All of us can recall the joke
about how many people it takes to change a light bulb. I recalled that opening
line when I recently saw a group assembled to assess the progress of one of our
residents. As we struggled to find
a meeting room large enough to accommodate all the many “stakeholders,” I asked
myself the question, “How many people does it take to help a child?” The answer
of course is that it takes many, all providing a different perspective
important to consider in determining the long-term well-being of the child. But
I am left wondering at times if indeed there may be too many people involved in
the process whose agenda is more reflective of their particular viewpoint
rather than the best interests of the child.
The logistics of gathering so
many interested parties is daunting.
The need to satisfy so many statutory requirements while never-the-less
assuring the safety and well-being of very vulnerable children often creates a
quagmire that deters achieving the stated best interests of the child and
family. In this kind of environment progress can be slow, demoralizing all
involved.
Recently, the Los Angeles
Times reported on a review that
was authorized by the Board of Supervisors that was very critical of the
Department of Children and Family Services. It pointed to how its byzantine
regulatory and bureaucratic structure has not only impeded providing good quality care;
in some instances it has failed completely, resulting in the loss of children who
fell prey to abuse and violence. DCFS takes very seriously the recommendations
that have been issued as a result of the review. The Department is undergoing a
significant reorganization in order to create a culture where, “the safety of
children is Job One” to quote its Director Philip Browning.
That kind of leadership is
essential because change comes very slowly to such a large system like that of
DCFS. Social workers and other caregivers, who have been disenfranchised and
traumatized by the failures of the system, are understandably reluctant to
embrace anything that is a departure from their current mode of operating.
For all of us involved with
providing care to children and their families, who are at greater risk of
neglect and harm, we must never lose sight of what is first and foremost, the
safety and well-being of the child. Somehow we must also be dedicated to
loosening the grip of the organizational quicksand that easily consumes those for
whom we care.
Hillsides applauds the
forthright and transparent manner in which DCFS has reviewed its practice and
offer our support to help create a system where children come first. With any
luck fewer people will never-the-less more effectively assist children and
their families to successfully make their way through crisis and have hope
restored.
