Monday, April 10, 2006
Social policy, DeLay style.
Yesterday's Washington Post has a story about Rio Bend, a subdivision under construction outside Houston designed for foster families, and a pet project of Rep. Tom DeLay and his wife, who is the chairwoman of the non-profit that owns the project. The plan is for each house to be occupied by a foster family, creating a community where foster children are not stigmatized.
The Post explains that Rio Bend will "shatter the orthodoxy of both the right and the left about child welfare," apparently on the theory that the right cares only to have children raised by their parents, and the left cares only to have children raised by the government:
That's a question a Post reporter on the political beat apparently doesn't know how to report on. We get some statistics, but nothing about what they mean: "Despite the promise of a permanent place to live, 12 of the 38 youngsters here since summer 2005 have moved out. None of them, state records show, has moved back home with a parent." Maybe this is a substantial improvement over the state system -- who knows? Not the Post. Instead of analysis, we get an anecdote:
Government often does "a sucky job" of taking care of foster children. Surely part of the problem is that the Tom DeLays of the world do not favor government spending on such things. If foster care systems "throughout Texas and the nation [are] overburdened," is there any single individual one who bears more responsibility than Rep. DeLay?
Rio Bend is not being built with government money, though Texas does support the children there. Rio Bend was paid for by private parties who gave money to entities controlled by Tom DeLay. Michael and Susan Dell of Dell Computers, ExxonMobil, Comcast, Continental Airlines. While it is possible that Tom DeLay is a charismatic advocate for the needs of foster children, from what we know about the man and his modus operandi it seems rather more likely that they saw some sort of material benefit in the arrangement.
If these thoughts occurred to the Post's Amy Goldstein, you nevertheless will find no mention of them in her article. Though she notes that Rio Bend is being "built with money from the fundraising operation of former House majority leader Tom DeLay," and names some of the donors, she does not pause long to consider what this means, or to connect that fact with the large and fancy houses. Nor does another advantage that the DeLays have found in establishing their own private foster-care fiefdom -- the "strong Christian presence" at Rio Bend, including the requirement that foster parents be Christian, and an evangelical ministry to come -- draw no comment either.
At least Tom and Christine DeLay care for the children at Rio Bend. For the Post, the project is of interest not because it signifies something about social policy, or because it heralds a better way of caring for foster children, but merely because it is the DeLays' project. They are Potemkin foster homes, except for the families living in them.
The Post explains that Rio Bend will "shatter the orthodoxy of both the right and the left about child welfare," apparently on the theory that the right cares only to have children raised by their parents, and the left cares only to have children raised by the government:
The DeLays' belief in long-term foster homes departs from mainstream thinking that foster children should be reunited with a parent or adopted. Christine DeLay said she is "not big on family reunification" and that teenagers, the focus of Rio Bend, seldom get adopted.But this begs the question: How will Rio Bend do at taking care of individuals?The experiment unfolding here also breaks away from the idea of foster care as mainly a government responsibility. Although the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services remains legally responsible for the children here and pays their foster parents a stipend, the neighborhood is being built entirely with private money . . . . The foster parents pay a small rent, $450 a month, that is pooled to pay for extras not covered by the state.
Governments "do a sucky job taking care of individuals," Christine DeLay said in an interview.
That's a question a Post reporter on the political beat apparently doesn't know how to report on. We get some statistics, but nothing about what they mean: "Despite the promise of a permanent place to live, 12 of the 38 youngsters here since summer 2005 have moved out. None of them, state records show, has moved back home with a parent." Maybe this is a substantial improvement over the state system -- who knows? Not the Post. Instead of analysis, we get an anecdote:
The retreat center has been used once since the Blackwells arrived. A girl stayed with them last month after she had been suspended from school 28 days, run away three times and behaved so badly in church that her entire foster family was asked not to come back. When she first arrived, Blackwell said, she threw things and cursed but then "sort of mellowed out." One Saturday, she borrowed a dress and heels from his wife to go with them to church. She joined a church choir. And after about 10 days, she moved back into her own foster home.But of course, the results don't matter. This story is not about the children, and for all the talk of orthodoxies, it's not about foster-care reform. It's about the DeLays. The story makes clear that Christine DeLay has been doing the spending, and spending it as if it's not running dry anytime soon:
At 46,000 square feet, the houses are larger and fancier than most of the children have known before -- and filled with features to help their occupants get along. "You are putting six unrelated children in a household," Gow said, "and hoping things turn out okay."The largesse doesn't end at the houses:
Each one has seven bedrooms, six bathrooms, walk-in closets, two kitchens, three refrigerators, two washers and dryers, and four hot water heaters. No more than two children share a room, and there is a spare nanny room -- though no nannies yet -- to give parents a break. The floors throughout are cream-colored tile -- easy to clean with the cats and dogs, which are encouraged because Christine DeLay favors pet therapy for youngsters with attachment disorders.
The goal is for children to feel as if they are part of a regular family in a close-knit neighborhood. "We have been to plays and bowling. They all have their library card. We go out to eat. Anything any other family would do," said Sharon Horn, who sold her house and gave up a 13-year job as a special-education teacher near Corpus Christi to become the first parent to move in July 2005.What we have here is a vanity project. This is not to suggest that the DeLays' hearts aren't in it -- they took in three foster children during the 1990's, which is three more than my family did. But shouldn't the most powerful man in the House of Representatives have his sights set a little higher than a project of this size?
Government often does "a sucky job" of taking care of foster children. Surely part of the problem is that the Tom DeLays of the world do not favor government spending on such things. If foster care systems "throughout Texas and the nation [are] overburdened," is there any single individual one who bears more responsibility than Rep. DeLay?
Rio Bend is not being built with government money, though Texas does support the children there. Rio Bend was paid for by private parties who gave money to entities controlled by Tom DeLay. Michael and Susan Dell of Dell Computers, ExxonMobil, Comcast, Continental Airlines. While it is possible that Tom DeLay is a charismatic advocate for the needs of foster children, from what we know about the man and his modus operandi it seems rather more likely that they saw some sort of material benefit in the arrangement.
If these thoughts occurred to the Post's Amy Goldstein, you nevertheless will find no mention of them in her article. Though she notes that Rio Bend is being "built with money from the fundraising operation of former House majority leader Tom DeLay," and names some of the donors, she does not pause long to consider what this means, or to connect that fact with the large and fancy houses. Nor does another advantage that the DeLays have found in establishing their own private foster-care fiefdom -- the "strong Christian presence" at Rio Bend, including the requirement that foster parents be Christian, and an evangelical ministry to come -- draw no comment either.
At least Tom and Christine DeLay care for the children at Rio Bend. For the Post, the project is of interest not because it signifies something about social policy, or because it heralds a better way of caring for foster children, but merely because it is the DeLays' project. They are Potemkin foster homes, except for the families living in them.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]