A state plan that some child welfare activists claim would roll back 10 years of regulatory measures meant to better protect foster children in Oregon is the subject of a simmering dispute ahead of the 2025 legislative session.
As part of Oregon’s settlement of a federal class action lawsuit over egregious failures in the child welfare system that plaintiffs claimed violated children’s rights, proposed legislation unveiled earlier this week would narrow the definition of what constitutes abuse of a child in foster care, just as a neutral monitor is beginning to track that data.
According to Emily Cooper, legal director of Disability Rights Oregon, one of the organizations that brought the action on behalf of foster children, Oregon is expected to lower the number of children who suffer abuse or neglect while in foster care as part of the settlement.
Cooper stated in an interview on Wednesday that this idea would fundamentally weaken the definition of abuse and neglect and question whether it is even taken into account. The thing that really irritates me is that it doesn’t imply that children are safer.
Among other things, the comprehensive plan would restrict the conditions under which the state looks into the use of restraint in schools as potential child abuse.
The government of Governor Tina Kotek argues that the reforms are necessary because the child welfare laws that were passed by lawmakers in reaction to high-profile examples of child abuse over the past 10 years have had unexpected implications. In an interview and at an advisory council meeting this week, officials stated that these repercussions include attrition from a terrified workforce concerned about breaking rules and needless claims flooding the state abuse hotline.
During Tuesday’s advisory council meeting, Aprille Flint-Gerner, the director of child welfare, stated that studies have indicated that these kinds of anxieties might hinder professionals’ capacity to make judgments that ensure the safety of children and families. During the same meeting, Oregon Department of Human Services lobbyist Michelle Pfeiffer stated that the penalties for not reporting abuse in foster homes and institutional foster care providers, including for children with developmental disabilities, encouraged people to report possible abuse more frequently. As a result, screeners at the state abuse hotline are finding it more difficult to spot abuse situations.
According to Pfeiffer, they would prefer to report even in cases where there is no plausible suspicion of child abuse.
It’s unclear how the expanded definition of abuse at institutional care providers has affected call traffic, but state statistics indicates a steady rise in reports to Oregon’s child abuse hotline over time. According to a 2019 report, state officials anticipated that centralizing the hotline operation would result in a 10% rise in abuse reports; this forecast seems to come true.
At its meeting on Tuesday, the Governor’s System of Care Advisory Council decided to back the legislation for the 2025 session. According to Anna Williams, the council’s executive director and a former Democratic state representative, implementing some of the regulatory reforms that care providers and government agencies have asked for will encourage the development of additional services to support children and families. Williams emphasized that proponents of the plan are not diluting anything.
“We need to address provider concerns because we are bleeding providers and if kids need care, they have to get that from providers,” Williams stated, referring to a wide range of providers of children’s services, including secure transportation companies, residential treatment facilities, and wilderness treatment programs. Striking for perfection might sometimes leave you with nothing.
Despite more than a decade of serious complaints about child abuse, substandard living conditions, and financial mismanagement, it was revealed by Willamette Week nearly ten years ago that Oregon child welfare had been sending some of the most vulnerable children in state care to group homes operated by a troubled Portland company, Give Us This Day.
In response, state legislators passed a comprehensive statute in 2016 that, among other things, defined abuse and neglect of children in foster homes with special treatment and other institutional care settings, like Give Us This Day. Additionally, the law established $250 to $500 civil penalties for institutional care providers who take in children even when they are aware that the child’s demands are greater than what they are authorized to offer. Advocates of the proposed law for 2025 have pointed out that the state has never imposed any of these civil fines.
The civil penalty was developed in direct response to Give Us This Day taking children whose needs it was ill-equipped to handle, according to Sen. Sara Gelser Blouin, a Democrat from Corvallis who supported many of the child welfare changes that were approved in the past ten years. It was concerning to me that they stated that this is a very tough civil punishment to have when we’re trying to persuade people to take children, as the goal of that civil penalty was to give those establishments an excuse to say no, Gelser Blouin said.
In these particular living and caring circumstances, the Kotek administration’s proposal would reduce some of the circumstances that would be considered child abuse. For instance, it is currently considered sexual abuse when a child or young person up to the age of 20 who is in foster care or an institutional care facility engages in sexual contact with someone who is in charge of the child’s care or services. According to the proposed law, sexual contact with someone who works only for a foster home or child care organization would be considered abuse.
According to Gelser Blouin, lawmakers first included a definition in response to claims that certain young people, aged 18 and older, were pimped out or commercially exploited for sex while residing in Give Us This Day group homes. According to Gelser Blouin, state licensing officials recommended that lawmakers include a somewhat broader definition of abuse so that they may look into situations where the child was mature enough to give consent for sexual contact but still at risk because of their foster care status.
Cooper stated that the proposed amendments to Oregon’s definitions of wrongful restraint and seclusion of children in various care settings would be more lenient than the degree of restriction now permitted by federal regulations, which further alarmed Gelser Blouin and Cooper. Current law defines abuse for institutional care providers as the improper use of seclusion or constraint.
According to Gelser Blouin, this would provide us with some of the least protections in the nation for isolation and restriction. According to her, proposed exclusions that permit a certain amount of restraint for healthcare practitioners who receive federal Medicaid funding are in violation of federal law.
Gelser Blouin pointed out that the plan would also alter the way the state manages kid seclusion and restriction in schools. According to Gelser Blouin, any form of confinement that does not cause death or near death would not be looked into as child abuse.
Williams admitted that the plan would be altered if the individual who applied the restraint was charged with child abuse. She stated, for instance, that adults who confine students for convenience, vengeance, or punishment will be looked at for child abuse.
According to Williams, if a hold or isolation is implemented for the child’s safety and is carried out with training, it is not looked into because, under the reforms Kotek’s government is seeking, it is acceptable.
Data from around the country shows that children of color and those with disabilities are disproportionately subjected to restriction in schools; this topic was not covered at this week’s governor’s advisory council meeting.
It’s uncertain what the Kotek administration’s legislative plan will look like when Oregon’s legislative session begins on January 21. It may be challenging for proponents of the proposed child welfare omnibus legislation to pass her committee if Gelser Blouin rejects it, as she is the chair of the Senate Committee on Human Services. However, because of its broad breadth, they could be able to move the bill through other Senate committees.
Williams admitted that the bill had numerous errors and that state representatives will need to ensure that it conforms with federal law. However, she stated that the modifications are necessary to prevent worries about excessive isolation and constraint from triggering child abuse reports and investigations, which would burden state child abuse screeners and children’s care providers. She stated that state licensing officials would be better suited to address issues over the usage of seclusion and shackles.
Additionally, the plan, known as legislative idea 346, would facilitate the transfer of foster children and youth to facilities in other states, even if those organizations are not certified by Oregon. Additionally, by eliminating the state’s obligation to post monthly online updates regarding the placement of children, it would drastically reduce the transparency surrounding foster adolescents and children residing in these facilities. Rather, the information would need to be reported to the Governor’s System of Care Advisory Council by the Oregon Department of Human Services. The out-of-state programs would no longer need to be specifically identified by the government.
Furthermore, according to state officials, the proposal would give the state the authority to keep foster children and youth at shelters for longer than the current limit of 60 days in a row or 90 days in a year. This would allow for flexibility in situations where the youth perform well in shelters and help lower the number of children and youth kept in hotels while they wait for a suitable foster home or residential program. In recent years, federal legislation has sought to encourage states to place more foster children in settings akin to family homes rather than institutions.
Allison Stark, the CEO of Albertina Kerr, an organization that offers assistance for individuals with intellectual and developmental impairments as well as mental health care for children, expressed reservations about the shelter proposal. Since shelters are temporary settings rather than permanent homes, she claimed that keeping kids and young people there for extended periods of time puts them at risk of being homeless.
Stark stated, “I believe we owe these young people better than that.”
–An investigative reporter is Hillary Borrud. You can contact her at [email protected] or 503-294-4034.
Note: Every piece of content is rigorously reviewed by our team of experienced writers and editors to ensure its accuracy. Our writers use credible sources and adhere to strict fact-checking protocols to verify all claims and data before publication. If an error is identified, we promptly correct it and strive for transparency in all updates, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!
