Today’s Times Argus has a story about the DCF Family Services Division undergoing some restructuring. An excerpt:

Lawmakers look at quality of state’s human services: Times Argus Online
Vermont’s family and child welfare system is restructuring itself after a federal review last fall was highly critical of how the Department for Children and Families’ Family Services Division and its statewide network of contracted social workers handle some of their cases.

The state had scored well after a federal review in 2001, but fared much worse when the same review took place again last year.

One of the primary problems cited is lack of consistency in responding to allegations of child abuse and neglect.

Right now the system for launching investigations into alleged abuse or neglect complaints is patchwork, Redmond added, with the likelihood of an investigation depending on whom one speaks with in which county. There is no consistency, he said, and some social workers err too much on the side of caution.

The state is moving forward to create a centralized intake unit for such complaints, and also looking to increasing training for workers and increasing the resources available to them for working with families needing higher levels of help.

Though there is justified concern about how the state slipped so much in the quality of its services over the last several years, it appears from the TA story that the powers-that-be are taking very appropriate steps to address the problems, and that is commendable.

One of the things that jumps out at me is a vast difference in tone between now and the early-mid 90′s. Today’s article refers to the current DCF Commissioner, Steve Dale, taking proactive steps based on not just the federal report, but also from “advocates on the ground.” There was a time when non-agency advocates were dismissed as not having any perspective of value to the agency. The then-Commissioner said he “welcomed constructive criticism,” but he was the one who decided whether criticism was constructive or not, and seemed generally to think it wasn’t.

I made the point back in those days that the job of the powers-that-be was to respond constructively to all criticism, and that seems to be what’s happening now. (And to people who are more on the inside and may be aware of gaps in constructive response and think I’m offering too much praise here: I’m not trying to deny what still needs improvement, but to acknowledge what has improved.)

Another change: making use of negative publicity to take the case to the public and to bring pressure to bear on the legislature to effect the necessary changes and provide the necessary funding. That use of negative publicity was what I saw happening in the very responsive agency in North Carolina in which I did much of my doctoral research. In Vermont at the time, the agency’s treatment of all negative publicity was to demonize those who criticized it, while in the North Carolina agency in my research, they used the negative publicity to press their case for more training and funding.

So over all, even in its negative aspects, what’s happening now with how DCF administrators are responding to the call for change is a few galaxies better than what was going on a dozen years ago. It’s a difficult position to be in, and those who occupy it and do their best to accomplish the best for the people they are there to serve deserve our collective thanks and support.

Peace.

Deborah Alicen