There is a new study out from
the federal government, another in a long line documenting that an
approach to child welfare known as “differential response” is, in fact, safe.
Under
differential response, some cases that formerly were subject to a full-scale
investigation instead are assigned to caseworkers who “assess” the family and
offer voluntary help.
The latest “revelation”
that differential response (DR) is safe comes on top of many others. A 2011 literature review, looking at 23 studies,
found none concluding that differential response compromised child safety.
Three
more studies, all using random assignment and designed specifically to deal
with alleged flaws in earlier research, have been published. Two found no
indication that children in differential response were less safe; one found
worse safety outcomes by one measure.
Of all these 26 studies,
guess which was the only one to be the subject of a big story in the Chronicle of Social Change complete with the headline “Differential Response Dealt Heavy Blow.”
The Chronicle took a more low-key approach to the latest
study. This one examined the six states that have used DR the longest. Once
again, the review found no compromise of safety. It also found that states
making more use of DR had lower rates of re-reports of maltreatment and lower
rates of “substantiated” re-reports than states using it less.
But instead of
gushing, The Chronicle story
declares, “It is worth noting that in January of 2015, Minnesota — one of the
six states focused on in this study – moved toward discontinuing the use of
DR.”
It is
“worth noting” only in the sense that, once again, we see how scapegoating
efforts to keep families together in the wake of a high-profile child abuse
death – as happened in Minnesota – trumps research every time.
It’s
been much the same in Massachusetts. There, re-abuse of children and deaths of
children “known to the system” declined during most years DR was in effect. But
deaths may have spiked in one year. (Even that isn’t certain; there are a lot
of questions about data, definitions, and causes of death.) That was enough to
get the program killed. It is worth noting that, in contrast, no one ever
concludes that the death of a foster child means we should abolish foster care.
Opponents of DR have
another answer to all those inconvenient studies. They say, in effect, all the
studies we don’t like are biased! They say this in an article that is, in itself, striking for its
intemperate, defensive tone.
The
authors seem to have quite a chip on their collective shoulder. They spend much
time bemoaning the way proponents of DR characterize the traditional,
investigative approach. In that approach, caseworkers investigate a family, pry
into the most intimate aspects of their lives, may strip search the children
and/or subject them to traumatic medical exams, and then may, if they so
choose, walk out with the children. The authors are deeply offended by the fact
that backers of DR refer to this as “adversarial.”
The ironies don’t stop
there. I am aware of only one systematic experiment to actually test the bias
of researchers in the child welfare field. It found a profound bias in favor of
publishing articles purporting to show benefit to removing children.
Enter APSAC
And now, we have the
so-called American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children presenting
a “special issue” of one of its
publications devoted to DR – or rather, devoted to bashing DR. Every article is
from a DR critic, and the guest editor of the issue, Judith Rycus, is a
co-author of the all-the-studies-we-don’t-like-are-biased article noted above.
Another co-author of that article is a former APSAC president.
APSAC’s track record for
getting child welfare issues right is less than distinguished. As Debbie Nathan
and Michael Snedeker explain in their book, Satan’s Silence, APSAC was formed in the
1980s largely by well-meaning “professionals” who promoted claims of a supposed
epidemic of mass molestation and satanic ritual abuse in day care centers.
“From its inception,”
Nathan and Snedeker write, “APSAC’s leadership roster was a veritable directory
of ritual-abuse architects.” Kee MacFarlane, who led the questioning of
children in the notorious McMartin Preschool case, served on
APSAC’s board – and received the group’s “Outstanding
Professional” award – a decade after McMartin.
And in 1997, three years after writing an article promoting the idea that there
really were secret tunnels under the McMartin Preschool, Roland
Summit, another former board member, received the group’s “Lifetime
Achievement” award.
For
those who are not familiar with McMartin, this New York Times video is an
excellent primer:
Given
that track record, anything APSAC says about differential response should be
taken with at least a shaker of salt.
