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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Children on verge of foster care tend to do better when left withown families, study says...
Children on verge of foster care tend to do better when left with own families, study says By JOHN SHULTZ The Kansas City Star http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/205399.html Children on the brink of entering state custody are apt to fare far better in the long run living in their own potentially troubled homes than in foster care, a recent study suggests. Those children who remained with their families were less likely to experience juvenile delinquency and teen pregnancy and often had better, more consistent employment later in life than those who became foster children, according to the study by MIT economics professor Joseph J. Doyle. He studied some 15,000 Illinois children whose families had been reported to the state for abuse or neglect. Doyle’s research is the latest report to underscore the thought that foster care should be looked at as an option of last resort to protect children. Some child advocates are lauding it as groundbreaking — both for the breadth of the population studied and for raising empirical evidence that supports theories that foster care may do more harm than good for children whose cases could have gone either way. “It confirms what observation and experience tell us: That kids need families,” said Gary Stangler, the former head of Missouri’s Department of Social Services and current executive director of The Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative based in St. Louis. “In my work now, especially dealing with older youths getting ready for life, you can see the impact of not having a family prepare them for that.” Representatives from Kansas and Missouri child protection agencies said the study wasn’t surprising. Both states, as well as others nationwide, have refocused efforts in recent years on keeping families together. Still, critics contend that states remain too quick to pull children from their homes. This study never suggests that foster care is inherently damaging to children. Doyle did not study cases of children whose homes were the subject of allegations of drug use or severe physical or sexual abuse, reasoning that removing those children was necessary. But, Doyle wrote, “The results suggest that children on the margin of placement tend to have better outcomes when they remain at home, especially for older children.” The study follows another recent report that showed conflicting benchmarks on the state of foster care. A May report by the Pew Charitable Trusts said that while the nation’s foster care rolls are shrinking — about 513,000 in 2005 compared with 560,000 in 1998 — the number and percentage of children who age out of the system is rising. In 1998, it was about 17,000, a little more than 3 percent. Seven years later, more than 24,000 foster children, or 5 percent, outgrew state care without being adopted. Doyle’s study keyed on Illinois because its abuse and neglect database ties into other social service records, allowing him to track children after they left state custody. The study looked at primarily older kids in the system from 1990 through about 2000. “I was surprised that the results were as large as they were,” Doyle said. Doyle said the study is somewhat distinctive for suggesting that disadvantages later in life may be caused by foster care. By comparison, older studies — including ones that found 20 percent of young prison inmates and more than a quarter of homeless persons spent some time in foster care — correlated negative life outcomes to foster care without being able to present it as a cause. “There’s been a movement more recently toward family preservation, and my work would tend to support that,” Doyle said. “I hope this encourages a dialogue. But the academic in me would still like more work to replicate my results.” Richard Wexler, head of the Virginia-based National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, reads the study as a condemnation of any state that too quickly removes children from their homes. “It tells us how toxic intervention like foster care is,” said Wexler. “It found that, on average, children did better when left in their own homes. It does indicate where the presumption should be, and that means reversing the presumption that most child welfare agencies operate under.” Spokeswomen for state social services in Kansas and Missouri countered that in recent years, both states have strongly emphasized maintaining families over removing children. Abbie Hodgson, with Kansas’ Social and Rehabilitation Services, pointed to the steep increase in cases handled by the state’s Family Preservation Services. In 1997, the state served 1,800 such families, she said. Last year, it was about 2,800. Over that time, the number of children in foster care decreased. “We’re well aware of the trauma that can be done to a child by removing them from their home and their parents, and that’s always done as a last resort and to preserve the safety of the child,” she said. Missouri has seen a similar, though less pronounced, increase in families being accepted into intensive in-home family preservation programs over the past few years, said Department of Social Services spokeswoman Sara Anderson. Missouri also had a similar reduction in the foster care rolls. Neither Hodgson nor Anderson expect the MIT study to have much immediate impact on how the states manage their systems. Pauline Abernathy, with the Pew Commission’s Kids are Waiting campaign, said the study underscores the importance of state child welfare services beyond foster care. Lori Ross, head of the Midwest Foster Care and Adoption Association, said in her experience, the recent shift to focus on family preservation has taken a number of the marginal foster care cases more prevalent a decade ago out of the system. She called the study’s results unsurprising, and also cautioned that such reports shouldn’t be used to never remove children. “That would be very unfortunate for children if people did not use good judgment,” Ross said. “That study is not saying that foster care is not important for kids to be safe. That study is saying you need to do your darnedest to prevent them from getting into foster care in the first place.” CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ON A DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NSA / CIA WIRETAPPING PROGRAM.... CPS Does not protect children... It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse, neglect and even killed at the hands of Child Protective Services. every parent should read this .pdf from connecticut dcf watch... http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com/8x11.pdf http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the US These numbers come from The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect in Washington. (NCCAN) Recent numbers have increased significantly for CPS *Perpetrators of Maltreatment* Physical Abuse CPS 160, Parents 59 Sexual Abuse CPS 112, Parents 13 Neglect CPS 410, Parents 241 Medical Neglect CPS 14 Parents 12 Fatalities CPS 6.4, Parents 1.5 CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, HAPPILY DESTROYING HUNDREDS OF INNOCENT FAMILIES YEARLY NATIONWIDE AND COMING TO YOU'RE HOME SOON... BE SURE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOUR CANDIDATES STANDS ON THE ISSUE OF REFORMING OR ABOLISHING CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES ("MAKE YOUR CANDIDATES TAKE A STAND ON THIS ISSUE.") THEN REMEMBER TO VOTE ACCORDINGLY IF THEY ARE "FAMILY UNFRIENDLY" IN THE NEXT ELECTION... |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Children on verge of foster care tend to do better when left with own families, study says...
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:14:40 -0700, fx wrote:
[[[ among other things...]]] ......"This study never suggests that foster care is inherently damaging to children".... pull quoted from the article below. Hence, Michael's claim that CPS is not doing it's job is crap. Society is NOT doing IT's job, and CPS is assigned the equivalent of one man cleanup duty in a thousand head a day slaughterhouse...which is an excellent metaphor for a society UNWILLING to meet the needs of it's citizens more fully. "This study never suggests that foster care is inherently damaging to children," tends, do you not think, to throw just a tad bit of cold icy water on the following statement made by the headline: Children on verge of foster care tend to do better when left with own families, study says By JOHN SHULTZ The Kansas City Star http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/205399.html Children on the brink of entering state custody are apt to fare far better in the long run living in their own potentially troubled homes than in foster care, a recent study suggests. Those children who remained with their families were less likely Mmmmm, just who decided to leave them there based on the case findings, folks? All this is saying is that CPS CALLED IT RIGHT, or the court did. Together then the JOB IS GETTING DONE. Without a population randomized research longitudinal study this amounts to more support for CPS sorting the cases, and their decision making. Just how stupid ARE you folks? to experience juvenile delinquency and teen pregnancy and often had better, more consistent employment later in life than those who became foster children, according to the study by MIT economics professor Joseph J. Doyle. Who decided NOT to remove the children, based on case practice? He studied some 15,000 Illinois children whose families had been reported to the state for abuse or neglect. Then CPS investigated, with CPS NOT randomly assigning children to removal or in home, or no case and no removal. They made the choices based on factors like the capacity of the parents to respond to services, the severity and kinds of abuse or neglect, the child's age...thus ability to deal with abuse and neglect issues with less or more positive outcomes. This IMMEDIATELY skews the demographic into nSubject SETS favoring better outcomes for one group, and worse for the other NOT because of foster or non-foster. They ONLY possible way to get meaningful results that could find cause, or at least strong correlation to foster care being in itself detrimental and linked to poor longitudinal outcomes would to have a statistically significant numbers in a pool of children who had nearly the same circumstances...same kinds of abuse, same age, same household make up, same income, education of child and family, etc., then assign them WITHOUT INVESTIGATION by throwing little pieces of paper in the air with their names on them, and sweeping them into two piles, sending the children whose names are in one pile to foster care, and NOT removing the children from the other pile from their families. Do you seriously think that this would NOT result in move abuse and deaths and lousy outcomes for the At Home crowd? Doyle’s research is the latest report to underscore the thought that foster care should be looked at as an option of last resort to protect children. Oh dear. The science of repeating what is and has been known for decades and pretending it a brand new idea. And running out to get research funding for it. I can't help but wonder how dim the funders are to NOT bother to look at prior research or commentary from social science on this subject of foster care vs at home care. The implication, in this study, of course, is that the kids left with their families did this "better outcome" without any support at all. They were SORTED INTO A MORE LIKELY SUCCESSFUL GROUP. If you switched groups, as to assigned to home or foster care, can you seriously expect this research outcome to be replicated? Can you spell "bogus research," kiddies? Some child advocates are lauding it as groundbreaking — both for the breadth of the population studied and for raising empirical evidence that supports theories that foster care may do more harm than good for children whose cases could have gone either way. "Some child advocates" as in, Greg:"A guy told me..." R R R R R RR In fact, if you read that paragraph you will see that each phrase has that wonderful Greegorphorism in it. Maybe, "supports," "may do"...yeah, there's a causal claim if ever I saw one. “It confirms what observation and experience tell us: That kids need families,” said Gary Stangler, the former head of Missouri’s Department of Social Services and current executive director of The Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative based in St. Louis. “In my work now, especially dealing with older youths getting ready for life, you can see the impact of not having a family prepare them for that.” Which fails entirely to be meaningfully linked to the claims about the study conclusions. You could use Stangler's statement, AND this study, to support by correlation that the sorting and deciding done by CPS investigation and recommendations to the court HAVE PROVEN SUCCESSFUL. And you could point to those cases where children WERE sent home, and there were bad outcomes as CONFOUNDING the claims about this study. Such as this data from USDHHS showing that there are many more factors than foster versus bio homes as to bad or good outcomes...this of course is a list of the worst POSSIBLE outcomes...child fatalities: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...5/table4_7.htm Table 4-7 Prior CPS Contact of Child Fatalities, 2005 Child Maltreatment 2005 Fatality Victims Whose Families Fatality Victims Received Who Had Been Preservation Reunited with Services in the Their Families State Fatalities Past 5 Years in the Past 5 Years Alabama 24 14 3 Alaska 3 0 0 Arizona Arkansas 17 0 0 California Colorado Connecticut Delaware 0 0 0 District of Columbia 2 0 0 Florida 117 36 5 Georgia Hawaii 2 0 Idaho 0 0 0 Illinois 68 0 0 Indiana 29 0 0 Iowa 9 0 0 Kansas 6 1 0 Kentucky 29 0 0 Louisiana 21 0 0 Maine 1 0 0 Maryland 28 13 0 Massachusetts 8 0 Michigan Minnesota 15 2 0 Mississippi Missouri 42 2 1 Montana 2 0 0 Nebraska 6 0 0 Nevada 17 0 0 New Hampshire 2 0 0 New Jersey New Mexico 12 1 0 New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio 83 19 5 Oklahoma 41 3 0 Oregon 18 4 0 Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island 5 0 0 South Carolina23 0 0 South Dakota 4 1 0 Tennessee 34 0 0 Texas 197 13 9 Utah 10 0 0 Vermont 0 0 0 Virginia 26 0 0 Washington 9 0 2 West Virginia 16 0 Wisconsin Wyoming 2 0 0 Total 928 109 25 Percent 11.7 2.7 Number Reporting 38 35 38 Prior CPS Contact of Child Fatalities, 2005 This table first lists each State. The second column lists the number of child victims who died as a result of maltreatment in States that reported prior contact with CPS. Among the 38 reporting States, this total was 928. The third column reports the numbers of child victims who died from maltreatment and whose families received family preservation services in the past 5 years. Among the 35 reporting States, this total was 109. The fourth column lists the number of child victims who died from maltreatment and had been reunited with their families in the past 5 years. Among the 38 reporting States, this total was 25 fatalities. ... Representatives from Kansas and Missouri child protection agencies said the study wasn’t surprising. Both states, as well as others nationwide, have refocused efforts in recent years on keeping families together. Still, critics contend that states remain too quick to pull children from their homes. Like critics are going to stop when the number drops below a certain level, or the rate does...oh yeah. This study never suggests that foster care is inherently damaging to children. Doyle did not study cases of children whose homes were the subject of allegations of drug use or severe physical or sexual abuse, reasoning that removing those children was necessary. Not only does CPS "sort and assign" but Doyle makes the statement below after HE sorts to remove the critical n from the population? Give me a break. But, Doyle wrote, “The results suggest that children on the margin of placement tend to have better outcomes when they remain at home, especially for older children.” Well DUH. CPS has been practicing that for every year of their existence. They KNOW damn well by RESEARCH...real research, and of course common sense, that an older child can cope better, including punching their drunken father out and leaving when things git to bad for the "child." The study follows another recent report that showed conflicting benchmarks on the state of foster care. A May report by the Pew Charitable Trusts said that while the nation’s foster care rolls are shrinking — about 513,000 in 2005 compared with 560,000 in 1998 — the number and percentage of children who age out of the system is rising. In 1998, it was about 17,000, a little more than 3 percent. Seven years later, more than 24,000 foster children, or 5 percent, outgrew state care without being adopted. Do you see any significant items above that would effect the claims by Doyle, kiddies? Doyle’s study keyed on Illinois because its abuse and neglect database ties into other social service records, allowing him to track children after they left state custody. The study looked at primarily older kids in the system from 1990 through about 2000. And Illinois, of course, it typical of all other areas of the U.S., right? Now take southern Louisiana as an example of being just like Illinois...oh, wait, Katrina. Or those states that have enjoyed a massive increase in drug use, more specifically meth, tagged as pushing sexual abuse numbers, and neglect numbers up....yeah, Illinois is a perfect representative sample...oh yeah. “I was surprised that the results were as large as they were,” Doyle said. Oh, you mean after doing this: "not study cases of children whose homes were the subject of allegations of drug use or severe physical or sexual abuse," then this: "reasoning that removing those children was necessary." Mmmm.... I hope in his actual study report he explained and convinced other academics and researchers what made those removals in particular, "necessary." Doyle said the study is somewhat distinctive for suggesting that disadvantages later in life may be caused by foster care. By comparison, older studies — including ones that found 20 percent of young prison inmates and more than a quarter of homeless persons spent some time in foster care — correlated negative life outcomes to foster care without being able to present it as a cause. And this would suggest that HIS study IS PUCKERING CAUSAL IN OUTCOME? “There’s been a movement more recently toward family preservation, and my work would tend to support that,” Doyle said. “I hope this encourages a dialogue. But the academic in me would still like more work to replicate my results.” It's called, "Walking the dog," in Yoyo tournaments. You don't qualify if at the end of the 'walk' you can't recover the yoyo back to your hand. And so it goes, yo, yo, yo, yo, decade after decade...and the experts such as Doyle continue to contribute, by questionable science and claims, to the yo. Richard Wexler, head of the Virginia-based National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, reads the study as a condemnation of any state that too quickly removes children from their homes. Mmmmmmm... and this is NEWS? “It tells us how toxic intervention like foster care is,” said Wexler. He seems to have missed, and it is an indicator of bias, or careless journalism (that IS Wexler's "qualification")the researchers own statement: "This study never suggests that foster care is inherently damaging to children. Doyle did not study cases of children whose homes were the subject of allegations of drug use or severe physical or sexual abuse, reasoning that removing those children was necessary. " In other words, Wexler is saying that the research says what the researcher emphatically did NOT say. “It found that, on average, children did better when left in their own homes. It does indicate where the presumption should be, and that means reversing the presumption that most child welfare agencies operate under.” "most?" Most have for decades, right out of research from major social science schools, that this IS the right presumption. And that IF IT CAN BE FUNDED, up front services ARE the way to go. Problem is, that the effective programs have a little thing going for them.....THEY SORT OUT THE FAMILIES MOST LIKELY TO SUCCEED to do the pilot programs with...then report THOSE outcomes as though it is the rule that would apply to all families reported for abuse and neglect. People IN the field, DOING the work, WITH THE FAMILIES themseleves know this...and they also know that it's pointless to try and should down these pontificating bull**** artists, because THAT'S POLITICS and their work is social work. Spokeswomen for state social services in Kansas and Missouri countered that in recent years, both states have strongly emphasized maintaining families over removing children. Well most states have strongly emphased that for years, but DID NOT IMPLEMENT because the actual rates of abuse flooded them with cases that drained all the funding into the enforcement portion of their mandate. Of course, they could, for a time, just ignore that, take ONLY cases that had a high probability of good outsome...parents less troubled, kids less damanged, type of abuse more easily treated, and let the other kids die. THEN it would look even better for this pontificating fools and their bull****. And frankly that IS something like what happens. And the yo strikes again. Usually in a rough 10 year cycle. First the move the money to the intervention end, then the incidence of abuse and neglect goes up slowly in that population that would NOT respond to interventions...hell, by LAW they don't have accept them until the child is badly damaged any way...and they have to accept the TPR "service." The years mount up, the rates climb, the NEW set of pontificators (who mysteriously often tend to be the OLD one's) claim that was the wrong thing to do and we need to fund inforcement more. yo. Abbie Hodgson, with Kansas’ Social and Rehabilitation Services, pointed to the steep increase in cases handled by the state’s Family Preservation Services. In 1997, the state served 1,800 such families, she said. Last year, it was about 2,800. Over that time, the number of children in foster care decreased. Aw right. So, whats the obvious conclusion? That the one yo prevails now, and the next yo is about 10 years down the road. “We’re well aware of the trauma that can be done to a child by removing them from their home and their parents, and that’s always done as a last resort and to preserve the safety of the child,” she said. NO NO NO....CPS is supposed to be ignorant of these things until special studies are funded, such as Doyle's, and they get edikated out of their ignorance. Mmmmmhmmmmm.... Missouri has seen a similar, though less pronounced, increase in families being accepted into intensive in-home family preservation programs over the past few years, said Department of Social Services spokeswoman Sara Anderson. Missouri also had a similar reduction in the foster care rolls. And I got a little secret for yah. Regardless, the rate of child abuse has steadily dropped just a little bit each year, trendwise, over some time now. Little up, little down, end point tending to be lower every few years. ACROSS THE PUCKERING COUNTRY. So studies that claim more intervention is the cause are on crusted over manure pits, and best not stomp their little feetzies. Neither Hodgson nor Anderson expect the MIT study to have much immediate impact on how the states manage their systems. Well, because they are where they have been for four to five decades, and they are starting to get a clue about the yo, and the yo, and the yo, and so they know. Pauline Abernathy, with the Pew Commission’s Kids are Waiting campaign, said the study underscores the importance of state child welfare services beyond foster care. "No no, look at MY issue, not their issue. My issue." Not a caseworker of any years that does NOT know that the above is important. And not a caseworker of any years experience that doesn't know, by experience, that you cannot sell that to the legislature. Money, kiddies, MONEY, PUCKERING MONEY. Those late in the game programs cost tons. And any worker that's worked with the about to graduate population (and every parent of a teen) knows that return on the dollar isn't particularly high. Lots of kids, foster and not, do not do all that well in those first years on their own. Barring the occasional little entrepeneural genius, or kiddie pop star. Lori Ross, head of the Midwest Foster Care and Adoption Association, said in her experience, the recent shift to focus on family preservation has taken a number of the marginal foster care cases more prevalent a decade ago out of the system. She called the study’s results unsurprising, and also cautioned that such reports shouldn’t be used to never remove children. Excuse me? "RECENT" shift? I have heard the same thing for 30 years. So I've seen three cycles. I remember laughing to myself when ASFA was implemented in the field, and one state changed it's mission statement from "support for families and children," to "protect children and support families." I figure it was a little sneaky way of trying to show a bit of defiance of the feds (while of course having to bend over for them to get the state's citizen's tax money back) by reversing the emphasis on which end of the problem was being served by ASFA mandates. ASFA, of course was to get children out of the system more quickly. But of course that meant moving to TRP more often in less time. “That would be very unfortunate for children if people did not use good judgment,” Ross said. “That study is not saying that foster care is not important for kids to be safe. That study is saying you need to do your darnedest to prevent them from getting into foster care in the first place.” Now let me see. Here is some research based info I can get my teeth into. The causes of abuse and neglect arise out of poverty, crime, mental illness, crumbling infrastructure, health care inaccessibility, but CPS policy is going to fix it with only the bandaid they are funded for? For as long as I can recall in the issue of child protection never ONCE have I run across any mission statement, or imposed mandate by the legislatures of any state, to run jobs programs, fight crime, run our mental health services, run public transit, public utilities, or hospitals and clinics. Those mandates are ELSEWHERE. And the voices of THOSE systems advocates are quite small and squeeky and ignored. The under funding of THEM fills the CPS offices with children and families. CPS CAN'T EVEN GO OUT AN LOOK FOR ABUSED AND NEGLECTED CHILDREN. Does that indicate anything at all to you about the roll that society has assigned it....PUCKERING CLEANUP CREW AT THE ZOO? No read Michael's bull**** below and see if you can fit any claims he makes into any system of factual social welfar structure. CPS has never been mandated to solve the child endangerment problems in this country. Only the cleanup. And they have one broom. CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ON A DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NSA / CIA WIRETAPPING PROGRAM.... CPS Does not protect children... It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse, neglect and even killed at the hands of Child Protective Services. every parent should read this .pdf from connecticut dcf watch... http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com/8x11.pdf http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the US These numbers come from The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect in Washington. (NCCAN) Recent numbers have increased significantly for CPS *Perpetrators of Maltreatment* Physical Abuse CPS 160, Parents 59 Sexual Abuse CPS 112, Parents 13 Neglect CPS 410, Parents 241 Medical Neglect CPS 14 Parents 12 Fatalities CPS 6.4, Parents 1.5 CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, HAPPILY DESTROYING HUNDREDS OF INNOCENT FAMILIES YEARLY NATIONWIDE AND COMING TO YOU'RE HOME SOON... BE SURE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOUR CANDIDATES STANDS ON THE ISSUE OF REFORMING OR ABOLISHING CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES ("MAKE YOUR CANDIDATES TAKE A STAND ON THIS ISSUE.") THEN REMEMBER TO VOTE ACCORDINGLY IF THEY ARE "FAMILY UNFRIENDLY" IN THE NEXT ELECTION... |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Children on verge of foster care tend to do better when left with own families, study says...
I found this string very interesting. I was on the opposing side of CPS
nearly 10 years ago (well sort of) My ex-wife had a number of issues and while I was with her I was unable to get or keep the house up and she would leave the kids home in the middle of the night to go party, or meet total strangers off the internet for "sexual encounters" while I was working away from home. Cps gave us services, which I told them upfront that I would cooperate but knew that nothing would change in the home unless I took drastic changes myself and got her out of the home, or got the children and I out of the home away from her. After getting the children removed from the home (and place with my family) and later returned 10 months later. They attempted to work with us but nothing worked, my ex would only put on a show for them and really did not change. When I tried to be honest with them I was called narsistic and was told I was only trying to sabotage the "family" Well its going on 10 years since all of that and I am now remarried to a wonderful woman that is great with kids, I have full custody of my children (17,16,12) and have for the last 3 years. My current wife has volunteered for CPS and she now does child care out of our home. We are both constantly looking out for children and making sure they are being cared for correctly and do our best to work with new parents when they are unsure of what to do. We recently had to report a family to CPS (after a few attempts to try to get them to correct some issues in their home - trash all over, NO power..ect) since my wife is licensed thru the state for child care it appears that we may end up with the children in the next few days once CPS checks out the home. What some people don't get is they give more thought to bringing a puppy home from the pound then they give to bringing a child into the world!! Just today I read about a woman that went to work left her infant child in the car ALL day, when they found it the baby was dead! If people are not able to care for children be honest and give them up to someone that can care for them. "0:-]" wrote in message ... On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:14:40 -0700, fx wrote: [[[ among other things...]]] ....."This study never suggests that foster care is inherently damaging to children".... pull quoted from the article below. Hence, Michael's claim that CPS is not doing it's job is crap. Society is NOT doing IT's job, and CPS is assigned the equivalent of one man cleanup duty in a thousand head a day slaughterhouse...which is an excellent metaphor for a society UNWILLING to meet the needs of it's citizens more fully. "This study never suggests that foster care is inherently damaging to children," tends, do you not think, to throw just a tad bit of cold icy water on the following statement made by the headline: Children on verge of foster care tend to do better when left with own families, study says By JOHN SHULTZ The Kansas City Star http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/205399.html Children on the brink of entering state custody are apt to fare far better in the long run living in their own potentially troubled homes than in foster care, a recent study suggests. Those children who remained with their families were less likely Mmmmm, just who decided to leave them there based on the case findings, folks? All this is saying is that CPS CALLED IT RIGHT, or the court did. Together then the JOB IS GETTING DONE. Without a population randomized research longitudinal study this amounts to more support for CPS sorting the cases, and their decision making. Just how stupid ARE you folks? to experience juvenile delinquency and teen pregnancy and often had better, more consistent employment later in life than those who became foster children, according to the study by MIT economics professor Joseph J. Doyle. Who decided NOT to remove the children, based on case practice? He studied some 15,000 Illinois children whose families had been reported to the state for abuse or neglect. Then CPS investigated, with CPS NOT randomly assigning children to removal or in home, or no case and no removal. They made the choices based on factors like the capacity of the parents to respond to services, the severity and kinds of abuse or neglect, the child's age...thus ability to deal with abuse and neglect issues with less or more positive outcomes. This IMMEDIATELY skews the demographic into nSubject SETS favoring better outcomes for one group, and worse for the other NOT because of foster or non-foster. They ONLY possible way to get meaningful results that could find cause, or at least strong correlation to foster care being in itself detrimental and linked to poor longitudinal outcomes would to have a statistically significant numbers in a pool of children who had nearly the same circumstances...same kinds of abuse, same age, same household make up, same income, education of child and family, etc., then assign them WITHOUT INVESTIGATION by throwing little pieces of paper in the air with their names on them, and sweeping them into two piles, sending the children whose names are in one pile to foster care, and NOT removing the children from the other pile from their families. Do you seriously think that this would NOT result in move abuse and deaths and lousy outcomes for the At Home crowd? Doyle's research is the latest report to underscore the thought that foster care should be looked at as an option of last resort to protect children. Oh dear. The science of repeating what is and has been known for decades and pretending it a brand new idea. And running out to get research funding for it. I can't help but wonder how dim the funders are to NOT bother to look at prior research or commentary from social science on this subject of foster care vs at home care. The implication, in this study, of course, is that the kids left with their families did this "better outcome" without any support at all. They were SORTED INTO A MORE LIKELY SUCCESSFUL GROUP. If you switched groups, as to assigned to home or foster care, can you seriously expect this research outcome to be replicated? Can you spell "bogus research," kiddies? Some child advocates are lauding it as groundbreaking - both for the breadth of the population studied and for raising empirical evidence that supports theories that foster care may do more harm than good for children whose cases could have gone either way. "Some child advocates" as in, Greg:"A guy told me..." R R R R R RR In fact, if you read that paragraph you will see that each phrase has that wonderful Greegorphorism in it. Maybe, "supports," "may do"...yeah, there's a causal claim if ever I saw one. "It confirms what observation and experience tell us: That kids need families," said Gary Stangler, the former head of Missouri's Department of Social Services and current executive director of The Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative based in St. Louis. "In my work now, especially dealing with older youths getting ready for life, you can see the impact of not having a family prepare them for that." Which fails entirely to be meaningfully linked to the claims about the study conclusions. You could use Stangler's statement, AND this study, to support by correlation that the sorting and deciding done by CPS investigation and recommendations to the court HAVE PROVEN SUCCESSFUL. And you could point to those cases where children WERE sent home, and there were bad outcomes as CONFOUNDING the claims about this study. Such as this data from USDHHS showing that there are many more factors than foster versus bio homes as to bad or good outcomes...this of course is a list of the worst POSSIBLE outcomes...child fatalities: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...5/table4_7.htm Table 4-7 Prior CPS Contact of Child Fatalities, 2005 Child Maltreatment 2005 Fatality Victims Whose Families Fatality Victims Received Who Had Been Preservation Reunited with Services in the Their Families State Fatalities Past 5 Years in the Past 5 Years Alabama 24 14 3 Alaska 3 0 0 Arizona Arkansas 17 0 0 California Colorado Connecticut Delaware 0 0 0 District of Columbia 2 0 0 Florida 117 36 5 Georgia Hawaii 2 0 Idaho 0 0 0 Illinois 68 0 0 Indiana 29 0 0 Iowa 9 0 0 Kansas 6 1 0 Kentucky 29 0 0 Louisiana 21 0 0 Maine 1 0 0 Maryland 28 13 0 Massachusetts 8 0 Michigan Minnesota 15 2 0 Mississippi Missouri 42 2 1 Montana 2 0 0 Nebraska 6 0 0 Nevada 17 0 0 New Hampshire 2 0 0 New Jersey New Mexico 12 1 0 New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio 83 19 5 Oklahoma 41 3 0 Oregon 18 4 0 Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island 5 0 0 South Carolina23 0 0 South Dakota 4 1 0 Tennessee 34 0 0 Texas 197 13 9 Utah 10 0 0 Vermont 0 0 0 Virginia 26 0 0 Washington 9 0 2 West Virginia 16 0 Wisconsin Wyoming 2 0 0 Total 928 109 25 Percent 11.7 2.7 Number Reporting 38 35 38 Prior CPS Contact of Child Fatalities, 2005 This table first lists each State. The second column lists the number of child victims who died as a result of maltreatment in States that reported prior contact with CPS. Among the 38 reporting States, this total was 928. The third column reports the numbers of child victims who died from maltreatment and whose families received family preservation services in the past 5 years. Among the 35 reporting States, this total was 109. The fourth column lists the number of child victims who died from maltreatment and had been reunited with their families in the past 5 years. Among the 38 reporting States, this total was 25 fatalities. ... Representatives from Kansas and Missouri child protection agencies said the study wasn't surprising. Both states, as well as others nationwide, have refocused efforts in recent years on keeping families together. Still, critics contend that states remain too quick to pull children from their homes. Like critics are going to stop when the number drops below a certain level, or the rate does...oh yeah. This study never suggests that foster care is inherently damaging to children. Doyle did not study cases of children whose homes were the subject of allegations of drug use or severe physical or sexual abuse, reasoning that removing those children was necessary. Not only does CPS "sort and assign" but Doyle makes the statement below after HE sorts to remove the critical n from the population? Give me a break. But, Doyle wrote, "The results suggest that children on the margin of placement tend to have better outcomes when they remain at home, especially for older children." Well DUH. CPS has been practicing that for every year of their existence. They KNOW damn well by RESEARCH...real research, and of course common sense, that an older child can cope better, including punching their drunken father out and leaving when things git to bad for the "child." The study follows another recent report that showed conflicting benchmarks on the state of foster care. A May report by the Pew Charitable Trusts said that while the nation's foster care rolls are shrinking - about 513,000 in 2005 compared with 560,000 in 1998 - the number and percentage of children who age out of the system is rising. In 1998, it was about 17,000, a little more than 3 percent. Seven years later, more than 24,000 foster children, or 5 percent, outgrew state care without being adopted. Do you see any significant items above that would effect the claims by Doyle, kiddies? Doyle's study keyed on Illinois because its abuse and neglect database ties into other social service records, allowing him to track children after they left state custody. The study looked at primarily older kids in the system from 1990 through about 2000. And Illinois, of course, it typical of all other areas of the U.S., right? Now take southern Louisiana as an example of being just like Illinois...oh, wait, Katrina. Or those states that have enjoyed a massive increase in drug use, more specifically meth, tagged as pushing sexual abuse numbers, and neglect numbers up....yeah, Illinois is a perfect representative sample...oh yeah. "I was surprised that the results were as large as they were," Doyle said. Oh, you mean after doing this: "not study cases of children whose homes were the subject of allegations of drug use or severe physical or sexual abuse," then this: "reasoning that removing those children was necessary." Mmmm.... I hope in his actual study report he explained and convinced other academics and researchers what made those removals in particular, "necessary." Doyle said the study is somewhat distinctive for suggesting that disadvantages later in life may be caused by foster care. By comparison, older studies - including ones that found 20 percent of young prison inmates and more than a quarter of homeless persons spent some time in foster care - correlated negative life outcomes to foster care without being able to present it as a cause. And this would suggest that HIS study IS PUCKERING CAUSAL IN OUTCOME? "There's been a movement more recently toward family preservation, and my work would tend to support that," Doyle said. "I hope this encourages a dialogue. But the academic in me would still like more work to replicate my results." It's called, "Walking the dog," in Yoyo tournaments. You don't qualify if at the end of the 'walk' you can't recover the yoyo back to your hand. And so it goes, yo, yo, yo, yo, decade after decade...and the experts such as Doyle continue to contribute, by questionable science and claims, to the yo. Richard Wexler, head of the Virginia-based National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, reads the study as a condemnation of any state that too quickly removes children from their homes. Mmmmmmm... and this is NEWS? "It tells us how toxic intervention like foster care is," said Wexler. He seems to have missed, and it is an indicator of bias, or careless journalism (that IS Wexler's "qualification")the researchers own statement: "This study never suggests that foster care is inherently damaging to children. Doyle did not study cases of children whose homes were the subject of allegations of drug use or severe physical or sexual abuse, reasoning that removing those children was necessary. " In other words, Wexler is saying that the research says what the researcher emphatically did NOT say. "It found that, on average, children did better when left in their own homes. It does indicate where the presumption should be, and that means reversing the presumption that most child welfare agencies operate under." "most?" Most have for decades, right out of research from major social science schools, that this IS the right presumption. And that IF IT CAN BE FUNDED, up front services ARE the way to go. Problem is, that the effective programs have a little thing going for them.....THEY SORT OUT THE FAMILIES MOST LIKELY TO SUCCEED to do the pilot programs with...then report THOSE outcomes as though it is the rule that would apply to all families reported for abuse and neglect. People IN the field, DOING the work, WITH THE FAMILIES themseleves know this...and they also know that it's pointless to try and should down these pontificating bull**** artists, because THAT'S POLITICS and their work is social work. Spokeswomen for state social services in Kansas and Missouri countered that in recent years, both states have strongly emphasized maintaining families over removing children. Well most states have strongly emphased that for years, but DID NOT IMPLEMENT because the actual rates of abuse flooded them with cases that drained all the funding into the enforcement portion of their mandate. Of course, they could, for a time, just ignore that, take ONLY cases that had a high probability of good outsome...parents less troubled, kids less damanged, type of abuse more easily treated, and let the other kids die. THEN it would look even better for this pontificating fools and their bull****. And frankly that IS something like what happens. And the yo strikes again. Usually in a rough 10 year cycle. First the move the money to the intervention end, then the incidence of abuse and neglect goes up slowly in that population that would NOT respond to interventions...hell, by LAW they don't have accept them until the child is badly damaged any way...and they have to accept the TPR "service." The years mount up, the rates climb, the NEW set of pontificators (who mysteriously often tend to be the OLD one's) claim that was the wrong thing to do and we need to fund inforcement more. yo. Abbie Hodgson, with Kansas' Social and Rehabilitation Services, pointed to the steep increase in cases handled by the state's Family Preservation Services. In 1997, the state served 1,800 such families, she said. Last year, it was about 2,800. Over that time, the number of children in foster care decreased. Aw right. So, whats the obvious conclusion? That the one yo prevails now, and the next yo is about 10 years down the road. "We're well aware of the trauma that can be done to a child by removing them from their home and their parents, and that's always done as a last resort and to preserve the safety of the child," she said. NO NO NO....CPS is supposed to be ignorant of these things until special studies are funded, such as Doyle's, and they get edikated out of their ignorance. Mmmmmhmmmmm.... Missouri has seen a similar, though less pronounced, increase in families being accepted into intensive in-home family preservation programs over the past few years, said Department of Social Services spokeswoman Sara Anderson. Missouri also had a similar reduction in the foster care rolls. And I got a little secret for yah. Regardless, the rate of child abuse has steadily dropped just a little bit each year, trendwise, over some time now. Little up, little down, end point tending to be lower every few years. ACROSS THE PUCKERING COUNTRY. So studies that claim more intervention is the cause are on crusted over manure pits, and best not stomp their little feetzies. Neither Hodgson nor Anderson expect the MIT study to have much immediate impact on how the states manage their systems. Well, because they are where they have been for four to five decades, and they are starting to get a clue about the yo, and the yo, and the yo, and so they know. Pauline Abernathy, with the Pew Commission's Kids are Waiting campaign, said the study underscores the importance of state child welfare services beyond foster care. "No no, look at MY issue, not their issue. My issue." Not a caseworker of any years that does NOT know that the above is important. And not a caseworker of any years experience that doesn't know, by experience, that you cannot sell that to the legislature. Money, kiddies, MONEY, PUCKERING MONEY. Those late in the game programs cost tons. And any worker that's worked with the about to graduate population (and every parent of a teen) knows that return on the dollar isn't particularly high. Lots of kids, foster and not, do not do all that well in those first years on their own. Barring the occasional little entrepeneural genius, or kiddie pop star. Lori Ross, head of the Midwest Foster Care and Adoption Association, said in her experience, the recent shift to focus on family preservation has taken a number of the marginal foster care cases more prevalent a decade ago out of the system. She called the study's results unsurprising, and also cautioned that such reports shouldn't be used to never remove children. Excuse me? "RECENT" shift? I have heard the same thing for 30 years. So I've seen three cycles. I remember laughing to myself when ASFA was implemented in the field, and one state changed it's mission statement from "support for families and children," to "protect children and support families." I figure it was a little sneaky way of trying to show a bit of defiance of the feds (while of course having to bend over for them to get the state's citizen's tax money back) by reversing the emphasis on which end of the problem was being served by ASFA mandates. ASFA, of course was to get children out of the system more quickly. But of course that meant moving to TRP more often in less time. "That would be very unfortunate for children if people did not use good judgment," Ross said. "That study is not saying that foster care is not important for kids to be safe. That study is saying you need to do your darnedest to prevent them from getting into foster care in the first place." Now let me see. Here is some research based info I can get my teeth into. The causes of abuse and neglect arise out of poverty, crime, mental illness, crumbling infrastructure, health care inaccessibility, but CPS policy is going to fix it with only the bandaid they are funded for? For as long as I can recall in the issue of child protection never ONCE have I run across any mission statement, or imposed mandate by the legislatures of any state, to run jobs programs, fight crime, run our mental health services, run public transit, public utilities, or hospitals and clinics. Those mandates are ELSEWHERE. And the voices of THOSE systems advocates are quite small and squeeky and ignored. The under funding of THEM fills the CPS offices with children and families. CPS CAN'T EVEN GO OUT AN LOOK FOR ABUSED AND NEGLECTED CHILDREN. Does that indicate anything at all to you about the roll that society has assigned it....PUCKERING CLEANUP CREW AT THE ZOO? No read Michael's bull**** below and see if you can fit any claims he makes into any system of factual social welfar structure. CPS has never been mandated to solve the child endangerment problems in this country. Only the cleanup. And they have one broom. CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ON A DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NSA / CIA WIRETAPPING PROGRAM.... CPS Does not protect children... It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse, neglect and even killed at the hands of Child Protective Services. every parent should read this .pdf from connecticut dcf watch... http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com/8x11.pdf http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the US These numbers come from The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect in Washington. (NCCAN) Recent numbers have increased significantly for CPS *Perpetrators of Maltreatment* Physical Abuse CPS 160, Parents 59 Sexual Abuse CPS 112, Parents 13 Neglect CPS 410, Parents 241 Medical Neglect CPS 14 Parents 12 Fatalities CPS 6.4, Parents 1.5 CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, HAPPILY DESTROYING HUNDREDS OF INNOCENT FAMILIES YEARLY NATIONWIDE AND COMING TO YOU'RE HOME SOON... BE SURE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOUR CANDIDATES STANDS ON THE ISSUE OF REFORMING OR ABOLISHING CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES ("MAKE YOUR CANDIDATES TAKE A STAND ON THIS ISSUE.") THEN REMEMBER TO VOTE ACCORDINGLY IF THEY ARE "FAMILY UNFRIENDLY" IN THE NEXT ELECTION... |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Children on verge of foster care tend to do better when left with own families, study says...
On Aug 3, 11:15 pm, "news.att.net" wrote:
I found this string very interesting. I was on the opposing side of CPS nearly 10 years ago (well sort of) My ex-wife had a number of issues and while I was with her I was unable to get or keep the house up and she would leave the kids home in the middle of the night to go party, or meet total strangers off the internet for "sexual encounters" while I was working away from home. Cps gave us services, which I told them upfront that I would cooperate but knew that nothing would change in the home unless I took drastic changes myself and got her out of the home, or got the children and I out of the home away from her. After getting the children removed from the home (and place with my family) and later returned 10 months later. They attempted to work with us but nothing worked, my ex would only put on a show for them and really did not change. When I tried to be honest with them I was called narsistic and was told I was only trying to sabotage the "family" Well its going on 10 years since all of that and I am now remarried to a wonderful woman that is great with kids, I have full custody of my children (17,16,12) and have for the last 3 years. My current wife has volunteered for CPS and she now does child care out of our home. We are both constantly looking out for children and making sure they are being cared for correctly and do our best to work with new parents when they are unsure of what to do. We recently had to report a family to CPS (after a few attempts to try to get them to correct some issues in their home - trash all over, NO power..ect) since my wife is licensed thru the state for child care it appears that we may end up with the children in the next few days once CPS checks out the home. What some people don't get is they give more thought to bringing a puppy home from the pound then they give to bringing a child into the world!! Just today I read about a woman that went to work left her infant child in the car ALL day, when they found it the baby was dead! If people are not able to care for children be honest and give them up to someone that can care for them. Your story is eerily like the kind of comments that Kane posts to shill for the Child Protection INDUSTRY. In the first part of the story your own description makes you sound like some kind of complete IDIOT. You stayed home and took care of the kids while your wife went out partying and whoring? You made no mention of why the kids were removed from BOTH of you. What did YOU do to have your kids taken away? And with a record like that you went on to become Mr. Wonderful in the eyes of CPS? They use ten year old MISDEMEANORS against people. They fabricated a ""Sex Abuse History"" to lord over my family. You're saying that you had kids removed from you yet they still certified you for baby sitting?? Your preaching about licensing parents is straight out of the socialist social worker agenda. Either you are one of the dumbest people on the face of the earth, virging on being retarded (which would explain being beholden to the damned agencies!) or the whole post was a complete fake designed by the CPS idiots in a sad attempt to regain some Public Relations that is not heading toward the complete end of the Child Protection INDUSTRY. Your text kind of implies that you lack testicles. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Children on verge of foster care tend to do better when left with own families, study says...
On Aug 4, 11:50 am, Greegor wrote:
On Aug 3, 11:15 pm, "news.att.net" wrote: I found this string very interesting. I was on the opposing side of CPS nearly 10 years ago (well sort of) My ex-wife had a number of issues and while I was with her I was unable to get or keep the house up and she would leave the kids home in the middle of the night to go party, or meet total strangers off the internet for "sexual encounters" while I was working away from home. Cps gave us services, which I told them upfront that I would cooperate but knew that nothing would change in the home unless I took drastic changes myself and got her out of the home, or got the children and I out of the home away from her. After getting the children removed from the home (and place with my family) and later returned 10 months later. They attempted to work with us but nothing worked, my ex would only put on a show for them and really did not change. When I tried to be honest with them I was called narsistic and was told I was only trying to sabotage the "family" Well its going on 10 years since all of that and I am now remarried to a wonderful woman that is great with kids, I have full custody of my children (17,16,12) and have for the last 3 years. My current wife has volunteered for CPS and she now does child care out of our home. We are both constantly looking out for children and making sure they are being cared for correctly and do our best to work with new parents when they are unsure of what to do. We recently had to report a family to CPS (after a few attempts to try to get them to correct some issues in their home - trash all over, NO power..ect) since my wife is licensed thru the state for child care it appears that we may end up with the children in the next few days once CPS checks out the home. What some people don't get is they give more thought to bringing a puppy home from the pound then they give to bringing a child into the world!! Just today I read about a woman that went to work left her infant child in the car ALL day, when they found it the baby was dead! If people are not able to care for children be honest and give them up to someone that can care for them. Your story is eerily like the kind of comments that Kane posts to shill for the Child Protection INDUSTRY. The operative statement is "If people are not able to care for children be honest and give them up to someone that can care for them." That seems reasonable to me. In the first part of the story your own description makes you sound like some kind of complete IDIOT. I don't think that's true.. You stayed home and took care of the kids while your wife went out partying and whoring? That's not what he said. He said the mother left the kids alone while he was at work. It's right there in plain English, Greg. You made no mention of why the kids were removed from BOTH of you. What did YOU do to have your kids taken away? And with a record like that you went on to become Mr. Wonderful in the eyes of CPS? They use ten year old MISDEMEANORS against people. Now Greg's gonna start changing the subject to his girlfriend's case! They fabricated a ""Sex Abuse History"" to lord over my family. Here he goes again! You're saying that you had kids removed from you yet they still certified you for baby sitting?? That's not what he said. Your preaching about licensing parents is straight out of the socialist social worker agenda. That's not what he said. How many stupid pills did you take this morning, Greg? Either you are one of the dumbest people on the face of the earth, virging on being retarded (which would explain being beholden to the damned agencies!) or the whole post was a complete fake designed by the CPS idiots in a sad attempt to regain some Public Relations that is not heading toward the complete end of the Child Protection INDUSTRY. Or you just read it wrong, Greg. Your text kind of implies that you lack testicles. Greg likes people without testicles... mainly naked little girls from the ages of five to seven. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New Study: Troubled homes better than foster ca Children whostay in troubled families fare better than those put into foster care. | fx | Spanking | 0 | July 3rd 07 07:33 PM |
New Study: Troubled homes better than foster ca Children whostay in troubled families fare better than those put into foster care. | fx | Foster Parents | 0 | July 3rd 07 07:33 PM |
Black Children in Texas’ Foster Care Fare Worse than Others, Study Says,,Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2006,By: Michael H. Cottman ,,Black social workers said last week that a new study about black children and foster care is troubling and raises seriou | wexwimpy | Foster Parents | 0 | January 18th 06 03:33 PM |
Foster families as different as the children they care for | wexwimpy | Foster Parents | 0 | April 5th 05 05:30 PM |
Children, Families, and Foster Ca Executive Summary | wexwimpy | Foster Parents | 0 | February 4th 04 03:56 PM |