Child Welfare and the Ways of the Mafia
Seems to me there are 2 ways to administrate when trying to mandate high standards of accomplishment in an absolutely essential arena. One model shows its concern and involvement with time, resources and commitment, determination to get the right people in place to lead, and to hold those people, not the program, accountable for failures. The other I like to think of as administration the mafia way: to demand high standards by threatening the program with starvation, and to teach leadership by desperation, handing down unaffordable fines that make the already near-impossible task more difficult. This way has the added benefit for the ruthless administrator of, if not a high-performing program that reflects well on him, at least a lot of extra cash for use on his own projects.

I only know about the mafia from movies and the Sopranos, but one of their favorite tactics is to find some desperate schmo, give him what he needs (personal safety, a loan, drugs, gambling action, husband rubbed out, etc...), and then demand unreasonable return, so that they can impose all the more penalties.

Admittedly the first, saner model is a little tougher to employ when the leaders you must find a way to hold accountable are freely elected Governors, so the Bush administration has shown a proclivity toward the mafia way of doing business--first in education, where impossible standards mean all schools fail; the ultimate goal is gutting public education and implementing a system of privatization (read, profit); and apparently it's the preferred method in dealing with those pesky child welfare services.

That's right, from the leader that teaches us that "C-student" is the making of an American President, comes word that all 50 states fail the Bush grade in providing child services (be proud fellow Tennesseans, we actually are one of 16 states that fail each of the seven standards!). Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we're demanding much of the states in something so important, and if they all deserve failing grades, then so be it. But we deal with failing programs by taking their money?? Does that make any sense?

"Penalties are estimated at $18.2 million for California, $3.6 million for Florida, $3.5 million for Texas, $3 million for Pennsylvania, $2.5 million each for Ohio and Michigan, and $2.3 million for New York.

Mary J. Nelson, president of the National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators, expressed concern about penalties.

'States need to invest more money in foster care and child protection,' Ms. Nelson said. 'So the idea of having fewer resources does not strike me or most states as particularly helpful.'

States will be re-evaluated periodically. Federal officials said they would suspend the penalties if states developed plans of correction and made substantial progress.

'The goal here is not to impose financial penalties,' [Asst. HHS Secretary] Dr. Horn said. 'The goal is to improve child welfare.'
[SNIP]
Many states said they did not have enough caseworkers to investigate reports of abuse or to monitor children in foster care. They have difficulty recruiting and retaining workers because salaries are often low. But some states, grappling with what they describe as their worst fiscal problems in more than 50 years, have cut spending for some child welfare services."

But when John Kerry tries the same method when it comes to funding the Bush war...penalizing bad planning and poor performance by voting against the 87 billion...he's against the troops. Does this mean Bush and HHS Sercretary Thompson are against children?