The proposed state budget makes sweeping changes to policies affecting Maine children, particularly abused and neglected children, mentally ill children and developmentally delayed children.

Remember the hullabaloo about Sunday hunting being inserted in a budget? That proposal pales by comparison to these policy shifts.

The children’s issues caucus held well-attended meetings gathering information. As a former assistant attorney general handling child protection cases, I’ve consulted experts regarding this budget’s effect on Maine’s most vulnerable children. A sampling:

Abused children. This budget proposes major restructuring of the child protective system, including elimination of Community Intervention Programs. CIPs work with families and protect children in low- and moderate-risk cases of abuse and neglect. Also proposed is privatizing Children’s Services for those in state custody;

Special needs children. The budget cuts Child Developmental Services dramatically. This program works with 6,000 Maine children, ages birth to five, who live with special needs;

First time families. Significant cuts are proposed for home visitation services despite studies showing these services prevent child abuse;

Mentally ill children. Mental health services for Medicaid-eligible children are cut 7 percent, with additional cuts to children’s mental health grants;

Foster children. This is the second budget in a row cutting foster care rates.

Are these proposals good policy? Consider six questions regarding the proposed restructuring of child protection:

1) A too-rosy fiscal scenario? The state claims it can cut the budget and protect the same number of children by:

• “privatizing” services to thousands of children in state custody, a life-and-death function – without appropriating funds to pay for this service. How could it cost private agencies zero to assume this costly function?

• “booking savings” based on assumptions that children will be in state custody for much shorter periods. The time children spend in state custody has already decreased. Is it too optimistic to book big savings assuming the remaining cases will be even more quickly resolved?

The overall program would be cut by $11 million in state dollars.

2) Conflicting functions? State children’s services workers decide whether to seek termination of parental rights in court. Private foster care agencies work with families hoping to reunify. Would requiring private agencies to perform both duties lead to wary clients and conflicted workers? Maybe this significant policy change would work, but it must be considered separate from the budget.

3) Fewer workers protecting abused and neglected children? Community Intervention Programs (CIPs) are to be eliminated. The state proposes to transform children’s services workers (the ones whose jobs will be privatized) into child protection workers, thus replacing some eliminated CIP workers. Former DHHS employees assure me the turnover rate will increase if children’s services workers are forced to take child protection jobs they didn’t choose. The proposal fails to account for increased turnover and training costs.

4) Possible child endangerment? CIPs were created to ensure that allegations of child abuse and neglect were not ignored, as happened in the 1990s. In the proposal, fewer remaining workers may have no choice but to weaken child protection standards – or permit backlogged cases. Either way, the result would be state neglect of abused children.

5) Replacing a considered state policy with a budget-driven policy? The King administration, the Legislature and policy experts agreed to create CIPs after detailed policy discussions. More eyeballs were available for child protection, and policy-makers crafted CIPs to take a collaborative approach with moderate- and low-risk families. If the administration believes elimination of CIPs is wise, send the proposal to the Judiciary and Health and Human Services Committees for policy analysis. Don’t plunk this proposal in a hurried budget.

The attorney general’s office was not consulted in this proposal’s design, though it’s the AG that handles child protection in court.

6) Painting abused children into a financial corner? Since the $11 million savings would be budget-mandated, abused and neglected children will pay the price if the department fails to “meet the numbers.” If the alleged efficiencies are not realized, overburdened state workers will be mandated to “meet the numbers” and “triage” abuse cases. Unintentionally, more children could be raped or killed.

The administration has been responsive to inquiries. I greatly appreciate that. These proposals are worthy of consideration on the merits, not wedged into a budget predicated on an optimistic $11 million savings. Instead, do this: fund a realistic number to pay for privatization, guaranteeing that children are served; fund a realistic number to cover staff turnover, training and additional workers to replace the CIP workload; hold hearings before policy committees in collaboration with the attorney general’s office.

Doing this right requires time and money.

The Legislature supported property tax relief. We were told property tax relief would be paid for responsibly in the budget.

Here is a responsible alternative, replacing cuts to child protection and other cuts affecting children: L.D. 705 decreases the state income tax by increasing user fees on frills: alcohol, soda, cigarettes and summer lodging. Incorporate these user fees on frills into the budget, to fund the suggestions above plus other vital programs.

Speaking out for children is a job for everyone. If people don’t speak out, more children in Maine may be physically abused, more children sexually abused, and more special needs children left unready for school.

How many politicians and columnists will say Maine should have taken more time with these proposals after that first, high-profile death?

Abused children are worth more than a few cents on a can of soda. Voters could send a message to their legislators to protect abused children by placing a user fee on soda instead. Children living with special needs are worth more than a few cents on a six pack. Voters could tell their representatives to protect Child Development Services by adding a user fee on beer;

Raise a glass to Maine children. Call it a tax. Call it a user fee. Call it the right thing to do. Frill fees are something good-hearted Mainers will happily pay. Drink up.

Rep. Sean Faircloth, D-Bangor, served as an assistant attorney general handling child protective cases, initiated the Maine Discovery Museum in Bangor, spearheaded the deadbeat dad child support law, and the Healthy Start child abuse prevention task force. After graduating from the University of Notre Dame, Faircloth served in the Jesuit Volunteer Corps in Alaska as a counselor for troubled youth.