2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Part two of two: Similarly, the CASAs suggest they are somehow immune from the racial and class bias known to permeate the rest of child welfare – yet the study found that CASAs typically spend significantly less time on a case if the children are Black – something that has nothing whatsoever to do with any alleged selection bias. During the program itself, I drew a distinction between the out of court role of CASAs, which is, indeed, quite valuable, and their role in judging families. CASAs don’t just observe and report – they recommend what should happen to a child, and CASA brags about the fact that judges give enormous weight to those recommendations. If CASAs are as defensive as these posts indicate when it comes to their own program, how can we count on them to be objective about families? My comments about CASA were a relatively small part of the program. How sad that, if not for all the CASAs posting to complain, relatively few people would have responded to this program at all. And how sad that there was so much less interest in *real* solutions like Intensive Family Preservation Services. Richard Wexler Executive Director National Coalition for Child Protection Reform www.nccpr.org

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

Part one of two: Assuming anyone is still here: At least Katedarling actually read the study, or part of it, unlike, it appears, all the other CASAs who simply refused to do even that. But katedarling neglects to discuss the long section in which the researchers describe the extensive steps they took to control for selection issues. That they did not do it perfectly does not invalidate the basic findings. In addition, just as we have learned to be suspicious about studies concerning a drug’s effectiveness when they are sponsored by drug companies, it’s important to remember who commissioned the study – giving the researchers a strong incentive to spin the findings in the way least unfavorable to CASA. Even the burden of proof is in the wrong place. Before we continue to blindly support a program that sends overwhelmingly white affluent volunteers to pass judgment upon the lives of overwhelmingly poor disproportionately minority families, shouldn’t CASA have to prove it *does* work rather than requiring the rest of us to prove that it doesn’t? Though I posted the link two days ago, I see nothing to indicate that any of the CASAs and their supporters who responded so defensively, except for katedarling, actually read the study. And consider what strictly neutral observers say about the study: Here’s what a columnist for the independent trade journal Youth Today said about the study: "The more rigorous evaluation … not only challenged the effectiveness of the court volunteers' services, but suggested that they spend little time on cases, particularly those of black children, and are associated with more removals from the home and fewer efforts to reunite children with parents or relatives." In a news story, Youth Today concluded that CASA’s efforts to spin these findings “can border on duplicity.” Yet rather than read the study, the CASAs respond hyper-defensively, saying it can’t possibly be so. Richard Wexler Executive Director National Coalition for Child Protection Reform www.nccpr.org

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

I see that my remarks on the program have prompted a fair number of responses.

 First, thank you OBP and Think Out Loud for sharing all perspectives, including a counterintuitive perspective like ours; I very much appreciated the opportunity to be a part of a very thoughtful discussion.

 As I said, I realize a lot of what I said is counterintuitive, but putting children first means going where the research leads us.  And that’s why my comments below have one common theme: Please see for yourselves.

 Ms. Murfitt: The study was done by examining more than 15,000 case records and comparing children left in their own homes to comparably-maltreated children placed in foster care.  No child was left at home – or placed in foster care – as part of an experiment.  You can see for yourself by following this link http://bit.ly/acX4gw to our analysis of the studies. That analysis, includes links to the full studies.

 Pamela: The data I cited are from the most comprehensive independent study ever done of CASA; a study commissioned by National CASA itself.  This study also found that children with a CASA are less likely to be reunited with their parents, and CASAs spend significantly less time with a child if a child is Black.  Again, see your yourself.  Our analysis of the study is here:  http://bit.ly/5bFRnq and again, there is a link to the full study.  As I said on the program, National CASA actually took this study off their own website.   The independent trade journal Youth Today was pretty scathing about how CASA has tried to spin the study findings.

 Cnjhogle: You say every foster child needed to be with you.  But another foster parent, Mary Callahan, wrote a book, called Memoirs of a Babystealer, describing how nearly every foster child placed with her could have been safely in their own homes had they just gotten the same help she got as a foster parent.  For every anecdote there is an opposite anecdote.  The theme of today’s NCCPR Blog is what to do when anecdotes collide: www.nccpr.blogspot.com

 Sincerely,

Richard Wexler

Executive Director

National Coalition for Child Protection Reform

www.nccpr.org

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context