THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Friday, July 21, 1995 TAG: 9507200154
SECTION: VIRGINIA BEACH BEACON PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
SOURCE: Beth Barber
LENGTH: Medium: 54 lines
The Department of Social Services has its heart in the right place. But a worrisome few of the children who require its services nevertheless end up in the wrong place. Three cases - ``the child in the box,'' the starved infant, and the child placed in the care of a convicted sex abuser - drove that point home to Virginia Beach recently. An expert committee's study requested by the Virginia Beach Department of Social Services of its handling of those cases and others confirms the visceral public reaction:
Serious mistakes occurred in each case. Such mistakes are exceptions, not the rule. They are, however, ``symptomatic of issues'' that recur. They require some changes in the department. The committee recommends some.
But accepting changes that help prevent similar mistakes and solve ``significant problems'' requires acknowledging the mistakes and the problems. It's unfortunate, then, that Social Services Director Dan Stone's accompanying response pooh-poohs or rejects some significant criticisms.
Dr. Stone agrees that his agency ``made a technical error'' in the case of the felon foster father, that ``state policy was violated,'' that revised procedures will prevent a recurrence. But he protests that the placement of the child was ``successful.'' If state policy did not forbid it, would he repeat it?
The ``child in the box,'' the report says, raised a recurring issue of ``failure to prioritize . . . prop-er-ly and to take seriously'' pos-si-ble danger to the child. Un-sat-is-fac-to-ry response times and risk assessment recur, the report says. Dr. Stone says, ``We did not err.''
Inadequate risk assessment figured also, the report concludes, in the decision to reunite a baby with parents who had starved him, before their criminal trial. In this and other cases, staff ``tended to look mainly at whether parents had engaged in a set of specified activities rather than truly assessing their skills.'' ``We also do not believe,'' responds Dr. Stone, ``that we were negligent . . . ''
The department could do better, the report says, with more resources. Couldn't we all. But improving staff performance, rec-ord-keeping and decision-making, the report says, could begin now.
And rather than fault press and public for ignorance of ``good social-work practices,'' rather than hunker down behind confidentiality, Social Services could in hard cases anticipate a puzzled, even outraged public response. That would add impetus for better doc-u-menting decisions and holding staff accountable, as the report says the department ought to; and for better explaining its decisions, as the report says it is allowed to. All of which should produce better de-ci-sions. by CNB