(MO.) Family Services renamed

[[email protected]]

Monday, August 18, 2003

Family Services renamed

By RAY SCHERER

Content ©2003, The News-Press, St. Joseph, Missouri

http://tinyurl.com/kdde

--
Dennis Deakin
State Director:Illinois
CPSWatch, Inc.
http://www.cpswatch.com/il

[Destroycps!]

Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroycps!!!!!!!!!!

> http://tinyurl.com/kdde
Family Services renamed

Destroycps!
[That's probably not the best title for this piece. What's really
happening is DFS is splitting into two logical divisions. The CPS and
the Welfare. I never understood the irony of the two being lumped
together.]

By RAY SCHERER


Clients who regularly use the Buchanan County Division of Family
Services office aren't likely noticing a series of administrative
changes that seek to bring about increased efficiency and management.
Besides a few name changes and altered duties for two officials, it's
business as usual for the agency, located in the St. Joseph State Office
Building at 525 Jules St.
But instead of being known as the Division of Family Services, the
office has been split in half: the Family Support Division and the
Children's Division. Both, however, still are controlled by the Missouri
Department of Social Services. Gov. Bob Holden decreed the changes in
two executive orders he issued earlier this year, with both due to take
effect Aug. 28.
Officials have been preparing for the switch since spring and even now
are trying to accustom themselves to the new names.
"The whole process is in transition," said Melissa Bible, whose title
transforms from family services' county director to Children's Division
director. "Most of the changes take effect on the state level."

Ms. Bible began assuming her new duties in April.

In another local shift, Pat Niland changes from the former agency's
income maintenance supervisor to director of the Family Support office.
Ms. Niland interviewed job candidates Friday and was unavailable for
comment.

The Family Support office will handle the food stamp, income
maintenance, child-support enforcement and the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families programs, among others. The Children's Division will
dispense child protection, child care and early childhood services.

"As far as clients are concerned, they won't see any differences," Ms.
Bible said. "For years, we were the Welfare Office. Then we became the
DFS. This (latest change) is mostly management and accounting practices.
They (clients) just need to know we have a new name."

She said no staff changes are planned in conjunction with the
switchover. The staff of the former South Side office all transferred to
the downtown location.

There is no longer an area family services office, with those duties
reassigned to state headquarters. Peggy Torno has retired after serving
four years as the area director.

Social services assistant director Chris Whitley said the split should
be formally completed by the end of the month. Mr. Holden's decision
came in the wake of an investigation of the child-welfare system in
Greene County, where a toddler died while in foster care. Mr. Holden
vetoed a bill that aimed to revise children's protective services and
foster care. The departmental changes also represent Mr. Holden's call
for streamlined services.

"Like every other department of state government," Mr. Whitley said, "we
are being challenged to get everything we can out of the resources we
have."

Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroy dfs!!!!!!!!!!

[Greg Hanson]

Why is a name change at all relevent to agency structure?
These agencies across the nation have changed names completely
without any structural change. They will still be under the
same state agency, paid the same, for the most part work out
of the same buildings, so what (structurally) is really
changing beside the title?

Also, Isn't calling it childrens whatever problematic when
they also investigate elder abuse?

It just falls TOO MUCH into the pattern seen over and over
again across the country where they change their name hoping
to get rid of the BAD PR they creates by their actions.

Is it possible that the people on the income maintenance
side got sick of being lumped in with the CPS morons
when they tell somebody where they work?

Another problem with the "childrens" designation is
that recent Federal law puts more pressure on them to
serve THE FAMILY overall, with slightly less obsession
about THE CHILD. (The new law's very title changes this!)

[Kane]

(Greg Hanson) wrote in message 24 Aug 2003 03:09:15 -0700, (Greg Hanson) wrote:

>Why is a name change at all relevent to agency structure?

Yeah...why is that?

Though I do recall that the United States of America used to be called
His Majesties North American Colonies.

You sure are a dumb ****.

>These agencies across the nation have changed names completely
>without any structural change.

Could be they failed to name something in a manner most reflective of
their work and mandate the first time. Who knows.

You sure don't.

>They will still be under the
>same state agency, paid the same, for the most part work out
>of the same buildings, so what (structurally) is really
>changing beside the title?

Actually a number of name changes of CPS around the country were
preceeded by changes in exactly those things. Agencies being
centralized from a more far flung branch office arrangment, to the
opposite, branches being sent out from a centralized office.

New buildings. Changes in management and even funding sources. Making
affiliations with, or breaking affiliations with, other agencies. AFS
and CPS have done such things repeatedly over the years, trying to
find the best mix for service to clients.

Other branches of government do it to. I recall that I was in the USAF
but that wasn't very many years after it was called Army Air Corps, or
AAC.

Publically held utilities change to private, and vis versa.

If you'd get up off your butt and join the work world you'd know these
things through experience.

>Also, Isn't calling it childrens whatever problematic when
>they also investigate elder abuse?

No, as very few (in fact I've heard of NONE) CPS' investigates elder
abuse. Though all these agencies that deal with brutality and neglect
of the more helpless of our human family tend to be state agencies.

>It just falls TOO MUCH into the pattern seen over and over
>again across the country where they change their name hoping
>to get rid of the BAD PR they creates by their actions.

If anyone would know about patterns it would have to be you. What is
that pattern called again where a man lives off of women? Shucks I
can't remember. Help me out here, Greegor.

>Is it possible that the people on the income maintenance
>side

r r r r r ... you don't see the irony, do you now? r r r r r

>got sick of being lumped in with the CPS morons
>when they tell somebody where they work?

Actually I've heard that the real reason is that CPS clients scare the
pee out of them and that's why they ask to be separate. Can't say as I
blame them.

You been going into the welfare office there Greegor?

>Another problem with the "childrens" designation is
>that recent Federal law puts more pressure on them to
>serve THE FAMILY overall, with slightly less obsession
>about THE CHILD. (The new law's very title changes this!)

The pendulum swings. In 1976 it was clearly "take the child," Then in
the 80s, the mandate was "support the family and protect the child,"
then as more and more "parents" became boozers and users and more
dangerous to their children, and morality and the family broke down,
the public saw fit to ask for new laws...and it became "protect the
child and support the family."

Notice the order as pertains to priorities.

Which new law, by the way, are you referring to? ASFA?

If you bothered to read it and understand it you'd have the extreme
joy of seeing your naming claim borne out. In fact the law, does NOT
move the pointer further toward family preservation:

From the NASW website:

"Adoptions and Safe Families Act of 1997 (H.R. 867)
Public Law 105-89
December 1997

OVERVIEW

The Adoptions and Safe Families Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-89) was signed
into law by President Clinton on November 19, 1997. The new law, which
amends the 1980 Child Welfare Act (P.L. 96-272), clarifies that the
health and safety of children served by child welfare agencies must be
their paramount concern and aims to move children in foster care more
quickly into permanent homes.

Among the new law's provisions:

shortens the time-frame for a child's first permanency hearing;
offers states financial incentives for increasing the number of
adoptions;
sets new requirements for states to petition for termination of
parental rights;
reauthorizes the Family Preservation and Support Program.
NASW POSITION

The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) did not take an
official position on the Adoptions and Safe Families Act, but strongly
supported the reauthorization of the Family Preservation and Support
Program, the expansion of medical insurance coverage for children with
special needs, and development of state standards to ensure quality
services.

NASW did endorse an earlier version of the legislation, the Safe
Adoptions and Family Environments Act (S.A.F.E. Act; S. 511),
sponsored by Senators John H. Chafee (R-RI) and John D. Rockefeller IV
(D-WV). Unlike the Adoptions and Safe Families Act, the S.A.F.E. Act
included additional funding for:

family reunification services;
training and retention of agency staff and cross-agency training; and
residential substance abuse treatment programs for parents and their
children. "

You may read more at: http://tinyurl.com/l0sd

Oh, and notice what WASN'T voted into law....that was the bill that
would have done what you claim....put the family numero uno in
priority.

This NASW commentary is probably the best summation in as few words as
possible of ASFA and its intent and goals.

For a CPS critic you haven't even the sense to pull your head out of
the ass of your friend-in-stupidity, the State Director. r r r r

How do you find the room with his head already firmly ensconced there
before you?

bingo bango bongo

r r r r r

Stoneman