SC Times How adverse childhood experiences impact the criminal justice system
Pipeline to Prison May Start with Childhood Trauma
Trauma before Incarceration: Examining the Role of Adverse Childhood Experiences
A FB Friend linked to the first piece and it seemed appropriate given where the G2A Who Live? Who Decides? comments went.
And I did not even cover the point that abuse and neglect are more likely to occur in these struggling households. What do you think about the relationship between ACEs and Life Long Struggles?
Please remember that Jerry thinks school vouchers will make all this bad stuff go away. Where as I think public services should improve and being a parent should be a privilege that is only granted to those who can prove themselves capable. (ie driver's license, afford liability insurance, etc) It always seems to me that raising kids well is a lot harder and more important than driving a car.
Pipeline to Prison May Start with Childhood Trauma
Trauma before Incarceration: Examining the Role of Adverse Childhood Experiences
A FB Friend linked to the first piece and it seemed appropriate given where the G2A Who Live? Who Decides? comments went.
"Actually...
- the unlucky kids do get "no strings" support
- while their parent(s) has to go to work
- often leaving kids to their own devices
- gang recruitment then becomes easier
- then the kids are arrested and we pay to incarcerate them
And the cycle continues...." G2A
And I did not even cover the point that abuse and neglect are more likely to occur in these struggling households. What do you think about the relationship between ACEs and Life Long Struggles?
Please remember that Jerry thinks school vouchers will make all this bad stuff go away. Where as I think public services should improve and being a parent should be a privilege that is only granted to those who can prove themselves capable. (ie driver's license, afford liability insurance, etc) It always seems to me that raising kids well is a lot harder and more important than driving a car.
39 comments:
Some Facts and Data to Start With
"Who were the child victims?
For FFY 2017, the data show approximately 3.5 million children are the subjects of
at least one report. A total of 17.0 percent of children are classified as victims with
dispositions of substantiated (16.3%) and indicated (0.7%). The remaining children
(83.0%) are not determined to be victims of maltreatment or received an alternative
response. For FFY 2017, there are a nationally estimated 674,000 victims of child
abuse and neglect. The victim rate is 9.1 victims per 1,000 children in the population.
(See chapter 3.) Victim demographics include:
■ Children in their first year of life have the highest rate of victimization at 25.3 per
1,000 children of the same age in the national population.
■ American Indian or Alaska Native children have the highest rate of victimization at
14.3 per 1,000 children in the population of the same race or ethnicity; and African
American children have the second highest rate at 13.9 per 1,000 children of the
same race or ethnicity.
■ For victims younger than 1 year old with the alcohol abuse child risk factor, medical
personnel report source account for 41.1 percent.
■ For victims younger than 1 year old with the drug abuse child risk factor, medical
personnel report source account for 52.7 percent."
What were the most common types of maltreatment?
As in prior years, the greatest percentages of children suffered from neglect (74.9%)
and physical abuse (18.3%). These victims could suffer a single maltreatment type
or a combination of two or more maltreatment types. A victim who suffers more than
one type of maltreatment is counted only once per type. (See chapter 3.)
How many children died from abuse or neglect?
Child fatalities are the most tragic consequence of maltreatment. For FFY 2017, 50 states
reported 1,688 fatalities. Based on these data, a national estimate of 1,720 children died
from abuse and neglect. (See chapter 4.) The analyses of case level fatality data show:
■ The national rate of child fatalities was 2.32 deaths per 100,000 children.
■ Seventy-two (71.8%) percent of all child fatalities were younger than 3 years old.
■ Boys had a higher child fatality rate than girls at 2.68 boys per 100,000 boys in the
population. Girls had a child fatality rate of 2.02 per 100,000 girls in the population.
Child Maltre atment 2017 Summary xi
■ The rate of African-American child fatalities (4.86 per 100,000 African American
children) is 2.6 times greater than the rate of White children (1.84 per 100,000
White children) and 3.1 times greater than the rate of Hispanic children (1.59 per
100,000 Hispanic children).
Who abused and neglected children?
A perpetrator is the person who is responsible for the abuse or neglect of a child.
Fifty-two states reported 537,393 perpetrators. (See chapter 5.) The analyses of case
level data show:
■ More than four-fifths (83.4%) of perpetrators are between the ages of 18 and 44
years old.
■ More than one-half (54.1%) of perpetrators are women, 45.0 percent of perpetrators
are men, and 0.9 percent are of unknown sex.
■ The three largest percentages of perpetrators are White (50.3%), African-American
(20.7%), or Hispanic (18.6%).
"Caregiver Risk Factors (unique count of children)
Caregivers with these risk factors who are included in each analysis may or may not be the perpetrators responsible for the maltreatment. For FFY 2017, data are analyzed for four caregiver risk factors with the following NCANDS definitions:
■ Alcohol abuse (caregiver)–The compulsive use of alcohol that is not of a temporary
nature.
■ Drug abuse (caregiver)–The compulsive use of drugs that is not of a temporary nature.
■ Financial problem (caregiver)–A risk factor related to the family’s inability to provide sufficient financial resources to meet minimum needs.
■ Domestic violence (caregiver)–Any abusive, violent, coercive, forceful, or threatening act or word inflicted by one member of a family or household on another. In NCANDS,the caregiver may be the perpetrator or the victim of the domestic violence.
An analysis reviewed 3 years of data for victims with the alcohol abuse caregiver risk factor.
From 2015 to 2017, there is an overall increase in the number of victims reported with the alcohol abuse caregiver risk factor, which may be partly due to better reporting. From 2015 to 2017, the percentages of victims with the alcohol abuse caregiver risk factor increased from 10.6 to 12.1. Across the years, the percentages range from a low of 2.0 to a high of 49.3. (See table 3–11 and related notes.) Three years of data also are analyzed for victims with the drug abuse caregiver risk factor. The number and percentage of victims reported with the drug abuse caregiver risk factor increased from 27.1 to 30.8 percent from 2015 to 2017. Across the years, the state percentages ranged from a low of 2.3 to a high of 66.7.(See table 3–12, and related notes.)
Researchers have linked financial insecurity and housing insecurity to increased child welfare agency involvement. The association between income and child maltreatment also is supported by research.3 Thirty states report 14.9 percent of victims with the financial problem caregiver risk factor. Twenty states report 12.2 percent of nonvictims with the caregiver risk factor. (See table 3–13 and related notes.) For children with the caregiver risk factor of domestic violence, the caregiver could be either the perpetrator of, the victim of, or a witness to domestic violence. More than one-quarter 27.2 percent of victims have a domestic violence caregiver risk factor and 9.1 percent of nonvictims have a domestic violence caregiver risk factor. (See table 3–14 and related notes.)"
Jerry left this comment at the "Who Lives" post. I think I would rather answer it here.
"I wish you would settle on one stereotype of the poor. Either they are irresponsible and incapable, or they are working and leaving their subsidized kids to the education system to educate.
None of which should factor into the (at least the 3rd-trimester) abortion debate unless you want to follow through with your idea for forced abortions and sterilization for those you deem unworthy of procreation."
Jerry went on to say:
"Moose, I'm never going to talk you out of "There's no need for the morality police." You are a liberal, and a liberal believes that every person is born with, or can easily find, a "perfect" morality for themselves. And that will align with every other human on the planet, and nobody will cheat, cut corners, seek advantage, or fail to live up to that altruistic common standard of behavior. Conservatives would like to believe that, but we put up the guard rails and the yellow lines just in case."
Jerry,
I think we need to separate financially poor parent(s) vs incapable or irresponsible parent(s). They are often correlated but causality is not there.
"Actually...
•the unlucky kids do get "no strings" support
•while their parent(s) has to go to work
•often leaving kids to their own devices
•gang recruitment then becomes easier
•then the kids are arrested and we pay to incarcerate them
And the cycle continues...." G2A
Please remember that Moose I were advocating for excellent mandatory sex education and free quality birth control so that it would be easier for both the financially poor and incapable/irresponsible parent(s) to not experience unintended pregnancies.
This had nothing to do with forced abortions and sterilization, or late abortions... Just making it easier for people to make good choices.
Odd that Jerry does not remember ever saying what "Jerry thinks."
Define "excellent" and describe how "mandatory" makes it so. Define how "free quality birth control" turns incapable and irresponsible people into capable and responsible.
And I could quote, but will paraphrase you, "a woman on welfare who has another child should be forced to abort or give up the child, and have her tubes tied."
Actually the quotes from my proposal regarding parental improvement are:
3. Make Long Acting Reversible Contraception and the Morning After Pill free and readily available for all. NO baby should be born unless the Baby Maker(s) are 100% wanting the child and feel prepared to care for it. (ie committed to being responsible capable Parents)
4.If a proven irresponsible Baby Maker who is on welfare (ie Angel Adams) gets pregnant. She should be forced to abort or give the Baby up for adoption. And if this happens more than once, her tubes should be tied.
5.The welfare payments and service should be set up to make recipients work, learn, mature and improve their self sufficiency.
6.The male Baby Makers must bear the consequences of their behavior. The female Baby Maker must name the Father so the State can ensure the required child support is paid. The cost may be higher than the money received, but the "free loading Baby Daddy" behavior must be dissuaded.
7.The State must ensure that Baby Makers and the Babies receive training, care, etc until they become a functional family. (ie Parents and Kids) This includes mandatory Parenting classes, Early Childhood Education, Inexpensive quality childcare, etc. Many of the Baby Makers are in this position because their role models were Baby Makers (ie not Parents). Someone has to train them what it means to be a Parent.
As for Jerry thinks, it is true that you have provided ~3 solutions:
- provide vouchers
- preach abstinence
- privatize welfare
You forgot:
-punish people who are human and do human things
Moose
Moose,
I think you and me part ways here...
If we expect people to bear the negative consequences of their choices and behaviors, I do not see that as "punishment". I see it as holding people responsible. (ie you break it, you buy it)
For some reason you seem to believe that people are owed money by their fellow tax payers. And they are owed even more when they fail to learn, fail to work, fail to save, get addicted to something, make babies they can not afford to raise, etc. (ie you break it, tax payer's buy it)
Which leads to the mess we have today...
In reality "when they fail to learn, fail to work, fail to save, get addicted to something, make babies they can not afford to raise, etc" and tax payers provide them with:
- healthcare
- money
- services
- training
- etc
This is a gift from the tax payer's and invest in them that they are NOT entitled to. Instead these are things they should be thankful for.
Unfortunately people are like spoiled children... If you give them something for nothing, they start to think they are owed it. :-(
"As for Jerry thinks, it is true that you have provided ~3 solutions:
- provide vouchers
- preach abstinence
- privatize welfare"
--You are just about half right. I strongly believe that the only thing forcing the public schools to improve results to the limits of their ability is to introduce true competition through a universal voucher. That is, to allow every parent a choice. Since alternative schools are in vastly shorter supply than the demand for them (if people are given the means to choose) the public schools will have an opportunity to improve results before the competition puts them out of business. Those schools already doing a good job will not face that competition, and those doing poorly will very appropriately "go out of business."
-- Children rarely learn from "preaching." But ignoring or even Countermanding the values the kids may have been taught at home, Or even the non-religious good sense reasons for it, Does not make "excellent" sex education.
-- And I have consistently advocated for government funded welfare distributed via the private charity model.
interesting that when it comes to sex you are a strong believer that education is a powerful determinant of outcomes, yet when it comes to education of all other kinds, the schools are powerless.
Yes we know you love the idea of vouchers
Haven't you heard the only saying that the "Preacher's kids" behave worst. And please remember that a large percentage of parent's do little in the way sex education or teaching morals. At school they teach human biology and real life actions / consequences / protections. Not morals... That is for the Parents / Church.
Your model is full of holes, as we have discussed before.
Sex education is a pretty simple, important and straight forward class. And the kids are focused. So schools are a key part of this task, since many parent(s) are uncomfortable dealing with the topic proactively and thoroughly.
Raising children to value education, do their home work, behave well, treat others with respect, work hard, etc is much harder and should be a Parent(s) primary responsibility if they choose to have kids... The school is responsibly for teaching curriculum not raising children.
"I think you and me part ways here..."
Where? The part where we agreed yesterday?
"Jerry is apparently a fan of keeping young men and women ignorant and unprotected, then punishing the sinners and their children when they fail to stay on the celibate path."
Moose
For some perspective...
Jerry Said
"Prior to viability, and if the law were a magic wand, I would want to limit abortions for sex selection, for birth control and for vanity reasons. For economic circumstances is where I would want to have "informed consent" and counseling to minimize the economic and psychological consequences, as well as safety standards to insure "safe, legal and rare."
"Where you lose me is in suggesting "we" (I assume meaning government) should "educate and support them," because that doesn't work. And if by chance, as I prefer, you mean society in general, I think it is better if we do NOT support choices like casual sex, careless sex, unwanted pregnancies, and abortions. I think the "best decisions" are made when people understand the wisdom of the society around them-- the common morality. "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --John Adams"
My comment
"Jerry is apparently a fan of keeping young men and women ignorant and unprotected, then punishing the sinners and their children when they fail to stay on the celibate path.
It is kind of like taking the road signs and guard rails down on a curvy mountainous road, then sending new drivers up there in the dark with dim headlights... If they crash, apparently they deserved the consequences.
And the adults who took down the signs and guard rails seem to feel superior."
The "punishment" I was referring to was preventing pregnant women from obtaining socially acceptable remedies that would reduce their natural consequence:
- morning after pill
- first trimester abortions
- pre-viability abortions
We as a society do not have to pay for these things, however with holding these freedoms because some judge the women as sinners who need to pay certainly would be a form of punishment.
It costs more for us to NOT pay for these things.
Moose
Practical answer.
However that again would be a gift...
Just curious. Would anybody consider being killed before being born an "adverse childhood experience"?
Depends...
Not if it occurs pre-viability because they are not a child yet.
Not if they are going to die anyway. (ie not viable)
So only if they are viable and at risk of killing their mother. (tiny tiny tiny occurrence) And the baby experiences no long term trauma or consequence because they are in heaven. And I think knowing that you had killed your Mother may have some impact...
As I keep saying it is best to educate and provide protection against unwanted pregnancies.
Unfortunately the morality police prefer unwanted pregnancies over preventing them.
Perhaps you have heard the old adage of aspirin as a 100% effective contraceptive? People will simply not use them. They make "poor decisions." So if someone gets deep in debt to a bookie, is it OK for them to kill the bookie?
Jerry,
Please feel free to deny the obvious and proven solution.
We know perfectly well that your "abstinence only" solution is not working. The proof is in the :
~600,000 abortions per year
many more unplanned babies per year
and horrendous number of yearly neglect and abuse cases
Just think of how many ACE's we could prevent if the morality police were not so scared to admit that people will have sex without wanting a baby to result....
how odd. I thought that what I was proposing WAS the obvious and proven 100%-effective solution. I think the morality police need to post a motto on their wall saying, "not responsible for advice not taken." And all of you that think government's advice to "always use a condom" will be perfectly followed probably should do likewise.
Jerry,
A solution can not be effective if it fails millions of times a year.
Long acting reversible contraception is the way to avoid unwanted pregnancies.
Condoms are a way to reduce the spread of STDs.
for a solution to be effective it must be USED. Abstinence is highly effective against STDs as well as pregnancies.
Silly question: are you going to take your daughters out to have IUDs fitted? If not, what are you depending upon to prevent STDs and unwanted pregnancy?
Due to acne and severe cramps the girls started using the pill early. No need for an IUD.
And from what I understand they are making very good choices. Abstinence until in a solid long term relationship.
I credit that to the thorough sex education they received at RDale and the very open relationship they have with my wife.
Now if only every child had both of these excellent resources and support systems...
"for a solution to be effective it must be USED. Abstinence is highly effective against STDs as well as pregnancies."
What a strange set of contradictory statements.
So you think abstinence will be USED at a higher rate than other forms of birth control?
Moose
Maybe he thinks folks should only have sex when they want to make a baby?
Time for MP Again… :-)
You only have to think for half a second to recognize the absurdity of jerry's statement.
"Abstinence is highly effective..." IF USED.
And if you only teach abstinence, and they DON'T use it, they're not armed with the proper information to protect themselves from pregnancy and disease.
Bonkers.
Moose
I keep think about how the parents talked about sex with them...
"Don't get someone or yourself self pregnant or you will be in big trouble."
And my training was terrible...
Here are some interesting pieces.
Why Parent's don't talk about sex with their kids
This is old but the stats are terrifying
About half of the kids did not get "the talk".
I can't even imagine the trouble kids can get into with only one working parent. Or 2 parents who both work outside the house.
That is in part why we agreed that the Mrs would work out of the home.
"That is in part why we agreed that the Mrs would work out of the home."
Typo?
More like poor wording...
That is in part why we agreed that the Mrs would operate a business in our home.
Post a Comment