Protecting Children
Introduction
Christina L. Lyons in her article, “Should more be done to protect children?” evaluates the current child welfare services, highlighting if more methods need to be used to improve the system. According to Lyons, in an attempt to keep the family together, some of the social workers are too willing to let children live with their parents regardless of their ill-treatment. Nonetheless, she acknowledges that caseworkers generally do a commendable job in being good advocates for children, especially those in the foster care system. In this research, different authors give their views on the matter. The purpose of this paper is to analyze this article, show how different authors discuss this debatable topic and how they present their viewpoints.
Lyons writes that statistics in the federal government show that identifying children who are at risk and vulnerable is an enormous task. In 2014 alone, the child protective service agencies in the country recorded more than 3 million cases of child abuse or neglect (Lyons). However, the agencies identified only 702,000 of the children (Lyons). Compared to previous years, these numbers show an increase in their services. However, it is necessary to improve the system further. According to Lyons, recent developments, some communities have incorporated the use of big data algorithms, to quickly recognize children who are most prone to abuse or neglect. This advancement stimulated a controversy, on whether or not the big data algorithm can help to protect the children from abuse or neglect. As stated by Sean Hughes, this system will serve to ease the challenge faced by child protection agencies by handling the vast amount of data. He explains that child welfare agencies are understaffed and under-resourced. The predictive analysis of the big data algorithm will, therefore, help this team. Alternatively, Richard Wexler believes that using big data algorithms to make criminal justice decisions may intensify unnecessary and unfair variations that are already existent in the justice system of the country.
Pro
The event which led to the writing of this article is that in the past, the child welfare systems are overwhelmed with interpreting the big data that they receive. In turn, they are unable to effectively handle all cases of child abuse or neglect and the children are left to stay fin unhealthy environments for an extended time. The author of this text is Sean Hughes, a managing partner in Government Affairs. In his article, he understands the issues he is addressing, giving enough examples and explanations as to why big data algorithms are beneficial to the system. Despite his clear stand on the algorithm, Hughes is fair in acknowledging that the big data may prove challenging. According to Hughes “Child protection systems should proceed firmly but cautiously with their use of risk-related data to make decisions.”
From his article, Hughes intends to persuade the audience on the pros of using big data in child welfare systems, “too many children who die from maltreatment each year had been referred to agencies that responded inadequately.” The intended audience for this article is the child welfare agencies. These agencies are directly responsible for ensuring that children are kept safe. The secondary audience is the criminal justice system.
The main idea of this article is that big data analytics system is a beneficial tool in increasing the efficiency of services provided by child welfare services (Hughes). Hughes presents his arguments in a manner that evokes sympathy and empathy to the system and children who need its services. For example, “prevention programs are woefully underfunded, and services often do not reach those needing them.” The general tone of the paper suggests urgency for the subject to be addressed and a decision made, to help the children. The form and content correspond together in the article. It contains only matters that are relevant to the topic. The nature of this article shows that Hughes is caring about the welfare of the children. The references he also used show that the information is relevant and can thus, be relied on.
Con
The historical occasion that steered the writing of this text is that the child welfare system already has existing records that will increase if the big data algorithms are incorporated into the system. The author of this article is Richard Wexler, an executive director in the Coalition for Child Protection Reform. His reputation and position convey a certain form of authority, assuring the audience that he is knowledgeable on the topic. This text intends to dissuade against the incorporation of big data analytics to the system. Wexler writes, “big data may exacerbate unwarranted and unjust disparities that are already far too common in our criminal justice system and our society.” The writer also wants to persuade on the disadvantages of this idea, owing to previously failed attempts of using computer software. Wexler points out that “widely used software drastically overestimated the risk that black defendants would commit more crimes while underestimating the risk for whites.”
Similarly, the target audience for this text is the child welfare agencies. The values that the agencies hold is that their purpose is to protect children in the state against abuse or neglect. The secondary audience is the criminal justice system. The criminal justice society tends to rely on criminal records to single out potential criminals. Hughes writes, “a reliance on criminal records confuses actual risk with over-policing of poor communities.” The main idea is that the big data algorithm will magnify the problem, like any other software that was used previously. Wexler mostly appeals to reason, giving out facts from previous experiences like in the case in Los Angeles. Wexler records, “And a child-welfare official in Los Angeles said that a big-data system being tested there had a false-positive rate of 95 percent.”
The tone used in this text is assuring. The form and content of the article also correspond together. The author only writes about matters that are relevant to his ideology. Arguably, the author succeeds in dissuading the audience against the new method. From the nature of his article, it is evident that Wexler is intent on avoiding the repetition of previous mistakes. The writer wants to protect the children, but not using previously failed methods.
Conclusion
The children welfare systems are currently struggling with effectively managing all the reported cases of child abuse and neglect in the country. The system is also understaffed and under-resourced. And a child-welfare official in Los Angeles said that a big-data system being tested there had a false-positive rate of 95 percent. Therefore, it is only natural that new methods are incorporated to ease the burden of handling large amounts of data that get into the system. Big data analytics is one of the proposed tools to alleviate this problem. However, this solution has caused controversies. According to Sean Hughes, the tool will positively impact the system and ensure more children are protected. Alternatively, Richard Wexler believes that the system is bound to magnify the problem and make errors as seen in the past experiments. In my opinion, big data algorithms is a good solution to improving child welfare systems. However, to prevent any reoccurring errors, big data needs to be evaluated further to increase its efficiency.
Works Cited
Christina L. Lyons. “Should more be done to protect children?” CQ Researcher, https://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2016082600. Accessed 13 May 2020.
Richard Wexler. “Should more be done to protect children?” CQ Researcher, https://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2016082600. Accessed 13 May 2020.
Sean Hughes. “Should more be done to protect children?” CQ Researcher, https://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2016082600. Accessed 13 May 2020.