Sociology > Education > Tucson, Arizona -- Foster care, too often, is a toxic intervention:Gov. Janet Napolitano when she says we should ignore statistics showing thatthe number of children torn from their families...
| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"fx" |
| Date: |
28 Aug 2007 12:06:54 PM |
| Object: |
Tucson, Arizona -- Foster care, too often, is a toxic intervention:Gov. Janet Napolitano when she says we should ignore statistics showing thatthe number of children torn from their families... |
Foster care, too often, is a toxic intervention
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 08.28.2007
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/related/198354.php
The Star supports Gov. Janet Napolitano when she says we should ignore
statistics showing that the number of children torn from their families
in Arizona has soared in recent years ("A statistic is a statistic,
nothing more," Aug. 24).
Presumably, she also wants to ignore the fact that systems recognized
nationally for improving child safety take, proportionately, far fewer
children than Arizona, and Pima County takes, proportionately, 50
percent more children than Maricopa County with no evidence that Pima
children are safer.
The only thing that counts, the governor says, is whether an individual
decision makes children safer.
Fortunately, all over the country, researchers have been examining
exactly that.
In one study, researchers examined children born with cocaine in their
systems. Children left with birth mothers able to care for them
developed better than those placed in foster care.
That doesn't mean children should be left with addicts. It does mean
that when a 3-year-old is found unsupervised in a filthy home and the
mom is a meth addict, inpatient drug treatment for the mother, in a
place where she can live with her child, almost always is a better first
choice than foster care for the child. Methamphetamine is just as
treatable — in the same time frames — as any other addiction.
In another study, researchers interviewed hundreds of young adults who'd
endured foster care. One-third reported being abused by a foster parent
or another adult in a foster home. Only one in five was doing well in life.
Two more studies compare outcomes for children placed in foster care
directly to comparably maltreated children left in their own homes —
including one comparing more than 15,000 children.
Both found that, on average, children left in their own homes did
significantly better.
None of this means no child ever should be taken away. But these studies
tell us that foster care is an enormously toxic intervention that should
be used sparingly and in small doses.
The statistics the governor wants us to ignore tell us that Arizona has
been prescribing megadoses of foster care.
Apparently, the governor wants us to ignore the studies and the
statistics, while her allies dismiss individual cases as aberrations. We
are simply supposed to trust the judgment of caseworkers. But the
Department of Economic Security itself says those caseworkers are "an
inexperienced workforce that is unable to deal with the complex issues
present in the child-welfare system."
There is a word for decisions made in haste by inexperienced,
overwhelmed caseworkers: capricious. So even as they take more children
needlessly, they overlook other children in real danger.
That explains one statistic no one should ignore: 23. That's the number
of children previously "known-to-the-system" who died in 2005. It's a
number the take-the-child-and-run approach was supposed to reduce.
Instead, that number, 23, is a record.
The governor promised to put child safety ahead of family preservation,
and gave the vulnerable children of Arizona neither.
There also is a word for those who ignore individual cases, research and
statistics as they perpetuate an approach that leaves more children in
dangerous homes, even as it consigns many others to a system that churns
out walking wounded four times out of five: irresponsible.
Write to Richard Wexler at rwexler@nccpr.org. The coalition's report on
Arizona child welfare is available at www.nccpr.org
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
Imagine that, 6.4 children die at the hands of the very agencies that
are supposed to protect them and only 1.5 at the hands of parents per
100,000 children. CPS perpetrates more abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse
and kills more children then parents in the United States. If the
citizens of this country hold CPS to the same standards that they hold
parents too. No judge should ever put another child in the hands of ANY
government agency because CPS nationwide is guilty of more harm and
death than any human being combined. CPS nationwide is guilty of more
human rights violations and deaths of children then the homes from which
they were removed. When are the judges going to wake up and see that
they are sending children to their death and a life of abuse when
children are removed from safe homes based on the mere opinion of a
bunch of social workers.
CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, HAPPILY DESTROYING THOUSANDS 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...
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
