If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Kane writes:
Yes. So can you. So can anyone that can read and understands probability. For instance, if there is a rise in unemployment there is an accompanying rise, shortly after in domestic violence. Can you figure that out? Cause and effect? Hi, Kane, These population wide probabilities do not extend to individual cases. The most basic lesson learned in research 101 is that one cannot apply statistics of an overall population to an individual case. In other words, if there is a rise in unemployment, a CPS worker should not determine that the particular family she is working with is any more likely to be experiencing domestic violence. The employed father is no more likely to be an abuser than another father. In times of low unemployment, on the other hand, the unemployed father is no more likely to be an abuser than anyone else. The very reason for investigations and assessments is to take the guess work and projections out of child abuse and neglect. Risk assessments and other unproven instruments that try to prove the specific with the general are experiments in witch craft. If you want to discover if a family has abused its young, investigate them and find the evidence. Interestingly, there is an accompanying rate of substance abuse, and lower incomes. I've heard, 0:- , that both of these and other factors connected to being out of work, tends to stress folks in a household, even the kiddies. Yet many families do not abuse under tremendous stress. Identification of stressors does not equal abuse. To project abuse based on stressors is to deny the very utility and dignity of a human being. I've heard also that stress levels coorelate to abuse rates. What do you think, Jack? No connection? Not in any particular home. To find out if abuse occurs in a specific home, you need to investigate and find out. A family that is experiencing all the stress in the world may well be a family that is not under any standard abusing its children. In fact, that is the more common situation. But can CPS predict crime BEFORE it happens? We already know domestic violence is bad for the kiddies. Yes, just as I said above. And the assessment instruments, contrary to your unsupported claim, and MY previously posted report on one that was criticized in this ng, but recognized as one of the most excellent, do work. No, CPS or anyone else CANNOT predict crime BEFORE it happens. The answer is obvious. A risk assessment recognized as one of the most excellent was inherently and clearly flawed. Readers got to see that themselves. And THAT was one of the GOOD ones. LOL! Imagine what one of the bad ones must be like. You may be thinking of, since you apparently don't know much about such things, how ANY TOOL CAN BE MISUSED. In fact, my fact finding adventures, then subsequent threads on assessment tools in this ng, began with a small debate over the definition of "substantiated," and "unsubstantiated" findings by CPS workers and their supervisors. The risk assessment shared in the group was inherently flawed and destined to produce error no matter how it is applied -- short of ignoring its findings. You suggested a good determination would be made by the worker if she ignored the score developed by the risk assessment. Any instrument that gives a mother points tallying to neglect of her children for being under 30 years old and a single mother is inherently flawed. My worthy opponent, who shall go nameless so I do not embarrass him with what he might mistake as an accolade in his favor, posited that the rate of unsubstantiated abuse was a varifiably correct number, based on both the feds definition of "substantiated," and the field application of it by line workers and their supers. The rate of unsubstantiated and substantiated abuse is published yearly by the USDHHS. These numbers are submitted by the state child protective agencies themselves. The new defination of unsubstantiated is a finding where CPS workers fail to find any qualifying evidence to SUSPECT that a child may be at future risk of maltreatment or has actually been neglected or abused. SUSPECT. So, understanding which families are unsubstantiated is a simple task. However, determining just how many substantiated families are really neglectful or abusive is next to impossible. We don't know who are enveloped into the substantiated finding, since families are substantiated for being "at risk" of future problems using the assessment tools we have been discussing. Many innocent parents have been substantiated. Fact is, the feds themselves, USDHHS, were so concerned that the definition was NOT being applied correctly, that they commissioned a study. And guess what it found? That indeed, unsubstantiated did NOT mean the child was NOT injured or at risk of injury, but other factors were considered. The feds themselves came up with the defination of unsubstantiated AFTER the results of one of thousands of studies they finance was published. Obviously, USDHHS found nothing in the study you reference to influence their defination...or the current one reflects the findings of the study. Nonetheless, there is NO evidence that USDHHS was "so concerned that the previous defination was not being applied correctly that they 'commissioned' a study." We now have a new defination of unsubstantiated, created after that study. It is a finding where CPS workers fail to find any qualifying evidence to SUSPECT that a child may be at future risk of maltreatment or has actually been neglected or abused. If you read the MI assessment form that was provided for argument here, you can readily see how easy such a tool could be misused. I protest it. I said, in the debate, that finding it was NOT used correctly was in itself the issue. By your analogy of the example we used, the only way to use the tool correctly was to ignore its results. You suggested that a good CPS worker would bypass the assessments findings. Boy, that makes the assessment an excellent instrument, doesn't it? "It is accurate only to the extent you are willing to ignore it." My worthy opponent still seems to think that the definition by the feds applies as accurate to the data coming out of the states. Isn't that laughable? It is accurate according to both the states and the feds. The defination was made after the study you talk about was published. That study showed that many families were SUBSTANTIATED because the worker did not get along with her supervisor or other unrelated variables. A scalpel or fire or an LEO's gun, all tools, can be misused, or they can be used correctly. Or they can be ignored, like you suggest a good worker would have ignored the findings of this award-winning assessment tool. Doug |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Doug wrote: .........in his droning lecture format...that rarely addresses the actual issue or subject under discussion............. Kane writes: Yes. So can you. So can anyone that can read and understands probability. For instance, if there is a rise in unemployment there is an accompanying rise, shortly after in domestic violence. Can you figure that out? Cause and effect? Hi, Kane, These population wide probabilities do not extend to individual cases. yawn The most basic lesson learned in research 101 is that one cannot apply statistics of an overall population to an individual case. Yep. No point, of course, but do go on. Did I say one could? In other words, if there is a rise in unemployment, a CPS worker should not determine that the particular family she is working with is any more likely to be experiencing domestic violence. Yep. Did I say they should? Unemployment would be one factor in risk, not proof of injury. That comes with assessing the child. The employed father is no more likely to be an abuser than another father. Sorry. Probability theory says you are wrong. If the other father is not unemployed each has different probabilities. If for no other reason the opportunity by proximity. I've always contended that's why women are seen as having abused more often than men. They are with kids more. Carpenters are more likely to suffer from splinters. They are around wood more. In times of low unemployment, on the other hand, the unemployed father is no more likely to be an abuser than anyone else. Really? So when jobs are easy to get, "times of low unemployment," an unemployed father is more likely to abuse? Can you explain that for us in the first row of lecture hall seats? Those in the back are sleeping, of course. 0:- And while you are at it, why that would, when you get it sorted out which is which, be something a worker would note in their family assessment, "father is unemployed, staying home with the children, while mother works overtime at the laundry where she is employed." Would that be a dishonest assessment or malpractice on the part of the worker to so note? And possibly include, "father has not spent the long periods of time in directly caring for the children, and claims he's feeling considerable stress?" The very reason for investigations and assessments is to take the guess work and projections out of child abuse and neglect. may I be excused to go to the bathroom, teach? Risk assessments and other unproven instruments that try to prove the specific with the general are experiments in witch craft. If you want to discover if a family has abused its young, investigate them and find the evidence. Yep...are you really going to suggest that the ONLY investigation is going to be the "assessment" (and they are NOT unproven, they are MISUSED, as the study provided by one of your sock friends yesterday supported --- and I have complained, teach, of their misuse for two reasons...the one you bring up...and the one that ****s up the data on "substantiated" and "unsubstantiated"). Please, Doug. I don't think even your little ass kissing buddies here would fall for that. Here in this ng all kinds of intervention "events" have been criticized, some justifiably, some not, not just assessments...so obviously more than "assessments" are going on. Interestingly, there is an accompanying rate of substance abuse, and lower incomes. I've heard, 0:- , that both of these and other factors connected to being out of work, tends to stress folks in a household, even the kiddies. Yet many families do not abuse under tremendous stress. Yet many families are not CAUGHT abusing, under tremendous stress. Lots of drunk drivers don't have a single wreck....yet. Identification of stressors does not equal abuse. Yep. It's called, "risk" just like chemically impaired drivers. To project abuse based on stressors is to deny the very utility and dignity of a human being. In those instances where that is done, you would be correct. Without corroborating evidence, it would be pointless to claim the child was "abused." Are you suggesting, because a child might be simply dirty, as yet untested for chemically induced injury, and the meth lab in the family bathroom is all the evidence available, that the child shouldn't be removed? That the assessment that just covers the things YOU made up for a fictitious "client," would be ALL that was used to open a case? The projection isn't "abuse" Doug, and you know it. It's RISK or abuse and or neglect. But enough factors together and the incidence level goes very high indeed. In fact, some of the media reports I've been posting showed where CPS FAILED, Doug, failed, to act when risks were reported. And children died. I don't know why they didn't act, but I suspect your kind has a lot to do with that. The pressure NOT to intervene until the injuries are sufficient to hold up in criminal court. Hell, kids get fall down and play injuries all the time. So surface bruises, even broken skin need not be seen as indicators of abuse, right, Doug? And until the child is gasping for air, and their hair is falling out, let's not check on them to see if the family in fact does have a meth lab in the bathroom. I've heard also that stress levels coorelate to abuse rates. What do you think, Jack? No connection? Not in any particular home. Now that has to be proof to any professionals that come here that you aren't one. Are you seriously saying you can prove that heightened stress in a family does NOT correlate with higher rates of abuse? That in families, specific familes, that have abused that there is no, or rarely, any stress as a precursor? To find out if abuse occurs in a specific home, you need to investigate and find out. prof, my bladder seems to be full again...and I'm feeling this urge to go. D you suppose this could be boredom or something? 0:- A family that is experiencing all the stress in the world may well be a family that is not under any standard abusing its children. In fact, that is the more common situation. And a family that is abusing it's children might be experiencing all the stress in the world, and not even be counted..since no one has reported the abuse. And is your scenario more common? Do you recall the recorded phone msg by a grandma that went to an LDS answering machine and the police investigated that I posted recently? THAT is the more common situation, Doug. That when people feel stressed they DO tend to take it out on the kids and each other. It's the indicator for domestic abuse and child abuse that is MOST common. A family with high stress levels. Are you suggesting that a family with low stress indicators is as likely to abuse and those with high ones? There has to be a study somewhere, prof, can you point to it please. But can CPS predict crime BEFORE it happens? We already know domestic violence is bad for the kiddies. Yes, just as I said above. And the assessment instruments, contrary to your unsupported claim, and MY previously posted report on one that was criticized in this ng, but recognized as one of the most excellent, do work. No, CPS or anyone else CANNOT predict crime BEFORE it happens. The answer is obvious. Sure it can. I did not say in specific instances, other than the likelihood, the risk. Do you tend to drive around traffic jams if you hear of them on the radio? I do. Why? Please, don't be silly. If someone has a high level of stress and those factors that lead to, by actuarial methods, more incidences of abuse of children in the household, are you suggesting it be ignored? A risk assessment recognized as one of the most excellent was inherently and clearly flawed. BS Readers got to see that themselves. Nah...you rewrote the scenario and ignored to highly relevant points. And THAT was one of the GOOD ones. LOL! Imagine what one of the bad ones must be like. It's not the instruments entirely. Some are good. Some not. As the report posted yesterday by a sockpuppet, and an old poster to this ng that you know, 0:-, the misuse, even to the point of changing the content and application, are the real problems. And I too have pointed that out when I posted for you the WA report on how the USDHHS definition for substantiation was being ignored. I assume the assessment tools being misused were very likely a part of that misuse. You may be thinking of, since you apparently don't know much about such things, how ANY TOOL CAN BE MISUSED. In fact, my fact finding adventures, then subsequent threads on assessment tools in this ng, began with a small debate over the definition of "substantiated," and "unsubstantiated" findings by CPS workers and their supervisors. The risk assessment shared in the group was inherently flawed and destined to produce error no matter how it is applied -- short of ignoring its findings. That is either the stupidest thing you could think of to say, or you are a liar. It's nothing of the sort...since "how it is applied" could be partial, fully, not at all, or rigidly, or sloppily. My own complaint, but the way, and as I've said so in the past. You suggested a good determination would be made by the worker if she ignored the score developed by the risk assessment. Unnhh...no, *I* don't suggest that. The tool itself gives here and by consultation with her supervisor, that very opportunity...and there is no LAW with penalties that forces her to use it any particular way. Any instrument that gives a mother points tallying to neglect of her children for being under 30 years old and a single mother is inherently flawed. Any asshole like you that thinks that a single item is the lone deciding factor in the outcome....whether or not to open a case....is full of BS and working to become king of the ****pile. My worthy opponent, who shall go nameless so I do not embarrass him with what he might mistake as an accolade in his favor, posited that the rate of unsubstantiated abuse was a varifiably correct number, based on both the feds definition of "substantiated," and the field application of it by line workers and their supers. The rate of unsubstantiated and substantiated abuse is published yearly by the USDHHS. R R R ...here we go again folks. I have shown you repeatedly why this argument is bogus. You just keep repeating yourself, rather than answering my rebuttal. These numbers are submitted by the state child protective agencies themselves. The are NOT meeting the USDHHS definition of "unsubstantiated and substantiated" hence the numbers are misleading...especially those that you claim show that "unsubstantiated" cases are being opened at huge rates when there is no injury or risk. The WA study makes plain what the USDHHS was concerned about and what I know...that many cases that are "unsubstantiated" in fact still have risk and injury. The new defination of unsubstantiated is a finding where CPS workers fail to find any qualifying evidence to SUSPECT that a child may be at future risk of maltreatment or has actually been neglected or abused. SUSPECT. Oh, now we go to the NEW definition, which still does not PROVE the states and the workers FOLLOW that definition either. Brilliant. So, understanding which families are unsubstantiated is a simple task. R R R...no it isn't if the worker, as in so many cases, as found by the WA study, does NOT stick to the "new" definition any more than they did with the old. However, determining just how many substantiated families are really neglectful or abusive is next to impossible. R R R ....did you forget what this will do to the claim of "8 to 10 times more likely in foster care?" R R R ...toooooo much. Keep it up. It's like the infinite number of monkey on infinite keyboards claim....if I let you go on indefinately you will eventually destroy all your own arguments and claims. What a delightful day this is. We don't know who are enveloped into the substantiated finding, since families are substantiated for being "at risk" of future problems using the assessment tools we have been discussing. Many innocent parents have been substantiated. I doubt that. But I do know that many NOT innocent parents have been "unsubstantiated" and cases openned anyway...your last big fart fest of complaint, that I rebutted with the study. Fact is, the feds themselves, USDHHS, were so concerned that the definition was NOT being applied correctly, that they commissioned a study. And guess what it found? That indeed, unsubstantiated did NOT mean the child was NOT injured or at risk of injury, but other factors were considered. The feds themselves came up with the defination of unsubstantiated AFTER the results of one of thousands of studies they finance was published. Gosh, "The feds?" I'm so impressed. What has the definition got to do with the accuracy of the data? This is a constant problem in data gathering and analysis. Consistency in what the data sources really are. One "unsubstantiated" might met the definition, and another not....as the WA report showed you, Doug, and you are in deep denial of. Obviously, USDHHS found nothing in the study you reference to influence their defination...or the current one reflects the findings of the study. You mean to tell us that you think the reason for the study was to examine the DEFINITION, and not the field practice, to determine the accuracy and reliability of the data? R R R R .... Nonetheless, there is NO evidence that USDHHS was "so concerned that the previous defination was not being applied correctly that they 'commissioned' a study." I took that from the wording of the study itself. It has nothing do with the "definition" accuracy ... only with the concern the field practice wasn't meeting it. Something that every real worker out there, and those that are interested enough to be paying close attention to facts, and not busy looking for propaganda mill fodder, KNOWS. It's always been this way. Workers make their determinations in many ways, for many reason, not a little cut and paste style "assessment," or limiting themselves to the "definition" of the feds. I doubt they'd get a thing done if they did. And they'd unfairly treat many families that don't quite fit the definition, and they'd very likey cause MORE deaths and injuries to children if they stuck to closely to a formula. We now have a new defination of unsubstantiated, created after that study. It is a finding where CPS workers fail to find any qualifying evidence to SUSPECT that a child may be at future risk of maltreatment or has actually been neglected or abused. And that changes field practice, and the accuracy of the reported data how? R R R ...yer a pip, yesireebob. If you read the MI assessment form that was provided for argument here, you can readily see how easy such a tool could be misused. I protest it. I said, in the debate, that finding it was NOT used correctly was in itself the issue. By your analogy of the example we used, the only way to use the tool correctly was to ignore its results. What analogy are you referring to? I see none. And no, I made no such argument. You are playing at "all-inclusive" and "excluding YOUR choice" in that wonderful paradoxical thinking error habit of yours. You suggested that a good CPS worker would bypass the assessments findings. No I didn't. I suggested that a good CPS worker would make a judgement case by case, and where specific conditions prevailed, just as the accompanying guidelines for the tool said, to consider those conditions in addition to the line by line items. And to consult with their supervisor. In other words NOT lock the client into the very scenario YOU fanticized to create the lie you wished to foist on the reader. Boy, that makes the assessment an excellent instrument, doesn't it? "It is accurate only to the extent you are willing to ignore it." And you can try and prove that's what I said, and that it's not your fantasy. I'll wait right here. 0:-] My worthy opponent still seems to think that the definition by the feds applies as accurate to the data coming out of the states. Isn't that laughable? It is accurate according to both the states and the feds. Oh. Where does it say the data was now being collected according to the definition? The defination was made after the study you talk about was published. That study showed that many families were SUBSTANTIATED because the worker did not get along with her supervisor or other unrelated variables. Ah...yes...the "other unrelated variables." I notice you avoided and actual quote. And I know why. Because those "other," "variables" are NOT unrelated, and in fact except for that supervisor problem, were in fact very MUCH related. Go back and read the study. A scalpel or fire or an LEO's gun, all tools, can be misused, or they can be used correctly. Or they can be ignored, like you suggest a good worker would have ignored the findings of this award-winning assessment tool. I suggest they weigh more than the line by line items, since no "assessment tool," that it won't take four gig to store on a laptop, can be used for a final answer as the ONLY tool for assessing the need or lack for services to a family. And that is made plain, even by the critique done by the study offerred yesterday on this very ng. "Jack" can help you out, Doug. Give him a buzz. http://www.ihs-trainet.com/CCWP/RA%20for%20PDF.pdf Doug Enjoy, 0:- |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
http://www.ihs-trainet.com/CCWP/RA%20for%20PDF.pdf
Thanks for the link, Kane! It contains EVEN MORE DISCLAIMERS about the reasons it contains GIANT HOLES and some that even disclaim against being used in the VERY WAY THAT IT IS BEING USED! As a proof of the validity of these assessment "instruments", Kane basically shot himself in the foot with this link to a PDF! It speaks AGAINST the VERY USES that states are putting the "tools" to! This makes the abuse CULPABLY NEGLIGENT! The states are knowingly MISUSING the things, although I think it's funny that the CREATOR idiots would put this stuff out as "Structured Decision Making" and preach about it's "uniformity" while at the same time offering these MONUMENTAL disclaimers against the very DECISIONS they seem to be intended for! |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Greegor wrote: http://www.ihs-trainet.com/CCWP/RA%20for%20PDF.pdf Thanks for the link, Kane! It contains EVEN MORE DISCLAIMERS about the reasons it contains GIANT HOLES and some that even disclaim against being used in the VERY WAY THAT IT IS BEING USED! You missed me saying, for months, and again recently, that I criticized the way in which it was misused? Odd, you don't see what is in front of your face. But then, you tend to see what you wish, and interpret that only one way...yours. As a proof of the validity of these assessment "instruments", Kane basically shot himself in the foot with this link to a PDF! Unnhh...I did not provide that link originally. I was here yesterday from one of your old buddies wearing a sock over his head...hand...s'cuse. It is, in it's way, a very useful call to continue working on establishing standards across the country. Have you seen me speak against such a move? Did you miss in those many coversations with Doug, where I have said I decried the lack of "practice standards" and even harrassed CPS in my area for a number of years, and lobbied the state legislature to work toward producing same...with the help of the better colleges of graduate social work? Like I said above, you see what you wish and nothing else. It speaks AGAINST the VERY USES that states are putting the "tools" to! No, it speaks out to the fact they must do SOME kind of assessment. That IS what the worker is paid to do and it's in their job description, and in policy and statute. They do NOT just pick kids up off the street and keep them for fun and profit. Though you and your cronies keep trying to imply, and occasionally in the past have said so, implicitely (Dear Fern, we miss "it" so). This makes the abuse CULPABLY NEGLIGENT! You mean that child abuse isn't real? The states are knowingly MISUSING the things, although I think it's funny that the CREATOR idiots would put this stuff out as "Structured Decision Making" and preach about it's "uniformity" while at the same time offering these MONUMENTAL disclaimers against the very DECISIONS they seem to be intended for! Well, as I said, and the paper you cite says (it's not a scientific study, just a review of materials and literature) the instruments themselves can be good, or bad, but any can be misused by their misapplication, including not using them as rendered at all. Please go back and read the paper again. It's full of just such agreement with what I've claimed all along about them. If the worker, and the agency do not use them correctly, of course they are not working correctly. And what would YOU use to assess a family suspected of and reported for abuse and or neglect? Please create a useful assessment tool that would be universally appliable, and we could convince the states not to misuse. I'm all for that, and have said so in many ways in the past. I came here with claims, three years ago, plus or minus, that I was for CPS reform. I haven't changed in the least. I refuse though to lie to work toward that end. You and others here are quite willing to lie toward their "reform" which often takes the form of very dangerous, or expensively foolish and failed ideas being run out again, from two decades ago. Now, produce. And while you are at it, do you support the use of lethal force by parents to take their children from state custody? If so, under what circumstances? Thanks for your long study on this last issue. What, about three to four months now? I know your answer, when you produce it, will be filled with your wit, wisdom, and intellectual prowess demonstrated for us all. 0:- |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Doug wrote: Kane writes: Yes. So can you. So can anyone that can read and understands probability. For instance, if there is a rise in unemployment there is an accompanying rise, shortly after in domestic violence. Can you figure that out? Cause and effect? Hi, Kane, These population wide probabilities do not extend to individual cases. The most basic lesson learned in research 101 is that one cannot apply statistics of an overall population to an individual case. What one learns in research 101 is that a well designed study can be applied to an individual case. The methodology employed in a well designed research study does indeed generalize. In other words, if there is a rise in unemployment, a CPS worker should not determine that the particular family she is working with is any more likely to be experiencing domestic violence. If several well designed studies have identified independent variables that correlate with dependent variables, and the variable of unemployment is positively correlated with domestic violence, then the CPS worker is certainly able to view this family as being at risk for domestic violence. This is especially true since in order for a CPS worker to be involved, there is already a red flag. The employed father is no more likely to be an abuser than another father. If several well designed studies have studied the relationship between father's employment and abuse, and have consistently demonstrated a positive correlation between unemployed fathers and abuse, then yes, the unemployed father is more likely to be an abuser. I'm not saying this is true, I'm just trying to explain how research works. In times of low unemployment, on the other hand, the unemployed father is no more likely to be an abuser than anyone else. Unless you have research to demonstrate this claim, again this is nothing more than your opinion. The very reason for investigations and assessments is to take the guess work and projections out of child abuse and neglect. Risk assessments and other unproven instruments that try to prove the specific with the general are experiments in witch craft. If you want to discover if a family has abused its young, investigate them and find the evidence. I don't know what Risk Assessment you are talking about. Do you have a reference to the tool that was used? You are correct when you state that investigations are important. However, research can help identify families that may be at increased risk, especially when the family is already in the CPS system, as in your examples above. LaVonne Interestingly, there is an accompanying rate of substance abuse, and lower incomes. I've heard, 0:- , that both of these and other factors connected to being out of work, tends to stress folks in a household, even the kiddies. Yet many families do not abuse under tremendous stress. Identification of stressors does not equal abuse. To project abuse based on stressors is to deny the very utility and dignity of a human being. I've heard also that stress levels coorelate to abuse rates. What do you think, Jack? No connection? Not in any particular home. To find out if abuse occurs in a specific home, you need to investigate and find out. A family that is experiencing all the stress in the world may well be a family that is not under any standard abusing its children. In fact, that is the more common situation. But can CPS predict crime BEFORE it happens? We already know domestic violence is bad for the kiddies. Yes, just as I said above. And the assessment instruments, contrary to your unsupported claim, and MY previously posted report on one that was criticized in this ng, but recognized as one of the most excellent, do work. No, CPS or anyone else CANNOT predict crime BEFORE it happens. The answer is obvious. A risk assessment recognized as one of the most excellent was inherently and clearly flawed. Readers got to see that themselves. And THAT was one of the GOOD ones. LOL! Imagine what one of the bad ones must be like. You may be thinking of, since you apparently don't know much about such things, how ANY TOOL CAN BE MISUSED. In fact, my fact finding adventures, then subsequent threads on assessment tools in this ng, began with a small debate over the definition of "substantiated," and "unsubstantiated" findings by CPS workers and their supervisors. The risk assessment shared in the group was inherently flawed and destined to produce error no matter how it is applied -- short of ignoring its findings. You suggested a good determination would be made by the worker if she ignored the score developed by the risk assessment. Any instrument that gives a mother points tallying to neglect of her children for being under 30 years old and a single mother is inherently flawed. My worthy opponent, who shall go nameless so I do not embarrass him with what he might mistake as an accolade in his favor, posited that the rate of unsubstantiated abuse was a varifiably correct number, based on both the feds definition of "substantiated," and the field application of it by line workers and their supers. The rate of unsubstantiated and substantiated abuse is published yearly by the USDHHS. These numbers are submitted by the state child protective agencies themselves. The new defination of unsubstantiated is a finding where CPS workers fail to find any qualifying evidence to SUSPECT that a child may be at future risk of maltreatment or has actually been neglected or abused. SUSPECT. So, understanding which families are unsubstantiated is a simple task. However, determining just how many substantiated families are really neglectful or abusive is next to impossible. We don't know who are enveloped into the substantiated finding, since families are substantiated for being "at risk" of future problems using the assessment tools we have been discussing. Many innocent parents have been substantiated. Fact is, the feds themselves, USDHHS, were so concerned that the definition was NOT being applied correctly, that they commissioned a study. And guess what it found? That indeed, unsubstantiated did NOT mean the child was NOT injured or at risk of injury, but other factors were considered. The feds themselves came up with the defination of unsubstantiated AFTER the results of one of thousands of studies they finance was published. Obviously, USDHHS found nothing in the study you reference to influence their defination...or the current one reflects the findings of the study. Nonetheless, there is NO evidence that USDHHS was "so concerned that the previous defination was not being applied correctly that they 'commissioned' a study." We now have a new defination of unsubstantiated, created after that study. It is a finding where CPS workers fail to find any qualifying evidence to SUSPECT that a child may be at future risk of maltreatment or has actually been neglected or abused. If you read the MI assessment form that was provided for argument here, you can readily see how easy such a tool could be misused. I protest it. I said, in the debate, that finding it was NOT used correctly was in itself the issue. By your analogy of the example we used, the only way to use the tool correctly was to ignore its results. You suggested that a good CPS worker would bypass the assessments findings. Boy, that makes the assessment an excellent instrument, doesn't it? "It is accurate only to the extent you are willing to ignore it." My worthy opponent still seems to think that the definition by the feds applies as accurate to the data coming out of the states. Isn't that laughable? It is accurate according to both the states and the feds. The defination was made after the study you talk about was published. That study showed that many families were SUBSTANTIATED because the worker did not get along with her supervisor or other unrelated variables. A scalpel or fire or an LEO's gun, all tools, can be misused, or they can be used correctly. Or they can be ignored, like you suggest a good worker would have ignored the findings of this award-winning assessment tool. Doug |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Kane's Komments
Kane: As I warned Doug, long ago, that a desire to move child abuse incidences from civil, family court, to criminal court will simply result in harsher penalties for more people. Here's dad I personally don't agree with and wish he'd try expanding his awareness and repertoire somewhat (as though hitting will teach "respect") who should NOT be going to criminal court and in CPS by investigation he'd like, unless there were in fact marks, never even make it to family court. CPS would likely, if he was willing to admit he could learn more and that his choice might not have been appropriate, would leave the child in the home, and work out a service plan, with at worst a few sessions of parenting classes, and possibly an anger management session ro two. Instead, look at what he's facing.... Councilmember Arrested For Allegedly Beating Son Malone Says He Was Disciplining Teen For Incident At School POSTED: 6:59 am EDT May 15, 2005 UPDATED: 9:38 am EDT May 16, 2005 CINCINNATI -- Cincinnati City Councilmember Sam Malone said he was disciplining his son, but police called it domestic violence and arrested him for allegedly beating the 14-year-old, News 5 reported. Police said Malone hit the boy with a belt, and the boy suffered welts to his back, arms and chest. Video: Malone Talks Exclusively To News 5 The boy was treated at Children's Hospital and released. The boy is staying with an uncle. Malone pleaded not guilty and was released on his own recognizance. He'll be back in court later this month. Malone said he was disciplining his son for an incident at school. "Under the advice of my attorney, I cannot discuss the specific facts of the offense at this time, but as a responsible parent I am aware that proper discipline is an important and necessary component of good parenting," Malone said in a statement........... [[[ Let's here if for family court and NOT make criminals with records out of parents that are misled or need some parenting information....or was this, Doug, a "crime," as you claim all "child abuse" is, and not treatable? ]]] The rest is at: http://www.channelcincinnati.com/new...02/detail.html |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
bobb wrote: "Pop" wrote in message ... ... Only if you beleive the state and the researchers. I don't. bobb ... And there we have it: You don't believe the 'state', and you don't believe 'researchers'. Only a "researcher" as you call it, could collect anything more than anecdotal evidence, which is much the way you do, and you end up entirely wrong. But you know that don't you? You would rather believe other ignorants than to know the truth, so you can conintue into the oblivion you are destined for. Gee, pop.... don't you read or listen research data? Alcohol was not good for you... neither was marijuana. Alcohol in excess causes liver damage, increased risk of high blood pressure, heart disease, and stroke. Drinking alcohol during pregnancy increases the infants' risk of being born premature or with low birth weight. Drinking alcohol during pregnancy can result in a child born with Fetal Alcohol Effects or Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, both irreversible conditions. We know this from research. Marijuana is especially problematic for teenagers. We know this from brain development research. Eggs, coffee and butter were foods items to be avoided. And still are. Eggs contain an incredible amount of cholesterol. Coffee should not be consumed in excess, and for people with high blood pressure, not at all, unless the coffee is decaf. Butter is extremely high in fat. Individuals with high cholesterol, high fat diets are at risk for high blood pressure, stroke, and heart disease. We know this from research. .00007 people get skin cancer... soooo stay out of the sun or slosch yourself with expensive sun screen lest you end up a statistic. I don't know where you got the .00007 percentage, but the percentage is actually a lot higher. If you spend a great deal of time outdoors, sunscreen and/or covering skin is recommended. We know this from research. Don't smoke either... but just today it was announced woman of smoking mothers almost never suffer breast cancer. Smoking significantly and positively correlates with lung cancer, emphysema, high blood pressure, and a myriad of other health related problems. We know this from research. Even if it is true that smoking mothers almost never suffer breast cancer, their children are far more likely to suffer from asthma and other respiratory conditions. We know this from research. Look at all those great pain drugs .... that cause heart attacks in adult.... or those behavior drugs that induce suicide in children.... all fully supported by years of testing by the government. We don't know this. We have correlational data coming in that has resulted in certain medications from being pulled, and other medications to carry warnings. Homosexuality was a mental disease, and masturbation probibited for much the same reason. Neither of the above was based on research. This was based solely on opinion. Keep beleiving the government...and research, pop. :-) bobb, it would be good if you understood and read research. Your examples of alcohol, marijuana, eggs, butter, coffee, and sunscreen actually strengthen the position for research. Without research, you have nothing but an uninformed opinion. There was a time when popular opinion held that the earth was flat. Research demonstrated the fallacy of this belief. Yet there was a time when certain individuals rejected the research and continued to believe the earth was indeed, flat. This is called an uninformed opinion. LaVonne bobb |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Carlson LaVonne wrote: bobb wrote: "Pop" wrote in message ... ... Only if you beleive the state and the researchers. I don't. bobb ... And there we have it: You don't believe the 'state', and you don't believe 'researchers'. Only a "researcher" as you call it, could collect anything more than anecdotal evidence, which is much the way you do, and you end up entirely wrong. But you know that don't you? You would rather believe other ignorants than to know the truth, so you can conintue into the oblivion you are destined for. Gee, pop.... don't you read or listen research data? Alcohol was not good for you... neither was marijuana. Alcohol in excess causes liver damage, increased risk of high blood pressure, heart disease, and stroke. Drinking alcohol during pregnancy increases the infants' risk of being born premature or with low birth weight. Drinking alcohol during pregnancy can result in a child born with Fetal Alcohol Effects or Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, both irreversible conditions. We know this from research. Marijuana is especially problematic for teenagers. We know this from brain development research. Eggs, coffee and butter were foods items to be avoided. And still are. Eggs contain an incredible amount of cholesterol. Coffee should not be consumed in excess, and for people with high blood pressure, not at all, unless the coffee is decaf. Butter is extremely high in fat. Individuals with high cholesterol, high fat diets are at risk for high blood pressure, stroke, and heart disease. We know this from research. .00007 people get skin cancer... soooo stay out of the sun or slosch yourself with expensive sun screen lest you end up a statistic. I don't know where you got the .00007 percentage, but the percentage is actually a lot higher. If you spend a great deal of time outdoors, sunscreen and/or covering skin is recommended. We know this from research. Don't smoke either... but just today it was announced woman of smoking mothers almost never suffer breast cancer. Smoking significantly and positively correlates with lung cancer, emphysema, high blood pressure, and a myriad of other health related problems. We know this from research. Even if it is true that smoking mothers almost never suffer breast cancer, their children are far more likely to suffer from asthma and other respiratory conditions. We know this from research. Look at all those great pain drugs .... that cause heart attacks in adult.... or those behavior drugs that induce suicide in children.... all fully supported by years of testing by the government. We don't know this. We have correlational data coming in that has resulted in certain medications from being pulled, and other medications to carry warnings. Homosexuality was a mental disease, and masturbation probibited for much the same reason. Neither of the above was based on research. This was based solely on opinion. Keep beleiving the government...and research, pop. :-) bobb, it would be good if you understood and read research. Your examples of alcohol, marijuana, eggs, butter, coffee, and sunscreen actually strengthen the position for research. Without research, you have nothing but an uninformed opinion. There was a time when popular opinion held that the earth was flat. Research demonstrated the fallacy of this belief. Yet there was a time when certain individuals rejected the research and continued to believe the earth was indeed, flat. This is called an uninformed opinion. LaVonne bobb R R R R R ..... LaVonne, it's pretty obvious, and I don't know why I didn't catch on sooner. bobber doesn't know how to configure a spam filter, and believes that if it comes in an e-mail, in print, he's got to read it because it's an important research based NEW finding. In other words, bobbers reads all his spam. Ever read any? Sounds just like his claims. 0:- |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Kane's Komments
Kane: Comparing these figures to civilian deaths. Hmmmm.... CHILD Abuse Death Risk High in Military Families Forbes - USA .... Researchers at the North Carolina Child Advocacy Institute examined cases of child abuse murders in North Carolina from 1985 to 2000. ... http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/health/feeds/hscout/2005/05/17/hscout525689.html Kane: Gee, I wonder if bobber will step up, try this case before the courts can, declare this guy innocent, and blame 'CPS' for making him a criminal and filling him so with fear that he'd shoot at police officers. Stranger things have happened. 0:- MAN charged with child abuse shot by police during Woodlawn ... Baltimore Sun - Baltimore,MD,USA By Anica Butler. A man accused of child sexual abuse was shot early yesterday by a Baltimore County police officer during a four-hour ... http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-md.standoff17may17,1,6473273.story?coll=bal-local-headlines |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|