Foster Care or Tax Cuts?

"The question is not whether we can afford to invest in every child; it is whether we can afford not to." - Marian Wright Edelman 

If tax cuts came at the cost of denying foster children access to essentials like nutritious food, clothing, transportation, therapies and extracurricular activities, would you still vote for them?

If so, consider this...

The current crisis in the foster care system across Oklahoma has reached a tipping point. The state’s severe shortage of foster homes leaves children, who are already coping with the trauma of family separation, without the option of a nurturing home, which is necessary to heal and thrive. Many wait in government offices for extended periods or are placed in overcrowded homes stretched far beyond capacity, depriving them of the care and resources essential to their growth and well-being.

As tax reform takes center stage on legislative agendas, the current foster care crisis underscores a larger debate about fiscal priorities in Oklahoma: Should policymakers prioritize tax reductions, often aimed at middle- and higher-income earners, or should these funds be urgently channeled toward nurturing and safeguarding vulnerable children?

Because of this, advocates for vulnerable children are urging legislators and the public to prioritize allocating more resources and funding for the growing needs of children in foster care rather than pursuing additional tax cuts; nearly no one will notice.

What happens when we prioritize tax cuts over the well-being of children?

The repercussions for these children are significant. Simply put, there aren't enough foster homes to meet the needs of even the historically low number of children in care. Children entering foster care today often have more complex needs, leading to increased costs to provide the essential resources and support required for their healing and well-being. Social workers have articulated the severe strain placed on their departments by spending critical resources trying to physically house children, adding inefficiencies that erode the quality of their services.

Research indicates unstable placements affect emotional well-being, disrupt educational routines, and increase behavioral challenges. For young children, especially those with histories of trauma, the lack of stable housing compounds their vulnerability, potentially resulting in long-term developmental challenges. Children who are displaced repeatedly experience feelings of abandonment, which exacerbates existing trauma.

Why does increased funding lead to greater stability?

The current base reimbursement rate of only $17-$22 per day is insufficient to cover even three nutritious meals for most children, let alone provide clothing or access to extracurricular activities. This creates a significant financial strain on foster parents, who demonstrate unwavering dedication to the child's healing journey. Their commitment, born from a deep passion for making a difference, is truly admirable, yet the state offers little to sustain their efforts.

Assigning Responsibility

Oklahoma Human Services and numerous private organizations are tirelessly navigating one of the most complex systems imaginable. The same department responsible for protecting children's lives is also tasked with reuniting fractured families. It's a monumental challenge and one that inevitably invites criticism.

Due to these complexities, it is truly not useful to point fingers. It is, however, important to acknowledge the structural issues at play. Decades of tight budgets have left the child welfare system underfunded and understaffed. This has resulted in overworked caseworkers, high turnover rates, and a lack of resources to adequately support families in need. It's a vicious cycle that needs to be addressed not just on a policy level but also by society as a whole, as we all share the responsibility for the well-being of Oklahoma’s children.

Immediate Investment Leads to Long-Term Savings

The strain on available homes indirectly affects both children currently in crisis and those aging out of the foster care system. It may be tempting to prioritize tax cuts over investments in foster care, but research shows that the long-term benefits of investing in foster youth far outweigh the immediate savings from tax cuts. By providing stable homes and comprehensive support, we can reduce the likelihood of these children needing public assistance or becoming involved in the criminal legal system as adults, leading to significant long-term savings for taxpayers. 

Need for Strategic Action

We must prioritize the safety and well-being of children above all else. This requires investing in our child welfare system by ensuring sufficient foster homes and guaranteeing every child in foster care has the financial support they need to thrive. However, this task can not be accomplished by the government or nonprofit organizations alone. It requires the collective effort of society, with each individual playing a part in advocating for change and supporting those in need.

With tax cuts and foster care both on the legislative agenda, which will Oklahomans prioritize?

Actions you can take today include:

• Advocate for Funding: Write to your legislators expressing support for increased allocations to foster children. Tell your legislators this critical message: "We care more about financially supporting our children in foster care than receiving a one-time tax cut.”

• Promote Awareness: Utilize social platforms and community forums to highlight the crisis.

• Get Directly Involved: Consider opening your heart to becoming a foster parent or supporting a family who has. Your encouragement and support can be a lifeline for those providing love and protection to a child in the foster care system.