"As with all public bureaucracies, it pays in political terms- to hire people and pay large salaries rather than to invest time..." Newt Gingrich, "Renew America" 1995.
"Since 1965 we have spent $5 trillion on welfare.... Since 1970 the number of children living in poverty has increased by 40 %..." Newt Gingrich, "Renew America" 1995.
We cannot address the problem of Child Welfare Services without taking a look at the history of the agency itself. Today each state has their own Social Services agency since Title V laws were amended in 1958 to require the states to match federal funds in order to reduce the burden on the federal government itself. Title V was first hatched in 1935 as part of the Social Security Act. Before that most child welfare agencies were charitable, or private organizations. The actual 'orphanages' or 'poor farms' of the 19th century were an outgrowth of churches following disasters, plagues, wars, etc. Many orphanages were local which meant a child could (at least) stay within the community they were familiar with. In many cases children were just merged into the care of relatives or family friends. This provided emotional and psychological stability for the child.
Former writer RF. Duplantier for the America's Future website opens up with this statement;
"Orphanages filled a void in America for more than a hundred years -- until meddling do-gooders decided that these benevolent institutions were inhumane! "
World history is replete with the stories of great and bad leaders and everyday citizens who had horrible childhood experiences. Growing up in poverty shouldn't be anyone's best idea of an upbringing but growing up poor does not equate abuse or neglect. The notion of a 'safe' environment is a subjective concept. Social Workers and Counselors, School Teachers and Guardian Ad-Litums all use this textbook mantra of "...Do you feel safe at home?" The question should be more direct. "Are you being abused?"
After all, isn't that what you really want to know?
In point of fact, no it is not what they want to know. The language is tailored to emote a desired response from the one being questioned. A child might not feel safe in his/her home because they live in the ghetto, not because mom is abusive. But Social Services will accuse that mother of abuse and/or neglect based on the statement of a child trying to describe the shitty area they live in.
In point of fact, no it is not what they want to know. The language is tailored to emote a desired response from the one being questioned. A child might not feel safe in his/her home because they live in the ghetto, not because mom is abusive. But Social Services will accuse that mother of abuse and/or neglect based on the statement of a child trying to describe the shitty area they live in.
The bar gets lower and lower with each new appropriation of funds. The term used now is "at risk" children. This is a football field size general term used to designate virtually every child in America as in need of government intervention. A single mother, a single father, a death of a parent.
The move towards removing all local, personal, religious and family childcare decisions has followed an execrable pattern of more and more top-down control. By creating the perception that children in large numbers are being mistreated all over America justifies the creation of large agencies to replace and remove individual rights of parents, relatives, churches and children themselves.
Marvin Olasky writes in the publication; Philanthropy, Culture & Society, and published by the Capital Research Center.
"Orphanage directors during the second half of the nineteenth century saw their mission as not merely furnishing basic material needs but creating model American citizens. They tried to instill virtues such as thrift, self-reliance, and sobriety, and to create a capacity for hard work; they believed in busy daily routines and strict discipline."
Were they nuts or something? No wonder Social Services stepped in. Imagine raising scores of children with a sense of independence, thrift and moral virtue? What would be left for the government to do?
Something had to be done, and fast!
By 1910 over 100,000 American children were in orphanages. Not all these children were 'parentless'. Some children were there due to financial problems of the family, alcoholism, even displacement due to natural disasters or wartime invasion as in the Civil War. These institutions were a safe place for the children. But the public perception began to change. Much of it caused by yellow journalism and a White House Conference in 1909 and again in 1919. This is where the funding for single mothers, widows, etc. began and parentless children were to be routinely placed in foster care rather than an attempt to place children with other family members or even a kind next door neighbor. The Federal Children's Bureau was created in 1912 "to investigate and report on the status of children and on their common as well as special needs" and on "the welfare of children and child life among all classes of our people."
By 1935 with Roosevelt's Social Security Act a government instituted Child Welfare Agency was created.
Interestingly former Speaker of the House and Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich openly proposed the return of orphanages back in his day much to the shock of the Progressive Reformers who destroyed these institutions in the first place. The concept of relinquishing State control is the proverbial 'third rail' to Leftists. In one of my many interviews with Republican Senatorial Candidate Col. Reid Reasor he outlined the importance of control as the main objective of Leftists and Leftism in general. The more they tear apart private, religious, personal control over people's lives then the simple replacement by government involvement becomes the solution.
Now, while many parts of Title V within the SSA spawned innovations in prenatal care, standards for hospitals and programs for single mothers the original concept was to provide these innovations at a local level. Communities that created childcare centers, local clinics, after school programs and the like could apply for funding or block grants. But over time and the advocacy of a growing number of self-righteous budding do-gooders fresh from the 1960's colleges with degrees in Sociology and Child Psychology the desire was to serve in a government agency rather than do the heavy lifting in a poor community. Rather than getting your hands dirty at a daycare center in Harlem these college grads decided a cushy office job instead.
In 1981, Title V became a block grant but retained key features of the original legislation. These amendments established the groundwork for current aspects of the program, such as the needs assessment. However, many critics, including those in Congress, decried the lack of accountability mechanisms and cited initial reductions in funding and decreased federal oversight as weakening programs in some states. Opponents to this new feature of Title V could easily see the slipping away of local control in favor of a Halo Federal approach to children in need.
For reasons of time and space on the blog I will not go into the myriad of grants and programs under Title V but suffice to say the biggest problem to come out of all of this is 'accountability'. Federal program agents tasked are meant to oversee the state's application of the law. That is all but lost and states now virtually run amuck while sticking their noses into the private lives of citizens. The countryside is awash with horror stories of state agencies removing children from perfectly good homes, embroiling families in lengthy and costly custody battles, securing more control over the educational system to indoctrinate children and creating dossiers on them and the family.
As the Liberty Movement gains strength this subject should be part of the platform of returning our Republic back to Constitutional Law. If we do not wrestle control of our children away from the prying eyes and ears of government, we will inevitably fall under true totalitarianism where our children are no longer our own but rather the future-shock results as seen in George Orwell's novel "1984" when Winston's neighbor is turned in by his own son for talking in his sleep.
One MSNBC anchor has already suggested such a thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment