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.