(cont. from above):

http://nccpr.info/80-percent-failure/

As is documented in NCCPR’s Issue Papers, far more common are cases in which a family’s poverty is confused with child “neglect.” Several studies have found, for example, that one-third of foster children could be back home right now if their parents simply had adequate housing. (See NCCPR Issue Paper 5).

Other cases fall on a broad continuum between the extremes, the parents neither all victim nor all villain. What these cases have in common is the fact that the children would be far better off if states and localities used safe, proven alternatives to foster care – alternatives that don’t come with an 80 percent failure rate, and a 33 percent risk of child abuse. (See Twelve Ways to do Child Welfare Right).

Nearly as disturbing as the study’s findings is how the study authors attempted to spin them.

The finding about the rate of abuse in foster care is not mentioned in the press release accompanying the study. It’s not in the Executive Summary. It’s not in any of the glossy material that accompanies the report. One must dig it out of the report itself, on page 30. (The full report is available here)

During the entire briefing for advocates, I waited in vain for the study authors to even mention the issue of abuse in foster care. When I finally asked about it, at the very end of the briefing, one of the researchers tried to blame birth parents, speculating, without a shred of evidence, that maybe the foster children had been abused during visits.

But that is contradicted by the study itself, which states:

“One third (32.8%) of the sample, however, reported some form of maltreatment by a foster parent or other adult in the foster home during their foster care experience, as recorded in their case files” [emphasis added].

If anything, this underestimates the true rate of abuse, since a major problem in foster care is foster children abusing each other (see NCCPR Issue Paper 1), and those cases apparently were not counted in the study.

Of course, some will rush to conclude that because family foster care has failed so badly, we should go back to orphanages. There’s just one problem with that. Over a century of research is nearly unanimous: The outcomes for children warehoused in orphanages are even worse. (See NCCPR Issue Paper 15).

Though the authors try desperately to ignore the obvious, their study is one more indication that the only way to fix foster care is to have less of it. Until we realize that, foster care systems will continue to churn out walking wounded – four times out of five times.

It may depend on the motivation.

When wealthy people steal massive amounts of money just because they're greedy, that's different from a poor person stealing a small amount of money to survive, in my view.

Think "Les Miserables" - are you the policeman in that story?

I'm sorry to see you starting to use the rather distasteful rhetoric of the right.

"distasteful rhetoric of the right" - Ah, I assume you mean my use of the words "poverty pimps". Remember, Jafs, I worked in that field. I saw, with my own two eyes. Not heard stories, not heard tales, not read in a book somewhere. I saw.

Let me give you an example, not of poverty pimps, but a life example, a lesson learned. I attended the Democratic Party caucus here in Douglas County in 1976. (in my youth, I was much more left leaning, far more prone to use the rhetoric of the left). Anyway, Jimmy Carter was the frontrunner, though several candidates with far more left leaning tendencies were still vying to become the one to challenge Carter. The refrain, as I recall, was ABC, Anybody But Carter. Anyway, as we broke into our groups, the Carter people here, Jerry Brown there, other groups around, it became apparent that Carter had the most supporters, though if played correctly, the other smaller groups combined could join forces and deny Carter his delegates. And that's just what happened. All these left leaning, do the right thing types of people, conspired to deny representation to the more moderate leaning Carter.
You see, Jafs, the rhetoric of the right is the same as the rhetoric of the left. Democrats are no better than Republicans, no worse. They're the same coin, one heads, one tails, neither worth any more than the other.

Les Miz, let me ask you this question, Jafs. Suppose the hungry man in that story stole not a loaf of bread, to feed his family, but rather stole a steak? Suppose he stole a steak so grand, that he could feed his family, sell some, and then live off the profits for some time, not needing to work? Sure, he was hungry in the beginning. Maybe hungry enough to justify stealing food to survive. But when does the stealing cease being a case of survival and become his vocation? Isn't that where we are with intergenerational dependence on social services?

"Isn't that where we are with intergenerational dependence on social services?"

There's a bit more of the distasteful rhetoric of the right-- demonizing the poor with sweeping generalizations.

Next you'll pull out the Cadillac-driving welfare queen.

Read my post, Bozo. I worked in the field. I saw.

I recall the rhetorical questions we asked; "who would choose a life of poverty"? "Who would choose a life of homelessness"? Who would choose a life of addiction"? But after a few years working in the field, seeing with my own eyes, I could tell you their names. I could point my finger and say "him, her". Suddenly the question was no longer rhetorical, they were real questions with real answers. They not be the answers you want to hear, given your preconceived notions. And quite frankly, they weren't the answers I wanted to hear, given my preconceived notions. But at some point, given a new set of facts, people need to change from those preconceived notions to reality.

Politics is a nasty business, no doubt.

That doesn't make the rhetoric of each side equivalent, by any means.

No, because dependence on social services isn't stealing.

It's an unintended consequence of our social programs, and one I think should be examined. If it's at all possible, I'd like to see those programs structured so that they foster independence instead.

Interesting analogy.

It's extremely difficult to quit smoking - studies have shown nicotine to be more addictive than heroin.

Can people quit? Sure, but it's very hard, and most people won't succeed. And, they undoubtedly will need some help to do so.

The idea that everybody can overcome poverty and attain great success is lovely, but unrealistic.

I think we should be helping people to overcome poverty, of course, just as I like to help people quit smoking.

The reasons for poverty are much more complex than you seem to think, in my view. To really eliminate it, we need to make sure there are enough jobs for everybody that pay high enough wages to live on, for one thing.

As long as that's not the case, we won't eliminate poverty.

But, we could certainly structure our social programs so that they don't encourage and reward dependence, and I'm greatly in favor of that.

Interesting reply, because some of your assumptions, I'd have gone the other way. "They undoubtedly will need help (to quit smoking)". I'd have guessed the opposite. Maybe because I'm older and have seen many quit before things like the patch was invented. Maybe you're right, it's just my guess.

Let me ask this question, though. Suppose a certain percentage of people will pull themselves out of poverty with or without help. Another percentage can pull themselves out of poverty but only with help and another percentage will not pull themselves out of poverty no matter how much we help. Just for the sake of argument, let's assume it's 33% each. Now any money spent on the first and last groups is wasted, since they will or will not succeed regardless of the help given. Only that middle group will be helped. But if we can't identify each group, then we're wasting two out of every three dollars we spend.
Of course, if that middle group is 80% and the other two are 10% each, then we're "only" wasting 20%. But if the first and last groups are 40% each, then we're wasting 80%. Now no one can say for sure what the numbers are and no one can even say who belongs to which group. What I know is that we've been spending an awful lot of money over a period of decades and we've not come close to eliminating poverty. What's that joke: the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Well, there's also the humanity factor - even making it easier for people to quit smoking, or overcome poverty, is valuable to me - why make it harder for them by refusing to help?

And, as you say, we can't accurately identify the groups, or the numbers, so the whole exercise is sort of pointless.

Also, as I mentioned, eliminating poverty involves more than just spending money on social programs - if the jobs aren't there, it doesn't matter how much people want to work.

Finally, as I've mentioned numerous times, I'm in favor of improving our programs, so as to be more effective, not just continuing them.

The right wing solution, to simply stop helping people, doesn't appeal to me at all - what's yours?

So, what's your suggestion?

Yes, there are some people who don't want to work.

And, certainly, when people make a living in social services, they have a vested interest in them - but that's true in a lot of places. One could argue that your doctor has a vested interest in your being sick, since that's when he makes money. Does that mean that you don't trust your doctor?