|
« All We Have To Fear Is..... |
Main
| We Pay, They Don't »
Botulism in the Social Services Cafeteria
February 19, 2004
The Associated Press reports the feds give WA state an F in caring for abused, neglected and vulnerable children. A federal Health and Human Services Administration evaluation says our social services bureaucracy responds poorly to reported child mistreatment; doesn't consistently provide services to prevent child abuse; doesn't do well enough in giving foster kids permanent, stable homes; and doesn't provide sufficient mental health treatment for kids in need. Turns out the many other states evaluated so far aren't doing too hot either, but we're especially ineffective. Probably all true. But here's my question. Why do we always focus on treating the symptoms, rather than the causes? The root issue is parents who've effectively abandoned their children. I'm no "abstinence only" zealot on sex ed, but am continually amazed and dismayed at the number of people (many in their 20s, NOT teens) who become parents, and then blow it off as though kids were dogs to be left at the pound. The role of popular culture in promoting casual sex is given only lip service, likewise the need for more unmarried 20-somethings to consistently use contraception, or abstain. A far more comprehensive national public information campaign on the realities of parenting should be initiated, with greater federal, non-profit and corporate support. Let's call it, "Wait 'Till You're Really Ready." Maybe if we put a few hip-hop thugs and teen tarts in front of the cameras, it'll work. And how about some clergy in charge of state social services, instead of bureacrats? They don't have to mention religion at all. It's still OK to talk about morality and personal responsibility, though. Right? I know this: the social services cafeteria approach is insane. And the chunk of the state budget eaten up by this stuff is considerable. For years, Washington State Auditor Brian Sonntag, and a Democratic State Representative from Federal Way named Mark Miloscia have been pushing legislation for comprehensive performance audits, so we can see what programs are meeting their goals and which are wasting money. Last year, it seemd the bill might go somewhere, then it quietly died. Few in Olympia really want performance audits because a lot of government employee union members might find themselves out of work. No need for the liberal establishment of Washington State to ponder why Tim Eyman's tax-cut initiatives are so popular with voters. Sheesh. Posted by Matt Rosenberg at February 19, 2004 07:42 AM Trackback Pings TrackBack URL for this entry: Comments:
Matt, I couldn't agree more with you. Remember the poem by Joseph Malinas? part of it goes "Then an old sage remarked, 'tis a marvel to me, that people give far more attention to repairing results, than to stopping the cause, "A strong fence 'round the cliff," not "an ambulance in the valley." Great quote, Lorna. The bureaucracy has morphed into a technocracy. Fixing social ills becomes just a matter of white lab-suited "experts" re-calibrating programs, or pumping in more technology and money. Posted by: Matt Rosenberg at February 19, 2004 02:00 PMWhy don't we start charging the parents for the involvement of the social services crowd. We're creating a society that both ignores the causes of many of our self-inflected problems and we don't hold people accountable for the consequences of their decisions. We have legions of social services professionals pick up the pieces and offer a safety net. We are all too quick to relieve the irresponsible of the messes they create. We don't seem to have a problem involving the courts to enforce child support obligations of wayward parents. It's not such a stretch to start forcing the consumers of Child Protective Services and other social services to accept financial responsibility. Behaviorial changes will only take place when people are faced with real consequences of their actions. Posted by: Gary B at February 19, 2004 07:26 PMThis story really hit home for me. I have been volunteering for several years at a therapeutic group home for children who have been removed even from foster homes because of behavior problems, behavior so bad (physically attacking others, sexually acting out against others in the home(guess where they learned that, and it ain't TV)) that they can't stay in the place they were put to make them safer than living with their so-called parents. From conversations with the staff, I have the impression that the state still thinks family reunification is a good idea. Think of little Rafael over in the Yakima Valley who was returned often enough to his blood family by a brain-damaged judge until they finally managed to kill him. As far as I am concerned, so-called parents should get one, at most two, bites at the apple. If they can't care properly for a child they brought into this world, the child should be taken away permanently. A well-run orphanage or group home would be better for these kids: at least some one would be available to pay attention to them 24-7 and they wouldn't be beaten to a bloody pulp by mom or raped by mom's piece-of-shit drug-dealing boyfriend. Mom can then go out and get her sorry ass knocked up again and again, but after losing one child because of her neglect or abuse, the next ones she produces should also be taken automatically. Again and again, until she finally figures out she isn't going to be allowed to ruin any more kids. People really need to start acting like children are valuable just because they exist and stop acting like they are an imposition or an appendage to be chopped off like an appendix when it proves inconvenient. Sorry for the rant, but when I read this story in the paper this week, it struck a nerve. The kids I volunteer with are so amazingly special (and I certainly don't mean that in the snarky, ride-the-little-bus way). Some of them are amazingly smart, with boundless potential. Some of them are so talented, with in-born artistic abilities that are going to go to waste if they are stuck in this shitty system. And some of them are just God's ordinary innocents who never, ever, ever deserved what has happened to them. Trying to teach people about moral responsibility is all well and good but if you are just starting to teach adults about this, or even older teens, I think it is a losing battle. Better to focus on performance audits and make sure that the social services providers are actually providing something of value. The other part of the solution lies with judges who aren't morons (Janice Niemi, for example, should have been voted out of office just for not immediately giving a pedophile like Mary Kay LeTourneau the maximum jail time possible the first time around) and how we can get those, I really don't know. Posted by: Carol at February 21, 2004 04:24 AMPost a comment
|
|
| Site design by Mystic Sludge Design© | |