Strong Foundation Upheld for a Century

2013 will mark Hillsides centennial. Reviewing the historical archives provided an affirmation of the organization’s characteristics that had surfaced when we were developing a strategic road map this past year. Clearly from its inception, Hillsides has been an organization unquestionably committed to those it serves, willing to innovate in order to be most effective, and always dedicated to raising a voice in favor of those who otherwise would be ignored.

Quality Care

Our founder, Deaconess Evelyn Wile, was a woman on a mission. Having abandoned the comforts of her day, of family, and a home, she committed herself exclusively to the quality care of the children entrusted to her. She lived for them! Her absolute dedication established a work ethic that to this day permeates the organization, witnessed in the extraordinary number of staff who have worked most of their professional lives at Hillsides.

Innovation

From the very beginning Hillsides was like no other “orphanage.” Turning away from constructing a large, dormitory like structure, Deaconess Wile preferred a campus setting with cottages to provide children a home environment. Over the years, the organization developed the capacity to always look for additional ways to best serve vulnerable children. It was this spirit of innovation that led to  the construction of Hillsides Education Center, the establishment of an array of community-based services throughout greater Los Angeles and Pasadena, and most recently, the creation of the Youth Moving On program to address the needs of former foster youth striving for independence.

Advocacy

All of these efforts to provide the best possible care has also allowed Hillsides to be recognized as a credible  advocate, speaking out throughout its history to help engage the community to value the tremendous capacity of the children, youth, and families its serves.

 
Much has changed in 100 years; Avenue 64 is no longer the leafy refuges from the city that it once was, buildings have been added to the original three structures, and an extensive network of services in the community has been developed. Yet through these subsequent generations, some things remain the same--quality care, innovation, and advocacy. These are the foundation for what we hope will be yet another 100 years.

Presidential Debate Question

The election is down to the wire and political pundits have focused on the upcoming presidential debates as critical to the success of either candidate. As I watch the debates, I’ll be looking for questions that address the issues of vulnerable children, youth, and their families-- questions that might indicate the candidate’s position regarding education, children’s services, youth development, family supportive services, and poverty. The candidates may be wise to avoid specifics, but somehow their response to these issues may provide us with a glimpse into how they might lead.

The overriding issue impacting the vast majority of those we serve is poverty. The US Census Bureau statistics released in September indicate that 6.4 million Californians, almost 17% of the state’s population, are living in poverty. The impact of these numbers on children is frightening. While individuals under 18 account for only one quarter of the state’s residents, they account for one-third of Californians living in poverty!

There is no question we are living through an unprecedented time of financial challenges as a nation. No candidate can venture to offer assurances without running the risk of miscalculating the Herculean task of stabilizing the country financially. However, the issue of poverty and its long-term impact are essential parts of how we develop a path that leads the country through this challenging time.

From lower levels of educational attainment to lower earnings as adults, the lasting consequences are significant for children who grow up in poverty. The impact is not only felt by the individual raised in poverty, but the significant cost imposed upon communities and systems left to assist those who have been affected by poverty. It is a pervasive problem we struggle with, and there are no simple answers.

Clearly, if the debates are meant to provide an opportunity for a serious discussion on issues that have a significant impact on our society, I will expect poverty somehow will be addressed. This is not about two very different philosophical approaches to the issue, but importantly, it is about the impact these positions have on those struggling in the grip of poverty.  

Each year our Family Center programs offer assistance to those families who need help with food, lodging, and transportation, some of the basic needs to get them beyond crisis and trauma to receive necessary treatment. For those we serve who are struggling, how these candidates address poverty is not a matter of political posturing, but rather one of survival. Let’s see what the candidates have to say.

Child Welfare vs. Child Well-being

While recently attending the quarterly meeting of CWLA’s Board of Directors, there was a presentation on an initiative to establish an overarching set of principles to govern the standards of excellence in child welfare. The genesis of the initiative is an effort to demonstrate the impact of child welfare on the well-being of children and families. As I reflected on the discussion it occurred to me that perhaps we might want to no longer refer to these efforts to care for vulnerable children and youth as child welfare, but rather as child well-being. After all, is that not the goal?

Welfare has become a word to avoid in our politically charged divisive environment. No longer does the word welfare refer to the efforts of a noble society caring for those less fortunate.  Welfare now connotes a system of well intentioned, but failed, expensive entitlements that create dependence and a threat to true "freedom." As unbelievable as this may seem, it never-the-less reflects the philosophical divide that grips our nation in political grid lock.

Therefore, rather than constantly running the risk of alienating those for whom welfare has become a "dirty" word, I suggest we replace it with well-being, because at the end of the day that is indeed what is accomplished in all we do for the  children, youth, and families we serve.

Whether it is the support we provide children and their family when their homes have been disrupted, to the mental health services we offer to those experiencing trauma or the outreach we offer youth who are transitioning from the foster care system to independence, all these efforts contribute to their well-being. The end result is a marked improvement in functioning, stronger and healthier families as well as an ability to pursue a full, independent life.

Using the word well-being rather than welfare is not some semantic hat trick, but rather an attempt in a skeptical environment to express the impact achieved when services are rendered to a vulnerable population. Over the last few years we have seen 85% of children in our care successfully restored to their home and communities. The amount of time that families have been separated has been significantly reduced, and the hope for leading successful lives has been established.

If the word welfare is a stumbling block, then I suggest we get rid of it. More than ever we can not afford to allow anything to get in the way of the support we need to achieve lasting change for all we serve.