Where are the dads when DCFS fails their kids?

[wexwimpy]

Where are the dads when DCFS fails their kids?

June 20, 2004

BY MARY MITCHELL SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Every year dozens of children die months after the Illinois Department
of Children and Family Services looks into their lives, the Chicago
Reporter has found.

We should be appalled by the deadly failure.

But most of us won't be. We have resigned ourselves to the sad reality
of their lives.

Although "Cut Short" is a provocative look at the failings of DCFS, I
was not surprised to learn that the innocent are still falling through
the cracks.

The number of these deaths went up by almost 50 percent between fiscal
years 1999 and 2003, from 82 to 122, according to an annual report
issued in January by DCFS Inspector General Denise Kane. Although the
report involves children at the highest risk, the Reporter found that
even lawmakers who handled child welfare legislation "hadn't read the
report."

In an interview with the Reporter, DCFS Deputy Director of Child
Protection, Gailyn Thomas, seemed to shrug off the deaths as
unavoidable:

"Our mandate is to keep kids safe," she said. "But just because a
child dies, I can't say we didn't meet our mandate. We have no control
over certain circumstances of families, but we try to provide the
appropriate services to ensure the safety of kids."

Written by Sarah Karp, the story chronicles the life and death of
6-week-old Chloe. The infant died in her 12-year-old brother's arms
while his mother was out in the streets on a drug binge.

As horrible as that is, it is an all too familiar scene.

According to the Reporter, over the past four years, 57 children were
murdered by their mother, father or parent's partner despite DCFS
involvement in their lives.

Master Sgt. Richard Roderick, head of the Illinois State Police's
Child Homicide Task Force and one of the experts reviewing child
deaths in Cook County, told the Reporter he was disturbed by the
numbers.

"It happens again and again and again," he said. "Sometimes I just
want to stop the [review] meeting and stand up and say, 'What is going
on here?' "

If would be easy, of course, if there were a safe haven for every
child who needed one. Or if molesters and abusers wore a tattoo that
social workers could spot. Then rescuers could swoop a child up and
away at the first sign. It wouldn't take sign after sign after sign.

But it doesn't happen that way. The expected always comes
unexpectedly. After the tragedy, we always look for someone to blame.

In the case of Chloe, her mother was a drug addict who refused to get
help for her addiction and apparently didn't practice responsible sex.
Although she was free to ruin her own life, she had three children
whose lives she ruined as well.

Her relatives blamed the mother's "drug addiction and lack of concern
for her children" for Chloe's death. From the Reporter's account, DCFS
attempted to provide the mother with counseling and substance abuse
services, but at the time of Chloe's death, the mother still wasn't
willing to clean up her act.

Throughout the entire piece there is not one mention of a father. Not
one.

Yet we know there had to have been at least three men involved. Three
men who could have stepped up and provided a safe place for these
children. Three men who could have kept these children from witnessing
such terrible acts at such an early age. One of these men could have
saved his child's life.

You could argue that the fathers of these children could be drug
addicts themselves or could have other hang-ups that would keep them
from being involved in their children's lives.

But is it fair to have irresponsible sex and expect someone else to
take responsibility for the problems this bad decision causes?

Fathers should have to take responsibility for the welfare and
protection of their children because it is the right thing to do and
because the state is losing the battle to protect these kids. There is
only so much public policy can do.

As sad as it is for a 6-week-old baby to die, at least the baby won't
have to suffer through the abuse of a neglectful mother and an absent
father.

Without support, the lives of fatherless children can also be bleak.

"About one-third of America's children grow up absent their biological
father, and 40 percent of those children have not seen their fathers
in more than a year," said Jeffery Leving, an expert on father's
rights, at the inaugural meeting of the Illinois Council on
Responsible Fatherhood.

The group is charged with increasing the number of children growing up
with involved, responsible and committed fathers in Illinois.

"I think it is one of the most severe challenges that the whole
society is facing," said state Rep. Paul Froehlich (R-Schaumburg), a
member of the commission.

I agree.

A mother let Chloe down. A father let her go
http://www.suntimes.com/output/mitchell/cst-nws-mitch20.html


Defend your civil liberties! Get information at http://www.aclu.org, become a member at http://www.aclu.org/join and get active at http://www.aclu.org/action.

[Sherman]

Yes, where ARE the daddy's? And, as one poster here posits that there are
untapped numerous extended family members available for "kinship care" -
where are they? The sad fact is that there are far too many little ones
without a single relative who can and will give them a safe family home.
One foster child in my care had paternal grandparents who were both in
hospitals for drug withdrawal and were court ordered into rehabs after that.

I have never cared for a foster child who had a sperm donor who expressed a
gnat's leg about their offspring. The only one who seemed to be involved
somewhat ended up not being the father after dna testing and he just
disappeared from the child's life. In addition, there has never been any
relatives who have requested visitation. The only folks who have done so
are former foster parents of a child. The former fosters are also
consistent in their relationship of being foster extended family.

The common denominator that I've experienced from the bio's is substance
abuse. The worst culprit that I've seen so far is methamphetamine,
particularly the cystal or ice that they smoke. It seems to have "blown
their minds" and, as I understand it, the stuff actually does kill brain
cells.

I can't see how a child can ever be able to understand at any point in time
that their bio preferred a chemical over them. I sure can't and in some
ways, never want to have the ability to "get it".

All of this speaks to nothing of the damage done to the physical well-being
of the infants who are subjected to this prior to birth.

It's all against nature itself. This little Chloe's death is tragic and
senseless. Unfortunately, the answer to the question is most prabably that
the bio male parental unit was out getting high too... along with the
grandparents.

Sherman

[Fern5827]

Sherry sent in:

>I can't see how a child can ever be able to understand at any point in time
>that their bio preferred a chemical over them. I sure can't and in some
>ways, never want to have the ability to "get it".

True, however addiction has a physiologic basic. Ever experienced a migraine,
Sherry?

However, this post of Wex's is specific to a Mr. Gaffney in FL whom DCF has
kidnapped his children from on the very questionable "sexual abuse" charge.

Very different from a young person with SA problems.

Wonder how long it took the AG of FL to write an 8 pg letter to DCF director
Regier, wondering how DCF can squander its resources without sufficient and
professional investigation?

[a poor misguided soul]

Fern5827 wrote:

>Sherry sent in:
>
>
>
>>I can't see how a child can ever be able to understand at any point in time
>>that their bio preferred a chemical over them. I sure can't and in some
>>ways, never want to have the ability to "get it".
>>
>>
>
>True, however addiction has a physiologic basic. Ever experienced a migraine,
>Sherry?
>
>However, this post of Wex's is specific to a Mr. Gaffney in FL whom DCF has
>kidnapped his children from on the very questionable "sexual abuse" charge.
>
>Very different from a young person with SA problems.
>
>Wonder how long it took the AG of FL to write an 8 pg letter to DCF director
>Regier, wondering how DCF can squander its resources without sufficient and
>professional investigation?
>
>
>
>
simple by keeping the cases confidential.
--


Click here <http://patism66.blogspot.com>

[Ron]

"wexwimpy" > wrote in message
...
> Where are the dads when DCFS fails their kids?
>
> June 20, 2004
>
> BY MARY MITCHELL SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
>
> Every year dozens of children die months after the Illinois Department
> of Children and Family Services looks into their lives, the Chicago
> Reporter has found.

The "reporter" failed to look at the available data.

Facts:

Child Population Illinois: 3,254,523
Child Deaths 2002: 70
Child Deaths in care: 1

More Facts about Illinois:

Referrals: 58,704
Screened Out Referrals: 0
Average number of hours between report and investigation: 15
Substantiated reports: 16,035
Unsubstantiated reports: 38,897
Intentionally False Reports: 3,772
(This would be a good one for investigation by a reporter, why is this
number so high?)
Sereening and Intake Workers: 134
(Thats 438+ referrals per year per worker, quite high)
Phsyically Abused: 35.5%
Neglected: 55.3%
Medical Neglect: 3.5%
Sexual Abuse: 16.2%
Psychological Maltreatment: .2%
Other forms of maltreatment: 6.2%

And these are just the one's that they know about! What about all the one's
that dont get reported, the children abused to death that are not found out?

Ya know, its easy to sit on the side and look over numbers and say that this
is so, and that needs to be done. But the reality is that the numbers only
tell less than 1% of the story. You have been there Wex, you know some of
the rest of it. There is a whole world of information out there that fern
and kneal, doug and gregg will never have access to because they cant see
the forrest for the tree's. They see 1% of the story and assume that they
know it all. Reality is quite different.

Reality. Its an understanding that the "mob" lacks. A word that they
cannot fathom.

Ron

[Doug]

Ron writes:

> Referrals: 58,704
> Screened Out Referrals: 0
> Average number of hours between report and investigation: 15
> Substantiated reports: 16,035
> Unsubstantiated reports: 38,897
> Intentionally False Reports: 3,772
> (This would be a good one for investigation by a reporter, why is this
> number so high?)


Hi, Ron!

....Or, why is reported as so low.


> Sereening and Intake Workers: 134
> (Thats 438+ referrals per year per worker, quite high)


Actually, the rate is quite low for intake workers. It simply means each
worker takes an average of 1 3/4 phone calls per day. A phone call every 4
hours isn't much, especially since this state does not screen out ANY of the
reports and intake workers don't have to make any decisions.

Eight hundred and seventy workers do the assessments or investigations.
http://tinyurl.com/yud65 That works out to 67 assessments per year for each
worker, 44 of which are unsubstantiated. Each worker handles a case where
there is risk of or actual child abuse or neglect once every 10 days.

> Phsyically Abused: 35.5%
> Neglected: 55.3%
> Medical Neglect: 3.5%
> Sexual Abuse: 16.2%
> Psychological Maltreatment: .2%
> Other forms of maltreatment: 6.2%
>
> And these are just the one's that they know about! What about all the
one's
> that dont get reported, the children abused to death that are not found
out?


Since no one knows about them, and they don't get reported, no one knows how
many there are . . .

....One wonders how someone can make a fantasy calculation that the unknown,
unreported and uncounted children represent 99% of child abuse and neglect
victims. And the ones that are reported, counted and known represent only
1% of abuse and neglect victims.

> Ya know, its easy to sit on the side and look over numbers and say that
this
> is so, and that needs to be done. But the reality is that the numbers
only
> tell less than 1% of the story. You have been there Wex, you know some of
> the rest of it. There is a whole world of information out there that fern
> and kneal, doug and gregg will never have access to because they cant see
> the forrest for the tree's. They see 1% of the story and assume that they
> know it all. Reality is quite different.

Reality?

Is reality counting numbers that are not there? Where is this mounds of
information that tells us that reported cases of child abuse and neglect is
only 1% of the total abuse and neglect that happens?

Reality?

Ron, would you still stand by your imaginary 1% number if it was shown that
using your equation EVERY CHILD in Illinois has been abused or neglected?

But, wait, there's more . . .

If 58,704 children were reported as victims of child abuse and neglect (your
figures above, accurately extracted from NCCANDS) and that known number of
reported children represents only 1% of the children who are abused and
neglected, that means 5,800,000 children were abused or neglected in
Illinois. The trouble is there is only 3,254,523 total children that live
in the entire state.

You were talking about reality, right, Ron?

Lets limit your formula to just those children substantiated for risk of or
actual abuse in Illinois --16,305 children. That would come out to more
than half of the entire child population of Illinois -- 1,630,500
children -- as being abused or neglected. To substantiate that many
children, more than 86,000 child protective workers would have to
investigate 4,891,500 children (a million and a half more children than
reside in the state of Illinois). You would have to invite some of those
workers down to your state of Nebraska to get their quota.

You were talking about reality, right, Ron?

> Reality. Its an understanding that the "mob" lacks. A word that they
> cannot fathom.


Oh.

Doug

[Doug]

"Ron" writes:

> > June 20, 2004
> >
> > BY MARY MITCHELL SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
> >
> > Every year dozens of children die months after the Illinois Department
> > of Children and Family Services looks into their lives, the Chicago
> > Reporter has found.
>
> The "reporter" failed to look at the available data.
>
> Facts:
>
> Child Population Illinois: 3,254,523
> Child Deaths 2002: 70
> Child Deaths in care: 1
>

Hi, Ron!

You pasted the wrong data. The columnist looked at data from an internal
CPS report ending with fiscal year 2003. You posted NCANDS data from
calendar year 2002.

"The number of these deaths went up by almost 50 percent between fiscal
years 1999 and 2003, from 82 to 122, according to an annual report
issued in January by DCFS Inspector General Denise Kane. Although the
report involves children at the highest risk, the Reporter found that
even lawmakers who handled child welfare legislation "hadn't read the
report."

So the number of fatalities due to abuse and neglect in 2003 was 122, NOT
your 2002 figure of 70. As the internal report shows, fatalities increased
from 1999 (82 deaths) through 2002 to the 122 reported for six months of
2002 and 6 months of 2003.

Child Population Illinois: 3,254,523
Child Deaths 2002: 70 [Child Deaths fiscal year 2003: 122.]

All of the fatalities in the internal report are higher than those Illinois
CPS reported to NCCANDS.

So, we have evidence here yet again of underreporting of child fatalities to
NCCANDS. Yet another internal CPS report shows numbers officially reported
to NCANDS were fraudulent. We can now also see that you made an inaccurate
comparison by using NCANDS data for the wrong year and, on that basis,
falsely accused the columnist of wrongdoing.

Now, for your question of the week. I will get the full report to verify the
answer. How many fatalities due to abuse and neglect committed by foster
carers occurred during fiscal year 2003? Will we see that the number
reported to NCANDS for calendar year 2002 was underreported?

Doug

[Ron]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> "Ron" writes:
>
> > > June 20, 2004
> > >
> > > BY MARY MITCHELL SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
> > >
> > > Every year dozens of children die months after the Illinois Department
> > > of Children and Family Services looks into their lives, the Chicago
> > > Reporter has found.
> >
> > The "reporter" failed to look at the available data.
> >
> > Facts:
> >
> > Child Population Illinois: 3,254,523
> > Child Deaths 2002: 70
> > Child Deaths in care: 1
> >
>
> Hi, Ron!
>
> You pasted the wrong data. The columnist looked at data from an internal
> CPS report ending with fiscal year 2003. You posted NCANDS data from
> calendar year 2002.

The data I posted was accurate doug. And the "columnist" looked at data
from an internal CPS report 'eh? Well, so they say. Unless the report is
made public we dont know if he is reporting accurately or not. But, that is
neither here nor there as far as failing to review the available data. Fact
is, he didnt.

> "The number of these deaths went up by almost 50 percent between fiscal
> years 1999 and 2003, from 82 to 122, according to an annual report
> issued in January by DCFS Inspector General Denise Kane. Although the
> report involves children at the highest risk, the Reporter found that
> even lawmakers who handled child welfare legislation "hadn't read the
> report."

This is a good one. All the law makers of the state handle "child welfare
legislation" doug, thats hwo the states pass these things and make them into
law.

> So the number of fatalities due to abuse and neglect in 2003 was 122, NOT
> your 2002 figure of 70. As the internal report shows, fatalities
increased
> from 1999 (82 deaths) through 2002 to the 122 reported for six months of
> 2002 and 6 months of 2003.
>
> Child Population Illinois: 3,254,523
> Child Deaths 2002: 70 [Child Deaths fiscal year 2003: 122.]
>
> All of the fatalities in the internal report are higher than those
Illinois
> CPS reported to NCCANDS.
>
> So, we have evidence here yet again of underreporting of child fatalities
to
> NCCANDS. Yet another internal CPS report shows numbers officially
reported
> to NCANDS were fraudulent. We can now also see that you made an
inaccurate
> comparison by using NCANDS data for the wrong year and, on that basis,
> falsely accused the columnist of wrongdoing.

We see that the data that this reporter in claiming to have access to may or
may not exist.

In case you missed it Doug, Picking on CPS is the "In-Vogue" thing for the
press to do. Its what sells news papers, gets the ratings, and generally
makes the governemnt that is in power look bad. You have to learn to take
these things that are clearly unsupported by facts with a grain of salt.

Was there "underreporting of child fatalities to NCCANDS"? Maybe, we wont
know. Was the "CPS report shows numbers officially reported to NCANDS were
fraudulent", again maybe, and again we will never know. What we do know,
without any doubt what-so-ever, is that child fatalities are under reported
nationally, as is child abuse of all kinds, and child neglect. And this is
not the fault of CPS, but of the citizens.

> Now, for your question of the week. I will get the full report to verify
the
> answer. How many fatalities due to abuse and neglect committed by foster
> carers occurred during fiscal year 2003? Will we see that the number
> reported to NCANDS for calendar year 2002 was underreported?

What we will see doug is that 2002 and 2003 are different years. We will
also see that once again you miss the mark by quite a bit. And here is why:

The criteria for reporting child fatalities to NCANDS is significantly
different than what is required for each state. Each state reports those
child fatalities that meet NCANDS criteria. The same with CA/N. Find the
criteria doug, since you say that you work within the system, and you will
find the reason you have once again falsely accused someone of fraudulent
reporting.

Ron

> Doug
>
>

[Ron]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> Ron writes:
>
> > Referrals: 58,704
> > Screened Out Referrals: 0
> > Average number of hours between report and investigation: 15
> > Substantiated reports: 16,035
> > Unsubstantiated reports: 38,897
> > Intentionally False Reports: 3,772
> > (This would be a good one for investigation by a reporter, why is this
> > number so high?)
>
>
> Hi, Ron!
>
> ...Or, why is reported as so low.
>
>
> > Sereening and Intake Workers: 134
> > (Thats 438+ referrals per year per worker, quite high)
>
>
> Actually, the rate is quite low for intake workers. It simply means each
> worker takes an average of 1 3/4 phone calls per day. A phone call every
4
> hours isn't much, especially since this state does not screen out ANY of
the
> reports and intake workers don't have to make any decisions.

You are of the impression that it is only a phone call doug? My my, could
you posibly be more dense?

1 3/4 30 to 45 day investigations per day per worker is very high. Thats a
great deal of work for a single individual.

> Eight hundred and seventy workers do the assessments or investigations.
> http://tinyurl.com/yud65 That works out to 67 assessments per year for
each
> worker, 44 of which are unsubstantiated. Each worker handles a case
where
> there is risk of or actual child abuse or neglect once every 10 days.
>
> > Phsyically Abused: 35.5%
> > Neglected: 55.3%
> > Medical Neglect: 3.5%
> > Sexual Abuse: 16.2%
> > Psychological Maltreatment: .2%
> > Other forms of maltreatment: 6.2%
> >
> > And these are just the one's that they know about! What about all the
> one's
> > that dont get reported, the children abused to death that are not found
> out?
>
>
> Since no one knows about them, and they don't get reported, no one knows
how
> many there are . . .
>
> ...One wonders how someone can make a fantasy calculation that the
unknown,
> unreported and uncounted children represent 99% of child abuse and neglect
> victims. And the ones that are reported, counted and known represent only
> 1% of abuse and neglect victims.

I'm kinda wondering how you can ignore the fact that there are significant
numbers of unreported cases doug. But then again you would prefer it that
way, as it supports your cause. My cause on the other hand is not to report
it, but to stop it. Since that cannot be done I fight a lost cause, but
maybe some kids somewhere does not get abused or neglected that otherwise
might have. Reported or not, abuse and neglect remain abuse and neglect.

> > Ya know, its easy to sit on the side and look over numbers and say that
> this
> > is so, and that needs to be done. But the reality is that the numbers
> only
> > tell less than 1% of the story. You have been there Wex, you know some
of
> > the rest of it. There is a whole world of information out there that
fern
> > and kneal, doug and gregg will never have access to because they cant
see
> > the forrest for the tree's. They see 1% of the story and assume that
they
> > know it all. Reality is quite different.
>
> Reality?
>
> Is reality counting numbers that are not there? Where is this mounds of
> information that tells us that reported cases of child abuse and neglect
is
> only 1% of the total abuse and neglect that happens?

Dam you are thick today doug. Re-read that, backwards maybe, or
upside-down, whatever it takes to get the point. The numbers tell less than
1% of the story of child abuse and neglect doug. Numbers always tell less
than 1% of any story. And most often they tell the wrong story. But you
can never admit that, it would not support your cause.

> Reality?
>
> Ron, would you still stand by your imaginary 1% number if it was shown
that
> using your equation EVERY CHILD in Illinois has been abused or neglected?
>
> But, wait, there's more . . .

More? Have you not shown us enough of how poorly you read the post doug?
Must we endure more inane words from someone that didnt read what was
written? You are a cruel person doug, cruel.

> If 58,704 children were reported as victims of child abuse and neglect
(your
> figures above, accurately extracted from NCCANDS) and that known number of
> reported children represents only 1% of the children who are abused and
> neglected, that means 5,800,000 children were abused or neglected in
> Illinois. The trouble is there is only 3,254,523 total children that live
> in the entire state.
>
> You were talking about reality, right, Ron?
>
> Lets limit your formula to just those children substantiated for risk of
or
> actual abuse in Illinois --16,305 children. That would come out to more
> than half of the entire child population of Illinois -- 1,630,500
> children -- as being abused or neglected. To substantiate that many
> children, more than 86,000 child protective workers would have to
> investigate 4,891,500 children (a million and a half more children than
> reside in the state of Illinois). You would have to invite some of those
> workers down to your state of Nebraska to get their quota.
>
> You were talking about reality, right, Ron?
>
> > Reality. Its an understanding that the "mob" lacks. A word that they
> > cannot fathom.
>
>
> Oh.
>
> Doug

Yeah. Oh. Usually you do a fairly good job of reading doug. Today your
left eyeball must have been on vacation. You didn't just miss the target,
you didn't even aim in the right direction. Congratulations, another
masterfully inane post. It must make your mother proud. If this is an
example of the kind of work you do for the system I can see why you have
such a problem with it.

Ron

[Doug]

Ron writes:

> The data I posted was accurate doug. And the "columnist" looked at data
> from an internal CPS report 'eh? Well, so they say. Unless the report is
> made public we dont know if he is reporting accurately or not. But, that
is
> neither here nor there as far as failing to review the available data.
Fact
> is, he didnt.

Hi, Ron!

*She* did look at the available data and report on it.

> > "The number of these deaths went up by almost 50 percent between fiscal
> > years 1999 and 2003, from 82 to 122, according to an annual report
> > issued in January by DCFS Inspector General Denise Kane. Although the
> > report involves children at the highest risk, the Reporter found that
> > even lawmakers who handled child welfare legislation "hadn't read the
> > report."
>
> This is a good one. All the law makers of the state handle "child welfare
> legislation" doug, thats hwo the states pass these things and make them
into
> law.

Precisely. That is why it is alarming that they did not read the report,
which was, of course, made public.

> > So the number of fatalities due to abuse and neglect in 2003 was 122,
NOT
> > your 2002 figure of 70. As the internal report shows, fatalities
> increased
> > from 1999 (82 deaths) through 2002 to the 122 reported for six months of
> > 2002 and 6 months of 2003.
> >
> > Child Population Illinois: 3,254,523
> > Child Deaths 2002: 70 [Child Deaths fiscal year 2003: 122.]
> >
> > All of the fatalities in the internal report are higher than those
> Illinois
> > CPS reported to NCCANDS.
> >
> > So, we have evidence here yet again of underreporting of child
fatalities
> to
> > NCCANDS. Yet another internal CPS report shows numbers officially
> reported
> > to NCANDS were fraudulent. We can now also see that you made an
> inaccurate
> > comparison by using NCANDS data for the wrong year and, on that basis,
> > falsely accused the columnist of wrongdoing.
>
> We see that the data that this reporter in claiming to have access to may
or
> may not exist.

It exists. It's just that a lot of lawmakers didn't read it.

> In case you missed it Doug, Picking on CPS is the "In-Vogue" thing for the
> press to do. Its what sells news papers, gets the ratings, and generally
> makes the governemnt that is in power look bad. You have to learn to take
> these things that are clearly unsupported by facts with a grain of salt.

The columnist's statements are supported by fact. She cites her source and
quotes the findings.

> What we will see doug is that 2002 and 2003 are different years. We will
> also see that once again you miss the mark by quite a bit. And here is
why:

Nope. Actually, fiscal year 2003 includes half of calendar year 2002
figures. NCANDS data is categorized by calendar year 2002 while the state
report was for fiscal year 2003. The state report included statistics from
6 months of 2002.

> The criteria for reporting child fatalities to NCANDS is significantly
> different than what is required for each state. Each state reports those
> child fatalities that meet NCANDS criteria. The same with CA/N. Find the
> criteria doug, since you say that you work within the system, and you will
> find the reason you have once again falsely accused someone of fraudulent
> reporting.

The criteria for child abuse and neglect substantiations is identical in
state and federal criteria. The feds insist that the states report to
NCANDS numbers of cases they have substantiated -- based on the state's
criteria -- for child abuse and neglect.

As far as fatalities due to abuse and neglect, this, too, is up to the
states to decide based upon the state's criteria. The only thing the feds
require is a reporting to NCANDS of the number of children so determined by
the state, using the state's criteria.

Doug

[Doug]

Ron writes:

>Actually, the rate is quite low for intake workers. It simply means each
> > worker takes an average of 1 3/4 phone calls per day. A phone call
every
> 4
> > hours isn't much, especially since this state does not screen out ANY of
> the
> > reports and intake workers don't have to make any decisions.
>
> You are of the impression that it is only a phone call doug? My my, could
> you posibly be more dense?

Hi, Ron!

Intake workers take incoming phone calls, gather preliminary information,
and assign them to county offices for investigation. They do not conduct
the investigations.

> 1 3/4 30 to 45 day investigations per day per worker is very high. Thats
a
> great deal of work for a single individual.

LOL!!!!!!!!! Obviously 52 (1.75*30) investigations in 30 days would be a
bit high. Some would say impossible.

But the intake workers do not do 30 day investigations. They take 20 minute
phone calls and assign them for investigation. The 870 workers who actually
do the investigations do an average of 67 investigations a year.
>
> > Eight hundred and seventy workers do the assessments or investigations.
> > http://tinyurl.com/yud65 That works out to 67 assessments per year for
> each
> > worker, 44 of which are unsubstantiated. Each worker handles a case
> where
> > there is risk of or actual child abuse or neglect once every 10 days.
> >

>> ...One wonders how someone can make a fantasy calculation that the
unknown,
>> unreported and uncounted children represent 99% of child abuse and
neglect
>> victims. And the ones that are reported, counted and known represent
only
>> 1% of abuse and neglect victims.

> I'm kinda wondering how you can ignore the fact that there are significant
> numbers of unreported cases doug. But then again you would prefer it that
> way, as it supports your cause. My cause on the other hand is not to
report
> it, but to stop it. Since that cannot be done I fight a lost cause, but
> maybe some kids somewhere does not get abused or neglected that otherwise
> might have. Reported or not, abuse and neglect remain abuse and neglect.

I am not ignoring the fact that there are unreported cases of child abuse.
What I am challenging in my statement to which you respond is that
unreported cases represent 99% of child abuse and neglect.

Doug

[Doug]

Ron writes:

> > > Ya know, its easy to sit on the side and look over numbers and say
that
> > this
> > > is so, and that needs to be done. But the reality is that the numbers
> > only
> > > tell less than 1% of the story. You have been there Wex, you know
some
> of
> > > the rest of it. There is a whole world of information out there that
> fern
> > > and kneal, doug and gregg will never have access to because they cant
> see
> > > the forrest for the tree's. They see 1% of the story and assume that
> they
> > > know it all. Reality is quite different.
> >
> > Reality?
> >
> > Is reality counting numbers that are not there? Where is this mounds of
> > information that tells us that reported cases of child abuse and neglect
> is
> > only 1% of the total abuse and neglect that happens?
>
> Dam you are thick today doug. Re-read that, backwards maybe, or
> upside-down, whatever it takes to get the point. The numbers tell less
than
> 1% of the story of child abuse and neglect doug. Numbers always tell less
> than 1% of any story. And most often they tell the wrong story. But you
> can never admit that, it would not support your cause.

After reading your response and re-reading your initial statement, I can see
now that I misread what you intended to say. I misunderstood what seems to
me now to be a pretty clear. You did say that numbers overall represented
less than 1% of the problem and NOT, as I mistakenly interpreted, that
reported child abuse represented less than 1% of abuse.

Please accept my apology for my mistake and the charges I made based upon my
misinterpretation. I will try in the future to read your statements more
carefully.

I was wrong. You were correct in pointing out my error. I am sorry.

Doug