By John Gilman Rev. 10/18/98

Discussion: The study does not conclude that SCF is making a net positive difference for Oregon, or that S/NB is a success. While researchers hoped to judge success of S/NB, they were forced to use a fairly tortured sample that rendered conclusions invalid. Random sampling gave 387 cases for inclusion. Fifty-six were excluded because of several reasons, among them cases in which attorneys had advised clients against talking with SCF. Fifty-seven could not be located. Eleven had moved. Of the 263 remaining, 120 declined to take part in the study, even though they would be paid to participate.

Of the 143 remaining who agreed to be interviewed, forty-four changed their minds. This left a sample of ninety-three – only 25% of the original! Study authors are troubled by high attrition, as they state twice. I share their concern. It’s pretty obvious most people involved with SCF want nothing to do with additional contact with the agency. To the extent that SCF wants to be genuinely redemptive in its work with Oregon families, it may fail miserably to engage families in positive ways.

The study notes the high percentage of moved/unable to locate, and grouses about the mobility of the population. Possibly, that is true. Possibly also true is that many families with SCF contact are so traumatized by their experience that they leave the area, rather than remain as targets for further SCF action. To find out which is the case, a new study would need to be conducted that compared move rates to those not faced with SCF intervention.

The remaining sample of ninety-three was divided into two groups. The first group of 30 cases was closed quickly as "assessment only". In this group, most (60-70%) told the interviewer they’d had a positive experience. However, even among this group, roughly 20% reported a very negative experience. Keep in mind that if anything, the study understates those with negative experiences – interviews were taped, and respondents knew SCF would have access to interview transcripts.

The second group contained 63 cases still "open" at the end of the sixty days. Roughly forty percent of these had children removed from their homes. Two-thirds of families felt the decision for removal was unwarranted. Roughly 40% reported a negative or very negative experience with SCF. Visitation statistics were especially troubling. 40% of families were forced to wait longer than a week to see their children for the first time. Only 25% of families were allowed to visit their children more than once per week. Visitations that did occur were usually held at SCF offices, rather than home. (Hello? Is such restricted visitation the way to (re)build strong relationships between parents and children?)

In both groups, SCF agents themselves expressed a far rosier view of S/NB than families – roughly 70% of caseworkers thought their planning process was "empowering" to families. Only 40% of families agreed.

Conclusion: Authors offered only two conclusions: SCF workers spend over half their time assessing families who don’t need help, and positive family experiences occurred most frequently when caseworkers were respectful and helpful, rather than punitive, in their approach. Authors are troubled by the first conclusion, but hopeful about the second.

Since our family’s involvement with SCF, I’ve been highly skeptical of the agency’s effectiveness. There is little in this study to change my perception. 387 families were originally selected for study, but only about 60 (15%) actually said their experience had been positive – and keep in mind, those responses were, if anything, biased in favor of the agency through self-interest, fear, and "hostage syndrome".

Appendix: Interesting quotes and stories were scattered through the report. A number do show positive, responsible agency behavior. Many are troubling. Some of the more troubling are included here:

"The mother reported that when she heard that an SOSCF worker was trying to contact her, she was initially frightened; she had been in foster care herself as a child".

"I was a little more concerned because of the attitude of, "Well, we have seen this all before." I am like, "Seen what?" Basically, simply put, we spanked him too hard. I mean it is not like he had broken bones, or he was battered from head to toe. Sure it is serious, but the way he (the caseworker) made it sound it was more serious than what it ended up being. I was stressed out for weeks. I couldn’t sleep my stomach was in knots, because they said they could take both my kids away, both of them."

"All I know is that he is living in a house with no other children and I think [my son] said the lady told him she was 56 or 57 years old. He hasn’t been in school as far as I know…. His form of entertainment was Nintendo. I asked [the caseworker], I think it was a week after they had him, I said, "Why isn’t somebody going by the school and picking up school work for him…. She [the caseworker] said, "Oh, that’s an idea." It is amazing that somebody else hadn’t thought about it ahead of time."

"They won’t allow him to call me. I can’t understand why."

"Because they tried to intimidate me right off the bat, you know, during the visitation. I said to [my son], "Mom and Dad love you," and they stopped the visitation right then. [My partner] is the only man I’ve lived with since before he was born…he is the only man [my son] has ever known. And they just automatically didn’t like that. "You know [partner] is not [my son’s] Dad so you are traumatizing [my son] by mentioning his name." That upset me."

"I’ve demanded to see my children since I have been in town, and I have been town for 33 days and not seen them yet."

"No, I don’t think it [amount of contact with my son] is reasonable. It has been 16 days, now. Today makes day 17. I’ve seen him once."

"The case was brought to SOSCF attention by school personnel who reported a divorced father for transporting his daughter to school, despite the fact that he was awaiting trial for sexually assaulting another child in the family and had been ordered not to have contact with minors. Three caseworkers went out on immediate response to the apartment (prior to initial contact with the mother, the father was arrested and incarcerated). The mother felt threatened, badgered, and disrespected. In retelling her version of he first contact with the agency, the mother said, "Some…lady just started stating that they could have showed up with two police officers, could have took my children away, my two girls right out of school." The worker noted that the mother was scared…. {JG: Okay, time for a little comment – charges of sexual abuse against fathers during divorce is a pretty common thing. The system treated the guy as obviously guilty when in fact in the eyes of the law, he was still innocent. The mother had to be involved in the decision to have him take his daughter to school – if she didn’t think he was a risk, how did SCF know so much better?}

"I’ve seen workers do that [threaten families] and it just drives me crazy. "Let me in or I’m bringing the police back." Oh, right, great. You guys are setting up to be a real winner here." - SCF caseworker

"All the time when I go out people talk about, ‘You guys, I am really afraid of SCF. I’ve heard about you guys. My friends’ kids got taken away by you guys.’ " - SCF caseworker

"To engage someone….is to overcome the prejudice that people have … that all we want to do is destroy their family. We want to pull their kids and give them to some foster parent who is going to sexually abuse them and beat them and hurt them, and you are going to keep them away from their kids; that’s their whole SCF dragon myth you are always fighting." - SCF caseworker