c. 1997 Religion News Service

(Samuel K. Atchison is an ordained minister and has worked as a policy analyst and social worker to the homeless. He currently is a prison chaplain in Trenton, N.J.)

UNDATED _ According to the old saying, the more things change, the more they remain the same.

This statement was never more true than in the case of 12 year-old Malcolm Shabazz. Accused in the nearly fatal burning of his grandmother, Dr. Betty Shabazz, young Malcolm is a product of many of the same dysfunctional family patterns as his famous grandfather, Malcolm X.

Like his grandfather, Malcolm Shabazz witnessed the physical abuse and mental deterioration of his mother. Like Malcolm X, Shabazz was shuffled from home-to-home in an attempt to provide him with a stable environment. And, like his grandfather, young Malcolm ultimately began to develop violent, destructive tendencies.

Yet if the inter-generational patterns exhibited by this family are striking, they are far from unique. While Malcolm X overcame these personal adversities, many others do not. And the reality is that there are millions of young people like Malcolm Shabazz around the country in need of professional help.

But, sadly, also unchanged over the last two generations _ and making young Malcolm and others less likely to overcome their self-destructive behaviors than Malcolm X _ is the system of social services meant to provide aid.

The New Deal-era social services system _ a system of welfare bureaucracy and courts that Malcolm said”destroyed our family”_ is largely unchanged 60 years later. That means it is less-likely to succeed in providing young Malcolm and others like him with any real, long-lasting aid.

While the welfare reform legislation passed last year was designed to make the system more efficient and cost-effective, the fact remains the system _ any system _ is more concerned with numbers than individuals.

For example, social service programs _ necessarily _ standardize eligibility criteria to maximize the use of limited funds. Often that means eligible persons are permitted to receive program services such as drug therapy, family counseling and job training, only for a limited period of time.

Depending on program requirements, failure to show adequate progress _ often subjectively determined _ can result in the individual or family being declared ineligible for further services. Those needing the service the most are the most likely to be cut off.

Thus the future of Malcolm Shabazz, who is currently in a youth detention center in New York, could possibly depend on how quickly he responds to a court-ordered treatment program of limited scope and funding.

Further eroding the possibility of success in dealing with troubled youth is that for all too many social service professionals such programs are merely a means of employment, a job.”The system”appears to be designed so that the professionals often seem to succeed at the expense of the constituency they are meant to serve.

By mastering the”system”_ meeting legislative program objectives to ensure future funding, but without necessarily serving client needs _ personal advancement can be attained without improving services.

Thankfully, not everyone feels this way. Indeed, there exists in any system a coterie of people whose commitment to their constituency outweighs personal ambition.

Many of these people go beyond the call of duty in serving their clients. They will often incur considerable expense and even personal risk, being compelled, in the words of the Apostle Paul, to”consider others better than themselves.” Malcolm Shabazz could use a person like that in his life. Here’s hoping he meets one before it’s too late.

END ATCHISON