CORRECTING FOR EXPOSURE!

Raw numbers again, without correcting for exposure rates?

What's the ratio of Fosters to bio parents?

..4% looks favorable until you consider that they
don't have .4% of the EXPOSURE!

That parents are responsible for 26% of abuse
is disproportionately small when you consider
that parents EXPOSURE RATE should come
fairly close to 100%!

If the Fosters have 0.05% of kids, but .4% of abuse
they are abusing at EIGHT TIMES the rate parents do.

Raw percentages OF ABUSE are almost meaningless
without correcting for EXPOSURE.

Trying to make the states ""superior parents"" look better
by showing raw numbers without correcting for EXPOSURE
is a dirtytrick.

Why does Kane keep misrepresenting in this way?

Sexual abuse data:
.........................Number %
Parent 17,543 26.3
Other Relative 19,171 28.7
Foster Parent 253 0.4
Residential
Facility Staff 137 0.2

Greegor wrote:
Raw numbers again, without correcting for exposure rates?

What's the ratio of Fosters to bio parents?

.4% looks favorable until you consider that they
don't have .4% of the EXPOSURE!

That parents are responsible for 26% of abuse
is disproportionately small when you consider
that parents EXPOSURE RATE should come
fairly close to 100%!

If the Fosters have 0.05% of kids, but .4% of abuse
they are abusing at EIGHT TIMES the rate parents do.

Raw percentages OF ABUSE are almost meaningless
without correcting for EXPOSURE.

Trying to make the states ""superior parents"" look better
by showing raw numbers without correcting for EXPOSURE
is a dirtytrick.

Why does Kane keep misrepresenting in this way?

Kane is d'geezer - Don Fisher - the infamous screwball who spammed his
states most vulnerable children to usenet. Kane/Don/d'geezer is a CPS
contractor - his speciality - you guessed it - troubled boys --
Kane/Don/d'geezer is like the legendary fag in boystown -

Now ask yourself why Don/Kane/d'geezer would want to shift the blame. lol.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Greegor wrote:
Raw numbers again, without correcting for exposure rates?

What's the ratio of Fosters to bio parents?

.4% looks favorable until you consider that they
don't have .4% of the EXPOSURE!

That parents are responsible for 26% of abuse
is disproportionately small when you consider
that parents EXPOSURE RATE should come
fairly close to 100%!

If the Fosters have 0.05% of kids, but .4% of abuse
they are abusing at EIGHT TIMES the rate parents do.

Raw percentages OF ABUSE are almost meaningless
without correcting for EXPOSURE.

Trying to make the states ""superior parents"" look better
by showing raw numbers without correcting for EXPOSURE
is a dirtytrick.

Why does Kane keep misrepresenting in this way?

Some believe Don/Kane/d'geezer to be a rabid butch lesbian - that would
also explain his/her defense of homosexual child molesters.



Sexual abuse data:
.........................Number %
Parent 17,543 26.3
Other Relative 19,171 28.7
Foster Parent 253 0.4
Residential
Facility Staff 137 0.2


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0:-] wrote:
On 27 May 2007 11:16:01 -0700, Greegor wrote:

Raw numbers again, without correcting for exposure rates?

What thread are you responding to, Greg?
What's the ratio of Fosters to bio parents?

The only real comparison is the rate of fosters to bio parent CLIENTS
of CPS, Greg, not the general population.

The general population is NOT subject to immediate and open intrusion
by CPS at CPS convenience.

Only foster parents. Heck, even clients are subject to the levels of
openness required by contract of foster parents.

Fosties regularly get away with murder - they are investigated by their
own - CPS -

NJ report is shocking - CPS regularly discounts and/or covers up abuse
by fosties.

Every time we read another report, it's about lying falsifying
caseworkers covering for rape, murder, and abuse in foster care.

It about the cash Don - nobody gives a **** what happens to foster kids
once the golden goose has laid the egg -- cronies like you and your
disgusting ilk cash in whether the kids live or die.

You're a pathetic lump of flesh Don -

Don't anyone live up by Don ?? Can't we get some pictures of this
asshole posted on ascps?? The world needs to see the face of this
disgusting perv.



YIKES

Wanna know how fosties can get away with murder??

Read on.

Wanna know why fosties continue to abuse and murder our children at rates
that would shame Satan?

Read on:

Wanna know why CPS scum like Don are narcissistic screwballs?

Read on:

http://library.adoption.com/laws-and...-independent-r...

"As a result of IAIU's systemic deficiencies identified in this review,
children in out-of-home care were and are in DYFS placements known to be
abusive and neglectful, and no assurances can be given that any child in
DYFS out-of-home care is safe."

"The expert discovered that investigations were routinely delayed,
incomplete, and had inconclusive findings despite clear signs of abuse,
leaving children in homes with individuals known to seriously abuse or
neglect children."

"The documents showed in individual cases how DYFS failed to respond
appropriately to protect plaintiff children who were abused, and sometimes
died, in foster care."

"*IAIU only substantiated 12% (15 cases) of alleged maltreatment in DYFS
out-of-home placements, although 33% of the IAIU cases (40 cases) should
have been substantiated if reasonable professional judgment had been
exercised."

"58% of the cases that were "unsubstantiated" by IAIU should have been
substantiated. "

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Greegor" wrote in message
oups.com...
Raw numbers again, without correcting for exposure rates?

What's the ratio of Fosters to bio parents?

.4% looks favorable until you consider that they
don't have .4% of the EXPOSURE!

That parents are responsible for 26% of abuse
is disproportionately small when you consider
that parents EXPOSURE RATE should come
fairly close to 100%!

If the Fosters have 0.05% of kids, but .4% of abuse
they are abusing at EIGHT TIMES the rate parents do.

Raw percentages OF ABUSE are almost meaningless
without correcting for EXPOSURE.

Trying to make the states ""superior parents"" look better
by showing raw numbers without correcting for EXPOSURE
is a dirtytrick.

Why does Kane keep misrepresenting in this way?

Kane's statistics are accurate, as I am sure yours are. But Kane is not
spinning them. Fact is gregg, I have a mandatory reporter in my home, in
contact with my foster children, three to four times a week, not including
all the time that the kids spend at school where the place is filled with
mandatory reporters.

I also must submit to a search by CPS representatives anytime they like,
24x7. Not only can they talk to my foster children, but my own children as
well. Just how may of the parents out there that are not foster parents
have these conditions and issues gregg? A nice round percentage would be
nice, something verifiable.

100% of the foster parents in our country have the same conditions and
issues that I have gregg. How many non-foster parents do? Now, do the
math. Just how likely is it that someone is going to find out about CA/N in
a foster home versus a non-foster home?

Kane isn't misrepresenting anything gregg.

You are.

Ron


Sexual abuse data:
.........................Number %
Parent 17,543 26.3
Other Relative 19,171 28.7
Foster Parent 253 0.4
Residential
Facility Staff 137 0.2

Kane posted raw percentages.
I pointed out that they are misleading if you
do not correct for EXPOSURE.

Neither Ron nor Kane refuted this EXPOSURE concept did they?

Kane and Ron responded to that with comments about
how CPS can come walking into the Foster home
at a moments notice.

Except in most states normal CPS caseworkers do NOT
investigate reports of abuse in Foster Contractor homes.
Either the Foster agency itself or a special section of
CPS handles reports of abuse in Foster Contractor homes.
Separate and most definately NOT equal investigative staff!

Numerous news stories pasted here show how often
investigations of Foster Contractors are NOT taken
very seriously until they become disastrous.

Much like the molestation by the CLERGY over
many decades, Fosters are seen as key ALLIES
of the Child Protection INDUSTRY.

The concept that Foster Contractors are watched
so frequently as an excuse for their disproportionately
HIGH rate of abuse has some major logical problems.

How does being watched more by FRIENDLY inspectors
create child abuse?

Wouldn't Foster Contractors be thoroughly indoctrinated
as to what is and is not be a violation?

Most of all, just imagine how politically awkward
it is FOR THE AGENCIES WHO WATCHED THEM
if a Foster Contractor gets a criminal charge!

Who is really so NAIVE to think that the agencies
wouldn't feel a lot of pressure to avoid this kind
of attention by making it go away quietly?

In other words, being WATCHED so much basically
makes the agencies almost PARTNERS to any
abuse scandals that erupt, and creates huge pressure
for them to cover up as much as they can.

Wouldn't that concept FAR OUTSTRIP the concept
that being watched more somehow creates more
founded child abuse?

On May 28, 12:36 am, Greegor wrote:
Kane posted raw percentages.

Misnomer. A "percentage" is by it's nature, not a raw anything. It's
derived from raw numbers.

I shows a comparison. A percentage of something larger to something
smaller, or the reverse, 'something.'

I pointed out that they are misleading if you
do not correct for EXPOSURE.

Yes, you did. And you identified the items exposure incorrectly.


Neither Ron nor Kane refuted this EXPOSURE concept did they?


Yes, we both did.

Kane and Ron responded to that with comments about
how CPS can come walking into the Foster home
at a moments notice.

Please explain what YOU mean by "exposure."

Since we are discussing the rate of child abuse between two
demographics we must consider their similarities and their
disimilatirties to determine how valid and credible and useful the
comparison is.

In other words, just how accurate each is then compare to the other
ONLY if either they ARE similar, or they can be statistically
corrected for difference. NO STUDY to my knowledge, from as far back
as Doug argued it...without submitting source material in FULL, did a
statistical correction for the difference in "exposure" opportunity
between the two groups.

If you know of such a statistical analysis, one that corrects for the
dissimilar exposure rates, do let us know, and cite with LINKS to the
study, or abstract. Thanks. .

Except in most states normal CPS caseworkers do NOT
investigate reports of abuse in Foster Contractor homes.

Initially they do.

Either the Foster agency itself or a special section of
CPS handles reports of abuse in Foster Contractor homes.
Separate and most definately NOT equal investigative staff!

Both are trained by the same methods, often doing both as part of
their workload. You are incorrect in your guessing.

But you are free to provide any proof you can find that this is
exclusive. In some jurisdictions, yet, there are dedicated "Out of
Home Placement Abuse Allegations," but those people usually have
served as investigators for "In Home Abuse Allegations," as well.

Investigators aren't plucked from trees.

Numerous news stories pasted here show how often
investigations of Foster Contractors are NOT taken
very seriously until they become disastrous.

Cite a few for us. And show that this does not happen with bio family
investigations as well, Greg.

Much like the molestation by the CLERGY over
many decades, Fosters are seen as key ALLIES
of the Child Protection INDUSTRY.

Incoherent statement. Which part of clergy abuse compares, and
precisely how, to allegations of foster parent abuses?

Why are you using a term like "ALLIES," screaming it, as though it is
wrong for CPS and foster parent to be allies in caring for children?

You are very warped, Greg, do you know that?

The concept that Foster Contractors are watched
so frequently as an excuse for their disproportionately
HIGH rate of abuse has some major logical problems.

No, in fact it has no such problems.

How does being watched more by FRIENDLY inspectors
create child abuse?

Where did you get the idea the inspectors are friendly? Where
investigators look in to foster abuse allegations as part of or ONLY
their job, they would lose their job if they did not vigorously pursue
the complaint to a "founded" outcome in a reasonable proportion of
cases.

They aren't paid to fail, but to succeed. Just like all workers in any
field,.

Wouldn't Foster Contractors be thoroughly indoctrinated
as to what is and is not be a violation?

Why "indoctrinated," when you mean trained, Greg? More propagandist
hyperbolic appeal to emotions? Do you think that everyone is a weak
minded fool like you with an agenda they don't put great thought into
before taking it up as a cause?

You are most patronizing in your choice of words, Greg.

Most of all, just imagine how politically awkward
it is FOR THE AGENCIES WHO WATCHED THEM
if a Foster Contractor gets a criminal charge!

That's why there is so often in the larger jurisdictions where the
number of cases would be higher a special investigative unit that is
free from local influence (they come always from the state's central
human services office and are NEVER assigned locally).

Who is really so NAIVE to think that the agencies
wouldn't feel a lot of pressure to avoid this kind
of attention by making it go away quietly?

Wanting something and acting on it are two different things.

There are other considerations as to what agencies might want, such as
not being caught favoring abusive foster parents. That would be far
more damaging than exposing foster parents as abusive in the first
place.

In the first instance, it can be, PR wise, as "cleaning house," and
properly supervising the foster parent population. In the second
instance it can and will be seen as trying to cover up.

Which would YOU rather be seen as doing, Greg?

In other words, being WATCHED so much basically
makes the agencies almost PARTNERS to any
abuse scandals that erupt, and creates huge pressure
for them to cover up as much as they can.

Actually they aren't "watched so much" by CPS, Greg. It's a scandal
that oversight requirements aren't met all that well according to
federal standards. Again, staffing shortfalls.

If an agency get's a call that there is suspected abuse in a genpop
family, and a worker has a routine visit to a foster family scheduled,
which do you think they should look at first?

The problem is priorities versus resource allocation, Greg. Something
true of the entire work world, not just CPS.

You wish to take advantage of the underfunding and short staffing
pressures to claim CPS is a malevolent evil force...isn't that
correct?

Wouldn't that concept FAR OUTSTRIP the concept
that being watched more somehow creates more
founded child abuse?

No.

CPS has many people working for it in decision making capacity that
are far smarter than you Greg, and apparently more honest.

If they compare in house uncovering of child abuse by a foster parent
they have two issues to consider and compare. One, that it's more than
just embarrassing ... and the circumstance is often no embarrassment
at all, because they cannot, and the public, all but you, knows they
cannot, do 24/7 supervision in the foster home.

And then there's that GOOD PR that they do housecleaning regularly
when such a case is exposed BY THEM.

If someone ELSE exposes it that is total bad PR Greg.

So they are rather diligent, even if it's painful to admit, in finding
abuse perpetrated by foster parents.

And as you know...unless you are selectively remembering my debates
with Doug, foster parents are held to a far higher standard than bio
parents.

A bio parent can spank, for instance, and as long as it does not leave
a long lasting mark on the child they are NOT abusing, according to
state law.

A foster parnent can hit a child with any, that's ANY degree of force,
even the most mild, for discipline witout a charge of CHILD ABUSE.

I watched a lovely polynesian couple fight such a charge...the agency
REALLY needed them as they provided culturally appropriate services
for that population no one else could possibly do.

The mother lifted the reluctant five year old into the family van and
was seen and the motion looked like a spank to the witness.

No mark on the child, and the child in interview did not recognize it
as a "spank." Yet they had to fight all the way to the state governor
to clear the accusation.

And it cost them some money to do it.

The bore the cost of an attorney because the were very deeply
connected to their particular polynesian culture and could not bear
the thought of children going to culturally unaware foster families.

You ever hear of a bio family accuse of spanking under such
circumstances? And having their children removed for it? This family
had they OWN bio children removed and placed in foster care for nearly
three months.

Additionally, Greg, foster parents are the recipients of many false
allegations of abuse. It comes with the job. They are trained to
expect there to be at least, on average, one per year, as long as they
foster.

And as for the "exposure" factor, Greg, how many mandated reporters
are families in the genpop exposed to and how often?

Foster families are exposed to a string of them on a constant basis,
even pre school age children.

Thta is what I mean by exposure comparison, Greg.

A foster family does NOT have the choices an abusive parents has to
hide their actions and outcomes.

You won't find many older kids in bio families "calling my worker," as
you will in foster homes with older kids.

You won't find all that many invested parties complaining to CPS about
bio families, as is just part of the job for foster's.

All the relatives are up for calling CPS against a foster parent,
Greg, including the parents. They call with complaints rather a lot.
Overloading the system, of course.

A parental visit often results in "where did that mark on my child
come from," when it's about the size of a pencil eraser and the kid
did it himself in play.

Parent's are often heavily invested in accusing the foster parent of
abuse.

Who in the bio family, or surroundings is invested in false
allegations against them? Damn rare, kiddo, despite the noise you
folks make about it.

The exposure rate and the difference in opportunity to hide abuse is
very different in the two groups.

And why did you make this claim, by the way, about Ron and I possibly
failing to meet your challenge on this issue, and remove our
commentary from the post?

Don't you see that YOU are using a technique not unlike an abusive
parent when you do that TO CONCEAL THE TRUTH?.

Or were you not interested in debate, only a platform to scream
from?

Kane

Kane wrote
Where did you get the idea the inspectors are friendly? Where
investigators look in to foster abuse allegations as part of or ONLY
their job, they would lose their job if they did not vigorously pursue
the complaint to a "founded" outcome in a reasonable proportion of
cases.

The kind of oversight you describe is easily abused.
Make foundeds in token cases and bury ones so
hot they would burn the agency's fingers.

Remember the recently posted story of the
Arizona Foster Care Review Board lady who
e-mailed a state legislator his own traffic ticket history because
he proposed opening up records where caseworkers did wrong?

Wasn't that an attempt to intimidate a legislator?

In order to cover up the wrongdoings of caseworkers?

Isn't she part of that same noble investigative system Kane?