5 ms·

>> Only about 5% of these kids are ultimately found to have been physically or sexually abused. That statement tells you a lot about the "article". Only someon

>> Only about 5% of these kids are ultimately found to have been physically or sexually abused. That statement tells you a lot about the "article". Only someone with a very strong agenda would view 5% child abuse as "only". "Mission Accomplished" I guess. The opinion pieces sites one example of overreach by officials. Where are the stories about children saved from abuse? I guess that isn't relevant to the discussion. One month of her children being taken away is a serious result. But there's a lot at risk here.

duskwuff 4y ago
> That statement tells you a lot about the "article". Only someone with a very strong agenda would view 5% child abuse as "only". It also entirely ignores findings of neglect. An agent who inspects a home and discovers that the children are sleeping on the living room floor and have no clean clothing, for example, hasn't found evidence that children have been "physically or sexually abused", but has made a finding of neglect which is probably sufficient for intervention. This isn't to say that there aren't problems here. The article goes on to discuss a number of real problems in home inspections from child services -- but this statistic alone isn't representative of the real situation.
PortiaBerries 4y ago
So if 5% of extra-legal searches result in dirt, then extra-legal searches are worth it?
- Volundr 4y ago
  Pretty much my thinking as well. Exactly what % hit rate do we need before we give up on the 4th amendment? 5% seems shockingly low to me. I'm all for protecting children, but if you have evidence one is being abused... get a warrant! Policing was never supposed to be easy.
  - anm89 4y ago
    Constitutional rights are not supposed to be conditional on some parties perceived utility to society of violating them I understand you are potentially agreeing with me but framing this this way at all is problematic.
    - DontchaKnowit 4y ago
      I don't really understand. Parent agrees with you completely and is framing in a non problematic way. Nothing wrong with a warrent
googlryas 4y ago
It's 5% of the children in houses they search, not 5% of children. And they're searching the houses specifically because there has been an allegation of abuse or neglect.
- 988747 4y ago
  Allegations of abuse or neglect are common tactics during custody battle in divorce. I guess that's why only 5% turn out to be true.
  - jstarfish 4y ago
    Mandatory reporting also inflates the numbers. Teachers have to report anything they hear, even if it's kids exaggerating obvious nonsense.
jjk166 4y ago
A 95% false positive rate is extremely high, and the cost, both in terms of the emotional health of those involved, as well as the strain on resources for a chronically underfunded public service, is far from zero. Estimates are that around 16% of children are abused, so if you're only finding 5% it means you're substantially worse at choosing households to investigate than if you were picking at random. Of course that's a national average and some places may be better or worse, but really all that indicates is that resources are being diverted to the wrong areas. Every hour of time and every dollar spent investigating households without good reason is stolen from a victim who truly needed it. Obviously not every investigation needs to find abuse to be justified, the whole point of the investigation is we don't know if something is wrong or not. But just because there is an occasional success does not mean that the current system is working, nonetheless optimal.
- thwayunion 4y ago
  > Estimates are that around 16% of children are abused, so if you're only finding 5% it means you're substantially worse at choosing households to investigate than if you were picking at random. Sampling iid would be unconstitutional and also obviously politically infeasible. So, the only people who are investigated are people for whom there is probable cause or at least an accusation. Once you're sampling from a population for whom you have either probable cause or at least an accusation, the group under suspicion probably not an iid sample of the overall population and may even be skewed in the wrong direction. Eg, a physical abuser is more likely to conceal a bruise than the parent of a particularly careless child. Additionally, suppose for sake of argument that abusers are in fact over-represented in the accused group. The behavior of both abusers and the abused confounds the statistical analysis. Consider alcoholism as an analogy (but also very correlated underlying pathology). Just like with alocholism, there are "high functioning" abusers who are able to avert suspicion and, in case of suspicion, manipulate the people who they are abusing. So we are sampling from a constrained population in which abusers may in fact be under-represented, and then again within that group there are confounding issues. None of this is to say that we should abandon constitutional rights, of course. But in a country with strong protections for the accused we might actually expect certain types of crimes to be more difficult to investigate and prosecute than a "just iid sample" approach. (It's also possible that the estimates are wrong, and in both directions. It's additionally possible that the 16% statistic refers to a different definition of abuse than the 5% number. Etc. etc.)
jstarfish 4y ago
> Where are the stories about children saved from abuse? You won't find them. Taking kids out of dubiously-neglectful households and putting them in foster care does not yield success stories. CPS does not stop abuse. It just displaces it.

duskwuff 4y ago

> That statement tells you a lot about the "article". Only someone with a very strong agenda would view 5% child abuse as "only". It also entirely ignores findings of neglect. An agent who inspects a home and discovers that the children are sleeping on the living room floor and have no clean clothing, for example, hasn't found evidence that children have been "physically or sexually abused", but has made a finding of neglect which is probably sufficient for intervention. This isn't to say that there aren't problems here. The article goes on to discuss a number of real problems in home inspections from child services -- but this statistic alone isn't representative of the real situation.

PortiaBerries 4y ago

So if 5% of extra-legal searches result in dirt, then extra-legal searches are worth it?

Volundr 4y ago
Pretty much my thinking as well. Exactly what % hit rate do we need before we give up on the 4th amendment? 5% seems shockingly low to me. I'm all for protecting children, but if you have evidence one is being abused... get a warrant! Policing was never supposed to be easy.
- anm89 4y ago
  Constitutional rights are not supposed to be conditional on some parties perceived utility to society of violating them I understand you are potentially agreeing with me but framing this this way at all is problematic.
  - DontchaKnowit 4y ago
    I don't really understand. Parent agrees with you completely and is framing in a non problematic way. Nothing wrong with a warrent

googlryas 4y ago

It's 5% of the children in houses they search, not 5% of children. And they're searching the houses specifically because there has been an allegation of abuse or neglect.

988747 4y ago
Allegations of abuse or neglect are common tactics during custody battle in divorce. I guess that's why only 5% turn out to be true.
- jstarfish 4y ago
  Mandatory reporting also inflates the numbers. Teachers have to report anything they hear, even if it's kids exaggerating obvious nonsense.

jjk166 4y ago

A 95% false positive rate is extremely high, and the cost, both in terms of the emotional health of those involved, as well as the strain on resources for a chronically underfunded public service, is far from zero. Estimates are that around 16% of children are abused, so if you're only finding 5% it means you're substantially worse at choosing households to investigate than if you were picking at random. Of course that's a national average and some places may be better or worse, but really all that indicates is that resources are being diverted to the wrong areas. Every hour of time and every dollar spent investigating households without good reason is stolen from a victim who truly needed it. Obviously not every investigation needs to find abuse to be justified, the whole point of the investigation is we don't know if something is wrong or not. But just because there is an occasional success does not mean that the current system is working, nonetheless optimal.

thwayunion 4y ago
> Estimates are that around 16% of children are abused, so if you're only finding 5% it means you're substantially worse at choosing households to investigate than if you were picking at random. Sampling iid would be unconstitutional and also obviously politically infeasible. So, the only people who are investigated are people for whom there is probable cause or at least an accusation. Once you're sampling from a population for whom you have either probable cause or at least an accusation, the group under suspicion probably not an iid sample of the overall population and may even be skewed in the wrong direction. Eg, a physical abuser is more likely to conceal a bruise than the parent of a particularly careless child. Additionally, suppose for sake of argument that abusers are in fact over-represented in the accused group. The behavior of both abusers and the abused confounds the statistical analysis. Consider alcoholism as an analogy (but also very correlated underlying pathology). Just like with alocholism, there are "high functioning" abusers who are able to avert suspicion and, in case of suspicion, manipulate the people who they are abusing. So we are sampling from a constrained population in which abusers may in fact be under-represented, and then again within that group there are confounding issues. None of this is to say that we should abandon constitutional rights, of course. But in a country with strong protections for the accused we might actually expect certain types of crimes to be more difficult to investigate and prosecute than a "just iid sample" approach. (It's also possible that the estimates are wrong, and in both directions. It's additionally possible that the 16% statistic refers to a different definition of abuse than the 5% number. Etc. etc.)

jstarfish 4y ago

> Where are the stories about children saved from abuse? You won't find them. Taking kids out of dubiously-neglectful households and putting them in foster care does not yield success stories. CPS does not stop abuse. It just displaces it.