More Questions Than Answers: What Did We Learn From Georgia’s Foster Care Study Committee?
- sbeachy7
- Aug 13
- 6 min read
Hi Friends!!
Let’s talk about the Study Committee meeting that happened at the Georgia State Capitol!!
Did you walk away with more questions than answers? I know I did!!
Here are the key points discussed:
Georgia DFCS is facing an approximately $85 million budget shortfall.
The number of children in care has not increased dramatically, but the complexity of children's needs has increased, particularly among older children and children with medical or mental-health needs.
Georgia reportedly had approximately 7,500 foster homes in 2019 compared with roughly 4,500 today, creating a significant placement and resource problem.
Cuts have affected specialized care and programs involving education/graduation, foster-parent training, and specialized medical care.
Social work turnover and training.
The committee is intended to bring together agencies and organizations involved with foster children to identify solutions and determine how Georgia can adequately fund the system.
Sen. Kay Kirkpatrick described this as the third study committee in three years examining problems in Georgia's foster-care system, while noting that this is the first joint House/Senate committee focused on these issues.
You can read the CBS Atlanta report about the $85 million shortfall here:
But Here Is Where I Have Questions
The summary seems to frame the problem primarily as a funding and increasing-needs crisis: fewer foster homes, children with more complex needs, and insufficient resources.
But that raises an important question for me:
Is Georgia simply spending too little on foster care—or are there structural problems within the system that are causing children to enter care unnecessarily, remain in care too long, or generate higher costs without receiving the services they actually need?
That distinction matters.
If the answer is simply, “We need more money,” then increasing the budget may not solve the underlying problems.
Before we give the system another $85 million, shouldn't we understand exactly where the money went?
Where Is the Breakdown?
One of the things that stood out to me during the meeting was the discussion surrounding the approximately $85 million shortfall.
Numbers were presented, but I was left wanting more detail.
For example, the information presented showed approximately $28 million associated with the highest-cost services for children, yet I did not hear a detailed breakdown explaining exactly how that money was spent.
Maybe that information exists.
If it does, I want to see it.
This isn't about attacking anyone. It is about accountability.
If an agency says it needs $85 million more, shouldn't taxpayers, lawmakers, advocates, and—most importantly—the children and families affected by the system be able to see exactly where those dollars are going?
In any business, if someone says, “We need another $85 million,” I would expect questions.
Where did the money go?
What services were purchased?
How many children received those services?
What were the outcomes?
What contracts were involved?
What remains unpaid?
Those seem like reasonable questions.
And Then There Were the Children With the Highest Costs
Another issue really caught my attention.
The children described as having some of the highest costs were, according to the discussion, in situations involving jail or hotel placements.
That raises a very difficult question:
If a child has extremely complex needs and the state is spending more than $1 million to provide housing, are we actually providing that child with the therapeutic, medical, educational, and behavioral services they need?
Housing a child is not the same thing as treating a child.
A hotel room is not a treatment plan.
And a jail cell should never become the substitute for a system that was supposed to protect and serve a vulnerable child.
If the state is spending enormous amounts of money simply trying to find somewhere for a child to stay, shouldn't we be asking why the system reached that point in the first place?
What About Title IV-E?
I also heard repeated references to a Title IV-E audit and statements that Title IV-E was not being used for these particular children.
Okay.
Then my question is simple:
Do we have an audit?
If so, where can the public see it?
And if Title IV-E isn't paying for these placements, where is the money coming from?
If children are being placed in expensive settings such as hotels or detention facilities, taxpayers deserve to know what funding streams are paying those bills.
Again, I'm not saying I know the answer.
I'm asking for the documentation.
Why Are We Losing Foster Families?
Another major issue discussed was the shortage of foster families.
Apparently, Georgia has gone from approximately 7,500 foster homes in 2019 to around 4,500 today.
That should concern every one of us.
Of course, there are many reasons people may stop fostering. Foster parenting is hard. Families need support. The needs of children are becoming increasingly complex.
But we also need to ask:
What is DFCS doing that may be discouraging good foster families from staying in the system?
I know of families who have had experiences that made them question whether they could continue advocating for the children in their homes.
One example I am familiar with involves Jennifer Williams, a former foster parent who has publicly described her experience with DFCS and the loss of her foster license after advocating for children placed in her home.
If a foster parent is advocating for a child, shouldn't the system want to understand why?
We desperately need good foster families.
So why aren't we asking what is causing some of them to leave?
And What About Social Worker Turnover?
I also heard a lot of discussion about social worker turnover during the meeting.
And again, I have questions.
Why is turnover so high?
I can tell you from my own experience working in the foster-care system as a contractor and working alongside DFCS caseworkers: this is not an easy job to maintain.
One issue that stood out to me was caseloads.
To my understanding, there is not a simple statewide cap that guarantees a DFCS caseworker will have no more than a certain number of children on their caseload under every circumstance. That means workers can find themselves carrying extremely heavy workloads while trying to manage the needs of vulnerable children and families.
And let's be honest—how can we expect caseworkers to provide quality services when they are overwhelmed?
But I believe the problem goes beyond numbers.
There is also a morale problem.
From my experience and conversations with workers, I have heard the work environment described as a “bully system.” I believe that is something we need to take seriously.
When workers feel that their supervisors and directors are not providing the support they need—and instead feel pressured, intimidated, or spoken to in oppressive ways—what happens?
Good workers leave.
And when good workers leave, who pays the price?
The children.
Caseworkers are already dealing with difficult situations every day. They are expected to make life-changing decisions involving children and families while managing enormous amounts of paperwork, court requirements, investigations, placements, family visits, service providers, foster parents, attorneys, and crisis situations.
That is a lot for anyone to carry.
So when we talk about social-worker turnover, I don't think we should simply ask:
“How do we hire more caseworkers?”
We should also be asking:
“Why are caseworkers leaving?”
“What are their caseloads?”
“Do they have adequate support?”
“Do they feel safe speaking up when something is wrong?”
“Are supervisors supporting their workers?”
“What is the culture like inside the department?”
And most importantly:
What are we doing to change the morale?
You cannot build a healthy child-welfare system on burned-out, unsupported workers.
If we want better outcomes for children, we have to take care of the people who are responsible for serving those children.
The morale needs to change.
And that starts with listening to the people doing the work.
I would love to hear your thoughts!
There are still two more meetings to go, and I will be watching.
Because this isn't just about $85 million.
It's about where that money goes, how it is spent, and whether Georgia's most vulnerable children are actually receiving what they need.
So What Did We Actually Learn?
Maybe the study committee has answers to all of these questions.
If so, I want to see them.
Because numbers without documentation don't give me confidence.
A budget request without a detailed breakdown doesn't answer the question.
And telling the public that the system needs more money shouldn't end the conversation.
It should start the conversation.
Before Georgia gives the foster-care system another dollar, shouldn't we know:
Where is the money going?
What are we paying for?
Who is providing the services?
Are children actually receiving those services?
What are the outcomes?
Why are foster families leaving?
Why are children ending up in hotels or detention settings?
Why are training and education being cut when children's needs are supposedly increasing?
And most importantly:
Are we spending money in ways that actually help children?
These aren't unreasonable questions.
They aren't attacks.
They are questions that deserve answers.
And I think the children and families affected by Georgia's foster-care system deserve nothing less.
But don't worry—the study committee was given numbers, so I guess we're all supposed to go home now.
Not me.
There are still two more meetings to go, and I will be watching.
Because this isn't just about $85 million.
It's about where that money goes, how it is spent, and whether Georgia's most vulnerable children are actually receiving what they need.
I would love to hear your thoughts! Did you watch the meeting? Did you walk away with the same questions I did? You can watch the full meeting here: Watch the Study Committee Meeting Watch it for yourself and let me know what you think! I want to hear from you. What questions did you have after watching?
Stay tuned!!
Until Next Time ❤️
Sylvia Beachy
Comments