Set Free and Set Up (to Fail)
Freedom isn’t justice when the person being set free isn’t free to find success. Freedom isn’t freedom when it limits a person’s ability to survive, let alone succeed.
‘No’ is just a word
That people say when they're afraid
And if you say "no" to me
Then I will fight you till I'm free.
Say freedom, brotherhood
Justice, just say ‘yes’.
(“Freedom”, sung by Madonna)
As a religious leader in a mainline Christian denomination, I take seriously Jesus’ mandate to care for the most vulnerable among us. This includes a growing number of mentally challenged, developmentally handicapped and troubled youth who find themselves dependent upon a faulty social services system and/or an even more flawed (in my experience) juvenile corrections department.
As a pastor in a rural community in America’s Heartland, I am all-too aware that this is not just a problem in the inner cities, but one that plagues also the rural communities. There are simply not enough “community-based services” to meet the needs of this population to begin with. The problem worsens for those who are allowed to slip through the cracks in the system.
As a mother to three special needs adopted children, one of whom was abused every way possible in his birth home before becoming abusive himself, this issue hits far too close to home. Our son is falling through the cracks of the juvenile justice system, gaps that are larger than we ever could have imagined. What’s worse is that he’s falling through those cracks in spite of having parents who can advocate for him, which is more than most juveniles in the “system” have in their favor.
Our son, whom we adopted at age 6, is mentally challenged, developmentally delayed and has a long list of psychiatric and psychological issues to contend with. He spent nearly two years in a children’s psychiatric center, as experts worked relentlessly to find just the “right” combination of medications and therapy to make him stable enough, behavior-wise and emotionally. That “lull” lasted almost two years before he began violent and harmful outbursts, as well as abusive behavior towards other children.
For the past six years, he has been incarcerated in, first, a court-ordered therapeutic institution and later, after re-offending, in a juvenile detention center. He was released nine months ago to a facility that my husband and I both believed was his best hope for a transition into a normal life-- whatever that is going to mean for him.
However, when he reached the age of 18, the detention facility allowed him to go off his psychiatric medications. I must admit that he functioned without them far better than I expected that he would. The structure of the detention facility was evidently rigid enough to offset the effect of having no psychiatric medications.
So, he began this transition without the medications that might have stabalized his behaviors and thinking patterns a little better. The facility that accepted him received nothing about his history prior to the arrest. Worst of all, this transition took place just before Christmas, which social workers agree is the worst time to move children who have been in abusive situations. He was set free, but set up to fail. And fail he did. Wonderfully.
He was immediately sent back to juvenile detention, even though the facility was willing to take him back. At the hearing, his parole officer promised to never send another juvenile back to that facility because, instead of calling him immediately, the therapists had showed some compassion and understanding of what a child like ours would need in order for the placement to succeed.
In the past week, he was released again to a different placement. This time, at least he has been on his medications, and a 30-day supply was sent with him. We were promised by the Department of Corrections that this transitional housing placement would assist him in finding a job, getting his GED, applying for the waivers that he will need in order to receive the social services he qualifies for, due to his disabilities.
Within 48 hours, one of the administrators told us that we had been somewhat deceived. Yes, he said, they can and will do those things for our son, as long as he is there. But lately, he said, the DOC has been dumping these boys in the apartments, and cutting off the finding within just a couple of weeks! With no where to go, they wind up on the streets of one of the larger cities in our nation. They’re being set free and set up to fail.
Yesterday afternoon, we received a phone call indicating that he had threatened staff and “had to be gone by midnight”. We were told this morning that a warrant had been issued and they would be arriving to transport him at any time. There were no guarantees that he would still be there when we arrived, but he was there. We expected to see a child who was out of control. Instead, he was calm. He seemed to have no sense of what was about to transpire, and indeed, when we questioned both he and staff, it seems that most of the “threatening” was simply threatening to leave. Yes, there had been “attitude”. There had been anger. But he hadn’t even torn his room apart!
His parole officer offered a solution: We could take our son and admit him to a hospital with a psychiatric unit. She was willing to free him from parole if we did that. What? I repeat: What? Never mind that he does not even have health insurance. Never mind that the papers for Developmental Disability services have not yet been filed. Never mind that there are waiting lists of months… sometimes years for some of these services. Let’s just clear him off of our “to do” list with the Department of Corrections.
No, thanks.
Our phone calls to several of the suggested hospitals were unsuccessful. If he was not an immediate threat to himself or others, they would not admit him. Even if we had found such a place that would accept him (which we did not), the length of stay approved by an insurance company is usually only ten days. What then?
According to the Report of the Re-entry Policy Council: Charting the Safe and Successful Return of Prisoners to the Community, about two out of every three people released from prison in the U.S. are re-arrested within three years of their release. Statistics are clear, our prisons are filled with people who are, like our son, mentally challenged, developmentally delayed or mentally ill. When they are released without supervision or support in place, there are few choices for them. Many wind up living under bridges or in alleys. They’ve been set free, but they’ve been set up to fail.
Jesus taught that the Spirit of the Lord had anointed him to “heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim release to the captives, recovering of sight to the blind, to deliver those who are crushed…” Our son is fortunate to have parents who will advocate for him, and do their best to try to keep him off of the streets. By the time these boys are “in the system”, many of the parents have already given up on them. It is both a matter of doing what is right and just that we, as disciples of Jesus Christ take action to see that those who are released have the opportunity to succeed. Only then can the captive be truly set free.
Freedom, brotherhood
Justice, just say ‘yes’
'Cause ‘no’ is just a word
That people say when they are lost
And if you say ‘no’ to me
Then I will fight you till I'm free.
Those of us with a voice must speak out for those who have no voice. We must fight until “freedom” really means “free”.
Set them free, but set them free to shine, to sail, to succeed.
September 25, 2009
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Envisioning a Clear and Just Choice
The weekly question posted to a panel of religious leaders at The Washington Post's online edition asks: Should religious charities that receive federal grant money be allowed to discriminate in hiring practices?
As a Christian, the question for me is not whether a religious charity that receives federal monies should be allowed to discriminate as much as it is why a religious charity would do so in the first place. It just isn’t right! But, that may be my “UCC bias” showing. I suspect that it’s not quite so simple an answer. In some cases, there may be reasons for hiring bias that have some validity. I may not like it, but that may be the case.
I also suspect that this may be a case where I am “Pro-Choice”. While I could not make the choice to discriminate for myself, I am not sure I would want the Federal Government telling my Christian congregation to hire someone who, for example, practiced a pagan religion, whether we received Federal grant monies or not. There is not a clear-cut answer for me.
What is totally clear, however, is that a religious charity receiving federal grant monies should never be allowed to use any of that funding to pay salaries or operating expenses if they choose to practice discriminatory hiring procedures. Furthermore, those funds should be used strictly for programs that do not discriminate against those who benefit from them.
Poverty does not discriminate against race or gender, sexual orientation or mental capacity. Disease and disaster strike regardless of physical limitations or educational levels reached. Religious charities receiving Federal grants should never be allowed to turn their backs on or close their doors to a person based on that person’s personal beliefs. It just isn’t right.
“Anyone who knows, then, the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” (James 4:17, NIV)
A greater judge than I will have the final word.
As a Christian, the question for me is not whether a religious charity that receives federal monies should be allowed to discriminate as much as it is why a religious charity would do so in the first place. It just isn’t right! But, that may be my “UCC bias” showing. I suspect that it’s not quite so simple an answer. In some cases, there may be reasons for hiring bias that have some validity. I may not like it, but that may be the case.
I also suspect that this may be a case where I am “Pro-Choice”. While I could not make the choice to discriminate for myself, I am not sure I would want the Federal Government telling my Christian congregation to hire someone who, for example, practiced a pagan religion, whether we received Federal grant monies or not. There is not a clear-cut answer for me.
What is totally clear, however, is that a religious charity receiving federal grant monies should never be allowed to use any of that funding to pay salaries or operating expenses if they choose to practice discriminatory hiring procedures. Furthermore, those funds should be used strictly for programs that do not discriminate against those who benefit from them.
Poverty does not discriminate against race or gender, sexual orientation or mental capacity. Disease and disaster strike regardless of physical limitations or educational levels reached. Religious charities receiving Federal grants should never be allowed to turn their backs on or close their doors to a person based on that person’s personal beliefs. It just isn’t right.
“Anyone who knows, then, the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” (James 4:17, NIV)
A greater judge than I will have the final word.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Grace Knows No "Zero Tolerance"
There's no room for making mistakes anymore if you are a teenager. What used to be teasing is bullying. Schoolyard pranks have devastating consequences. First-time "screw ups" are often treated as if they are perpetuated by repeat "offenders". There is no grace shown. "Zero tolerance" means just that: ZERO tolerance.
My own daughter learned this the hard way. In the middle of her sixth grade year, we received a call asking us to pick her up from school. She would not be playing in the basketball game that night. She had been involved in a "bullying" incident. She, and two other students were assigned three days of in-school suspension.
Many tears later, the story was revealed that these three "good kids" had sent a note to a little girl asking, "Will you be my girlfriend?" They signed another boy's name to it. It was a childish prank, meant to make fun of a girl who had very few friends. Not a nice thing to do, we all agreed, but bullying?
One thing led to another, which led to the boys climbing onto the roof of the high school, just to see if they could do it. When his friend suggested they take the next step, breaking into the school building to mess around, the boy declined. He'd never been in any kind of trouble and didn't want to get caught. He stayed on the roof while his friend went ahead and broke in.
Stupid kids' stuff. Right? Am I the only one who remembers all the times that the students on my hall at college talked about getting up on the roof of the conservatory of music? (This was usually after a couple of wine coolers had been consumed.) The only reason I never did it was that there wasn't a ladder. You had to stand on someone's shoulders to get through the trap door in the band room.
It was stupid kids' stuff until my friend's grandson was attacked and caught by the guard dogs who were brought in to find out who had set off a silent alarm at the school. It was stupid kids' stuff until the police carted him off along with the friend, not caring that only one of them had actually gone in the building. And because of the school's zero tolerance policy, my friend's grandson was immediately expelled... for his entire senior year.
Remember, this was an honor student who had never been in trouble before!
This is not an isolated incident. Contrary to what you may believe (and what I believed), the zero tolerance policy started long before 9-11 or the Columbine shootings. You only need to check out the Internet for examples that can be traced back two decades or more. And yet, I would propose that since 9-11 and Columbine, incidents where zero tolerance is used (and perhaps abused) have increased in proportion to our fears.
According to a report put out by the Virginia Department of Education, zero tolerance policies, "originally intended to apply only to serious criminal behavior involving firearms or illegal drugs" have been extended to include a number of behaviors and incidents. In 1998, the number of African American students suspended or expelled from schools was out of proportion to the percentage of students who were African American! This problem is reflected outside of schools as well.
A "google search" of the phrase, "zero tolerance", yields examples that include racial profiling by police or misusing misdemeanors to get "undesireables" off the streets.
No, my friends, this is not "stupid kids' stuff" anymore!
I do not propose that it is a good idea to allow kids to carry weapons to school or engage in illegal behavior. I do not even propose that there should not have been consequences for my friend's grandson. I am not suggesting that even my daughter should not have had consequences. Consequences teach lessons. What I am suggesting is that if these reports are accurate, "zero tolerance" is flawed and needs to be reexamined.
"Kids will be kids"... perhaps. A truer statement is that kids will make mistakes. Sometimes they are stupid ones. Those mistakes don't always have to ruin a young life.
Perhaps I understand grace from a "point of privilege" since Christianity teaches me that by grace we are saved. It is fortunate for us all that grace does not follow a policy of "zero tolerance". If it did, I would have been lost a long time ago.
My own daughter learned this the hard way. In the middle of her sixth grade year, we received a call asking us to pick her up from school. She would not be playing in the basketball game that night. She had been involved in a "bullying" incident. She, and two other students were assigned three days of in-school suspension.
Many tears later, the story was revealed that these three "good kids" had sent a note to a little girl asking, "Will you be my girlfriend?" They signed another boy's name to it. It was a childish prank, meant to make fun of a girl who had very few friends. Not a nice thing to do, we all agreed, but bullying?
School officials, who incidentally did not follow the policy as outlined in the school handbook, confirmed that this was the first time she had ever been in trouble. "But we decided to have a zero tolerance for bullying." Bullying? Stupid kids' stuff, maybe... but bullying?
A young man, the grandson of a friend, had everything going for him. An honor student assured of scholarship offers, he was about to enter his senior year of high school. A few weeks before his birthday, on a hot summer's night, a friend convinced him to hang out in the stadium at the high school football field.
One thing led to another, which led to the boys climbing onto the roof of the high school, just to see if they could do it. When his friend suggested they take the next step, breaking into the school building to mess around, the boy declined. He'd never been in any kind of trouble and didn't want to get caught. He stayed on the roof while his friend went ahead and broke in.
Stupid kids' stuff. Right? Am I the only one who remembers all the times that the students on my hall at college talked about getting up on the roof of the conservatory of music? (This was usually after a couple of wine coolers had been consumed.) The only reason I never did it was that there wasn't a ladder. You had to stand on someone's shoulders to get through the trap door in the band room.
It was stupid kids' stuff until my friend's grandson was attacked and caught by the guard dogs who were brought in to find out who had set off a silent alarm at the school. It was stupid kids' stuff until the police carted him off along with the friend, not caring that only one of them had actually gone in the building. And because of the school's zero tolerance policy, my friend's grandson was immediately expelled... for his entire senior year.
Remember, this was an honor student who had never been in trouble before!
This is not an isolated incident. Contrary to what you may believe (and what I believed), the zero tolerance policy started long before 9-11 or the Columbine shootings. You only need to check out the Internet for examples that can be traced back two decades or more. And yet, I would propose that since 9-11 and Columbine, incidents where zero tolerance is used (and perhaps abused) have increased in proportion to our fears.
According to a report put out by the Virginia Department of Education, zero tolerance policies, "originally intended to apply only to serious criminal behavior involving firearms or illegal drugs" have been extended to include a number of behaviors and incidents. In 1998, the number of African American students suspended or expelled from schools was out of proportion to the percentage of students who were African American! This problem is reflected outside of schools as well.
A "google search" of the phrase, "zero tolerance", yields examples that include racial profiling by police or misusing misdemeanors to get "undesireables" off the streets.
No, my friends, this is not "stupid kids' stuff" anymore!
I do not propose that it is a good idea to allow kids to carry weapons to school or engage in illegal behavior. I do not even propose that there should not have been consequences for my friend's grandson. I am not suggesting that even my daughter should not have had consequences. Consequences teach lessons. What I am suggesting is that if these reports are accurate, "zero tolerance" is flawed and needs to be reexamined.
"Kids will be kids"... perhaps. A truer statement is that kids will make mistakes. Sometimes they are stupid ones. Those mistakes don't always have to ruin a young life.
Perhaps I understand grace from a "point of privilege" since Christianity teaches me that by grace we are saved. It is fortunate for us all that grace does not follow a policy of "zero tolerance". If it did, I would have been lost a long time ago.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Singing the Lord's Song in a Foreign Land
A parody on Psalm 137:
"By the rivers of Twitter, we sat down and wept when we remembered phone calls, conversations on front porches, and holding hands with our best friends. There on the laptops, we hung up our pens and pencils, for there our captors asked us for tweets and blogs. How can we sing the songs of the Lord in this foreign land?"
There is no weeping (yet), from this new immigrant to this new landscape of technological communities, but there is admittedly a bit of fear and trembling.
Is this the Promised Land or a vast wilderness that will find me wandering and grumbling? Will I trust that God will provide what I need for the journey and has a marvelous destination in mind for me? Or will I be too fearful to take that first step?
God, I give myself to You for this journey. I trust that You will lead and will clear my confusion, focus my understanding and free my mind to Your truths. Amen.
"By the rivers of Twitter, we sat down and wept when we remembered phone calls, conversations on front porches, and holding hands with our best friends. There on the laptops, we hung up our pens and pencils, for there our captors asked us for tweets and blogs. How can we sing the songs of the Lord in this foreign land?"
There is no weeping (yet), from this new immigrant to this new landscape of technological communities, but there is admittedly a bit of fear and trembling.
Is this the Promised Land or a vast wilderness that will find me wandering and grumbling? Will I trust that God will provide what I need for the journey and has a marvelous destination in mind for me? Or will I be too fearful to take that first step?
God, I give myself to You for this journey. I trust that You will lead and will clear my confusion, focus my understanding and free my mind to Your truths. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)