Size matters

YMCA Homeless and Celebrities for Kids organised the National Conference on Disadvantaged Children: Problems and Solutions.

The roll-call was a veritable Who’s Who of people from various spheres directly or indirectly connected with the topic. I also noticed that there was a very strong delegation from One Productions, but I didn’t actually recognize anyone from the rest of the audio-visual media.

A part of Jean Paul Mifsud’s bumph for the conference went Children and youth in Malta have the right to a life without abuse.  Each day, YMCA encounters a number of them whom society has failed….

In essence, this means that despite all the conferences, delegations, committees, entities, expenses, and good will, there still remain children and youth who slip through the cracks. Those who do not find healing or helping hands end up in an institution, or a victim of substance abuse – or dead.

Because children are not “young adults”- they cannot mould themselves into the pre-set criteria ordained by those who set benchmarks; sometimes, this happens for the simple reason that they do not have the savvy to do so, or because rebellion in the only thing they can call their own.

This blog is not meant to be a report of the whole conference; I will be commenting on what struck me in the workshop I attended and the rounding-up summaries. What appears here is my personal opinion.

As tends to happen in these instances, the basic conclusions were the same – however, the way they were viewed depended on which professional arrived at them.

We all know that there are some children for whom abuse of some kind is a way of life.  These children do not even realise that in some families, children are fed real food, loved, clothed properly, and not beaten on a regular basis “just so that they will learn how to obey”.  When the PSD teacher or the Sedqa spokesperson tells them that some behaviours are not acceptable, it suddenly dawns upon them that their situation may not be as “normal” as they have been led to believe.

However, at this point there is usually a glitch.  Seeing that the title of the workshop could well have been One Size Fits All: Truth or Dare, I will not hesitate to say that some children have the dice loaded against them from Day One.

Alas, sometimes even the persons who know full well that each child is part of the nation’s tomorrow will balk at “becoming involved”.  Why is it that they do not report situations wherein a child, day after day, comes to school with no lunch, or one who has unexplained bruises; or one who has a nervous tic, or smells of stake urine either if the child’s parents are ‘scary’?

Ironically, reports are seldom lodged, either, if they seem ‘a good sort’, when it is not even considered possible that a child has been threatened with further punishments if he divulges what goes on at home, because “he is so well-behaved and clean”.

Several people know that in some cases where the state and NGOs offer similar services, there is some overlapping. In addition, there are different methodologies and praxis through which to tackle certain problems. Each entity holds that its modus operandi is the best for the child and for the family.  But nobody stops to ask the child what he wants, and whether he feels confused and smothered by all the rules and regulations.

Some mention the setting up of liaison offices and multi-disciplinary teams. But we have seen what happens when there is a struggle for power between the CEOs of different organisations who both want to be Top Dog. In an ideal world, not one person would withhold data from another – of the ultimate aim was the betterment of the child’s situation. And yet this happens, again and again.

A child is not Case 21.  He is an individual with a name. And if a particular professional would like to take matters into her own hands because she instinctively knows what will work – she cannot, because the system forbids it. And people have been known to pull rank.

Unfortunately, some soi-disant enlightened persons still raise eyebrows when faced with mental illness, homosexuality, single parents of either gender, or family members with a criminal record. They assume that if a person has a difficulty, it is partly “his fault” – for not seeking a solution he may not realise could even exist.

Then there are those of us who would willingly provide food, clothing, and other services to those in need – but who hesitate to go to the relevant authorities with the facts because (1) “they do not snitch on their friends and / or (2) they might be called to give evidence if push comes to shove.

It is still a fact of life that some professionals look down at volunteers, some of whom, by virtue of not going by the book, would be able to accomplish a lot. The same people who cite lack of commitment do not realise that volunteers provide teamwork that is hard to beat for enthusiasm and persistence. Again, a person is not a “human resource” but someone who wants to make a difference in any way possible.

Volunteers can cook food; they can run errands and do chores and babysitting; and, if this is a part of the entities’ setup, they will even man the stalls at a fund-raising jumble sale.

Many of those present at the Conference appeared to agree that social benefits (including children’s allowance) must be earned and not given as a hand-out. I did not hear anyone say that victims of crime must receive a part of a perpetrator’s wages, however.

We cannot talk of problems if we do not mention possible solutions. And we cannot talk of possible solutions if we do not have the power to recognise that problems stem from difficulties people encounter because of many different reasons.

The gamut of social problems is a Hydra; and it will only cease to grow new heads when legislation is in place that plugs up all the loopholes from grassroots level up.

Which politician will bell the cat?