Huge child-care racket uncovered in People’s Temple investigation

Press, 26 January 1979, Page 6

Huge child-care racket uncovered in People’s Temple investigation

Bv MIKE ROYKO. of the [‘‘Chicago Sun-Times” (through NZPA) Chicago Of those who died at Jim . Jones’s People's Temple [death camp in Guyana, 278 I are still unidentified. About 230 are children. And in that figure could be one of the ■ biggest earthquakes ever to • hit California. '! It has been alleged that Jim Jones was in the foster- • care racket and that as many as 150 children were • wards of the state and had jbeen placed with him and his followers. Altruism was not his motive. For each child, he [would have received about [SU.S2BS a month. Thus, he could have been taking in as • much as SUSSOO,OOO a year ■| in foster-parent fees. I But because-of the incredible . bureaucratic mess that [exists in the state of Cali- • fornia. nobody knows whether the dead children were or (were not wards of the state. ; There are several in[vestigations going on to determine whether governmental agencies in California • had entrusted Jones with •foster children. Senator Alan ; Cranston is looking into it.

» So are various California! ’state agencies. And a Con-ji gressional agency has also'' begun investigations to seep if Federal institutions were; i involved. il t Senator Cranston said his! 5 j subcommittee had learned!. : that some profit-making in-! : stitutions for handicapped, |' : abandoned, or delinquent > children were apparently!' providing “abysmal living!! I conditions” for children in i - return for millions of dollars , > in Federal support. < ■ But the Federal Bureau of, I Investigation, which should;! 1 be leading, the investigations,,j is sneering at the whole af- ■ fair. An F. 8.1. spokesman • says he considers the ques-.l t tion of who these dead;’ : children are “a political! s bandwagon.” The spokesman says the'l F. 8.1. is not investigating' ■ “this aspect of the People’s |l t Temple operation.” • ■ That’s , too bad, -somebody - with officialll • authority should be looking! into it. ■ So far, the main in-.ii i vestigativ.e thrust has come • from Kenneth Wooden, a i . private citizen and writer < i who specialises in the area! i of child abuse. Wooden says his sources 0

;tell him that as many as 5011 jof the children who died in t 'Guyana were state wards', [who had been given into the' care of Jim Jones or his fol-,; ; lowers. But proving it is difficult.ll lAs Wooden says; , “The problem is that you; 1 | can get kids from so many > (sources in California: cities,;, (counties, states. mental jt health. It’s so damned frag-! jmented. There is no : one., single agency. It’s '..fright-h ening. .1 L “To this day, we do not i 'know all of ’ the sources’! ( where foster children come from in California. But if.t ’you know how to hustle!’ (kids for money, you knowji 'where to get them. And myj i sources tell me that as many it las, 200 kids went to Gu-y van a ” h What Wooden says could! Ibe true. In California,, almost 11 [any governmental agency it Lean get into the foster home business. !' Rather than one state 11 agency being responsible —l< as is the case in other states'; — cities, counties, and state.] agencies can place homeless! children in foster homes. < : So the children who died I 'in Guyana — if they were i 'foster placements — could < A

(have come from any of hundreds of governmental agencies. Wooden says that some (governmental employees have already fled California, 'fearing the lawsuits that will be filed when parents learn that their children .were placed in the care of ■Jim Jones, and subsequently .murdered. What is known is that .Jones, at the peak of his 'political clout, was in the I foster-care business and that many children were placed in his- care. One child-care official says that until 1974. there was a • "constant funnelling” of Ichildren to Jones’s Church. In California, the policy is •to place children with indi- ! victuals, rather than institutions. But Jones skirted I this policy by having memIbers of his Church listed as Ithe foster parents. This allegedly occurred I while Jones was the darling lof California politicians — Idelivering the votes of his ' parishioners like a Chicago [precinct captain. j Everyone from Rosaiynn 'Carter, the President's wife, ito Governor Jerry Brown, of California wanted Jones's endorsement.

•i So it would not be «urI ; prising that he would have a pipeline to the lucrative : field of foster parentage. What is surprising is that , there is so little official interest in the question of • the identities of 230 dead [children. The ages of the adults w ho died in Guyana make it obvious that all these dead children were not with their [natural parents. Most of the dead adults were too old or too young to have been the i mothers and fathers of the children. >' So the questions that have to be answered are these: Who are these 230 dear kids? Had they been placed in Jim Jones’s care by govern •mental bodies in California? If so, what safeguards accompanied this placement? , If it turns out that these [children were wards of the II state — taken from theit ('natural parents for reasons of abuse, neglect, or incap 'lability — and that the; had been placed in the can i of a madman like Jones tithen the people who rui ; (California had better divi [for cover.