If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Some child welfare agencies hiding behind accreditation
What do you think of this Ron?
---- Some child welfare agencies hiding behind accreditation http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs...NS02/804210304 The headlines out of Kentucky paint a frightening picture of an agency in chaos. The state's largest child advocacy organization charges that children have been torn needlessly from their families and rushed into "quick-trigger" adoptions, so the state can collect bounties from the federal government. The inspector general for the child welfare agency itself found case after case in which families were bullied, browbeaten and needlessly destroyed. The scandal was so serious that NBC Nightly News brought it to the attention of the nation, including allegations that workers ignored abuse in foster care in order to rush through adoptions. One more thing about the child welfare agency in Kentucky: It's "accredited." Kentucky is not alone. Nearly a decade ago, the Dayton Daily News exposed hideous conditions at an Ohio-based private agency. Among the findings: - Foster homes that were wretched. - Homes that were worse. - The head of the agency had a conviction for contributing to the delinquency of a minor -- a foster child who had been in his care. But this agency, too, was "accredited." Accreditation is a way for agencies to get an unearned seal of approval by keeping their paperwork in order -- and then throw it in the face of critics, in order to prevent real change. And that's why, when my organization issued its comprehensive report on Missouri child welfare five years ago, we urged Missouri not to take part in this sham. To understand the limits of accreditation, it's important to understand the group that is pushing it. The "Council on Accreditation" is a creation of the agencies themselves and their trade association, the Child Welfare League of America. CWLA is funded in part by the dues of its member agencies and exists to support them. It is to children as a hypothetical National Nursing Home Association would be to the elderly. Of course there are some very good people at CWLA and sometimes the interests of the agencies and the children coincide. But when they don't, CWLA puts the interests of its members first -- just as any trade association does. This can be seen by how CWLA reacted to the Dayton Daily News expose. As the newspaper reported: "After reading the series, ... the league's director (at the time), sent an e-mail to ... the group's director of public relations, saying 'These are all horrible stories. I have no desire to talk to the reporters on this if I don't have to. Find something more positive for me to report on.'" Accreditation is self-policing, and the self-policeman almost always is the weakest cop on the beat. That can be seen in the accreditation process: - The accreditors don't inspect foster homes. - The accreditors don't do surprise inspections of anything. Group homes and institutions get "no more than" a month's advance notice. - They inspect group homes only if the agency seeking accreditation is running them directly. - The accreditation process does nothing to examine whether a decision to remove a child in the first place is appropriate. Indeed, an agency sometimes can become fully "accredited" without the "accreditors" so much as laying eyes on one real, live foster child. The "Council on Accreditation" doesn't really accredit agencies at all. It accredits file cabinets. Missouri's children would be far better off if the money the state proposes to waste on accreditation were spent on services to keep children out of foster care in the first place. Local Voices Richard Wexler is executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform. NCCPR's report on Missouri child welfare is available at www.nccpr.org. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Some child welfare agencies hiding behind accreditation
"http://www.LegallyKidnapped.blogspot.com" wrote in message ... What do you think of this Ron? I think its wexler flexing his limited intellect again. I hope he does not strain something. Ron ---- Some child welfare agencies hiding behind accreditation http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs...NS02/804210304 The headlines out of Kentucky paint a frightening picture of an agency in chaos. The state's largest child advocacy organization charges that children have been torn needlessly from their families and rushed into "quick-trigger" adoptions, so the state can collect bounties from the federal government. The inspector general for the child welfare agency itself found case after case in which families were bullied, browbeaten and needlessly destroyed. The scandal was so serious that NBC Nightly News brought it to the attention of the nation, including allegations that workers ignored abuse in foster care in order to rush through adoptions. One more thing about the child welfare agency in Kentucky: It's "accredited." Kentucky is not alone. Nearly a decade ago, the Dayton Daily News exposed hideous conditions at an Ohio-based private agency. Among the findings: - Foster homes that were wretched. - Homes that were worse. - The head of the agency had a conviction for contributing to the delinquency of a minor -- a foster child who had been in his care. But this agency, too, was "accredited." Accreditation is a way for agencies to get an unearned seal of approval by keeping their paperwork in order -- and then throw it in the face of critics, in order to prevent real change. And that's why, when my organization issued its comprehensive report on Missouri child welfare five years ago, we urged Missouri not to take part in this sham. To understand the limits of accreditation, it's important to understand the group that is pushing it. The "Council on Accreditation" is a creation of the agencies themselves and their trade association, the Child Welfare League of America. CWLA is funded in part by the dues of its member agencies and exists to support them. It is to children as a hypothetical National Nursing Home Association would be to the elderly. Of course there are some very good people at CWLA and sometimes the interests of the agencies and the children coincide. But when they don't, CWLA puts the interests of its members first -- just as any trade association does. This can be seen by how CWLA reacted to the Dayton Daily News expose. As the newspaper reported: "After reading the series, ... the league's director (at the time), sent an e-mail to ... the group's director of public relations, saying 'These are all horrible stories. I have no desire to talk to the reporters on this if I don't have to. Find something more positive for me to report on.'" Accreditation is self-policing, and the self-policeman almost always is the weakest cop on the beat. That can be seen in the accreditation process: - The accreditors don't inspect foster homes. - The accreditors don't do surprise inspections of anything. Group homes and institutions get "no more than" a month's advance notice. - They inspect group homes only if the agency seeking accreditation is running them directly. - The accreditation process does nothing to examine whether a decision to remove a child in the first place is appropriate. Indeed, an agency sometimes can become fully "accredited" without the "accreditors" so much as laying eyes on one real, live foster child. The "Council on Accreditation" doesn't really accredit agencies at all. It accredits file cabinets. Missouri's children would be far better off if the money the state proposes to waste on accreditation were spent on services to keep children out of foster care in the first place. Local Voices Richard Wexler is executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform. NCCPR's report on Missouri child welfare is available at www.nccpr.org. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Some child welfare agencies hiding behind accreditation
On Apr 21, 5:33*pm, "Ron" wrote:
"http://www.LegallyKidnapped.blogspot.com" wrote in ... What do you think of this Ron? I think its wexler flexing his limited intellect again. *I hope he does not strain something. Ron But you'd say that about anybody who wasn't blindly supporting your cause. ---- Some child welfare agencies hiding behind accreditation http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs...0080421/OPINIO.... The headlines out of Kentucky paint a frightening picture of an agency in chaos. The state's largest child advocacy organization charges that children have been torn needlessly from their families and rushed into "quick-trigger" adoptions, so the state can collect bounties from the federal government. The inspector general for the child welfare agency itself found case after case in which families were bullied, browbeaten and needlessly destroyed. The scandal was so serious that NBC Nightly News brought it to the attention of the nation, including allegations that workers ignored abuse in foster care in order to rush through adoptions. One more thing about the child welfare agency in Kentucky: It's "accredited." Kentucky is not alone. Nearly a decade ago, the Dayton Daily News exposed hideous conditions at an Ohio-based private agency. Among the findings: - Foster homes that were wretched. - Homes that were worse. - The head of the agency had a conviction for contributing to the delinquency of a minor -- a foster child who had been in his care. But this agency, too, was "accredited." Accreditation is a way for agencies to get an unearned seal of approval by keeping their paperwork in order -- and then throw it in the face of critics, in order to prevent real change. And that's why, when my organization issued its comprehensive report on Missouri child welfare five years ago, we urged Missouri not to take part in this sham. To understand the limits of accreditation, it's important to understand the group that is pushing it. The "Council on Accreditation" is a creation of the agencies themselves and their trade association, the Child Welfare League of America. CWLA is funded in part by the dues of its member agencies and exists to support them. It is to children as a hypothetical National Nursing Home Association would be to the elderly. Of course there are some very good people at CWLA and sometimes the interests of the agencies and the children coincide. But when they don't, CWLA puts the interests of its members first -- just as any trade association does. This can be seen by how CWLA reacted to the Dayton Daily News expose. As the newspaper reported: "After reading the series, ... the league's director (at the time), sent an e-mail to ... the group's director of public relations, saying 'These are all horrible stories. I have no desire to talk to the reporters on this if I don't have to. Find something more positive for me to report on.'" Accreditation is self-policing, and the self-policeman almost always is the weakest cop on the beat. That can be seen in the accreditation process: - The accreditors don't inspect foster homes. - The accreditors don't do surprise inspections of anything. Group homes and institutions get "no more than" a month's advance notice. - They inspect group homes only if the agency seeking accreditation is running them directly. - The accreditation process does nothing to examine whether a decision to remove a child in the first place is appropriate. Indeed, an agency sometimes can become fully "accredited" without the "accreditors" so much as laying eyes on one real, live foster child. The "Council on Accreditation" doesn't really accredit agencies at all. It accredits file cabinets. Missouri's children would be far better off if the money the state proposes to waste on accreditation were spent on services to keep children out of foster care in the first place. Local Voices Richard Wexler is executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform. NCCPR's report on Missouri child welfare is available atwww.nccpr.org. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Some child welfare agencies hiding behind accreditation
"http://www.LegallyKidnapped.blogspot.com" wrote in message ... On Apr 21, 5:33 pm, "Ron" wrote: "http://www.LegallyKidnapped.blogspot.com" wrote in ... What do you think of this Ron? I think its wexler flexing his limited intellect again. I hope he does not strain something. Ron But you'd say that about anybody who wasn't blindly supporting your cause. *** My cause is the safety of our nations children. Safe from abuse and neglect at the hands of those who "should" be their strongest advocates, their parents. Now, I know that this cause is a bit difficult for an individual like yourself to support, but we are fortunate that people like you are so few and far between. Ron ---- Some child welfare agencies hiding behind accreditation http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs...0080421/OPINIO... The headlines out of Kentucky paint a frightening picture of an agency in chaos. The state's largest child advocacy organization charges that children have been torn needlessly from their families and rushed into "quick-trigger" adoptions, so the state can collect bounties from the federal government. The inspector general for the child welfare agency itself found case after case in which families were bullied, browbeaten and needlessly destroyed. The scandal was so serious that NBC Nightly News brought it to the attention of the nation, including allegations that workers ignored abuse in foster care in order to rush through adoptions. One more thing about the child welfare agency in Kentucky: It's "accredited." Kentucky is not alone. Nearly a decade ago, the Dayton Daily News exposed hideous conditions at an Ohio-based private agency. Among the findings: - Foster homes that were wretched. - Homes that were worse. - The head of the agency had a conviction for contributing to the delinquency of a minor -- a foster child who had been in his care. But this agency, too, was "accredited." Accreditation is a way for agencies to get an unearned seal of approval by keeping their paperwork in order -- and then throw it in the face of critics, in order to prevent real change. And that's why, when my organization issued its comprehensive report on Missouri child welfare five years ago, we urged Missouri not to take part in this sham. To understand the limits of accreditation, it's important to understand the group that is pushing it. The "Council on Accreditation" is a creation of the agencies themselves and their trade association, the Child Welfare League of America. CWLA is funded in part by the dues of its member agencies and exists to support them. It is to children as a hypothetical National Nursing Home Association would be to the elderly. Of course there are some very good people at CWLA and sometimes the interests of the agencies and the children coincide. But when they don't, CWLA puts the interests of its members first -- just as any trade association does. This can be seen by how CWLA reacted to the Dayton Daily News expose. As the newspaper reported: "After reading the series, ... the league's director (at the time), sent an e-mail to ... the group's director of public relations, saying 'These are all horrible stories. I have no desire to talk to the reporters on this if I don't have to. Find something more positive for me to report on.'" Accreditation is self-policing, and the self-policeman almost always is the weakest cop on the beat. That can be seen in the accreditation process: - The accreditors don't inspect foster homes. - The accreditors don't do surprise inspections of anything. Group homes and institutions get "no more than" a month's advance notice. - They inspect group homes only if the agency seeking accreditation is running them directly. - The accreditation process does nothing to examine whether a decision to remove a child in the first place is appropriate. Indeed, an agency sometimes can become fully "accredited" without the "accreditors" so much as laying eyes on one real, live foster child. The "Council on Accreditation" doesn't really accredit agencies at all. It accredits file cabinets. Missouri's children would be far better off if the money the state proposes to waste on accreditation were spent on services to keep children out of foster care in the first place. Local Voices Richard Wexler is executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform. NCCPR's report on Missouri child welfare is available atwww.nccpr.org. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Some child welfare agencies hiding behind accreditation
On Apr 22, 9:36*am, "Ron" wrote:
"http://www.LegallyKidnapped.blogspot.com" wrote in ... On Apr 21, 5:33 pm, "Ron" wrote: "http://www.LegallyKidnapped.blogspot.com" wrote in ... What do you think of this Ron? I think its wexler flexing his limited intellect again. I hope he does not strain something. Ron But you'd say that about anybody who wasn't blindly supporting your cause. *** My cause is the safety of our nations children. * Then you should be standing up and fighting against the system that makes things much worse for them. Safe from abuse and neglect at the hands of those who "should" be their strongest advocates, their parents. I agree with you. Children should be safe from abuse and neglect. Now, I know that this cause is a bit difficult for an individual like yourself to support, but we are fortunate that people like you are so few and far between. But you have me all wrong Ron. I have always said I am all for protecting children. Especially when they really need protection. The problem is that your precious system had managed to somehow turn these kids into commodities, you know, products for the Heart Gallery Show-Room Floor. Parents are not the only ones who are treated unfairly once involved with the system, the kids end up cut off from anybody who loves them and I don't mean only parents, there are grandparents out there, for example, who never did a thing wrong who are told that they can't have any contact with these kids regardless of the fact that they'd be perfectly adequate placements. I've heard from several since I've been doing http://www.LegallyKidnapped.blogspot.com . "that grandparents have called from all over the State of Georgia trying to get custody of their grandchildren. DFCS claims relatives are contacted, but there are cases that prove differently. Grandparents who lose their grandchildren to strangers have lost their own flesh and blood. The children lose their family heritage and grandparents, and parents too, lose all connections to their heirs." Senator Nancy Schaefer http://www.senatornancyschaefer.com/...s.php?filter=6 (she's one who gets calls like this.) How is that in the kids best interest? Families and children’s lives are destroyed, kids are cut off from anybody who loves them and people like you think that you're ****ing hero's for doing it. That's what I get a kick out of. Ron ---- Some child welfare agencies hiding behind accreditation http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs...0080421/OPINIO.... The headlines out of Kentucky paint a frightening picture of an agency in chaos. The state's largest child advocacy organization charges that children have been torn needlessly from their families and rushed into "quick-trigger" adoptions, so the state can collect bounties from the federal government. The inspector general for the child welfare agency itself found case after case in which families were bullied, browbeaten and needlessly destroyed. The scandal was so serious that NBC Nightly News brought it to the attention of the nation, including allegations that workers ignored abuse in foster care in order to rush through adoptions. One more thing about the child welfare agency in Kentucky: It's "accredited." Kentucky is not alone. Nearly a decade ago, the Dayton Daily News exposed hideous conditions at an Ohio-based private agency. Among the findings: - Foster homes that were wretched. - Homes that were worse. - The head of the agency had a conviction for contributing to the delinquency of a minor -- a foster child who had been in his care. But this agency, too, was "accredited." Accreditation is a way for agencies to get an unearned seal of approval by keeping their paperwork in order -- and then throw it in the face of critics, in order to prevent real change. And that's why, when my organization issued its comprehensive report on Missouri child welfare five years ago, we urged Missouri not to take part in this sham. To understand the limits of accreditation, it's important to understand the group that is pushing it. The "Council on Accreditation" is a creation of the agencies themselves and their trade association, the Child Welfare League of America. CWLA is funded in part by the dues of its member agencies and exists to support them. It is to children as a hypothetical National Nursing Home Association would be to the elderly. Of course there are some very good people at CWLA and sometimes the interests of the agencies and the children coincide. But when they don't, CWLA puts the interests of its members first -- just as any trade association does. This can be seen by how CWLA reacted to the Dayton Daily News expose. As the newspaper reported: "After reading the series, ... the league's director (at the time), sent an e-mail to ... the group's director of public relations, saying 'These are all horrible stories. I have no desire to talk to the reporters on this if I don't have to. Find something more positive for me to report on.'" Accreditation is self-policing, and the self-policeman almost always is the weakest cop on the beat. That can be seen in the accreditation process: - The accreditors don't inspect foster homes. - The accreditors don't do surprise inspections of anything. Group homes and institutions get "no more than" a month's advance notice. - They inspect group homes only if the agency seeking accreditation is running them directly. - The accreditation process does nothing to examine whether a decision to remove a child in the first place is appropriate. Indeed, an agency sometimes can become fully "accredited" without the "accreditors" so much as laying eyes on one real, live foster child. The "Council on Accreditation" doesn't really accredit agencies at all. It accredits file cabinets. Missouri's children would be far better off if the money the state proposes to waste on accreditation were spent on services to keep children out of foster care in the first place. Local Voices Richard Wexler is executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform. NCCPR's report on Missouri child welfare is available atwww.nccpr.org. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Some child welfare agencies hiding behind accreditation
LK What do you think of this Ron?
RVD I think its wexler flexing his limited intellect RVD again. I hope he does not strain something. LK But you'd say that about anybody who LK wasn't blindly supporting your cause. Ron, Do you see any problems with this CWLA ""accreditation"" scam? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Some child welfare agencies hiding behind accreditation
On Apr 24, 7:34*pm, Greegor wrote:
LK What do you think of this Ron? RVD I think its wexler flexing his limited intellect RVD again. I hope he does not strain something. LK But you'd say that about anybody who LK wasn't blindly supporting your cause. Ron, Do you see any problems with this CWLA ""accreditation"" scam? The information wasn't produced by CPS so he won't buy any of it. Huh Ron. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Child Welfare Agencies in denial as children pay price of panic byRichard Wexler | fx | Spanking | 3 | July 20th 07 05:41 AM |
Child Welfare Agencies in denial as children pay price of panic byRichard Wexler | fx | Foster Parents | 3 | July 20th 07 05:41 AM |
| ACS NY "Child welfare agencies get bad press" | Kane | Foster Parents | 17 | June 7th 04 03:47 PM |