Once again, the newspaper proclaims a “series” of child
abuse deaths - and appears to endorse get-tough 'solutions' - even though the rate of such deaths remains unchanged
Back in late
2005, a reporter for The New York Times at the time, Leslie Kaufman, started
writing stories claiming that there had been a “series” of deaths of New York
City children “known to the system.” She
linked the supposed “series” or “string” of deaths to efforts to keep families
together. So the public was primed to
scapegoat family preservation when Nixzmary Brown died in January, 2006 –
leading to a foster-care panic, a sharp
sudden increase in the number of children torn from everyone they know and love
and consigned to the chaos of foster care.
The panic was welcomed by the Times. A headline
on a 2006 story by Kaufman said that the new get-tough approach “Suggests a System
Poised to Work.”
Wrote
Kaufman:
They liken it to the
"broken windows" approach to fighting crime: stop criminals when they
commit minor acts of vandalism, and they will never graduate to more serious
offenses.
But there
was no series of deaths. The rate of such deaths in 2005 was about the same as
previous years. Several happened to
occur in closer succession than usual.
Either that or, for whatever reason, reporters were paying more
attention.
When
confronted about her false claim, Kaufman replied: “It was a series – but not
statistically.”
The
consequences of claiming a “series” where none existed “statistically,” and
then scapegoating family preservation were horrendous for children. The number of children torn from their homes over
the course of a year surged 20% in two years.
And with so many more false reports and needless removals flooding the
system, deaths of children “known to the system” increased. One consequence -- the fanaticism with which
schools persecute families by rushing to call the city’s family policing
agency, the Administration for Children’s Services continues
to
this day.
But
fortunately, as the rest of society has become more aware of the biases that
permeate all forms of policing, including family policing, the Times has
learned and now is much more -- Nope. Just kidding. They’re at it again, almost word-for-word.
This is from
Tuesday’s Times story, recounting
the horrifying recent deaths of children “known to the system.”
Their deaths
were among a string of fatalities involving children who were the
subject of warnings to child welfare authorities or the police in New York
City. While the number of homicides of children in the city this year is
close to that of recent years, the series of killings …
And waaaay down
at the bottom:
There have been
13 homicides against children under the age of 11 so far this year in New York
City, just below the full-year average in recent years of
about 15. … [Emphasis added.]
These are what
is known among journalists as “to-be-sure grafs” as in “To be sure, not
everyone agrees with the thesis of our story, [insert token quote or statistic
here] but, [return to the reporters’ thesis]…”
The Times story is sprinkled with other “to-be-sure grafs” like a
token quote from a caseworker union leader and someone from ACS.
But then, in a paragraph making it more likely that readers ignore all that and stay focused on the
series-of-deaths-so-we’d-better-crack-down thesis, the reporters quickly add:
Statistics, though,
offer no comfort to loved ones mourning children whose lives ended in
unimaginable terror and pain.
So, you see, it
was a series, but not statistically. And
you should pay no attention to what mere data tell us when we’ve worked you
into a frenzy about unimaginable terror and pain.
This was not
the first such story. In August, two of
the same three reporters did something similar (no, I’m not going to link to
it). And more than a year ago, the Times
jumped on the fearmongering bandwagon about how the
absence of mandated reporters constantly keeping watch over overwhelmingly poor,
disproportionately nonwhite children during COVID lockdowns would lead to a
pandemic of child abuse. It didn’t.
But while statistics do not offer comfort to loved ones or
anyone else contemplating the worst horrors inflicted on children, they do
offer clues to which public policies work to reduce such horrors and which ones
will backfire. That’s why they
should be at the center of any story about a supposed “series” or “string” (or,
if you’re writing for a tabloid “spate”) of anything, not consigned to the
to-be-sure grafs.
So here are
some data the Times story ignored.
When it comes
to homicide deaths of children previously “known to the system” that number has remained
roughly the same every year from 2008 through 2019, the most
recent for which I could find numbers.
In fact, the 2019 figure actually is down 30 percent from 2008, but that
appears to be because the 2008 figure was unusually high.
Here are some
more data the Times ignored:
● This
current alleged “series” of deaths occurred at a time when New York City has
about 7,600 children in foster care.
● The series-but-not-statistically
that Leslie Kaufman kept writing about took place when there were 19,000
children in foster care.
● And when Elisa Izquierdo died in
1995, setting off the same calls to investigate more families and take away
more children, New York City had more than 43,000 children in foster care.
This does not suggest that more
“broken windows policing” is the answer.
The reason
it never works requires looking at more of those pesky data – and admittedly
we’re in back-of-the-envelope territory here.
But every year ACS investigates reports of child abuse involving roughly
56,000 children (not including duplicate reports). A death is considered “known to the system”
if the child who died was the subject of even one such report in the previous
ten years. That means, on average,
somewhere among, say 280,000 different children seen by investigators over ten
years* there were 11 who were victims of child homicide in 2019.
In other
words, in any given year, 0.004 percent of children – at most - who were “known
to the system” in any form over ten years are homicide victims.
Here’s how
that looks in a pie chart – and even that makes those 11 out of 280,000 easier
to spot than in real life, because the
11 are all in one place.
Also, it’s a hell of a lot harder
to find that 0.004 percent when you’re an overwhelmed ACS worker always rushing
on to the next case – almost all of which are false reports. No matter how clear it looks to reporters
with time to sift through all the documents, these still are needles in a
haystack.
Every time a politician – or a
newspaper – sets off a foster-care panic, and every time some new “broken windows
policing” protocol is instituted, the haystack gets bigger and the needles get
harder to find.
Later, I’ll get
to the specific get-tough protocols for which the Times is taking credit
(according to the story the changes come “in response to questions from The
New York Times about the missteps…”).
But even worse than any specific measure is the general message: that if
we just crack down hard enough, invade the homes of enough families and tear
away enough children, child abuse deaths will stop.
That’s implied
when the Times regurgitates the Big Lie of
American child welfare: the claim that keeping children safe and families
together are at odds. Or, as the Times
put it:
The child welfare agency, which
has stepped up efforts in recent years to keep families together rather than
send children to foster care, is under competing pressures: It spends much of
its limited resources investigating maltreatment reports, often filed by
estranged partners, which can lead to the unnecessary removal of a child from a
home, according to lawyers for parents in the system. But if the agency plays
down an abuse report, it risks leaving a child in harm’s way.
There’s so
much wrong there it’s hard to know where to begin. But let’s start with the bizarre emphasis on
reports from estranged partners – a framing seemingly designed to trivialize
the problem of false reports. Yes, such
malicious reports are part of the problem, but far bigger are malicious reports
from schools. Bigger still are CYA
reports from various “mandated reporters.”
Probably biggest of all are well-intentioned false reports, often
confusing poverty with “neglect” called in by people persuaded by a barrage of
publicity and horror stories to report anything and everything.
The Times
has every reason to know this. Under
previous metro editors, they produced one of the best stories ever written on
the nature and scope of the problem – and the enormous harm of what the
headline termed “The
New Reality of ‘Jane Crow.’” But if
you want to minimize the enormous trauma inflicted on children by needless
investigation and foster care and how often it happens, if you want to minimize the fact that overreporting
and overreliance on the broken windows policing approach actually put children in
harm’s way, you don’t remind people of that story.
If the Times
reporters wanted something more recent, they could have attended the New York
State Assembly public hearing last week in which, for hour after hour, families
and family defenders testified about children traumatized by needless
investigations, stripsearches and foster care.
The online
news site The City thought the issues involved were newsworthy. So did the
Daily News. So did The
Imprint. The Times did not.
Then
there’s the implication that somehow this series of deaths – which, remember,
is a series, but not statistically – is somehow related to “stepped up efforts
in recent years to keep families together.”
As we’ve
seen, the data show otherwise, which is why, if you want to push this theory,
you have to deemphasize the data.
In fact,
not only are these not competing pressures they are complimentary. The more you
keep the false reports, the trivial cases and the poverty cases out of the
system, the more time you have to try to find those needles in that giant
haystack.
But the Times
denies readers that perspective – it doesn’t even make it into the “to be sure
grafs.” Instead, we hear about all the
new “broken windows policing”-type measures, the city’s family police and other
agencies are planning.
Among the
worst: “requiring
home visits by the police in suspected abuse cases when someone in the family
has a domestic violence history.”
Domestic violence victims already often are terrified of coming forward
precisely because they fear, with good reason, that they will be charged with
“failure to protect” for “allowing” their children to see them being
beaten. This does so much harm to
children that removing them for this reason is
illegal in New York – but that hasn’t ended the practice. This new broken windows-style measure will
only further scare domestic violence victims and give their abusers more power.
The Times reporters might
have found this out, had they spoken to any families who have endured this
trauma, or, say, reached out to the network of lawyers who represent families
in such cases. But either none of the three reporters who worked on the story
bothered to make such a call – or they did, and ignored what they heard.
The police also
are pledging to “make more unannounced visits before closing cases and … if a
child misses a medical appointment, that will also trigger a home visit.”
But all over
New York City, there are children who remain traumatized years after-the-fact
by just such visits; children who dive under a bed when there’s a knock at the
door because it might be the cops or ACS coming to interrogate them again, stripsearch them again, or take them away again. And, by the way, there are all sorts of good
reasons why a poor person, especially one required to jump through all sorts of
pointless hoops imposed by ACS, might not manage to make it to every doctor’s
appointment.
Imagine for a moment that the Times had declared there
had been a “series” of murders of adults – even though the actual murder rate
had remained unchanged – then pressured the police department, which responded
by announcing it would dramatically increase stop-and-frisk policing. Would the Times have published that
without so much as seeking a response?
Would the Times have bragged that the increased used of stop-and-frisk was “in response to questions from The New York Times”? Speaking of
stripsearching, there also was this:
The officials acknowledged a paradox at the heart of some
cases: Their decision to seek a physical exam, which could turn up signs of
abuse, is often based on how bad a child’s injuries look; but some injuries,
like bleeding on the brain or soft tissue damage, can be invisible.
Agency officials also noted that a medical exam typically
requires a guardian’s consent; while a judge can order one, many judges will
not if the child has no visible serious injuries, they said.
What? You mean judges are actually reluctant to
expose children to the trauma of being stripsearched, poked and prodded by a
total stranger when there is no evidence the child was injured? What could they be thinking!
Of course, the Times’
journalists’ middle-class status makes it extremely unlikely that anything like
that could happen to their children.
The story also reports on how Safe
Horizon, which runs “child advocacy centers” where those stripsearches often
take place, is going to become even more vigilant. If you want to see why that’s a problem,
check out this Mother Jones
story, and the role Safe Horizon played in bringing down misery and
trauma upon the family at the center of it – a family in which the mother was a
domestic violence victim.
At no point was
anyone who might dissent from these phony solutions included in the
stories. No former foster youth who
remember the terror of those police knocks on the door, the stirpsearches and
the foster care. No family defense
attorneys who might raise the issue of whether this approach only further
inundates the system with false allegations trivial cases and poverty-confused-with-neglect
cases – making it less likely those needles in the haystack will be found. Again, this is like doing a story on
stop-and-frisk and leaving out Black Lives Matter.
The price of
panic
But even if
no city agency caved to the Times and promised to take some specific
broken windows policing-type action, odds are the damage has been done. Stories like this one, especially when there
is more than one (now that there have been three at the Times you might
almost call it a “series”) almost always set off foster-care panics. Terrified of being on the front page of the Times
(It used to be the Daily News, but the roles seem to be reversing)
workers rush to tear apart more families and judges become more prone to
rubber-stamp such decisions.
Even if removals themselves don’t
skyrocket, cases of oppressive family surveillance probably will. While ACS likes to brag about its reduction
in the number of children in foster care, there’s been an almost equal increase
in families forced to jump through all sorts of hoops and face all sorts of
intense surveillance even when the child remains at home. (And, as we’ve seen,
“in response to questions from The New York Times” both the family
police and the regular police are pledging to do even more of that.)
Don’t overlook
the weird, reluctant de-facto retraction at the end
Down in the
to-be-sure grafs at the very end of the story, right in between the one
acknowledging the data and the one effectively suggesting we ignore those data,
there is this:
Some experts
feared abuse would fester behind closed doors among families stuck in isolation
after lockdown began last year, but [ACS Commissioner David] Hansell said this
spring that there had been no signs of a spike.
So, more than a year after sewing
fears that encouraged anyone and everyone to spy on impoverished families and
turn them in to the family police because, after all, they were bound to be
abusing their children, the Times publishes what amounts to a retraction
– in the 39th paragraph of a 42-paragraph story that revives the
fearmongering in another form.
Bring on the
straw man
There’s a depressingly standard
hyper-defensive response to any criticism of badly-reported stories about child
abuse deaths. Generally it’s some version of “Oh, so you don’t want us
to report it when children die! You
don’t care if children are brutalized because all you care about
are ‘parents rights’”!
I could as easily say that The
New York Times doesn’t care if children die when the deaths occur at
evenly-spaced intervals – since such deaths get far less attention under those
circumstances.
More important, it’s a lie. A lot of us want more coverage of child abuse
deaths – with all the context the Times either left out or played down. We’d like stories in which data are not
brushed aside when they don’t fit the reporters’ master narrative.
Because that
kind of coverage would show that keeping families together is not antithetical
to child safety; on the contrary, you can’t have child safety without family
preservation. Such coverage might finally
lead us toward discussing what would give us a better chance of reducing the
number of such deaths: things like abolishing mandatory
reporting laws, which flood the system with false allegations and drive
families and, again, especially victims of domestic violence, away from seeking
help. Things like bolstering the city’s
network of high-quality family defense by getting family defenders involved the
moment ACS starts investigating a case – no, not to get “bad parents” off, but
to divert the vast numbers of cases that are nothing like the horror stories
into better alternatives. In addition to
sparing children enormous trauma, that also would let ACS workers can move on
to that next case that just might be one of this year’s 11 out of 280,000.
You could also
try consulting actual statisticians on what, if anything, can be concluded by
rates of child abuse homicides. (But
then as one of my worst editors said, when I was a reporter and did that
concerning some crime statistics: “You just reported us out of a great story.”)
And no, you can’t just include these
perspectives once, as the Times did with that “Jane Crow” story. Because not only among the general public but
also reporters and editors, memories are short.
*- The 280,000 figure is a
conservative estimate. The total number
of children in investigations over ten years is more like 560,000, but we can’t say 560,000 since over
ten years, some families will come up several times.
