Saturday, September 24, 2016

New columns on differential response, predictive analytics and the Family First Act

I'm opposed to the so-called Family First Act, which is being sold as a way to change perverse financial incentives in child welfare and reduce the use of group homes and institutions but which, in fact, would do little of either.

But I'm also offended by intellectual dishonesty.  So two recent NCCPR columns in the Chronicle of Social Change deal with the intellectual dishonesty behind some of the arguments being used against the bill:

Family First Act Has Problems, But The “Imminent Risk” Provision Isn’t One of Them

Meanwhile there's still another study out showing that "differential response" - a less coercive way to handle reports alleging child abuse - does not compromise child safety.  But that isn't stopping opponents - including a group with a particularly poor track record on child welfare issues. Read about it in this column:

And finally, if you're still not creeped out by the prospect of using "predictive analytics" in child welfare, read this column.