Credibility and accuracy
Related Topics
pohakuyakok ...@subdimension.com (Kane)
Many claims are made in this ng about social issues. They are often stated with great authority and clever argument.
This influences folks that are unwilling to explore further to believe things that may or may not be true.
Much about child welfare, foster parents, and the processes and proceedures are presented with most flagrant declarations, sometimes not only without proof, but with proof of something very different in rebutal, is peddled here.
A commonly held belief is that coerced participation in programs for D&A treatment, parenting cl***es, homemaking instruction, are failing.
I address simply one of these.
I ask YOU to ask yourself, "if this claim was so far off should I simply take all the others on faith?" Here are the facts on coerced drug abuse treatment...and it's miles from the claims here.
http://www.nadcp.org/events/fieldkit.pdf Continued checks on the research show the same thing. Coersion works.
And a parent that is "coerced" into learning child development, drug use cessation, alternatives to brute force parenting, are as subject to the phenomena that the incarcerated or on parole folks are with drug treatment.
We learn despite ourselves, even sometimes, in high resistance to learning.
In fact a careful survey of learning theory will reveal that.
All you really need to teach someone something is their attention, no matter now acquired.
Madison avenue knows this. The military knows it (ah, how I do remember basic trainin in detail after all these years). And psychologists know this.
As do medical researchers in the field of human responses.
A claim that coersion doesn't work is kind of funny, in fact.
The cited PDF file above is full of the following from different states: "??? In the twenty-third Judicial Circuit Court of Virginia, which serves the county and city of Roanoke, Salem and town of Vinton, the post-program felony reconviction rate for graduates is 3.2% and 34.5% for non-graduates. The overall conviction rate, including misdemeanors, for graduates, is 12% and 55.9% for non-graduates.1 ??? In King County, Washington, 7% of graduates and 27% of failures were rearrested during the drug court program.
??? In Delaware, evaluations were completed for two urban drug court tracks. The percentage of clients rearrested for each of these tracks are as follows: for track 1, 12% of the graduates and 52% of failures were rearrested during the program. For track 2, 8% of the graduates and 41% of the failures were rearrested.
??? In Suffolk County, New York, 29% of drug court participants were rearrested during the program. Of this 29%, only 19% were for drug charges. The average number of in-program arrests per-client, per-year were 0.77 overall: 0.28 for graduates, 1.72 for failures, and 0.56 for active clients.
??? Graduates of Santa Barbara drug court had an average of 0.69 arrests per year while in the program compared with an average of 2.49 arrests for the year prior to entering drug court." Of course it could be, R R R R, that all these former inmates and parolees just "volunteered" for treatment, though oddly less than 18% of them had any pre-arrest contact with treatment. {:-> As for mandated parenting cl***es.
It's amazing the nonsense people believe about children. Underrating them in some things and overrating their capacities in others.
Many CPS clients are very young mothers, teens themselves, with no experience to speak of but their own as a child. To claim that parenting cl***es are not useful is yet another crock. Not only can it stop abuse out of ignorance, but neglect as well.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=mandated+paren... Here is one of those court mandated programs, put on apparently by "jacklegs." http://www.parentproject.com/overview.html If you have difficult teen I recommend you take a look. In fact, since everyone with a child will one day have a "difficult teen" as in teens are by their very nature difficult, it wouldn't hurt to move away from the perpetrators of the cult of ignorance and bias promoted here and actually learn something useful.
http://www.parentproject.com/results.html Have a peek, then ask yourself again if you have been the victim of misinformation...and if so, to what possible end?
I do not want children take from their parents, nor parents jailed unless there is a crime committed that would result in encarceration as per our current criminal courts.
In fact, should it come to this, in short order we shall see exactly the model (It came out of the 60s anyway) we have now. The judge sentencing (pretty much like the do now in civil court) people to rehab, cl***es, training, etc.
Parents CAN and have been helped and while some may only go through the motions, as they say, oddly it seems to be working anyway. Fancy that.
I daresay YOU and I know I certainly learned some things very well that we were coerced into both as children and adults.
This ng is hotbed, with a few rare exceptions, of the proliferation of ignorance. Those that buy into it are being patronized. Those that accept it get what they deserve and are the natural prey of those that lie.
Except for a few instances where people actually do help someone in need that comes here, ascps is an exercise in compounded stupidity.
Are you a fool, or one of the perps?
Kane
"Doug" do...@charter.net
Hi, Kane!
I appreciate you providing the URL's and the opportunity to explore further resources about social issues.
What has been stated in this newsgroup is that treatment for drug addiction can be effective if mandated clients develop the self-motivation to change their behaviors while in treatment and continue with self-guided participation in support groups after treatment. Education in child welfare cases can be effective if the parent is engaged in the process (contributes to setting goals in the safety plan, choosing cl***es, etc) and has or develops during the cl*** the belief the lectures are valuable to them.
In cases of child abuse and neglect, education can be effective if it meets the criteria above and if the problems that led to alledged abuse or neglect of the child are based on a lack of knowledge. Much of child abuse and neglect is not the result of the parents lack of knowledge.
Child abuse or neglect is a behavior...or lack of one . . . and self-change involves much more than education. To change a behavior, one must put into action what one has learned to gradually effect improvement on one's own.
That change and improvement is entirely self-directed and requires self-motivation and investment in the process.
Let's take a look. And, again, thanks for the resources.
Okay. Let's see what it says...
Okay. This is information on Drug Court, a specific program that is miles from other coerced drug abuse treatments. It is an innovative, long-term program that is made available in leiu of sentencing for criminals. It is offered as an alternative to prison for about 4-8% of the criminals that would qualify. Program directors are pitching the program to jurisdictions across the country and solicting increases in funding.
The Drug Court program is an excellent treatment model. Unlike almost all other forced substance abuse treatment programs, treatment goes on for a year or more and is provided on a continuum of care model -- if the client relapses, they are moved back to more intensive interventions; if they succeed they move up to less supervision. Most coerced substance abuse treatment is offered in 21 to 30 day residential centers or in weekly outpatient counseling sessions. The Drug Court approach is clearly superior in length of treatment and methodology. Clients volunteer for the treatment, although the alternative choice is not that attractive <g>.
Professionals love the model because, well, it involves a lot of professionals. It brings in a lot of billable hours. Graduates have positive things to say about it.
One of the definative differences between Drug Court and other probation supervision models is adminstering regular UA's. It is common for UA's to be done each and every week -- a powerful, and ongoing, negative incentive.
Other probation supervision models may include a random UA once year.
The website you cite is operated by the National ***ociation of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP), which is interested in promoting this excellent program across the nation. The data at the URL is in the form of "talking points" -- selling points an advocate can use to peddle the program to funders. NADCP has some good things to say about itself.
Drug Court treatment can run from $1,500 to $5,000 per client per year and usually involves a bi-weekly or weekly personal appearance before a judge, and personal and counseling contacts at least 3 times per week. It is a very intensive program. A relatively small percentage end up graduating, depending on jurisdiction.
Success rates (measured by rearrest rates) are correlated to whether the client completed the year-long, intensive treatment. "In the twenty-third Judicial Circuit Court of Virginia, which serves the county and city of Roanoke, Salem and town of Vinton, the post-program felony reconviction rate for graduates is 3.2% and 34.5% for non-graduates," the website at Kane's URL reads. The overall conviction rate, including misdemeanors, for graduates, is 12% and 55.9% for non-graduates." "In Delaware, evaluations were completed for two urban drug court tracks.
The percentage of clients rearrested for each of these tracks are as follows: for track 1, 12% of the graduates and 52% of failures were rearrested during the program.
For track 2, 8% of the graduates and 41% of the failures were rearrested," the website reports.
Drug court clients do not do well during treatment.
"In Suffolk County, New York, 29% of drug court participants were rearrested during the program.
I appreciate a look at what I believe to be a successful treatment program.
The operating variables that make this particular program more successful than other coerced treatments is the length of treatment (1 year), the intensity of treatment, and whether the client graduated after completing the entire program.
Unfortunately, there are very few year long programs available in this country. With the exception of some Department of Corrections programs in prison settings, Drug Court is one of a handfull in most states.
Secondly, this program is not available to non-criminals, but only a select subset of convicted offenders.
The data was valuable in comparing this particular program against other coerced treatment programs used by probation and parole, which the website does, but does not speak to a comparision between coerced treatment and non-coerced treatment.
"Drug use cessation" (chemical dependency treatment) requires much more than education. The folks at Drug Court will tell you that.
If a parent has actually abused their child and that abuse stemmed from a lack of knowledge, then coerced intervention can be effective if, sometime along the way, the parent becomes involved in the training and applies what is learned to changing their behaviors. It is not effective if the parent does not feel engaged with the program and is unwilling to make the self-motivated changes in behavior that are necessary.
We learn very little under such circumstances and apply none of it to changing our behaviors, which is, of course, the problem in actual child abuse. Researchers say that college students retain around 2% of what they learn from lectures. And most of them are engaged, one would think.
I would disagree. But I could be wrong. Do you have some citations to support your claim?
Cites?
Damn. I should have read down before I cut and pasted. You pasted the same stuff. Sorry about that.
Again, notice the variable is whether the client successfully completed the year long program (graduated).
They did volunteer for treatment, but one can safely ***ume the alternative ...
pohakuyakok ...@subdimension.com (Kane)
I seem to be unable to find this wording in any posts here. Can you help me out?
them.
Basically you are simply parroting me by reframing. They aren't going to get into the process without the mandate, hence my contention that coersion works.
So statements that claim coersion doesn't work, more or less the blanket statement made, isn't true.
Why not admit you were wrong before going off all agreeable while sounding as though I didn't know and puf forward the same argument myself?
Yep. And nothing I said changes the fact they were coerced into the "education" and it is effective. If you've said otherwise before I am unable to find it in archives.
Bullshit. Much of child abuse is exactly that. Druggies and teeners are not long on child development knowledge or parenting skills for that matter.
And there is considerable ignorance about what children really need.
Are you going to tell me that most of the parents that receive services from CPS already had been attending Red Cross early childhood parenting cl***es? R R R R R Pompous ***. Of course it is. What in my post suggests I think it other than that?
Whoppdeedoo. I'd have never guessed. LIKE COERSION, maybe, when they haven't and won't face up to the damage being done to their child?
"self change?" Good one. You admitted that if they are mandated and changed their minds during the service period it works.
own.
R R R ... more shit. You have no end of it, do you?
More crappola. People change all the time because of outside forces impacting them. Self directed and self motivated is NOT the long suit of abusive neglectful parents...wouldn't you say?
Same with the druggies in jail. It's jail, parole and services that turn their little heads around.
And "self" motivate them. And "self" direct them.
<g>.
You made a blanket statement coersion doesn't work. You even peddled your crap a few paragraphs back.
Do you think these folks are all volunteers, from inside PRISON, or on parole? It's not a free choice...it very like the CPS model.
Do you mean those "jackleg folks and the clients they live off of?
No "coersion" of course. That would never work. Got to be self motivated and self directed.
You sure have a fat ego.
Yep. I hope so.
Aw gee. Why don't they do it without funding and get modest and point out only their failures?
What a ditz.
You avoid the point. Without coersion the rate would be close to 100% recidivism, ducky.
Nothing you've said so far supports your contention that coersion doesn't work.
Must it be 100% for you to accept that programs work?
Stop pretending. Drug treatment programs very similar to this are available to CPS clients. Including random frequent UAs.
So, post some.
Yes, as I said. Coersion. Which you deny.
...
"Doug" do...@charter.net
To which, Kane replies: Hi, Kane!
Certainly.
From my reply to Sherman on June 8, to which you originally replied.
"What does happen to some clients legally forced into residential treatment for substance abuse is a change of mind toward the end of the stay; every once in a while a client "gets it" and comes to the realization they have a problem. Only when they want the solution -- for themselves -- can they move ahead and get anything out of the treatment. That happens with CPS interventions as well. But such cases in either population are rare.
"Most state-funded residential treatment centers serve a clientele made up primarily of people forced into treatment by probation officers, parole boards or the court. Around 80% of the clients are forced to be there -- or given an undigestable choice like 30 years in prison or 30 days in treatment. (Some of them give a lot of thought to the options..."let me think about it and get back to you.") <g> "Outcome studies are rare in this field (as they are in child protective work). But some studies put success rates at 30% for those in the entire residential population who successfully complete the treatment AND actively participate in 12-STEP GROUPS as part of their aftercare. ("Success" is measured as uninterrupted sobriety for one year). Treatment followed by therapy or counseling alone has exceedingly poor outcomes -- around 2% to 4%. The causal variable seems to be Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous or similar self-help groups." My post came first, but no, I am not "parroting" you at all. What is necessary, as I said, is for the client to be actively involved in setting goals of the safety plan, chosing cl***es, etc. The client needs to feel that the material taught in the cl***es applies to their problems. For instance, a parent mandated for forced parenting cl***es for a cluttered home is not a match.
The federal audits disclosed that almost all of the states failed to follow the federal guidelines requiring that parents participate in drafting safety/treatment plans.
I do not recall anyone writing in this newsgroup that "coersion" doesn't work. Can you help me out?
You did not put forth the same argument at all. If you are now claiming that parents should be called upon to set their own goals for their safety plans and chose which courses they should take, fine. You haven't before.
If you are now claiming that the client must be invested in the program and believe that he has problems the training can solve, fine. You were not saying so before. If you are now claiming that parents must be make the necessary changes in behavior themselves, fine. You did not do so before.
The most effective CPS services are voluntary. These are offered by strengths-based programs operated as pilots in many CPS jurisdictions.
There is no evidence that CPS forced services are effective. In fact, to the contrary, USDHHS found that substantiated parents who were provided services were more likely to be subjects of a subsequent substantiated report than substantiated parents who were not provided services.
Parents who perp the most serious forms of abuse (the type you are always talking about) -- beating their children, locking them in basements, burning them with cigarettes, etc., do not commit those crimes because they don't know better. They know it is wrong.
Sexual abuse of children is not done by people who don't know any better.
The majority of real abuse cases (a distinct, tiny minority of substantiated CPS cases) are not cases where the parent did not know any better.
Why are you pitching the Red Cross. Such cl***es are offered in public high schools throughout the country and in many other locales. No one is going to chose one of the CPS cl***es, of course, but there are an abundance of good courses out there. All high school students get this training and, I would guess, many CPS clients have graduated from high school.
>Child abuse or neglect is a behavior...or lack of one . . .
Because you seem to be saying that education is enough. The goal of CPS "sanctions/services" is to stop child abuse or prevent its reoccurance.
Education will not accomplish this. What is required is the motivation of the client to make behavioral changes. Education does not change behavior.
People can only change their own behavior. All change is self-change.
No, not at all. Some clients of CPS cases where they actually did damage their children may develop the realization of what they did and change their behaviors despite being mandated to undergo services. No amount of coersion or education is going to convince those parents in the majority of CPS cases who did NOT damage their children that they did something they did not do.
Many people who deny they committed a crime really didn't committ a crime.
Innocent people who protest their innocence are not "in denial." I don't know if it "works" or not, but people do begin self-change while in treatment, yes. Whether it works or not depends on the measure one has for it "working" and whether the client continues to work independently after the intervention on making changes and effecting those changes.
...One would hope that is the intention of the education . . . to teach how to develop self-direction, and self-motivation. You know, teach a person to fish rather than hand him a meal, etc, etc.
Funny, later in this same post you say that the recidism rate for criminals who are not given a specific intervention (drug court) is darn near 100%.
Jail, prison and parole don't work very well or not at all, depending on how high you set your limbo stick.
Continuing sobriety -- the litmus test of chemical dependency treatment --
relies upon self-motivation and self-direction, yes. Making sure one p***es the UA's while involved in the intervention is just jumping through the hoops.
Because they are selling something. So they only point out selective selling points, much of it not empically proven. Such is the nature of pitches. Objective studies of drug courts are available. They point out the weaknesses to the program.
...
pohakuyakok ...@subdimension.com (Kane)
Which other population are you referring to here, Doug? The non coerced one?
Or those that do not want the help in the first place?
Your "every once in awhile" is patently untrue on it's face. You don't know this with any certainty at all...it's just your opinion.
Your argument seems to be that treatment coerced is not effective in enough instances to warrant continuation. My contention is that uncoerced treatment in cases where there is drug abuse and there is child abuse and neglect simply won't happen at all.
In fact among those that are addicted to drugs or alcohol how many do you think seek out treatment before they have done damge to their families and children?
http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/add14.htm "Treatment does not need to be voluntary to be effective. Strong motivation can facilitate the treatment process. Sanctions or enticements in the family, employment setting, or criminal justice system can increase significantly both treatment entry and retention rates and the success of drug treatment interventions." Treatment is often unsuccessful and requires repeated efforts. Read the whole page. As if you didn't already know this information.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22addiction+t... In addition you might wish to review the research: Research Monograph 106 1991 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration National Institute on Drug Abuse http://www.drugabuse.gov/pdf/monographs/106.pdf Even the earliest research, Among other findings, question your ***umptions: "Early treatment efforts at these facilities were regarded as ineffective, with many patients failing to complete treatment and high relapse rates following treatment. Approximately 70 percent of voluntary admissions left treatment against medical advice (Rasor and Maddux 1966)." Such in formation has been in the common body of knowledge for many decades. Nothing has changed about the addict. The very nature of addiction (we'd call call it something else otherwise) is that the person is NOT capable of decision making that goes against the use of the substance.
Your contentions are nonsense.
No matter WHAT programs are in place there will ALWAYS be only a small proportion at any ONE TIME that are successful. That's a damned poor argment against the programs.
Your post if full of such nonsense and crap.
In other words, coersion is used. And it has a higher success rate than volunteering for treatment.
You are building my argument FOR mandated treatment Doug, despite your clever little games.
So tell us, Doug, would this then be a strong argument for doing away with mandated programs and sticking with self referred clients only?
If so on what data do you base your conclusion, and what reseachers support you? I'd even be willing to read a few of the nonsense pieces, again, that I've run across that try to make your argument. They are invariably logic and factually flawed.
You are so. You are trying to pull your nuts out of the fire by reframing, your usual tactic, and making claims that not only don't support your down with mandated services argument, but in fact support that INVOLUNTARY treatment works, and works better than voluntary treatment.
Sure, I never said anything different. Coersion is for getting and keeping them in the program when they either are in initial resistance, or later when they wobble, as the data shows they do, and try to slip away.
What has this to do with my claim that coersion works being false, Doug?
You are hoping that your simple minded followers here will avoid thinking and remembering that all events take place over time and things DO change.
Druggies have, no matter how they come into treatment, their ups and their downs, and they LEAVE MORE OFTEN IF THEY ARE VOLUNTARY...no matter how relevent the material. THEY ARE ADDICTS and those do NOT have control of their actions even as much as non-addicts do (which isn't much when you stop and think about it).
Same source as above: "In contrast to the earlier findings of institutional treatment in PHS hospitals (Maddux 1988) and in some State facilities (Inciardi 1988) TOPS found that clients who entered community-based treatment under criminal justice referral did as well as or better than voluntary clients. Criminal justice involvement helped to retain clients in treatment, and drug use and criminal activity decreased substantially during treatment for those on probation or facing the threat of prosecution (Hubbard et al. 1989)." Off on a tangent, but one the well conditioned flock of sheep here will react to very nicely. I can hear the knees jerkin' all over the ng.
None of us likes to imagine ourselves being mandated for any service, let alone drug treatment. Your flunkies here would like to think they would, if they had a drug problem, would just up and run to the nearest treatment center. Or could stop on their own. P***le of fools, well matched to you.
Well, that kinda goes with their reluctance to participate. If I fail to persuade you you are full of shit then I get marked down for you still being full of shit. I see now. It all comes to me so clearly.
It's called, "The Fix Is In," Doug. There is no way to win. No, that is not precisely their statements but their arguments do follow that particularly noisesome logic.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%2Bforced+%2Btreatment+group:alt.su... The Plant has something to say.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%2Bforced+%2Btreatment+group:alt.su... As did the bobb bobb: "Hmmm... what has been the out-come of families not forced to attend some treatment plan? Only recently it's been recognized that psychological intervention does little or no good... and could contribute to addtional stresses. But, of course, mandate 'treatment'.. the cure for all ills." Then there was ol' BobSue CPS and his posting of lying diatribes about "treatment" that was the overblown bullshit from you anti CPS types on the court ordered use for evaluation (not "treatment") of a penile plethysmograph on an 11 year old boy charged with sexual molestation of other children.
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/issues/1996-08-01/news.html This crap you foist just builds into bigger and bigger piles of fertilizer. The Plant may love it, but it offends me.
The Plant posts, as usual, under a phony baloney subject line: "Calif "Too adversarial & coercive" to be effective CPS is Humboldt Co." in relation to mandated drug treatment: ...
"Doug" do...@charter.net
I had written: To which, Kane replies: You may want to read the paragraph that preceeds my last statement again.
It's right there.
Population one : Mandated clients of 30 day residential treatment for chemical dependency Population two: Mandated clients undergoing "services" ordered by CPS under threat of removal of children or as condition of return of children.
Most of the mandated clients do not want "help" in the first place. Rather obvious, one would think.
It is both my observation and the findings of empirical studies. Clinical designs usually leave a lot to be desired, but evidence exists in the literature this issue. As I stated before, very little comparative study has been done between voluntary and involuntary treatment in chemical dependency -- as are outcome studies, period. There is considerable research that points out the failure of mandated CPS services . . . but there are more variables involved in these failures than the fact they are mandated.
Another major problem in chemical dependency outcome studies is that the vast majority of people who go for voluntary "treatment" and are successful are not available to be studied. The most successful "treatment" approach by far costs nothing, distinctly does not involve professionals and is anonymous. Participants are prevented by traditions (bylaws) not to make themselves available for study or research.
Your contention is easily disproven. In fact, many pilot projects done by CPS agencies have demonstrated tremendous success using voluntary services exclusively. These programs are so successful that voluntary services are what a large body of social work researchers and child welfare experts have been advocating for in child welfare reform. They have finally found the government's ear.
To be successful, of course, voluntary services have to have value to the client they are offered to. Most of the current cookie cutter "services" do not have value to the clients, so they have to be forced to be sold. Child welfare reform will require changing the services so they actually benefit clients.
BEFORE they have done damage to their families? None. Such is the nature of the disease. Drinkers and drug users do damage to their families very early into their exploration. This is NOT to say "damage" as in child abuse or neglect, necessarily, by statute. Most chemically dependent people do not abuse or neglect their children.
Yes, I am generally aware of this information. However, relapse is often NOT part of recovery -- to dispell a myth I hear a lot.
CPS embraces the myth because a person who has been in recovery with a self-help group for, say 10 years of uninterrupted sobriety, can be scored on a risk ***essment as being at risk of relapse. Recovering people get treated very unjustly by the child protection industry, primarily, in this case, due to the lack of knowledge of addictive disease by CPS workers.
Something that workers themselves have been pointing out for many years...asking for training in this field.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22addiction+t... I would hope you are aware that chemical dependency treatment has evolved into something totally different than what was done in the 1960's. The confrontational approach and other treatment relics have been stored away along with the typewriter in this field. A 1966 study on substance abuse treatment is as practical as using white out on a computer screen.
I hope you are not offended that I have not looked at the 1966 study.
Nothing has changed about the behaviors and mindsets, thinking errors, etc, of the addict, correct. We just know much more now about how to effectively deal with them. Those approaches are the polar opposite of previous, dismally ineffective approaches. (With one very notable and distinct exception). You are absolutely correct as well in saying that the essence of the disease is that the addict is not capable of decision making in regard to mind altering chemicals.
LOL. Would it surprise you to learn that I find some of yours nonsense? <g> ...Some are smaller in proportion than others. And the largest comparison group we could use if we wanted to make the comparison between voluntary and involuntary "treatment" of substance abuse is unavailable for comment.
But I do understand your point. It is well taken.
I think not. But then again, that's me. <g> Absolutely not! Where do you get the idea that "coersion" has a higher success rate than volunteering for treatment????? Nothing in what I said above implies anything of the kind. That would be terribly inaccurate.
What I did say (see below) is that the success rate for the ENTIRE population (80% involuntary and 20% voluntary) was 30% if they followed residential treatment with voluntary participation in 12-step groups. I said that it was unknown what percentage of those successes were initially involuntary.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are building a house of cards based upon your misreading of very simple statements I have made.
It is a strong argument for the efficacy of voluntary participation in 12-step groups and a rather shameful showing for professional counseling/therapy alone. You may want to read this paragraph again, too.
Well, if ...
Gree ...@hotmail.com (Greg Hanson)
Doug wrote Kane wrote Kane, you keep jumping to addicts, but there are BILLIONS of DOLLARS being spent on other kinds of forced treatment, often as PREVENTATIVE, which REALLY ticks people off - a bit like GULAG treatment.
Kane, with your apparent hatred of druggies, I highly doubt that you believe they can be redeemed at all!
Tell the truth, guy, you don't think they can be reformed.
But you're all in favor of the BILLIONS of dollars paid for such services anyway, right? As long as CPS agencies get to direct the spending of it?
"Doug" do...@charter.net
Hi, Kane!
No, the subject was forced interventions in child protection cases and chemical dependency treatment. In the paragraph you misinterpreted, a comparison was made between the two.
What success rate you may feel is "worth the effort to society" does not challenge the rates themselves. That I happen to agree with you that the effort is worth it for the individuals and society at large does not make the success rates any better.
Okay, sorry. I thought you were saying that involuntary treatment for chemical dependency was as successful as voluntary treatment. Residential facilities handle both at the same time.
CPS services are also offered both on a voluntary basis and an involuntary basis. The largest "service" offered by child protective services is forceful removal of children from their families, which is, obviously, involuntary -- at least from the viewpoint of the child taken into state custody. But services are provided both involuntarily and voluntarily. So, the answer to your question is both populations.
First, the majority of CPS clients have NOT done harm to their children in the first place, so it is illogical to state that they would not have gotten services before doing MORE harm to their children. Those who have not done harm to their children are, as one may expect, less likely to get any benefit out of "services" orientated toward people who have done harm to their children.
Secondly, one has to keep in mind that child abuse (doing harm to one's children) is an offence against another human being -- a crime. Committing ***ault against another -- no matter what their age or height or gender --
is not a disease. So forced services designed to "cure" someone of a malady does not address the crime.
Chemical dependency, on the other hand, is, debately, a disease.
Personally, I am with the AMA and the majority of people in the field who consider it a disease (especially alcoholism). But there published professionals who look at it as a behavioral problem. Nonetheless, chemical dependency is not a crime.
You may want to read my post again. <sigh>. The statistics I provided were for mandated and voluntary residents of treatment centers for chemical dependency. These people are tracked -- abeit poorly -- in studies.
The majority of addicts (including alcoholics) who sober up do not do so through treatment centers or other contacts with professionals. These people are almost impossible track when making comparisons between recovery that begins voluntarily or involuntarily. These people quit on their own or become involved in self-help groups, which are sometimes prompted by family interventions.
See above.
Comparisons between voluntary and involuntary clients served by professionals in residential or outpatient settings have been made in studies. I provided success rates for 1 year uninterrupted sobriety for people who began their recovery in residential treatment centers for chemical dependency.
However, the largest body of people in recovery voluntarily were never involved in professional settings and therefore unmeasured. Traditions of Alcoholics Anonymous prevent it from allowing their membership to be studied. However, AA itself did a survey study of its membership and found a success rate of 30% for the first year (1 year uninterrupted sobriety) and increasing rates thereafter ( 2 years, 3 years, etc.) However, this study relied on self-reporting and this form of polling is terribly unreliable --
most especially with a population that tends to be...well, less than honest sometimes. <g> Tragically, most AA/NA members do not immediately return to meetings after "backsliding." There are few "lapses." Some of those who relapse stay "out there" using for years before finding a new low and returning. Some don't make it back at all. However, some do get right back into the program after "backsliding", as you put it, and have a good chance of getting better. (I have always wondered if I would have the courage to do that.) Yes, it would.
No, open only to clients of CPS.
There are CPS programs that have relied solely on voluntary services. They have been piloted with less severe cases (usually on the "***essment track" in states with dual-track approaches. It is strengths-based practice.
Threat of removal or actual removal cannot be a factor and services have to be attractive and beneficial.
How valuable are CPS "services" forced upon people who have not abused, neglected their children or put their children at risk of either abuse or neglect? How just is it to confront these innocent parents or caregivers with confrontations with teeth? More post-investigative services were inflicted upon parents CPS unsubstantiated for either risk of or actual child abuse/neglect than parents who were substantiated. (Including around 100,000 children who were given the "services" of removal from their unsubstantiated families).
I would agree with legions of social work researchers and child welfare experts who claim these services are far from excellent, but instead terribly inept and ineffective.
...
"Doug" do...@charter.net
To which, Kane replies: Hi, Kane!
The medical model is properly applied to treating diseases. Chemical dependency is a disease. It has biophysical, social and psychological elements, it is a diagnosis in the DSM-IV (303.90, 304.30, 304.40, 304.20, 304.80, 304.00, etc, depending on drug of choice), it has genetic influences, and it is chronic and progressive.
What brings them to CPS' attention is a REPORT of child abuse and neglect, which is a lot different than actual child abuse and neglect. In 2002, CPS received 2.6 million reports that some four and a half million children were being abused and neglected. Around 775,000 of those four and a half million children were substantiated by CPS as being at risk of neglect or abuse or actually suffering neglect/abuse. 526,000 of children substantiated by CPS receive postinvestigation services, and 708,000 of those children CPS has UNSUBSTANTIATED as being at risk of neglect/abuse are provided postinvestigation services. Postinvestigation services are delivered, on average, 54 days after onset of the investigation.
Yes, recovery requires lifelong involvement in recovery. So, to CPS, to be in recovery is to be a danger to your own children for your lifetime. If you actually quit drugs, you become a risk to your own children.
Doug
"Doug" do...@charter.net
Responding to my statement that not all chemically dependent people abuse or neglect their children, Kane writes: Hi, Kane!
So, it is your statement that those chemically dependent people who do abuse or neglect their children that are not volunteering for treatment?
I disagree.
I think it is important that we consider the realities of the child welfare industry when we take a look at the numbers and discuss these issues. The numbers do NOT represent children who were abused or neglected, but children in cases where abuse and neglect was alleged by reporters (many times, anonymous ones). The vast majority of these reports are unsubstantiated by CPS investigations. The majority of parents who are provided "services" by CPS have been UNSUBSTANTIATED by CPS for either putting their children at risk of abuse/neglect or actually maltreating them. The majority of the substantiated cases involve findings of "risk of" abuse or neglect and not actual maltreatment. "Risk" is determined using unreliable "risk ***essment" instruments that have consistently failed empirical tests for internal reliability (accurately measuring what they proport to measure). A big indicator used against the parent in these risk ***essments is whether the parent(s) HAD a problem with substance abuse. As a consequence, parents can be substantiated as a risk to their children if they have voluntarily sought and successfully completed treatment fo substance abuse. They are, afterall, in danger of relapse if they are in recovery...or so the reasoning goes.
People in recovery are usually straightforward about it. Honesty is, afterall, a hallmark of recovery efforts. If they disclose this to CPS workers they are in danger of loosing their children. Meanwhile, the active, practicing drug addict is likely to completely deny any use of drugs. Unless CPS has proof from another source, it means that the active user can come away untarnished from the "investigation." The legislative intent of laws empowering CPS is for that agency to determine if children have been abused or neglected. Not to determine if their parents drink or not. CPS workers should do their job -- determine if children have been maltreated -- rather than play around with probabilities.
Therefore, it is neither my job or the parents job to "prove" that they don't abuse or neglect their children. It is CPS's job to prove that the parents -- whether they use drugs or not -- abused or neglected their children. Period. The government does not have the right to intervene unless abuse or neglect has occurred or the parent(s) have been proven to be unfit.
Consistent with other areas of child protection, innocent parents should not discuss their drinking or drug use patterns with CPS workers. Period.
Federal law protects the confidentiality of all citizens who have entered treatment for chemical dependency or chemical abuse. Unless the parent herself mentions she is in recovery or signs a release allowing CPS to obtain information from treatment facilities, CPS cannot determine whether she has been in treatment.
In child protection issues, it is not whether the parent uses or not uses that puts her children at risk of being taken into state custody. It is whether she has been treated for chemical dependency.
Absolutely. I agree. It was the relative success of those treatment interventions that we were discussing.
I agree. And there are agencies that help families conduct interventions and agencies who perform those interventions themselves. That is how it should be.
The question remains what should CPS, as an agency, do? It is their job to determine if child abuse or neglect has occurred. If the find proof that it has, then they bear the burden of proving that in a court of law. If the court determines that a parent has abused or neglected her child, then efforts should be made to consequence the parent and/or find out what factors led to the abuse.
But this is not the case. Only 17.6% of children SUBSTANTIATED as victims of risk of or actual child abuse/neglect are provided the services of a court. Further, the majority of postinvestigation CPS "services" are inflicted upon parents who have been UNSUBSTANTIATED by CPS itself for either putting their children at risk or abusing/neglecting them.
Well, fine. I have made a claim that voluntary treatment is more successful.
In the area of chemical dependency, I did not state or infer that mandated treatment did not work sufficiently enough to be useful or needed.
You can continue to expect to hear things you don't want to hear and evidence you prefer to ignore.
Who else could it be? Naturally, I consider your statement to be a false allegation.
I do not claim to guess why you mislead or whether you mislead on purpose.
Whatever your motivation, you provide misleading information.
I agree that false information can be dangerous. I think much of what you post is false.
Your ***umption that people you have never met or heard from are "in denial" is consistent with a lot of the child protective field work out there, and one of the reasons the system needs to be reformed. Innocent people deny charges against them. They are not in denial.
On the other hand, those who have committed child abuse and neglect and lie to themselves and others that they have not are, indeed, "in denial." The only way to find out which is which is to....well....properly investigate a report to determine if abuse or neglect happened. Most parents who deny the allegations made in reports are not "in denial." According to USDHHS figures, the majority of parents who deny allegations are, in fact, right. CPS itself confirms they are right by unsubstantiating the report. Yet the majority of people inflicted with CPS services are unsubstantiated by CPS for risk of or actual child maltreatment.
Yes, some of your nonsense could lead to just such a tragic consequence.
Not so today. In 1966 -- the year of your cited source -- but not today.
Those who volunteer are more likely to stay to completion of treatment.
See above. I have explained it three times. I am not going to bother doing so again.
See above (for the third time). Both voluntary and involuntary clients from the same population were tracked.
And what is the argument? That the results from involuntary treatment for chemical dependency, while low, are sufficient to make it worth the effort?
I think so.
Should NOT?
Yes.
I know you don't.
...
| To Top |