In defence of the Child Development Agency’s CEO
SOME three years ago — in February of 2007, to be exact — this newspaper levelled a stinging criticism of the Child Development Agency (CDA) in relation to one of its former wards, a 32-year-old HIVpositive man.
The man who had come to us for help, detailed a most miserable upbringing at the Copse Place of Safety, for which the CDA had oversight. Among the most horrible of quotes in his narrative of the sustained abuse which was meted out to him there ran thus: “They (the administrators of the institution) said the machete would be our pencil, and the grass our book. The iron fork to dig up the ground was the Ninja (bike)… so they’d tell the big boys to go and ride the bike…”
He wasn’t asking for very much in the scheme of things, just a weed whacker to enable him to earn from the career that the State designated for him. The weed whacker would be the start of a venture which, he envisioned, would grow into employment opportunities for people like himself who were barred by the stigma associated with HIV/AIDS from getting work from others.
Mrs Alison Anderson McLean, the chief executive officer (CEO) of the CDA, was quick to respond.
In a matter of days, the weed whacker was transported to our Western Bureau where the man happily collected it.
We reiterate this particular story in defence of Mrs Anderson McLean’s stewardship, not to give it a passing grade, but to put her recent resignation within what we believe is a fair context.
This, from where we stand, must begin with the undisputed fact that Mrs Anderson McLean’s performance was the product of the very best intentions on her part. Her failure to create a Utopia for the State’s wards is an indictment on all of us.
Indeed, the Child Care and Protection Act, which governs her agency, places the responsibility of the well-being of the country’s children on everyone who lives in this society. No one, according to the Act, is exempt. Everyone has a duty, is obliged on pain of prosecution, to report any form of child abuse to the State.
Whose job is it to ensure compliance with this law? Aren’t we all guilty of breaking it when we drive past the juveniles wandering around on the streets at all hours of the day?
If we can pose reasonable answers to these questions, the magnitude of the task at hand becomes that much clearer. For the issue of scarce resources to do almost any job in Jamaica isn’t going away soon.
It’s a given that we have to make do, as creatively as possible, with what we have.
Will Mrs Anderson McLean’s successor do any better in this regard?
Time will tell, as it did three years ago when the CDA’s former ward came to us and again last year when the situation at the Armadale Juvenile Correctional Centre came to an ugly and fatal head.
We do not purport to be more knowledgeable than Mrs Anderson McLean or her successor when it comes to the matter of caring for children in circumstances which are challenged by a financially hobbled State.
But we can say this much.
Any system worth its salt must facilitate some form of feedback from all of its users before the proverbial horse has gone through the gate.
It seems that the only time we hear from the children is when they are dying or dead.
The Armadale tragedy is not an overnight product, nor are many of the tragedies and scandals that come to our attention.
In almost every case, it is a fact that had someone spoken up earlier, the outcome may have been different.
Who will hear the children’s cry?