A Petition in Behalf of the
Forsaken Children
of Texas to the
Governor and the 76th Legislature
X. RECOMMENDATIONS
A. For Study
The case presented here is grim. The case presented here is also verifiable. The source for all the data is set out. But you can verify the merits of this petition in a more direct and personal way. Talk to the judge or judges in your jurisdiction. What do they see in court? How serious are their cases? How many failed investigations were there before CPS took action? Talk to the CPS program director or directors in your jurisdiction. How many people are really at work each day? What are the caseload people actually have to carry? Talk to a CPS investigator. What do they really see in the field? How serious are their cases? What is their real caseload? Even better, attach yourself to a CPS investigator for a day--do a ride along. See what they see.
B. For Action
After your study, if you are convinced of the merits of this petition, ask the Child Protective Service for recommendations. As previously explained, the problems identified in this petition are not by and large management issues; they are resource issues. CPS is more than capable of providing cost-effective strategies to deal with these problems.
Only a general strategy can be offered here. First, fund prevention. Prevention means programs designed to identify children at risk of abuse and neglect and to provide services to prevent abuse and neglect. With prevention, you will obtain the most good for the least dollars. Second, fund early intervention. Early intervention means responding to reports when they are small-the opposite of our present policy of triage. Early intervention costs more in the short run but saves in the long run. Third, fund permanency. Permanency means moving children in the system as quickly as possible back to rehabilitated homes or forward to adopted homes. Permanency is better for children in the system, and permanency frees resources for those children outside the system-spaces in the boat for children in the water. Whatever you do, to be successful, you must provide basic funds throughout the system of child protection.
You should also ask CPS what it could do with more flexibility. While there is always a lot of talk about running government like a business, with all due respect, most of the governmental bureaucracy is imposed by the legislature, not developed by the agencies. For example, if a business were faced with constant turnover of child abuse investigators, a business might pay a cash bonus at the end of every six months that an investigator was on the job. That kind of flexibility has to come from the legislature. If CPS were freed to think with you "outside the box," perhaps the money could be made to go farther
But you will have to begin this dialogue. You cannot expect CPS to come to you. With all good humor: When standing before House Appropriations on one side and Senate Finance on the other side with the Governor on hand for the round-up, a state agency is like a steer caught between the sides of the branding pen while the foreman heats the iron. It is a place no steer goes voluntarily. State agencies that are candid about their problems and ask for appropriations get branded as poor managers who ask for too much. State agencies that are not candid about their problems and do not ask for anything get branded when the problems become public as poor managers who asked for too little. Dealing effectively with the problems this petition identifies will require a cooperative dialogue that you initiate with the Child Protective Service.
