News, like life, is a matter of perspective.
As I read through Friday’s Capitol News Illinois report on the insurance “crisis” facing community-based foster homes (tinyurl.com/FosterInsurancethe ), certain paragraphs invited consideration of the many people affected and how their interests diverge.
Jade Aubry, a public affairs reporting student at the University of Illinois-Springfield, offered a detailed look at foster agencies that say their insurers are reducing coverage scopes while increasing premiums and forcing difficult choices about whether to maintain operations.
The Department of Children and Family Services contracts with nonprofit agencies to care for about 4,000 and the 20,000 foster children. In order to qualify for a state license, the agencies must have adequate insurance. While there is a liability limit for both DCFS and individual foster parents, the group agencies don’t have that same protection.
Large payouts are possible, which also increases the amount needed to negotiate settlements. If one legal outcome doesn’t break the bank, the resulting change in coverage can be devastating. And in what amounts to a small sector of the insurance market, even those agencies that aren’t hauled into court can still see skyrocketing premiums as a result of actuarial trends.
Insurance companies have fiduciary responsibilities, so while their choices might not ring of compassion, it’s understandable from a bottom-line perspective. The state isn’t there to backstop the agencies it licenses, but it’s fair to ask if extending the liability cap would be prudent if it can keep more options on the table when it comes to placing children.
Community-based agencies are out there doing their best to keep kids out of more institutional settings, but the ones that excel can still find premiums unaffordable or, in states like California, can’t get coverage at all if providers decide the juice isn’t worth the squeeze.
Then, of course, we have the actual children and families involved in the system. As with other categories, such as developmental disabilities or the incarcerated, the actual percentage of the overall state population involved in these conversations is quite small. Those unfamiliar with an affected family likely give little regular thought to how much these challenges dominate every aspect of daily life.
But if The System fails your child, up to and including death, it’s only natural to seek some sort of outcome. Choose your vocabulary: compensation, responsibility, retribution, punishment, accountability, and so forth, but it often redounds to the same approach – litigation and dollars.
No one starts their day wanting these kids to suffer, but degrees of separation between the affected and those whose decisions flow downstream to the point of influence can insulate everyone with the power to change course from feelings of obligation often necessary to spur action.
• Scott T. Holland writes about state government issues for Shaw Local News Network. He can be reached at sholland@shawmedia.com.
:quality(70)/s3.amazonaws.com/arc-authors/shawmedia/55aeee77-0609-4323-931a-c6686fff01e6.png)