There are some interesting lessons from the three on-line chats conducted by Crocker Stephenson and, maybe the photographer on the project Kirstyna Wents-Graff (All responses are labeled as coming from them both, but it sure sounds like Stephenson’s “voice.”)
I’m not going to comment on the deluge of birth parent bashing posts, from readers clearly encouraged by the tone and slant of the series (See the previous post). But a few others merit special attention:
●The untold story of Vergil. He’s the boyfriend of Danettea, one of the mothers profiled. As noted in a previous post, though he’s portrayed as a key villain in all this, his only actual failings are daring to speak up loudly about what he sees as the unfairness of the system – and poor grammar.
But “Seven” from St. Louis posted a comment claiming that there was a lot that was positive in Vergil’s past, and he listed several items. I have no idea if any of the claims is true, but, apparently, neither does Stephenson, who blew off these claims by writing “Seven, This was not a story about Vergil.”
So it’s o.k. to paint an entirely distorted, one-sided picture of someone who is an important figure in a news story, so long as the story isn’t about that person. Now there’s a lesson I missed in J-School.
● Confusing poverty with neglect. Several times Stephenson was asked how he chose the particular families he profiled – and each time he ducked the question. The first time the question came from Patricia McManus of Milwaukee, who wrote:
Why did you only choose families in which there is drug abuse or physical physical abuse. Those are real, but there are other cases in which the bureau delays or stops reunification because families are poor. … Are there cases in which reunification is not possible? Absolutely, but … I know of several mothers who contacted the bureau, not because of abuse, but for not have resources to care for their children and the bureau has fought to take their children from them. …
A: Crocker Stephenson and Kristyna Wentz-Graff - I hear your frustration, Patricia. Poverty is not abuse or neglect. Children are not supposed to be yanked from their families just because their families are poor. But yes, it happens. I think you hit a key point: we need to keep kids out of the system to begin with. The bureau is moving this way. If it can be done safety, keep kids in their homes and provide support services. I hope this is the right direction.
Stephenson never answers the question about how these cases were chosen; then he regurgitates agency boilerplate – adding the claim that “The bureau [of Milwaukee Child Welfare] is moving that way. But the data on entries into care for Milwaukee County show nothing of the kind.
● Another question Stephenson ducks came from “BothellMom, Bothell WA”:
Why is this story being told from the perspective lenses of white people? Are there African American photojournalists or writers that are participating in the process. I'm from Milwaukee and know that there are two very distinctly different Milwaukee experiences from day to day and minute to minute. I believe that this child SHOULD have the chance to be with her biological mother. … at parenting their children? ABSOLUTELY. THAT is the best interests of the child.
A: Crocker Stephenson and Kristyna Wentz-Graff - Thank you for your comment, BothellMom.
Here’s the answer Stephenson wouldn’t give you, BothellMom: Odds are no African American photojournalists or writers took part in the process. Indeed, the one time since the early 1990s, when the regular reporter on this beat was African American also was the one and only time all sides of child welfare stories were included on the news pages of the Journal Sentinel.
● Reporters who don’t do their homework: Connie Mills of Memphis, Tenn. posed this question:
I work at Youth Villages: www.youthvillages.org. Our counselors restore and reunify families in 10 states and DC. After reading the series, wondered whether any intensive help was provided to the moms during the reunification process? … Our counselors come into the home at least 3 times a week when children are being reunified and work in the neighborhood, school and in peer groups. They are on call 24/7 in case there is a crisis. Services last 4 to 6 months and give families who have been separated through the child welfare system, their best chance. Were those types of intensive services ever provided to these families?
A: Crocker Stephenson and Kristyna Wentz-Graff - Connie, Brandy was receiving safety services through the bureau and through the boys' on-going case manager. I do not know how these stack up to what your agency does.
For cryin’ out loud Crocker, you write that you followed these cases for eight months. In the end, in Brandy’s case, reunification failed. One of the most important single issues is what the Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare did, or failed to do to make that reunification work – and you don’t know
What Youth Villages does is exactly what was needed here – indeed, I suggested something similar in the overview of the stories’ failings posted at the very start of this Blog. (And, by the way, Youth Villages is an excellent organization that revamped its entire program when it realized that family preservation was a far better option for most of the children in its care.) I tried to make these points during the chat itself, but Stephenson did not post them.
He does, however, go on to take a cheap shot at Brandy:
Brandy told me, at one point, that she did not feel she was getting the support she needed. At another, she complained that they were always in her home. Clearly, reunification is a time of profound change and families need all the support -- from the bureau and from the community -- they can get.
But there is no inherent contradiction in Brandy’s comments. It is entirely possible that BMCW was always there with a wagging finger and rarely if ever with a helping hand. I don’t know that, of course, but neither does Crocker Stephenson. And he should have found out before the stories were published.
● Here’s a scary one, from “Foster Parent, Milwaukee”:
Q: Foster Parent, Milwaukee - Are you able to cite any of the research that "proves" children are better off with their biological parents? We are told this over and over, yet no one is able to find the actual research that supposedly supports this. I would love to find the information, and be able to read it for myself. We are foster parents and I am a former Bureau Worker, so I feel I have an advantage coming from two different perspectives. My opinion, however, remains unchanged. Parents should have a chance, once chance, to meet the requirements set by the court and prove their capability to provide a safe home for their child.
Stephenson did question the one chance idea. But he allowed this person to wallow in his/her ignorance about the research – ignorance that is particularly frightening coming from “a former Bureau worker.” He could have told her about these studies, or this one, for example. He knows about both. But he didn’t.
● Supporting one of the worst options. Stephenson reveals his bias again when someone suggests that a great way to help is to become a Court-Appointed Special Advocate (CASA). Stephenson declares:
A: Crocker Stephenson and Kristyna Wentz-Graff Yes! It is a great program. If you want to make a difference in the life of needy child, consider becoming a Court Appointed Special Advocate.
In this case he may simply not know about the study, commissioned by the National CASA Association itself which found that the program’s only “accomplishment” is to prolong foster care and reduce the chances of placement with a relative instead of a stranger. Details, and a link to the study are available here.
● A smarter comment from someone claiming to work inside the system came from someone calling himself, what else, “Insider, Milwaukee”:
Q: Insider, Milwaukee WI - Crocker - Both you and the nccpr get it wrong. The real story here is an incomprehensible and inconsistent approach to child protection in Milwaukee county. You want to make this big political statement about parents rights vs. children's rights, and try and paint the Bureau one way. As someone working on this inside you miss the real big problems at the BMCW - consistency. Social workers at the bureau do things the way they want to do them. If they want to cut corners and "partner" with parents and avoid the extra work of detaining kids, then so be it. The culture at the bureau allows it. If you gave the exact same case to 5 workers at BMCW, you would invariably get 5 different responses. … This is an unfortunate development for Milwaukee's kids, and you contribute through promotion of your own agenda. You are missing what is really going on here.
A: Crocker Stephenson and Kristyna Wentz-Graff - Insider, thanks for your comments.
I sent this response, which Stephenson didn’t post: Insider raises a good point. Child welfare systems are indeed arbitrary, capricious and cruel, making mistakes in all directions - and what happens to a child often depends on which caseworker shows up at the door and what mood she’s in. But it also depends, a lot, on what was on the front page of the local newspaper that day. And given what’s been on the front page of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, you can bet there will be more removals, fewer reunifications and prolonged foster care. Sometimes, those will, in fact be the right decisions. More often they won’t.
● I also tried to respond to “Cal Gunn, Milwaukee” who asked this reasonable question:
Q: Cal Gunn, Milwaukee - What is an acceptable level of detention? You detractors at nccpr seem to say that Milwaukee detains too many kids. It seems to me the number of detentions should be based on the number of kids being abused. I happen to believe that Milwaukee has a very high rate of DV and child abuse, meaning there SHOULD be more detentions. You seem to advocate here for more detention leading to foster care …
In a response Stephenson did not post, I explained that Milwaukee tears apart families at a rate far higher than most metropolitan areas, double the rate of Miami for example and quadruple the rate of metropolitan Chicago. In those two communities independent evaluations show that as they reformed to take fewer children, child safety improved.
So while it certainly is possible that Milwaukee Wisconsin is a cesspool of depravity with double the rate of child abuse of Miami and quadruple the rate of child abuse of Chicago, the more likely explanation is that Milwaukee is taking away a lot of children needlessly.
It also is notable that someone who strongly supports taking away more children got the impression that Stephenson’s stories were advocating for just that, one more indication that he can’t support this journalism with the Goldilocks Defense.
In what may be the final post to this Blog on Monday, I’ll preview the big project Crocker Stephenson may turn to next.
(Actual date of post: September 24, 2010).
