He suggested that in light of new research and practice the Committee should re-examine the Chafee Independence program and how it might be improved to address education, health and other needs such as financial planning.

Congress has to reauthorize the Family Connections Grants this year along with the adoption incentive fund. The grants provide short term funding for four types of programs: family finding, family group decision making, kinship navigator programs and residential parent-child substance abuse treatment and counseling. While the funding for the adoption incentive program is discretionary (and not scored with a cost), to continue the Family Connections Grants at the current $15 million a year in mandatory funds, will require Congress to find the funding to continue the program.

The Administration has proposed a three year reauthorization so that it would next expire along with the IV-B programs it is housed under. It also has the benefit of tasking Congress with finding three years of funding instead of the five years a traditional reauthorization would require. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), Chair of the Finance Committee, said he supported extending the program in his opening remarks. To access the complete testimony go to the Antwone Fisher Story as a Case Study for Child Welfare. The current authorization runs out on October 1, 2013.

by John Sciamana, Director of the National Foster Care Coalition
reprinted with permission

CHILDREN, AND ANONYMOUS SPEECH ON THE INTERNET AS A PURPORTED FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT

Image

Children and child advocates must deal with a very different First Amendment world than did our forefathers.   They had the Village Green.  They almost always knew who was speaking.  Even the anonymous anti-British pamphleteers could encounter a responding pamphlet.  In general, America has allowed those who are criticized to respond close in time to the same audience.   In later times, concealed speakers making anonymous claims were limited in their access to mass media by professional journalists who insisted on a second independent source if someone wanted to hide, and letters to the editor quickly juxtaposed in editorial pages with some variety of viewpoint.   And rules of libel gave false accusers pause.   But the Internet is very different.  And its differences affect children directly in terms of bullying and privacy, and the political efficacy of the child advocates who represent them.

The Internet goes into our homes.  Its messages go to listserves chosen by the sender and likely not entirely known by the accused subject of the message.  Or the postings are accessible based on search engines of Google and other private corporations.  And the Internet service providers have won a major concession from the Congress – they are absolutely immune from libel.  Accordingly, they rank and disseminate anonymous libel with impunity.  And their messages cannot be easily answered per the assumption of “free speech interchange to ascertain the truth.”   Far from it.  You do not know who got the message.  Anyone receiving it can transmit it to others and then to others.  Even the search engines rarely allow a response to be juxtaposed so it is accessible to those seeing the accusation.  And it gets worse.  Because the concealed speaker can post multiple messages all from purportedly different sources.  And the messages stay there…sometimes accessible by search engines at the very top, for years.

The implications of all of this for child bullying and suicide are well known to those of us who represent children.  But it goes beyond direct abuse and affects basic political/ethical standards.   For wealthy corporations, after Citizens United, are largely “persons” with First Amendment rights.  Concealment of the speaker has some limited First Amendment value where a whistleblower is speaking truth to power, truth that feared retaliation would prevent from utterance.  But that is actually a fairly narrow First Amendment circumstance, one most advantageously addressed by statutes (now in a majority of the states) that inhibit employer sanctions or litigation to punish someone who blows the whistle.  And those important protections apply whether the speaker is courageous enough to announce himself, or whose identity is known already by the accused – as is often the case.

As noted, sometimes concealment can serve a First Amendment purpose, but the underlying value in knowing who is talking is entitled to relatively high priority in the hierarchy of free speech valuation.   That identification means that the audience knows who is talking, and can accordingly decide whether they want to listen or read – a rather significant right in a world of message barrages.  Perhaps more important, it allows the audience to weigh bias and expertise.  It improves the ascertainment of truth, a First Amendment purpose.  And the accountability that public disclosure provides discourages the bullying that we have seen increase exponentially over the past decade, as well as privacy incursions and false accusations generally.

Apart from the discouragement of child abuse, speaker identification also performs a critical function on the political front.  Historically, political reformers have advocated for transparency.  We want to know who is providing our political messaging.   We want to know who is funding it.   We want to know campaigners, and campaign contributors.  We want to know who is lobbying, who they represent and the subject matter of their attempted influence.   Here is the fact many of my colleagues have not fully absorbed:  Much of all of this is now taking place on the Internet.   Regrettably, Public Citizen, otherwise an admirable advocate for consumer rights, inconsistently backs “concealment of the speaker.”  It backs the so-called Dendrite rule that posits  “concealment” itself as a constitutional right – one that requires a federal court order making multiple separate findings to overcome, including that the posting be actionable “libel.”  Of course, in the political sphere, the leading Supreme Court decision (NY Times v. Sullivan) requires for such libel that the speaker have actual knowledge of falsity (or be in reckless disregard) – rather impossible to allege when you do not know who the speaker is.  The Dendrite approach benefits very few whistleblowers but has momentous collateral consequences.  Indeed, the vast majority of those interested in hiding their identity are doing it because if the audience is so informed (be they the Koch brothers or an oil company or someone with an obvious grudge) their messaging potency will be reduced.  And they seek concealment precisely because transparency and accurate information inhibits deception efficacy.

The denigration of the audience’s right to know who is talking (and who is financially behind the talker) necessarily occurs with the overly broad elevation of “concealment” itself as a First Amendment right.  And it has implications for any statutory or rulemaking effort to require speaker identification of himself and his financial stake/backers – for any such requirement then must be a “compelling state interest” to limit this “concealment” right, and any such limitation must be narrowly tailored. In practical terms, this will mean that effective disclosure obligations will be impossible to enact or adopt.   Where concealment itself is so elevated, it necessarily remains effectively inviolate – except for very narrow allowable disclosures.  For example, requiring disclosure of campaign messaging may be allowed  for the period (only) just before an election.  It would interfere with the primal “concealment right” that some have elevated, to abridge it to any degree beyond a clear “compelling state interest to do so” and even there, only where there are “no less restrictive” means of accomplishment and where it is narrowly tailored to achieve that state interest.    There are many examples of how this fundamental rule of Constitutional interpretation will hamstring transparency and allow special interests to hide with effective impunity.   For example, concealment of Internet lobbying sources will be protected so long as the message “does not urge a particular vote.”

These are but several of the many expected “narrow tailoring” limits required for any restriction on a First Amendment (Fundamental Liberty Interest) right.  Declaring such a right as occupying the First Amendment Liberty Interest – necessarily triggers this regime of “strict scrutiny” of any limitation to it under Constitutional Law doctrine.  And the irony here is that when concealment itself is elevated to that Fundamental Liberty Interest status, it necessarily supersedes the contrary free speech right to know who is talking.  Concealment may then be limited (or disclosure compelled) only sparingly.  Instead of promoting disclosure as the primary First Amendment-serving value, and concealment as one that may be allowed as a compelling state interest where retaliation or other factors commend it, the Dendrite rule reverses the ranking.   Indeed, an approach preferable to such a perverse hierarchy would posit concealment and disclosure as, at the least, co-equal First Amendment elements and allow a more equitable balance.

The “concealment as paramount”  rule of law will not only prevent school rules to discourage anonymous accusations about who 14-year-old Dolores is sleeping with, but will on the larger political front prevent statutes and rules to let the electorate know who (or which corporation operating now as a “person”) is publishing an attack.   Those promoting concealment out of sympathy for “whistleblowers” do not appreciate the reality that when we conceal, we do not know they are innocent angels.  They can be anyone.   The whole point behind concealment is that we allow it to be anyone.  We do not know, and we hobble ourselves to preclude us from knowing, by the presumption that concealment is the Free Speech rule unless a high burden is met.  And, as noted, that burden is often catch-22 precluded (e.g., if you knew who it was you could show actual knowledge of falsity to qualify as libel or meet the other Dendrite tests, but you do not, so you cannot).

We do not know that the speaker is accurate, and do not know his often profound economic or personal bias.  Political accusations commonly denigrate those who support a child safety net or medical coverage or any other public policy not consonant with short-term corporate profit considerations.   Many of those with such an economic bias will gladly assure each other that they are the whistleblowers, seeking to stop socialism or domination by the “moochers.”   More relevant, those behind some of this messaging and influence know that were their identity to be disclosed, it would undermine message efficacy precisely because the electorate will discount the speaker, knowing his identity and economic interest.   Increasingly, the public lacks that information – knowledge essential to transparency and democratic efficacy.   The balance between influence of the body politic by those with an immediate profit-stake and those of us who necessarily represent the diffuse and long term interests of children, is much affected negatively by policies that favor speaker concealment.