« New law school clinic to undertake impact litigation on rights and criminal justice issues in Mississippi | Main | New Slate pitch for Prez to use clemency powers to address crack sentencing disparities »
July 29, 2013
FBI sweep leads to multiple rescues and arrests involving sexually exploited childrenAs reported in this new Washington Post piece, headlined "FBI raids in 76 cities save 105 kids forced into prostitution; 150 others arrested" the feds have been conducting a multi-day, multi-city sweep on persons involved in child prostution. Here are the basics:
Authorities rescued 105 children who were forced into prostitution and arrested 150 pimps and others in a three-day law enforcement sweep in 76 American cities, the FBI said Monday. The victims, almost all girls, range in age from 13 to 17.
The largest numbers of children rescued were in San Francisco, Detroit, Milwaukee, Denver and New Orleans. The campaign, known as Operation Cross Country, was conducted under the FBI’s Innocence Lost initiative.
“Child prostitution remains a persistent threat to children across the country,” Ron Hosko, assistant director of the bureau’s criminal investigative division, told a press conference. The FBI said the campaign has resulted in rescuing 2,700 children since 2003. The investigations and convictions of 1,350 have led to life imprisonment for 10 pimps and the seizure of more than $3.1 million in assets.
For the past decade, the FBI has been attacking the problem in partnership with a non-profit group, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. John Ryan, the head of the center, called the problem “an escalating threat against America’s children.”
I cannot help but wonder whether and how the many hundreds of federal prosecutions of persons guilty only of downloading child porn on their computers plays a role in the success of Operation Cross Country and the FBI’s Innocence Lost initiative. If there is evidence to indicate that the frequent prosecution and tough sentencing of persons guilty of downloading child porn in fact plays a significant role in helping the feds crack down on child sex trafficking, I would be much less trouble by how these cases often get handled. In my experiences in a few cases, however, many downloaders of child porn getting the sentencing book thrown at them had no connection with actual child sexual abuse offense and were not able to provide the feds with helpful information about anyone directly involved in such abuse.
July 29, 2013 at 06:07 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference FBI sweep leads to multiple rescues and arrests involving sexually exploited children:
"...non-profit group, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. John Ryan, the head of the center, called the problem “an escalating threat against America’s children.”
an organization that utilizes the same basic approach that works for the NSA and the hunt for terrorists by utilizing copious sums of taxpayer dollars sprinkled in with a constant threat of fear from the unknown
Posted by: . | Jul 29, 2013 6:48:08 PM
This is nothing but vapid media ho-ha. The legal age of consent in many states is 16 but slapping the term "child" in front of "prostitution" makes it all scarier. What garbage.
"The victims, almost all girls, range in age from 13 to 17."
And until I see facts otherwise, all but two were 17.
Posted by: Daniel | Jul 29, 2013 8:16:01 PM
Specificity, accuracy and precision in government press releases and media reporting is a detriment to creating bogeymen. The NCMEC has not helped in recovering one missing child to date. US tax-payers money only helps in paying these "non-profits" executives enormous salaries.
Someone, anyone prove me wrong by providing specific cases where the NCMEC was instrumental in locating and saving a "missing" child.
Posted by: albeed | Jul 29, 2013 9:02:57 PM
Step 1: Throw federal money at local law enforcement agencies to arrest prostitutes and pimps.
Step 2: Glean from all the arrests those involving prostitutes under the age of 18.
Step 3: Attach a cool "Operation" name to the exercise.
Step 4: Propaganda!
Posted by: C.E. | Jul 29, 2013 10:04:16 PM
Given the comments above, I am no longer mystified about the source of the gushing enthusiasm for Ariel Castro. It was all the cops' fault! The government propaganda machine!! The guy was set up by the NSA!
How could I have been fooled so thoroughly for so long?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 29, 2013 10:22:00 PM
The legalization of child porn is followed by drops in the rates of real, physical world child sexual abuse.
Since this campaign began, 1) child porn sites have grown to 4 million; 2) the rate of child sexual abuse reporting has increased; 3) the government is the biggest subscriber, downloader, and subsidizer of child porn production, in which children are horrifically sexually assaulted, and tortured; 4) the production of child porn would decrease were it not for the direct subsidy of the government subscription and the indirect price support of prohibition going to international criminal syndicates; 5) nature endorses 14 as the age of adulthood, 18 being a lawyer fiction, yet another lawyer fiction; 5) the feminist agenda is to go after dark skinned people of other religions which allow marriage to young females; 6) the most psychic trauma from seeing oneself in a child porn production is inflicted by the Federal Victim Notification program; 7) if sex offender registries have ever protected a single child or prevented a single instance of real child sexual abuse, I would appreciate receiving the reports.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 30, 2013 12:22:05 AM
"Given the comments above, I am no longer mystified about the source of the gushing enthusiasm for Ariel Castro. It was all the cops' fault! The government propaganda machine!! The guy was set up by the NSA!"
Nice Straw Man!
"How could I have been fooled so thoroughly for so long?"
You were one of them and continue to be an apologist for them.
A true conservative is critical of all that comes from the mouth of those who obtain their income by armed force and/or deception, i.e., taxes. Tell a lie, make it frequent, make it big and tell it often and you will have most people believe it. Know who said that?
I remember a previous post from you that was mocking me for suggesting that we wait for the facts before you were willing to use the DP (or at least severe punishment) on all three Castro brothers based on early government and media press releases. Want me to find it?
I see that you did not address my question regarding the utility of the NCMEC. Please do so before you post any more platitudes. Remember that half-truths are as damaging as outright lies. I see that your frequent (and correct) insistence on not telling lies does not apply to the government.
Posted by: albeed | Jul 30, 2013 9:13:13 AM
Yeah, being forced to be a prostitute is AOK as long as the girl is 17.
Have any daughters? I have a great business opportunity for her. The local Crips affiliate (most prostitution is run by street gangs now) will take great care of her.
The vileness of some people is perfectly illustrated here. In a thread about the exploitation of young girls, the source of NCMEC funding and "government propaganda" are the main topics. These are the same arguments I would hear from the diaper snipers I taught in prison. Hmmmmm...
Pathetic. And it is the REPUBLICANS who get accused of a "War on Women."
Posted by: TarlsQtr1 | Jul 30, 2013 10:02:50 AM
Your diatribe against NCMEC is both a red herring and inane. I am agnostic towards them. Fine, they suck and are not worth the money thrown their way. Whatever. It has nothing to do with the fact that more than 100 teenagers who were being exploited (hookers do not get rich, the street gangs acting as their pimps do) were removed from what any sane person would call a dangerous situation.
The NCMEC is not a police force and their main areas of focus are prevention and providing information to law enforcement, usually to state fusion centers or task forces. You cannot count cases that were prevented (although the Amber Alert system, the brainchild of the NCMEC, HAS found missing children who were in danger) and finding a missing kid is an effort by many organizations. LE gets the kid, so they get the credit. No one but LE knows where the information came from, so asking for evidence of being "instrumental" in finding children(a goalpost you would be sure to move anyway) is sophomoric.
Posted by: TarlsQtr1 | Jul 30, 2013 10:26:01 AM
Perhaps the Crips deserve to escape albeed's "conservative" criticism since they do not "obtain their income" via taxes?
Posted by: Adamakis | Jul 30, 2013 11:55:15 AM
Well, in my experience (both my personal experience as a child porn defendant, and having met several other child porn defendants both as a result of my conviction as well as working in criminal defense) child porn and perpetration of sexual abuse can go hand in hand, but don't seem to for people who are just downloading.
Personally, I never had any inclination to go out and abuse children. Porn was this kind of unreality for me, and after several years of pretty heavy use it became disconnected and compartmentalized from things that go on in the real world (and I'm told that's a pretty common experience for people who get heavy into porn like I was).
Speaking for myself, I never tried to contact a child, or tried to set up a meet with a child prostitute, and never gave it a thought. Who knows where things would have gone if I hadn't of been busted -- I can't really say.
But, I suspect, like Doug, that for the vast majority of CP defendants, there's not going to be a lot of connection.
Posted by: Guy | Jul 30, 2013 12:37:26 PM
ALBEED: "The NCMEC has not helped in recovering one missing child to date."
1.) 148,500 teenage runaways/year become sex slaves or prostitutes, according to
"the FBI estimates .. of the roughly 450,000 children that run away"
2.) "coordinated by the FBI and National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC),
part of the decade-old federal Innocence Lost National Initiative."
3.) "To date, the Innocence Lost initiative has led to the recovery of more than 2,700 underage prostitutes".
~7/30/13, © 2013 THE WEEK PUBliCATIONS
Posted by: Adamakis | Jul 30, 2013 1:34:47 PM
If albeed's "conservatism" does not include help for the weak and defenseless, it is not conservatism at all. Of course, you already knew that.
The interesting/funny/pathetic part of all this is that he and his brethren of the brothels will STILL claim that their tears for the "victimless porn downloader" do not extend to the "real criminals" who make the stuff. When a story about underage prostitutes gets condemnation ONLY for the FBI and NCMEC's funding stream, I know better. Hey, sex at 16 is legal in most states, so what's the big deal if a 17 yo is forced to sell her body for the financial benefit of the Crips? Bros before hoes you know.
Posted by: TarlsQtr1 | Jul 30, 2013 1:52:50 PM
This entry deals with an FBI operation that rescued over 100 minors from being forced into sex. Your response is, as ever and ever with you, to ignore the people doing the criminal exploitation and criticize the government for saving the victims.
Your idea that everything the government does stinks, and everyone who works for it is stupid is, complete nonsense.
There really are criminals out there, and one of the core functions of government, from the Founding on, is to capture and punish them. Do you really not know this? If the government and its employees are not to do this, who do you suggest? Vigilantes? Who?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 30, 2013 2:48:14 PM
I'm back from a round of golf. It's great to be back. Shot a round of 39 for 9 holes (par 34).
Now to the commentors:
Forced prostitution at any age is wrong and should be severely punished. We do not get a number regarding who was forced from the government/media report, whether it was 1 or 105. For those who were rescued, I am grateful. Those who can read will note that MY CRITICISM was for greater understanding through specificity, accuracy and precision in both government and media reporting, rather than jumping to preconceived (CRIPS, et al) conclusions, I would like to know how many were "pimped" and how many self-advertised on BackPage.com.
I do not "hate" my government. I distrust and have a lack of faith in our current regime(s) which are growing larger by leaps and bounds, no matter which party is in charge. One rarely hears news accounts that do not contain 1) serious crimes or 2) government actions. It would appear that the only current news that's fit to print or hear is under these two categories.
Both democracies and republics can be and are controlled by "mob" rule or the tyranny of the majority. What set the US appart is not the Constitution, but the respect for the Bill of Rights, which was intended to control the ill-conceived wills of the majority. It is apparent that legislators and now SC justices merely give it lip service. When federal crimes were no longer primarily malum in se, but malum prohibitum (example earlier on this SL&P page of 15 years for 6 shotgun shells rather than being tried for burglary) what else can you expect but a loss of respect for the justice system. Also arbitrary age of consent laws (as SC frequently points out are not based on human physiology or human history) are meant not to deter most acts of human nature, but to make prosecutions easier for both the dangerous predatory and normal teenager instincts by not requiring certain burdens of proof. I would like to see certain gradations in the law but ALL prosecutors would object because it would make their work harder. I believe that all adulterers should be prosecuted as they do more damage to their children than most innocent acts of teenage on teenage petting.
Also, there is a recent case in my neck of the woods where criminal cops were not to be named until their arraignment. This is undoubtedly due to police unions rather than a sense of justice. No criminals should be specifically identified until their arraignment.
This is just a beginning of what my current issues with "government" are. I see that those who disagree the loudest (TQ, BO, and ADMK) received or receive their livelihood from the Justice System so I would anticipate and expect career tunnel vision.
Posted by: albeed | Jul 30, 2013 11:18:23 PM
albeed stated: "Forced prostitution at any age is wrong and should be severely punished. We do not get a number regarding who was forced from the government/media report, whether it was 1 or 105."
They are minors. They do not get to "choose" prostitution. If it was your daughter caught up with a street gang (even if she chose to do it)and prostituting at 16, I suspect you would not be shrugging your shoulders. If you would, then you are a POS parent.
You stated: "Those who can read will note that MY CRITICISM was for greater understanding through specificity, accuracy and precision in both government and media reporting, rather than jumping to preconceived (CRIPS, et al) conclusions,..."
Man, albeed, how about a little intellectual curiosity? That gangs are running the prostitution rings in urban, suburban, and even rural America is well known fact in LE. In fact, it is now the second largest money maker for many of these groups behind drugs and is growing as a percentage because drugs bring more heat than hookers.
Salon is not exactly a government mouthpiece: http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/girls_in_gangs_salpart/
And you did not ONLY criticize for more specificity. You also criticized the NCMEC for being federally funded, all without a word about the pimps.
The rest of your post is a series of red herrings, ad hominems, and genetic fallacies. Nice job on that...
Posted by: TarlsQtr1 | Jul 31, 2013 1:22:29 PM
Nice selective reading and nothing response. Please go back to preventing your kids from playing video games. Your position in the Justice System speaks volumes. Your response is trite and mindless! I will also add that street gangs are not an issue where I live. They are killed and eaten here by the real criminals, some of them LE.
I have children and grandchildren. In a previous life, I was a volunteer athletic director at a private elementary school. With todays parents and irrational hysteria, I wouldn't touch that job with a fifty-foot pole.
Posted by: albeed | Jul 31, 2013 2:54:53 PM
albeed stated: "Nice selective reading and nothing response."
As I would expect, you provide no examples. I directly quoted you on all parts I commented on. The only part that was "selective" was my choice not to comment on your numerous logical fallacies (other than pointing them out).
You stated: "Please go back to preventing your kids from playing video games."
I will. My soon to be second grader who is home schooled would much rather read CS Lewis anyway. He read the entire 7 part Narnia series in first grade.
You stated: "Your position in the Justice System speaks volumes."
I have no "position" in the justice system. You provide a nice example of a genetic fallacy though.
You stated: "Your response is trite and mindless!"
Well, you would know about trite and mindless responses...
You stated: "I will also add that street gangs are not an issue where I live. They are killed and eaten here by the real criminals, some of them LE."
LOL Sure. I provided hard data via the link. You provide "trite and mindless" self-serving anecdotes. Do a Google search for "prostitution and street gangs" and see what you come up with (or read the Salon article I provided). Everyone knows about it except you apparently.
You stated: "I have children and grandchildren."
None of whom, I suspect, would draw just a shrug of the shoulders and a diatribe about the NCMEC funding stream if they were one of the underage girls out there getting their pimp rich.
Posted by: TarlsQtr1 | Jul 31, 2013 3:24:52 PM
As several people have mentioned, this article should be greeted as good news by everyone. But I don't accept it as good news. Of course, this is not the first time that's happened for me. And of course, I've asked myself why and thought about it a little. I would like to change how I feel about it but I'm not sure it's possible.
I personally do hate our criminal regime governments. I think a large number of the people who comprise our governments are terrible, awful, disgusting "people" and I think our governments attract those types of people. They have proven to me beyond all doubt possible that they are scum. I hate that they live in the United States because I feel there are so many other countries where their kind would fit in better.
I don't trust our criminal regimes and I don't trust what they say. I don't trust what they say they've done with this latest "Operation Blah Blah Blah". I don't trust them to arrest anyone and legitimately dispense justice. As was mentioned recently in these forums, the U.S. justice system is a joke that should not be respected. And as the U.S. population grows larger (numerically and literally), less intelligent, less compassionate, and more broke, I expect it is all going to continue to decline.
Since these criminal regimes proved they can't be trusted, I am working very hard to keep them as broke as possible. Surely that can help to shrink them a little, right? I would like to see these criminal regimes operating a bit like Detroit is these days - bankrupt and unable to provide even basic services. I heard earlier this week that it takes the Detroit police around 58 minutes to respond to a 911 call. That is pretty good. Surely then those criminals have little time on their hands to "verify" information on their glorious Sex Offender Registries and otherwise harass the families listed on them. Surely that helps them prioritize their witch hunt correctly.
Today, I won't cheer the latest propaganda piece from the criminal regimes. I will instead ensure that the Registries are worse than worthless. I will go out of my way to spend a lot of time around families and children that have no idea that I am listed on the nanny, big government's hit list. It's the moral, American thing to do.
And the criminal regimes still have no excuses that they have not created the rest of their Registries.
Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Jul 31, 2013 5:54:08 PM
~7/30/13, © 2013 THE WEEK PUBliCATIONS
Posted by: Adamakis, who left out this tidbit from the same source, which is the kind of deception albeed may be arguing against.
Another issue is convincing the rescued prostitutes to quit, when "many teenagers, usually girls, willingly get involved in the sex trafficking believing that it's better than life at home," says Larry Lee at Wisconsin's WSAU radio. Many of these girls come from abusive homes or the foster care system, and the FBI estimates that of the roughly 450,000 children that run away from home every year, a third of the teenagers on the street will be roped into prostitution within two days of leaving home.
So once again, the nursing program for at risk mothers (who have at risk children) seems to be the solution. As an added benefit, less prisons need be built and so less people like TarlsQtr1 would be required to "teach" the inmates. Here is a study that may explain why the program works and it appears to amount to "I have a friend that happens to be an expert in child health, so I can trust myself more." Or maybe The Militarizing of Local Police (Forbes)is the more manly solution.
Posted by: George | Jul 31, 2013 9:49:06 PM
At what age should legal adulthood be set? What is the j justification for that age? Keeping people out of the job market for union constituencies is not correct.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 31, 2013 10:13:26 PM
The question now is, what are these "girls", young women, etc. to do now? What help do they "really" receive to become intelligent, contributing members of society? Very little help comes from welfare or LE except to incarcerate and put them behind the eight ball to renew their lives. Media will NOT do a three year follow-up study.
I agree that mandatory education programs (unions?) were primarily responsible for setting an arbitrary legal adulthood age of 18. For criminal sex-laws, I would like to see different gradations for pre-13 (14), (13-14) - 17, and 18 and above. Then our laws "might" have some intrinsic utility in a "realville" setting, along with what was permtted in human history. We would treat a real child abuser (pre-14) differently than someone who has consensaul contact with someone 14-17.
Again, prosecutors would abhor these conditions because the onus would fall on them to deal with evidence and the personal participatory nature of the "victims" with persons in the 14-17 category.
Posted by: albeed | Jul 31, 2013 10:58:10 PM
Nature and 10,000 years of history agree, 14.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Aug 1, 2013 7:01:36 AM
George stated: "So once again, the nursing program for at risk mothers (who have at risk children) seems to be the solution."
Solution to what? It has virtually nothing to do with the problem in the OP. There was no indication that they were "at risk mothers", just troubled kids swindled by some pimps. They either did not want to get out or could not get out.
As far as putting these kids' mothers in such a program, the cited study was voluntary. Do you know how many of the parents of the children in the OP needed such counseling? If parents refuse, would you force them? If you force them, on what criteria do you decide who needs to be compelled? What would the success rate be for people forced into such a program (from my experience, very low)? Where are you going to find the army of well trained nurses it would take to keep track of the feral children and their crappy parents?
You stated: "As an added benefit, less prisons need be built and so less people like TarlsQtr1 would be required to "teach" the inmates."
First, you talk about "less prisons." How many underage hookers are in "prison?" Do you have any stats?
You then spring an ad hominem when, A) I do not "teach" inmates and have not for years; B) You have no idea how well I did my job; and C) you uncreatively attempt to insult what I used to do while pushing a program that is doing the EXACT SAME THING, getting people their GEDs.
Please try to "think" before you post next time.
Posted by: TarlsQtr1 | Aug 1, 2013 9:12:04 AM
You're still teaching inmates, and I'm still working for GHWB.
And the libs say it's CONSERVATIVES who can't keep up with the times.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Aug 1, 2013 9:56:35 AM
Is there anyone here who was able to figure out runaway teens had a mother that gave birth? And if you could figure that out could you "think" and infer that babies born to at risk mothers might live long enough to become runaway teens?
And can anyone figure out that prostitute runaway teen girls could become at risk mothers themselves? It has something to do with the birds and the bees. Do I really need to spell that out too?
'Nuff said about "teaching" and now we can add Mr Bill to this teachable moment.
Posted by: George | Aug 1, 2013 10:38:37 AM
George stated: "Is there anyone here who was able to figure out runaway teens had a mother that gave birth? And if you could figure that out could you "think" and infer that babies born to at risk mothers might live long enough to become runaway teens?
And can anyone figure out that prostitute runaway teen girls could become at risk mothers themselves? It has something to do with the birds and the bees. Do I really need to spell that out too?"
Well, gee, is there anyone here who was able to figure out that I dedicated an ENTIRE PARAGRAPH to that exact scenario? I stated:
"As far as putting these kids' mothers in such a program, the cited study was voluntary. Do you know how many of the parents of the children in the OP needed such counseling? If parents refuse, would you force them? If you force them, on what criteria do you decide who needs to be compelled? What would the success rate be for people forced into such a program (from my experience, very low)? Where are you going to find the army of well trained nurses it would take to keep track of the feral children and their crappy parents?"
Reading. It's fundamental.
That a couple of small scale studies (one had 18 families in it) with ALL VOLUNTEER MOTHERS had some success is pretty unremarkable. What IS remarkable, is that you and albeed are so unsophisticated to believe that it necessarily translates out to an entire country of 300,000,000 people with the degree of family rot that we have. As of 1999, and it has not gotten better since, 46% of school age children were considered significantly "at risk." That is a pretty large subset of 300,000,000. Many in this country believe that it is too great a burden to make someone go downtown to get an ID to vote, yet you want us to believe that they will "volunteer" for such a program or even better, that we will be able to COMPEL them to?
The ONE thing that HAS been proven to work over thousands of years, is the intact, nuclear family of a birth mom and birth dad. We can't have that though. Christian values are oh soooooooooo 1950.
Posted by: TarlsQtr1 | Aug 1, 2013 11:56:47 AM
I can't say too much about that. I thought you were still working for James Garfield. ;-)
OK, time to get back to work on my "War on Women."
Posted by: TarlsQtr1 | Aug 1, 2013 12:00:01 PM
Tarls, Google is your friend and can answer all your questions if you really care about these kids more than The Militarizing of Local Police.
Posted by: George | Aug 1, 2013 7:44:36 PM
If you could see my Facebook feed from today, you would find an article (with my scathing comments) about the The Society of St. Francis (a no kill shelter in Wisconsin) being raided by 9 wildlife agents and 4 deputy sheriffs to euthanize a fawn that was supposed to go to a rescue the next day. The sheriff even had aerial photographs.
I also commented on my wife's feed sbout a family on Long Island being raided because the wife Googled "pressure cookers" and the husband "backpacks."
In the recent past, I have also posted stories of a college girl having a SWAT team engulf her car for what the police thought was beer but was actually bottled water and the USDA forcing magicians to have emergency plans for their rabbits.
Your problems are that "militarized police" have little to do with the arrests of these pimps, many of whom are gang members, and your public health nurse idea is just plain silly. Not to mention, you fail to even acknowledge that your sarcastic diatribe about me not realizing that you were also talking about the mothers of these kids being in the program was false.
Posted by: TarlsQtr1 | Aug 1, 2013 8:12:46 PM
sorry but i'm with tarls here! what happenes to a buch of gang banger pimps is only poetic justice if you ask me.
Posted by: rodsmith | Aug 1, 2013 10:15:16 PM
I turned down the job with Garfield because he was too much of a Lefty.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Aug 2, 2013 12:39:13 AM
Nurse HVPs promote the well-being of mothers and their children. Trained registered nurses visit pregnant women and children from early in the mother’s pregnancy through the child’s second birthday. The Nurse- Family Partnership (NFP) model is an example of a nurse HVP where low-income, first-time mothers receive a variety of services and counseling from a nurse. Rigorous scientific evaluation concludes that NFP services improve prenatal health and school readiness, increase birth spacing and maternal employment, and lead to fewer childhood injuries and subsequent pregnancies.1 Not all HVPs have the resources to undertake
randomized control trials; some HVPs have undergone quasi-experimental evaluations while “promising practices” await the opportunity for evaluation. Regardless of evaluation, all HVPs strive to promote positive outcomes in the health and well-being of program’s participants.
Nurse home visitation services specifically address risk factors for pre-term delivery, low birth weight, and infant neuro-developmental impairment, including substance abuse and nutrition.2 Research has shown that
these services reduce preterm delivery for women who smoke; reduce high-risk pregnancies through birth- spacing; and impact children’s cognitive, social, and behavioral skills and development.3,4 Nurse home visits
also encourage better long-term health outcomes for children. Research demonstrates girls whose mothers receive nurse home visits were less likely to be involved in the criminal justice system, and girls born to unmarried, low-income mothers reported fewer births and less Medicaid usage relative to the comparison group.5
Furthermore, nurse HVPs have demonstrated improvement in the overall well-being of the family. These improvements include increased maternal employment and the family’s economic self-sufficiency; increasedpresence of the father in the household; reduced child abuse and neglect; reduced maternal and child arrests; and reduced behavioral and intellectual problems among children at age six.6,7
Evidence-based nurse HVPs have also been recognized as one of four areas of investment that merit expanded federal funding even in periods of fiscal restraint.8 Investments in the program have demonstrated societal cost- savings due to reduced criminal activity, greater employment, higher tax revenues, and reduced costs for welfare payments and child welfare programs.9, 10
Record of Action
Approved by NACCHO Board of Directors, Nov. 4, 2007 Updated July 2010
Posted by: George | Aug 2, 2013 2:13:19 PM
No one us questioning that having your own personal RN will help. However, there are not enough RNs for our hospitals, so the army it would take of them is not feasible in a nation this size. Not to mention, the studies were done with volunteer mothers. A huge number will not and I doubt you could compel them.
Posted by: TarlsQtr1 | Aug 3, 2013 12:32:52 PM
The Nursing Shortage Myth 78 Responses
By David Williams
For years we’ve read that the US faces a looming shortage of nurses. Shortfalls in the hundreds of thousands of nurses are routinely predicted. These predictions have been good for nursing schools, which have used the promise of ample employment opportunities to more than double the number of nursing students over the last 10 years, according to CNN.
Yet somehow 43 percent of newly-licensed RNs can’t find jobs within 18 months. Some hospitals and other employers openly discourage new RNs from applying for jobs. That doesn’t sound like a huge shortage, then does it?
But the purveyors of the nursing shortage message have an answer for that. Actually two answers: one for the short term and another for the long term. The near term explanation is that nurses come back into the workforce when the economy is down. Nurses are female and tend to be married to blue collar men who lose their jobs or see their hours reduced when the economy sours, we’re told. Nurses bolster the family finances by going back to work –or they stay working when they were planning on quitting. There’s something to that argument even if it’s a bit simplistic. more
Even if there were a nursing shortage, that could be because The Gentler Sex would rather join The Militarizing of Local Police because it's sexier on TV. There may come a time when cops don't dominate the majority of air time and nursing might be cool again.
Lastly, not in any of the links provided does anyone argue the HPV programs must be forced. They pay for themselves and more on a voluntary basis. If it saves just one child--wait, that's only if you get to put suspects away for life or kill them.
Posted by: George | Aug 3, 2013 2:39:34 PM
Or you could look at the BLS Occupational Outlook Handbook instead of a blog...
When I moved to Kentucky, I kept seeing commercials for Central Baptist in Lexington offering RNs $5000 cash signing bonus and a year of free gas for a 2 year commitment. Not the actions of an employer who has the RNs by the short hairs. In rural Eastern Kentucky, it is much worse.
And again, we are a country of 300,000,000+ with estimates that close to 50% of school age children are at risk. That's about 4 million public school kids and does not count the children where it would help most, newborn to 5. That is more nurses than you could ever scrounge up to serve.
And I KNOW it doesn't say it "must be forced." The problem is that the ones in MOST NEED of it are the least likely to volunteer for the program.
The answer is and always has been strong nuclear families with birth moms and birth dads living with the children. That is why liberals sought to destroy the nuclear family (as Woodrow Wilson said, the job of education is to make children as least like their parents as possible). Uncle Sam loves dependent people and wants to fill that gap left by the poor parents they created.
Posted by: TarlsQtr1 | Aug 3, 2013 11:17:33 PM
Again, from your own link:
Employment of registered nurses is expected to grow 26 percent from 2010 to 2020, faster than the average for all occupations. Growth will occur primarily because of technological advancements; an increased emphasis on preventative care; and the large, aging baby-boomer population who will demand more healthcare services as they live longer and more active lives.
Like it or not, Nurse HVPs are included in Obama care. Maybe that is why you and other authoritarians don't like Obama care. But I get what you are saying. You'd rather these mothers and children suffer because it would be a liberal program if implemented. You'd rather depend on more prisons because that is more conservative and good big government. But get this: VICTIMS WILL STILL HAVE TO SUFFER FIRST UNDER YOUR PLAN. So you get more cost of incarceration and more suffering if you add the suffering of the incarcerated to the suffering of the victims. Lose-lose. How can you not prefer less crime and suffering at the outset? Win, win. Which is not to suggest the Nurse HVPs would guarantee a utopia, but less suffering from the outset equals less crime. Less crime equals less victims. Less victims equals less suffering. Less incarceration equal less waste and suffering.
As already cited above, the "improvements include ... an increased presence of the father in the household" which you said is what you care about, and now do not want it because "The answer is and always has been strong nuclear families with birth moms and birth dads living with the children." That's the whole frocking point. I cannot understand how anyone could be against this. It is the most cost effective and effective solution, not to mention the most humane. The cost/benefit is proven over the incarceration nation polices.
Anyway, I don't care to win a debate with you but do hope people with clout take this ball and run with it. Over and out.
Posted by: George | Aug 4, 2013 1:35:15 AM
I do not get directly harassed by a criminal regime all that often because I don't allow them to get near me. But I did have the displeasure of interacting with one of their criminal employees last week. This particular criminal wanted to harass me about something particularly idiotic and wasteful.
It seems that a law enforcement criminal in another state was not happy about where a vehicle that I own was parked a while ago. So he/she contacted a law enforcement criminal in my state to waste their time too. Then that criminal wanted to talk to me about it. The hilarious thing about it all is that I have never driven that vehicle even once. They wasted quite a bit of time, effort, and money on all of it, at the expense of not doing anything about actual crime.
I thought I had made it pretty clear to this particular criminal regime that I do not ever have any interest in speaking to them. I give the information that I am forced to under threat of arrest/confinement/harassment and other than that, they need to keep their stupid mouths shut and stay away from me. But this particular criminal was very insistent that I talk to him about the vehicle. He threatened to arrest me for "obstruction of justice". I offered to let him speak to my attorney instead but he insisted that he would just arrest me. He is a real criminal P.O.S. and I will legally retaliate for his harassment. I intend to make him pay. Which, again, will distract everyone from doing anything about actual crime.
Interactions with these types of criminals make me think that I should have a video camera running everywhere at all times and carry cards for my attorney. Then I should be able to just give the criminal a card and tell them I have nothing to say to them.
P.S. The criminal regimes still have no excuses that they have not created the rest of their Registries. The main reason the Sex Offender Registries exist is to harass families. They are not for "public safety" or "protecting children" as the nanny, big governments lie.
Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Aug 7, 2013 8:04:54 AM
Some more stats for 8th amendment. They are a little dated but I doubt that anyone is arguing that the problem has lessened since the 1990's:
"For all the talk about the complexities of the "root causes" of crime, there is one root cause which overwhelms all the rest: fatherlessness. Almost 70 percent of juveniles incarcerated in state reform institutions come from homes with no father or without their natural parents. Most gang members, 60 percent of rapists, and 75 percent of teenage homicide perpetrators come from single-parent homes.
Young black males from singleparent families are twice as likely to engage in crime as young black males from two-parent families. If the single-parent family is in a neighborhood with a large number of other single-parent families, the odds of the young man becoming involved in crime are tripled. These findings are based on a study conducted for the Department of Health and Human Services by M. Anne Hill and June O'Neill of Baruch College. The study carefully held constant all socioeconomic variables (such as income, parental education, or urban setting) other than single parenthood."
The problem with crime is that we have millions of unmoored and rudderless "feral" youth in our streets. They overwhelmingly end up in our prisons.
Posted by: TarlsQtr1 | Aug 17, 2013 10:05:51 AM