Now here are some links I can get behind. Also, why I am so frustrated that anyone is allowed to have kids in America. One has to pass a drivers license test and have enough money to pay for a car and insurance to drive legally. And yet to be a Parent one has to just have poorly protected sexual intercourse and not have an abortion. And I can guarantee that raising kids well is a lot harder than driving.
And as this says the long term consequences for the children and our society are huge. Thoughts?
Childhood Emotional Trauma Closely Linked to Problems in Adulthood
Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs)
Unfortunately it doesn't look like licensing Parents made the CDC's list... Oh well maybe next time. :-)
CDC Abuse / Neglect Reduction Strategies
And as this says the long term consequences for the children and our society are huge. Thoughts?
Childhood Emotional Trauma Closely Linked to Problems in Adulthood
Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs)
Unfortunately it doesn't look like licensing Parents made the CDC's list... Oh well maybe next time. :-)
CDC Abuse / Neglect Reduction Strategies
22 comments:
One must ask what sort of formal parenthood training YOUR parents had...
Likely none... However they were:
- both raised in stable 2 parent households
- both graduated HS and college
- delayed having me until they were 26
- delayed having me until they were employed and financially stable
- neither was addicted to any activity or substance
- neither were abused as children
I am the first to admit that they made mistakes having been raised post depression by some pretty uptight conservative "work do not play" parents. However overall they did very good!!!
Here are some quotes from the Abuse Neglect Reduction link above.
Child maltreatment includes all types of abuse and neglect of a child under the age of 18 by a parent, caregiver, or another person in a custodial role (e.g., clergy, coach, teacher) that results in harm, potential for harm, or threat of harm to a child.
There are four common types of child maltreatment:
• Physical abuse is the use of physical force, such as hitting, kicking, shaking, burning, or other shows of force against a child.
• Sexual abuse involves inducing or coercing a child to engage in sexual acts. It includes behaviors such as fondling, penetration, and exposing a child to other sexual activities.
• Emotional abuse refers to behaviors that harm a child’s self-worth or emotional well-being. Examples include name calling, shaming, rejection, withholding love, and threatening. I think this one is the hardest to deal with. How does an immature dependent Parent provide this?
• Neglect is the failure to meet a child’s basic physical and emotional needs. These needs include housing, food, clothing, education, and access to medical care.
Child abuse and neglect is highly prevalent. Self-report data suggest that at least 1 in 7 children have experienced child abuse and/or neglect in the last year. Not all children, however, experience abuse and neglect at the same rates. Younger children are more likely to experience fatal abuse and neglect,5 while 14- to 17-year-olds are more likely to experience non-fatal abuse and neglect.
Race and ethnicity and family income are also factors that may affect a child’s exposure. Child protective services data show high rates of victimization among African-American children.
African-American children experience abuse and neglect at rates that are nearly double those for white children. These differences are generally attributed to various community and societal factors, including poverty as well as differences
in reporting and investigation.
Children living in families with a low socioeconomic status (SES)* have rates of child abuse and neglect that are five times higher than those of children living in families with a higher SES.6 Irrespective of data source, definitions, and measures, the true magnitude of child abuse and neglect is likely underestimated, and children of all ages, races, and ethnicities deserve safe, stable, nurturing relationships and environments to achieve maximal health and life potential.
Child abuse and neglect is associated with several risk factors.
Risk for child abuse and neglect perpetration and victimization is influenced by a number of individual, family, and environmental factors, all of which interact to increase or decrease risk over time and within specific contexts.
Risk factors for victimization include child age and special needs that may increase caregiver burden (e.g., developmental and intellectual disabilities, mental health issues, and chronic physical illnesses).
Risk factors for perpetration include young parental age, single parenthood, large number of dependent children, low parental income, parental substance abuse, parental mental health issues, parental history of abuse or neglect, social isolation, family disorganization, parenting stress, intimate partner violence, poor parent-child relationships, community violence, and concentrated neighborhood disadvantage (e.g., high poverty and residential instability, high unemployment rates). Pretty much the opposite of my beloved a somewhat crazy family.
Although risk factors provide information about who is most at risk for being a victim or a perpetrator of child abuse and neglect, they are not direct causes and cannot predict who will be a victim or a perpetrator.
So, we know how kids get screwed up, but we cannot predict it well enough to prevent it? How does that help?
Jerry,
If we get you to a point that you truly understand that all of these risk factors often lead to kids with true special needs and/or other significant long term emotional/behavioral problems that make their education expensive and/or difficult we will be doing wonders.
As for what to do... We know a couple of risk factors for severe car accidents with injury: too much alcohol, too much drugs, too fast for the road, young drivers with too many kids in the car, no seat belt, distracted driver, etc.
How do we use these factors to prevent accidents?
- <0.08 BAC, drugs illegal
- posted speed limits
- 1 passenger law for 1st 6 months or year
- must wear seat belt
- illegal to text and drive
So we know that these are significant risk factors, what could we do to protect the kids?
- young parental age
- single parenthood
- large number of dependent children
- low parental income
- parental substance abuse
- parental mental health issues
- parental history of abuse or neglect
- social isolation
- family disorganization
- parenting stress
- intimate partner violence
- poor parent-child relationships
- community violence
- concentrated neighborhood disadvantage (e.g., high poverty and residential instability, high unemployment rates
Should we let a welfare Mom with 2 kids and a poor or no job have and keep a third child?
Should we let addicts keep their children or have more?
Close our eyes and say that being a baby mama / dada is a right no matter how screwed up the adults are?
"...all of these risk factors often lead to kids..."
I acknowledge that there are risk factors, but you have not told me how knowing them, you can predict which kids will succumb to them and therefore, you cannot "rescue" any particular kid. Just as with your example, you can pass a law that says you can't have children you can't afford, but what is the penalty other than they have a child they can't afford and WHO, pray tell, gets to make that determination? If a child is "at risk" because of their circumstances, what effort is made to ameliorate those circumstances, rather than punish the adults who should naturally be the child's closest help?
Now we do have laws in some of these cases-- sexual abuse and so on, and we have a system-- child protective services-- that addresses such. We even have laws against "community violence" but a heck of a lot of good those do, especially when we want to hamstring the police. Such "laws" do not address the problem, because we haven't offered any better choices to these people, or at least those choices are not apparent to them. You have a systemic problem, in which individuals get caught up. You can try to fix the system by starting at the individual level, or start at the system level and use that to offer individuals better choices. But "all sticks" is what got us where we are, and more of the same won't make it better.
Please remember that your perception of carrots and sticks is questionable at best. Remember that you somehow saw strong work requirements costing people benefits as a carrot... And I am thinking that you and the CDC experts don't see eye to eye on this one.
I mean you are the one who wants to cut Early Ed funding, Parent Education funding, etc.
"Child abuse and neglect is preventable. Much progress has been made
in understanding how to prevent child abuse and neglect. Child abuse and neglect is the result of the interaction of a number of individual, family, and environmental factors.
Consequently, there is strong reason to believe that the prevention of child abuse and neglect requires a comprehensive focus that crosscuts key sectors of society (e.g., public health, government, education, social services, and justice).
In addition, there is an important need to increase the capacity of state and local governments to implement and scale up effective interventions that can reduce child abuse and neglect."
And as you note... You are a strong supporter of everyone should be free to make kids and raise them as they wish.
As for child protective services, I am thinking that you would be the first one to block them from doing their job while cutting their funding.
I mean as you said and have said over and over...
"WHO, pray tell, gets to make that determination?
If a child is "at risk" because of their circumstances, what effort is made to ameliorate those circumstances, rather than punish the adults who should naturally be the child's closest help?
In doing so we are back ignoring some of the key risks...
- young parental age
- single parenthood
- large number of dependent children
- low parental income
- family disorganization
- parenting stress
- intimate partner violence
The unfortunate reality is that in many of these cases "the parent(s) are the problem"... Maybe that is why we call it "generational poverty", the limiting beliefs and behaviors are passed from parent to child over and over again.
OK, let us grant that you are right about the problem and wrong about me. You are wrong that I oppose early childhood education. I am all for it, except I do not want it mandatory and financed by tax dollars when the proof is all around that this is a flat-up waste of tax dollars.
You are right that the problems are largely a matter of poverty, including "generational poverty." So what is your solution? "...to increase the capacity of state and local governments to implement and scale up effective interventions that can reduce child abuse and neglect." Haven't state and local governments been working on these "effective interventions" for over half a century now, and don't we have as many poor people "putting their kids at risk" as we had before? You can't fix a problem with good intentions, turn the problem over to "Uncle Sugar" and his deep pockets, and walk away. Solutions that consist of a restatement of the problem aren't solutions.
Jerry,
Here is the problem with your "I do not want it mandatory and financed by tax dollars" early education belief... The children who need it the most have mamas / papas who can not afford it and often don't value it as much... (see "risk factors" above if you do not understand)
As Nanny McPhee said:
“There is something you should understand about the way I work. When you need me but do not want me, then I’ll stay. When you want me but no longer need me, then I have to go. It’s rather sad really, but there it is.”
Unfortunately your dislike of government systems and leave it to the mamas / papas because "they are responsible" belief system is dooming millions of children to poverty or worse every year.
My new solution is simply to hold mamas / papas accountable for being responsible parents. (proactively and real time) Unfortunately it will not happen since the Liberals don't want to limit the poor and/or incompetent, and the Conservatives fear government... So the kids will continue suffering.
I don't know where to begin here. It seems your insistence on pigeon-holing people into one of your charts doesn't allow for any rational solution, since every solution will be opposed by someone in another pigeonhole. For example, I said I opposed mandatory taxpayer-financed ECE. The reason I gave was because it has proven a failure and a waste of taxpayer money. Your objection is ideological and irrational, and does not offer a real alternative, just "hold them accountable."
Please note: Those kids who do NOT need [taxpayer-funded] ECE should not be getting it at taxpayer expense, and those that DO need it can not get it from the government-run programs we now have. Obviously, the solutions passed by GOP in St. Paul are much better. It's essentially a voucher program so those who need it can get it at minimum cost, while avoiding the government-run one-size-fits-all solution.
I think there are millions of Parents and Kids that would disagree with you regarding ECFE, Headstart, etc... However I am fine with vouchers for high risk kids, though I think their attendance in some forum of Parental and Child training should be mandatory.
"it has proven a failure and a waste of taxpayer money"
I get a sense that we are failing in my one goal...
"If we get you to a point that you truly understand that all of these risk factors often lead to kids with true special needs and/or other significant long term emotional/behavioral problems that make their education expensive and/or difficult we will be doing wonders."
You are still blaming the public institutions who are forced to work with these high risk kids every day for not working miracles. When we know that the charters, privates, etc with the same high risk kid mix do little better and often worse...
I appreciate your concern for my cold-heartedness. Nonetheless, I continue to believe there is nothing wrong with blaming public institutions for not doing the job they are created and financed to do, and that they claim to be doing. I am OK with "little better" if it costs less. Why would you spend more to get less? Because government is so much smarter and effective than the private sector?
I think a great deal depends on how much latitude the charters, etc. really have compared to rigid rules of the public school system. I would also be happy to grant public schools the same latitude.
You are correct that we have to somehow relieve these "risk factors," and an education that prepares poor kids to be effective participants in the economic and civic life of the community is probably paramount among them. But we are not doing it, preferring to use the situation we are trying to resolve as the excuse for us not doing so.
Of course I concerned about you. In oh so many ways... :-)
See I am correct... You are missing the point...
Many of the kids are screwed up by age 5... Education is real difficult then... Especially when they still spend most of their week with the dysfunctional folks.
- poor brain development
- emotional behavior habits
- limiting beliefs
As for balking at "little better" if it costs less"... Because unfortunately a lot of the "cost less" organizations have done worse for the kids... Or they only take the low risk kids which increases the density of high risk kids in the public schools.
And then folks like yourself blame the Public school for a problem that is not of their making. (ie all the lucky families fleeing the small houses and higher crime / higher risk folks in N Mpls)
Chicken or the egg? Are these kids screwed up by generational poverty and its effects, or does the generational poverty get created because the public systems have failed to improve the lot of those they were supposedly created to help? Wasn't public education the "great equalizer"? Isn't the purpose of welfare to move people into work and self-sufficiency? Why should the victims of these government programs, which have failed for decades, be blamed for that failure? Suppose you took one of these "baby mamas" and told them that, by law, they had to get a job and help their kid with homework. What on God's Green Earth would lead you to believe they would have a CLUE as to how to go about either?
Well I am guessing that poor and Black folk were highly stressed long before the war on poverty began. There those little stressors call slavery and segregation for the Black folks. And being poor and White isn't very easy either. So I think we know what the chicken is.
And remember where this started. Physical and emotional stress early in life can lead to long term mental, emotional, cognitive and physical problems. Maybe a bit like getting too much lead in one's system when young.
As for this...
"Suppose you took one of these "baby mamas" and told them that, by law, they had to get a job and help their kid with homework."
If I remember correctly you were praising the Wisc work requirements and how of a carrot they were...
And actually I said this earlier.
"I think there are millions of Parents and Kids that would disagree with you regarding ECFE, Headstart, etc... However I am fine with vouchers for high risk kids, though I think their attendance in some forum of Parental and Child training should be mandatory."
As for this one...
"Why should the victims of these government programs, which have failed for decades, be blamed for that failure? "
Because they are American citizens and responsible for their own lives.
You are starting to sound like a Liberal by making excuses for the failing people. "Oh it's not their fault that they didn't do homework, that they sex got knocked up early, they didn't get married or got divorsed, got thrown in jail, etc It is all someone elses's fault."
I could just see Sean, Moose and Laurie writing that... :-)
I get so frustrated at not writing clearly, or at least not being read clearly. And then I read something like "Well I am guessing that poor and Black folk were highly stressed long before the war on poverty began." This tells me that the Bible is right, "the poor you will have always with you." (Matt. 26:11) And I guess it surprises me that you will admit that we have as much or more "stress" on the poor today, after something like $22 Trillion in taxpayer money spent in the so-called "War on Poverty," than we had before. These government programs are total failures at what they were supposed to do, and there are not enough capital letters to say that loudly enough. Okay, maybe it is unfair to blame government for what are millions of individual failings, but it is certainly fair to blame government for being totally ineffective at remedying the situation. Maybe "carrots or sticks" isn't the correct debate. Maybe it is "what works"? Well, private charity is one thing that works, and it's a lot cheaper.
Post a Comment