reply to post by darkbake
Am I misunderstanding the provision? I read through it
and didn't see anything that stipulated mandatory inspections as part of the
ACA. Is this just legalize to hide forced inspections, or is it just people interpreting it in a way other than it's intention?
If I read it right, and please correct me where I'm wrong, I see:
The purpose of the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) Competitive Grant program is to award Development Grants to
States that currently have modest home visiting programs and want to build on existing efforts.
So first off this is a grant available for those states that have MIECHV already, and want to secure funding to expand it. I thought MIECHV was an
"evidence based" policy, meaning that in order for a visitation to happen, there needed to be just-cause? Like: someone requesting medical aid for
their child or a family member, and during that aid it is noted there are other factors that may be originating at the home level.
When I was an EMT-P there were a few times we had to report a family for potential child abuse or neglect, just based on the indications we had from a
child we worked with. I guess my question is: I thought there still needed to be something equivalent to probable cause before they can visit, and
that probable cause had to be initiated by a request for aid by a person of the household?
Priority for Serving High-Risk Populations and Programmatic Areas of Emphasis As directed in the legislation , successful applicants will give
priority to providing services to the following populations...
If I understand this part correctly, it means that if they successfully earn the extra grant funding, than their visitations need to prioritize visits
based on the following:
a) Eligible families who reside in communities in need of such services, as identified in the statewide needs assessment required under subsection
b) Low-income eligible families.
c) Eligible families who are pregnant women who have not attained age 21.
d) Eligible families that have a history of child abuse or neglect or have had interactions with child welfare services.
e) Eligible families that have a history of substance abuse or need substance abuse treatment.
f) Eligible families that have users of tobacco products in the home.
g) Eligible families that are or have children with low student achievement.
h) Eligible families with children with developmental delays or disabilities.
i) Eligible families who, or that include individuals who, are serving or formerly served in the Armed Forces, including such families that have
members of the Armed Forces who have had multiple deployments outside of the United States.
Which seems like a logical list to me, assuming again that this was something prompted by a request for aid by the household. I can understand them
wanting to investigate further into a household that requests aid for an underage pregnant daughter, in a house with members who've had a record of
substance abuse. Or maybe when dealing with infants, they would want to check about tobacco use in the home.
I'm not so naive to think that this can't be abused, but I'm just unsure whether to believe it is a deliberate approval to allow forced inspection
of people's homes based on the ACA or if it still requires a prompted action; like requesting aid or a report made by a hospital worker or responder;
or something similar.
What am I missing?
As a side note: I agree with others, I do hope people exercise their right to deny entry without a warrant. I don't see anything in this or the
original MIECHV documents that grant authority to entry without permission.