I also know what it was like in Texas when children over the age of fourteen were not provided safeguards designed to promote their health, safety and wellbeing. Prior to passage of the Child Care Licensing Act of 1975, there were no regulations required with built-in safeguards to serve that population. Older adolescent children were left to lookout for themselves. For that matter, minimum standards developed in the 1950s to offer a veil of protection for younger children were devoid of substance, but then again, they were only three pages long.
As a newly appointed residential childcare licensing representative in 1972, I had responsibility for providing licensure, oversight and regulation for three different Department of Public Welfare regions. In each of those regions, I worked under the direct supervision of the day care licensing program director. I won’t say it was a nightmare, but I will say that expectations were very different in each of the three regions.
Sadly, a crisis that resulted in a child’s death in 1973 drew the attention of special interest groups including the Texas Legislature. A committee of legislators accompanied licensing representatives to a host of facilities designed to provide care and or treatment for children. The legislators intuitively found conditions very disturbing. The horror of that experience resulted in pro-active legislation through passage of a licensing law intended to offer real protections and safeguards.
Following passage of the new licensing act, the State’s licensing function was centralized in Austin and “due diligence" was the new order of the day before any issuance of a license took place. I can also tell you as a newly appointed residential childcare licensing representative that I took the work seriously. I wanted to assist providers in understanding the requirements and offering protections to children.
Interestingly, some of the friendships I made during that period of my professional career are still intact over four decades later. Those friendships included both providers and licensing staff. With very few exceptions, there was not an adversarial role in place with any agency where I was assigned. It was one of almost a reverent fervor in finding the building blocks to really promote the best interests of children who were from hard places.
It was during that period of time that I met Charles Wright, Executive Director of Texas Baptist Children’s Home. The organization he headed was way ahead of the game. They, like several other children’s homes that I could name, represented professionalism, integrity and a commitment to devote priority to meeting needs. As it turned out, several years later, I subsequently went to work for Mr. Wright. He has been on the other side of eternity for a number of years, but I periodically think of him and his effective role as a mentor and friend. I also have long-term friendships with colleagues from the other children’s homes that have always been dedicated to getting it right.
I guess you could say: “I’ve had the good fortune to fair well in the midst of an adrenaline rush”. With passage of the Child Care Licensing Act of 1975, I had the opportunity to interface with a multiple of unlicensed operations and explain the need for licensure and regulation. Most of the agencies I encountered stepped up to the plate and did what they needed to do to continue being a viable option for children.
Some folks would maintain that minimum standards aren’t needed. After all, isn’t caring for children second nature? Doesn’t a little common sense can go a long way? I know from first hand observations that “a long way” can be the “wrong way”. Most of the people who gravitate to providing a home for children do so out of genuine concern and wanting to fill the gap. Unfortunately; however, folks don’t always get it right.
One might be inclined to think that educational credentials, medical degrees and licensure guarantee competency and automatically support safety issues for children? If you think that, you’d be dead wrong. The adolescent age youngster that purposefully ingested rat poison told the treatment director what she’d done. He didn't believe her story and consequently she wasn't provided medical care. As a result, she died.
What about faith based agencies? After all, when you take a cursory look at the development of child welfare practices and provision of quality care across the country, church related facilitates have historically provided leadership and assisted in establishing standards to promote the best interests of children.
Several years ago, Texas Monthly published an article entitled: “The Christian Alamo.” The article highlighted the emotional scars carried into adulthood from resident’s who didn’t fare well in the out-of-home care system. The evangelist’s method of Bible discipline, which he said was rooted in Scripture, meant kneeling for hours on hardwood floors, licks meted out with a pine paddle or a leather strap, and the dreaded “lockup,” an isolation room where his sermons were played for days on end.
During the heat of the judicial court battle concerning the lack of regulation of the unlicensed religiously orientated home, affidavits from sixteen girls substantiated they had been whipped with leather straps, beaten with paddles, handcuffed to drainpipes and locked in isolation cells- sometimes for such minor infractions as failing to memorize a Bible passage or forgetting to make a bed.
Despite the fact that there are many credible faith-based helping agencies, I think we’d be hard pressed to say that religious affiliation or faith based approaches are always an equivalent to professionalism and best practice.
What about flexibility, youthful idealism, high energy, and an array of graduate students available to mentor and be attentive and responsive to the needs of children in care? There was a group in Denton who operated a treatment program for adolescent-age youth. The program design was incredible. The plan of operation was superb. Unfortunately the physical plant was not.
The interior walls of the facility were covered with cardboard. If you turned on a light and at the same time plugged something into an electrical outlet, a blown fuse was the immediate outcome. The Fire Marshall’s office thought the physical plant was fodder for a good fire. Consequently, they took the initiative that resulted in the facilities closure because of safety reasons.
Well intentions are not necessarily an equivalent to guarantee safety and wellbeing. While at some level I think the great State of Texas has overdone it with regulations on top of regulations, I’d still opt to dot the “i”s and cross the “t”s before I’d voluntarily go back to a system where oversight and accountability were absent. There is no suitable exception for safeguards designed to promote health, safety and well-being.
All My Best!
Don