by Pa Rock
Citizen Journalist
Citizen Journalist
Years ago I was a state child protection worker in the
corner county of a state – a county that bordered two other states. When dealing with various aspects of child
protection, jurisdictional concerns often came into play. We might encounter a child with serious
issues, for example, whom we subsequently found out was a resident of another
state. I remember one problematic residence
in particular where the front porch was in one state and the remainder of the
house was in another.
It was not uncommon for families who encountered
difficulties in one state to flee across the border to another. A move of a couple of hundred yards might
then involve bureaucracies in two state capitals coordinating with one another
– when neither capital was closer than two hundred miles to the actual families
involved. Then, if the system worked in
a timely manner (which rarely occurred), the problem family could easily slip
into the third state.
Of course, the same thing could also work to the state’s
advantage. If another state clearly had
“ownership” of the family, it was to the local agency’s advantage, from both a
time and money perspective, to assist the family in getting back to the state
line where that state’s workers would be waiting to welcome them. Or, if a homeless family was discovered
living in a local campground and not abusing their children, it was often
easier and more economical to assist them in getting to their home of record
than it would have been to fund and supervise their social services locally.
That was called “Greyhound Therapy,” and the idea was to
move them on down the road. I don’t want
that to sound too negative, because during those years I worked with some
wonderfully dedicated and caring individuals.
Our first and best efforts were always focused on the needs of families
and children, regardless of where they called home.
But there are instances when Greyhound Therapy is blatantly
used to benefit the government and not the individuals in need.
A friend of mine who used to live in New York City told me
that whenever a big convention came to town (such as the Democratic National
Conventions of 1976 or 1980), the city would round up all of the homeless
individuals and bus them into the suburbs.
She said that by the time they drifted back into the city, the
convention would be over and the city was back to normal.
Hawaii, which borders no other states, is currently
implementing its own form of Greyhound Therapy.
Recent news articles have highlighted a program entitled “Return to
Home.” Through it the state is paying to
fly homeless people back to where they came from – with “one
way” tickets. Others may be moved from the islands through
passage on cruise ships. The bean
counters in Honolulu have come to the conclusion that the price of plane or
cruise ticket is cheaper than trying to meet the needs of the homeless. And while many of those “deportees” will
eventually return to the sunshine and balmy breezes of Hawaii, the state
figures that the money saved on social services during their absence would
still exceed the price of removing them from the islands. And, like in New York City, this practice
also serves to keep the homeless out of sight and away from the tourists and
their money.
As these political entities shuffle their problems from
place to place, the big winners would appear to be the airlines, cruise ships – and, of
course, Greyhound!