Journal of the Institute

ANNE DANNERBECK is a research assistant professor in the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Social Work. Her degrees are in foreign language education (B.A.), international studies(M.A.), agricultural economics(M.S.), and consumer and family economics(Ph.D.). She has been working with the Missouri Children's Services Commission to improve the lives of children with incarcerated parents. Her current research includes a study, "Examining the Relationship between Parental Incarceration and Juvenile Delinquency." Her work can be found at

www.missouri.edu/~swdanner/jdandpi .

GERARD DE JONGE studied law and then coordinated the probation services in the province of Zeeland in the Netherlands. After an intermezzo as a criminological researcher for the Ministry of Justice he set up a new, government funded, legal aid service in the Rotterdam region and started a legal aid system for prisoners. From 1980 through 1997, he practiced law, specializing in criminal and penitentiary law. In 1986, he began lecturing at the Rotterdam Erasmus University and since 1989, has taught criminal law at the Maastricht University. In 1998, Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands appointed him as deputy-judge at one of the five Courts of Appeal, where he sits once a month. He wrote his Ph.D. thesis on compulsory labor in relation to detention. As a member of the (independent) Dutch council for the Application of Criminal Justice, he visits prisons on a regular basis and as a member of the Appeals Committee of this same council he decides on appeals lodged in prisoners’ complaints cases.
KAREN FOSTER is an associate professor on the literacy faculty at Central Missouri State University. She has taught preschool, elementary, middle school as a reading specialist as well as an inner city G.E.D. class in New Orleans, Louisiana.  The research for this article was collected at the Florida Parishes Juvenile Detention Center outside Hammond, Louisiana. 

 

THOMAS J. FRAWLEY has served as a circuit judge in the 22nd Judicial Circuit for twelve years; eleven of those years have been in Family Court. He is currently Administrative Judge of the Family Court. He is currently Chair of the Family Court Committee of the Missouri Supreme Court. Additionally, he was appointed by the Chief Justice to the Missouri Supreme Court Commission on Children’s Justice. Recent awards include the Equal Justice Award, Legal Services of Eastern Missouri (1997); "Judge of the Year," Missouri Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) Association (1997); "Person of the Year," Missouri Coalition Against Domestic Violence, St. Louis Metropolitan Region (1998); “Champion of Kids”, Kids-in-the-Middle (2000); “Juvenile Court/Juvenile Division Police Department Cooperative”, St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department (2002); and “President’s Advocacy Award”, NBA ECHO Emergency Children’s Home, St. Louis (2003). He came to the Juvenile Division in January, 2000 and, since then, has effected many programs which have improved the lives of the children and families in the City of St. Louis: Court Improvement Project; Truancy Initiative; Victim Offender Mediation; and Disproportionate Minority Confinement Project. He is a graduate of Hamilton College, Clinton, New York (1969), and the University of Missouri School of Law, Columbia, Missouri (1972).

CREASIE FINNEY HAIRSTON is Dean and Professor of Social Work at the Jane Addams College of Social Work, University of Illinois-Chicago. Dean Hairston is recognized nationally for her research on the impact of incarceration on families. She received her Ph.D. in social work from Case Western University.
DEBORAH L. JOHNSON is a High-Honors graduate of the Interdisciplinary Pre-Law/Psychology Bachelor of Arts degree program at Michigan State University in East Lansing, Michigan, and also a graduate of the Criminal Justice and Criminology Master of Science degree program at the University of Missouri, Kansas City (UMKC). Debbie is a current Ph.D. student in the Interdisciplinary Ph.D. Program at UMKC, with an interdisciplinary focus in Sociology, Criminology, Political Science and Economics. Debbie attends school full-time, works full-time, is married and has two children. Debbie has had publications in relation to her work in juvenile justice, as well as she has delivered a variety of presentations on issues such as juvenile transfer to the adult court, and runaway behavior in both Sociological and Criminological perspectives. She is currently working on projects in the areas of juvenile transfer to the adult court, political science theory, and social learning theory.
J. SCOTT JOHNSTON serves as the Chief State Supervisor in the Division of Probation and Parole, Missouri Department of Corrections.
GARY B. KEMPKER has been the Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections since his appointment in May, 2001. Prior to this he served as the Director of the Missouri Department of Public Safety. Mr. Kempker is currently the Chair of the International Association of the Chiefs of Police Community Policing Committee and earned his Masters in Public Administration degree from the University of Missouri-Columbia.
LINDA KOEHLER taught at the Iowa school for the deaf, and in public schools in Iowa and Kansas before completing her Ph.D. at the University of Kansas. Currently she is professor of special education at Central Missouri State University. Her current interests lie in students with learning disabilities, in students who use augmentative and alternative communication and in youth who overcome adverse conditions through gifts of resiliency.
KATHERINE LESLIE is Adjunct Professor of Criminal Justice at Chicago State University.  She received her B.S. in Criminal Justice from Loyola University of Chicago and the M.S. in Criminal justice from Chicago State University.  A former probation officer in Newark, New Jersey and security administrator for Bell Labs, she is currently pursuing an advanced degree in social work and researching the area of juvenile corrections.

SLOAN T. LETMEN is Professor of Criminal Justice at Chicago State University.  He received his B.A. in Sociology and M.A. in Urban Studies from Loyola University of Chicago, the Juris Doctor degree from the DePaul University College of Law, and the Master of Divinity degree from the Chicago Theological Seminary.  Professor Letman is the author of 15 textbooks and over 100 scholarly articles in the criminal justice field.  He has also served as Associate professor and Dean for the Social Sciences at Loyola University of Chicago. 
DELLA HEIDBRINK LUADERS completed her master’s of science degree in criminal justice in Columbia, Missouri. She is an investigator for the Missouri attorney general’s office in Jefferson City, Missouri.
WILLIAM OLIVER is an Associate Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at Indiana University. His primary area of research examines the social context and interpersonal dynamics involving violent confrontations among African Americans. Additionally, his more recent work has focused on intimate partner violence in the African American community. He has also conducted research in Bermuda, in which he examined how convicted violent offenders perceived the causes of street violence in Bermuda and the various turning points that led them to commit acts of street violence. Oliver is a member of the Steering Committee that administers the Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American Community and serves as lead researcher on the Safe Return Initiative, a technical assistance collaboration between the Vera Institute of Justice and the Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American Community. Oliver received his Ph.D. in criminal justice from the School of Criminal Justice at the State University of New York at Albany.
ANN POWELL-BROWN is in her 5^th year on faculty at central Missouri state university. Her teaching experiences ranges from the initial stages of integration of an all black school in Mississippi in the early 1970s to teaching in a Chinese girl’s school in Taiwan. She spent many years teaching and supervising teachers in Kansas City Missouri’s inner-city school district.
JULIE ROLLINS serves as the Women's Program/Reentry Manager for the Missouri Department of Corrections.
RICK SARRE is an Associate Professor of Law and Criminology at the School of International Business in the Division of Business and Enterprise at the University of South Australia. He is a researcher in the Centre of Business Analysis and Research. He holds a LL.B from the University of Adelaide, a Master of Arts from the University of Toronto and a Doctorate of Legal Science from the University of Canberra. His teaching interests include media law, leisure and sport law, contemporary issues in policing and introduction to law. His research interests include Security Law, Criminal Justice, Corporate Governance, Private Policing, Sport Law, Regulation, and Business Aspects of Project Management. He has published many books and articles on law and policing.
MARK STRINGER serves as the Deputy Director Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse in the Missouri Department of Mental Health.
OLIVER J. WILLIAMS serves as Executive Director of the Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American Community and Professor in the Graduate School of Social Work at the University of Minnesota in St. Paul. He is a practitioner as well as an academician. As a practitioner, he has worked in the field of domestic violence for more than 25 years and has provided individual, couples, and family counseling. He has been child welfare and delinquency worker, a drug counselor, worked in battered women’s shelters, and developed and conducted counseling in Batterers’ Intervention Programs. As an academician, Dr. Williams’ research and publications have centered on creating effective service delivery strategies that will reduce the violent behavior among African Americans. Additionally, Dr. Williams writes about ethnically sensitive practice, Community Intervention Strategies to address domestic violence, fatherhood after domestic violence, batterers’ treatment interventions and he has conducted training nationally on research and service delivery issues in the areas of child abuse, fatherhood and domestic violence and partner abuse. Dr. Williams received his Ph.D. in social work from the University of Pittsburgh.
NAOMI WILLIAMSON, associate professor of Library Services, worked in several areas of Central Missouri State University's library 27 years before assuming the duties of Director of the Children's Literature Festival and Special Collections librarian. She also teaches a graduate course.
BRUCE K. WILSON is an Assistant Professor at Governors State University. He received his Ph.D. in Criminal Justice from Sam Houston State University in 1998. His research includes work in the following areas: social control and justice. He has numerous publications in the aforementioned areas. He has been recognized on two occasions with Faculty Excellence Awards in Teaching and in Service. He is also listed in Who’s Who Among American Teachers in 2002.

Opening Address: Do No Harm
Judge Thomas Frawley^*
Good morning! Thank you for inviting me to open the Central Missouri State University Juvenile Justice Conference. Distinguished speakers, conference faculty, honored guests, and administrators, faculty, staff and students of Central Missouri State University.

Before I begin my remarks, I would like to invite all of you to our court. If any of you come to the City of St. Louis, we are a pilot site, the only one in the state, selected by the Missouri Supreme Court to hold hearings open to the public in child abuse and neglect proceedings. Currently, such hearings are closed throughout the state, but the Missouri Supreme Court wants to see whether we can open these hearings and, if we do, whether anyone will attend. We’ve had open hearings since the first week of February, and, so far, two people have shown up. If you want to come and observe, if you want to come and do research, if you want to come and just hang out, you’re more than welcome.

When I was asked by Dr. Reddington to open this conference, I asked her, “What’s my task; what am I supposed to talk about?” She said, “Why don’t you see if you can motivate everybody.” I said to myself, “Most attendees will be students. How do I motivate them?”

I could assemble statistics from our court and compare them to national and international research studies. But, I thought that’s not something in which I’d be particularly interested. So don’t do that. Or, I could criticize all of us in the juvenile justice system for what we don’t do or what we do and don’t do well and then try to enlighten everyone on how to overcome these obstacles. That might be okay. Or, I could congratulate all of us for the good work we do and request further dedication from all of us to do better work.

First, I thought, I should figure out who I am and who I’m not. I’m not an educator, law school professor, college professor, or high school teacher. Nor am I academician. I’m not an author. I’ve not done a statistical analysis of what we do and what we don’t do and compared it to anyone else’s research to generate incredible findings and conclusions.

So who am I? I’m a judge in the St. Louis City Circuit Court assigned to family court. Of the almost 13 years I have been a member of the St. Louis City Bench, all but 9 months have been spent in family court. Between November, 1999 and December 1999, I was in divorce court where, in addition to divorces, I handled paternity cases, which involve folks who have a child together but aren’t married to one another, and enforced child support orders.

In January, 2000, I was assigned to juvenile court where I deal with the children and families of the City of St. Louis, which includes children under age 17 charged with having committed a felony or misdemeanor, whether it’s possession of drugs, stealing an automobile, or assaulting another student or an adult. Some of these children have committed crimes at such a level that the issue is whether they should remain in juvenile court, which is looked upon as rehabilitative, or sent to adult court, which is designed to be punitive. I make that decision. Some kids we send; some we don’t.

I also deal with all the abused and neglected children in the City of St. Louis; children who are abused sexually, physically and/or emotionally, neglected educationally, live in inadequate housing.

So, as I said, who am I? I’m the guy who sees and must deal daily with all the problems in families and with children that newspapers report about and that the folks at this conference are going to tell you about. I’m the guy who researchers research and who experiences daily what teachers teach, what authors write, and what students learn. My courtroom is truly a laboratory of the world.

What have I learned? When I got out of high school, I was supposed to go to college and become a doctor. My father is a physician. Being a doctor was all I knew. It seemed to me the perfect course. Well, I messed up along the way; a couple of D’s in chemistry and an F in physics sealed the deal. But, through all those years, as I kept going, my Dad emphasized one thing to me: the physician’s oath, “Do no harm.” Now, everyday when I walk into my courtroom, everyday when I look at the families and children appearing before me, all of whom are looking for wisdom and justice, I tell myself, “Do no harm”.

What I want to talk to you about today is not the delinquent child. Fifty percent or more of my caseload is composed of children who are abused and neglected. And, I want to make sure that these children don’t get overlooked because what you’ll see is there really isn’t that much difference between the abused and neglected child and the delinquent child.

Abused and neglected children are removed from their homes and placed in foster homes or residential facilities. But, they use drugs; they steal; they beat up on one another and on adults. So, though they start in the juvenile just system as an abused and neglected child, they may become identified in the system as a delinquent child. Therefore, it seems to me, you need to hear about the abused and neglected child and his or her family.

While you listen to me, and when you return to the classroom and listen to your professors and instructors or return to your professional obligations, I challenge you to do two things. First, examine whether, in your opinion, the juvenile justice system and child welfare system, as we have established them, accommodate the needs of its users or the needs of its providers. Do we accommodate the families and children we serve, or do we accommodate ourselves? And second, examine whether, in your opinion, the expectations of the juvenile justice system and child welfare system for the children and families they serve are realistic. By examining both these issues, we can determine whether they “do no harm.”

Who are these abused and neglected children? They are the baby born drug exposed to heroin and cocaine; the child living with his parents under a porch with electricity strung from a nearby house and with a mattress on which they all sleep; the 6 month old girl with 14 fractures in her toes and feet; the 8 year old who has never been enrolled in or attended school; the 10 year old girl who’s pregnant; and the teenager whose parents both say, “I don’t want you anymore; the system can raise you.”

Am I making up these examples? I wish I were. It would be nice if I could say, “Let me give you some hypothetical children.” Sadly, I’ve seen each of these children. Moreover, these children have no boundaries of gender, no boundaries of age, and no boundaries of race. Put any one of those three together, in any combination you want, and you’ll have the children I see.

What is common to most abused and neglected children, I think, is common to most delinquent children; that is, mental health issues. Some of which, maybe most of which, are undiagnosed. Or, if diagnosed, are untreated or self-medicated. Why does that child smoke weed? That’s how he gets through the day since his ADHD is undiagnosed or untreated.

Physical health? Some of these children have never seen a dentist. Many have chronic illnesses, such as asthma, and have had no immunizations or are under-immunized for other illnesses. Most are developmentally delayed, having been born drug exposed or exposed to lead paint, or having lived in a house with no stimuli and where television or video games were the babysitter. All have academic problems, such as truancy and suspensions.

But, all these children have aunts, uncles, grandparents and siblings, and most have parents they love. What do these children ask of us when we take them from their parents? They say, judge, policeman, juvenile officer, social worker, “Don’t mess up my life any more than it already is. Keep me safe. Give me a chance to live with a relative. Let me stay with my friends. Let me see my siblings. Let me see my parents. Let me make sure everybody is okay”. These children do not ask us to make their lives better; that’s just a bonus if we do it. They merely say, “Don’t make my life worse. It’s bad now; please don’t make it worse.”

How do we respond to these children? I recognize that I’m from a metropolitan area and, as a result, may have available programs and services different from what you have available in Warrensburg and in other parts of the state, country or internationally. But, when you answer this question for yourselves, examine whether we, the juvenile justice system and foster care system, “do no harm” to the abused and neglected children and their families.

What about the child whom we remove from his or her parents and place in foster care because he or she has been sexually, physically or emotionally abused or otherwise neglected. First of all, he or she likely believes that it’s his or her behavior that caused his or her removal from the parents’ home. Secondly, he or she sits in foster care wondering: Where are my parents? Where are my siblings? When will I get to see my parents and siblings? Why can’t I be with my family? Why am I in a residential setting? Why did I change schools? What’s wrong with me?

When does the juvenile justice system answer these questions? Currently, Missouri has no timelines for court hearings in child abuse and neglect proceedings; that is, there is no requirement for when I must first see the child and his or her family after the child’s removal from the home. However, the legislature is working on this issue and, I think, will enact legislation mandating an initial court hearing at which these questions, as well as others, can be answered within 72 hours after the child is removed from his or her parents’ home.

We take abused and neglected children from their families; from their neighborhoods; from their schools; from their friends; from the only stability they have. Their lives are totally disrupted. Yet, after we take jurisdiction, which is at the hearing in which I decide if the child is abused or neglected, and thereby take control of the child’s life, there’s no requirement for court review of the child’s situation or the parents’ situation during the first 12 months after the child has been removed from the parents’ home.

Again, the legislature is working on the issue. First, proposed legislation will make it mandatory that I, as judge, resolve the issue of whether a child is or is not abused or neglected within 60 days after the child has been removed from his or her parents’ care. Sixty days may seem like a really short time, but when you’re 6 months or 1 year old, it’s a lifetime. Second, the legislature, I think, will require frequent reviews, likely every 90 to 120 days, to make sure that we, including the children’s division, which is responsible for all abused and neglected children, are doing what we’re supposed to be doing and that the parents are doing what they’re supposed to be doing to reunite the child and parents.

Frequent reviews will be like the term paper assigned at the beginning of the semester. When do you start working on it? At the beginning of the semester? No, right before it’s due! That’s the way parents and many components of the child welfare system deal with court ordered obligations. Therefore, the more often each has to come before a judge and explain what he, she or it is doing, the more likely each is to start doing timely what he, she or it is supposed to be doing.

Now, let’s examine the child welfare system. Everything is designed as though it’s a traditional business. Courts operate during the day, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. If you’re a salaried employee, it doesn’t matter much whether court is during the day or at night because you’re gonna get paid. But, if you’re losing pay whenever you attend court. Most parents whose children are in foster care, if they are employed, are not salaried employees. If you’re an hourly employee who’s struggling financially, going to court, though providing help and support, also increases your financial struggles.

The child welfare system makes referrals to parents for services without any consideration of the distance they must travel to access those services. The families I see don’t have cars; they use public transportation. For them, it’s not as simple as saying, “I’m at the University Inn. I’ve got to get to campus. It’s about a 10 minute drive. I’ve gotta be there by 8:30. I’ll leave about 8:15.” Some parents I see have to take two or three buses to get to court or to whatever services they need. Why do they not apologize when they’re 15 minutes late? They’re shocked that they’ve arrived almost on time.

The child welfare system doesn’t communicate with parents face to face. Instead, it attempts to communicate with them in writing or by telephone. When I first started working in juvenile court, I would ask parents, “Where do you live?” They would look at me like “What are you talking about?” and respond, “You mean, where do I stay?” I used to think that was odd. But, I learned that these parents don’t live anywhere; they stay a lot of places. Their address is where they last stayed. Yet, how do we inform them of their next court date? We mail a notice to their last known address and then wonder why they don’t show up.

Even with cell phones, which some parents do have, many can make only outgoing calls and only in an emergency; they can’t receive calls. So, the case manager leaves a message at the grandma’s house, aunt’s house, cousin’s house. But, when the parent calls back, the case manager is doing something else and is not in the office or his or her cell phone is turned off. The child welfare system expects incredible responsibility from people who are basically irresponsible. If they were responsible, their children wouldn’t be in foster care.

In the City of St. Louis, when a parent wants to visit or her child who is in foster care, it is the parent’s obligation to contact the case manager and request a visit. It is then the parent’s obligation, once the visitation time is chosen, to confirm the visit with the case manager the day before the visit. If you want to visit the dentist, you call and schedule an appointment. Are you expected to call the dentist and ask “do I still have an appointment tomorrow?”, or does the dentist call you and remind you of your appointment.

The real question, I think, is whether the foster care system is one more example of a system designed by the educated and sophisticated intended to serve, but ineffective in serving, the uneducated and unsophisticated.

A number of programs, in my opinion, though effective in title, are not effective in practice. For example, parenting skill training, or parenting classes. Adults don’t learn from a “talking head.” Did anyone teach you how to change a diaper? When they did, was there a child there whose diaper you changed to demonstrate what you learned? The task wasn’t merely explained in words with the expectation that you would, first, understand and, second, retain what you were told until, at some later date, you had to change a diaper? Yet, we merely explain how to parent and then wonder why the parents can’t apply what was taught when, at some later date, they have to. We need to find a way to integrate the theory and application of parenting a child to parents.

Drug exposed babies. The first thing the child welfare system does is take the baby from the mother and put her in drug treatment. Who’s the baby bonding with? Mom or somebody else? We need to find a way where a mother can combine parenting skills training and drug treatment while the child is still in her physical care.

There exists a federal system for low income housing known as “Section 8.” For a mother to qualify for an apartment large enough for her and her children, she must have the children living with her. Yet, the juvenile justice and foster care systems won’t return the children until to her until she has a large enough apartment. Doesn’t make sense!

Neither the juvenile justice system nor the child welfare system recognizes the differences between boys and girls. Seems like something we learned when we were about 12 years old. Girls respond to things differently than boys; “I’m from Mars; you’re from Venus.” Yet, neither system focuses on their differences; instead, each designs programs with the attitude that “one size should fit all.” A friend of mine says, and I use this all the time and should probably give her an acknowledgement, “Just because you paint a program pink doesn’t make it a girl’s program.” I agree.

We function in a world where access to information on our background is essential. When you went to get your driver’s license, you needed your birth certificate. What was the first thing you did when you learned this? You said, “Mom, where’s my birth certificate?” Right? To whom do children in foster care direct this question? Also, whom do children in foster care have, as Missouri law now requires, to ride in the car with them for 20 hours of practice driving?

When you completed your first job application, were you asked all the places you had lived? How many places do think a child in foster care has lived by the time he or she attains age 18? Two; three? Unlikely. More likely five or six; sometimes more. Do you think these children know the address of each foster home or residential facility in which they lived? Yet, do we provide this information to allow these children to complete job applications?

We create and maintain school records and medical records on all children, and we’re incredibly technologically advanced; yet, we can’t seem to get these records automatically transferred from one school district to another or from one doctor to another.

We have expectations for our birth children; some of which may be unrealistic; some of which may be unfair. But, they’re our expectations as parents. If we parent a foster child or deal with a foster child, why do we act like graduation from high school is the greatest accomplishment in the world? None of you were satisfied with just having a high school diploma. Neither were your parents, or you wouldn’t be here.

For some children, high school graduation is a remarkable achievement. My son was a foster child before my wife and I adopted him. To graduate from high school was an incredible accomplishment for him. The fact that he got a high school diploma is phenomenal when you consider all the hardships he experienced before he came to us. But that doesn’t mean that he’s satisfied or that I’m satisfied. We have to expect and, therefore, push each foster child, like our own children, to research for the highest academic goals.

When we take an abused and neglected child into our care, why don’t we give that child, like we give our own child, all the fanfare that goes along with being a high school senior? Why do we have a system that doesn’t pay for a cap and gown, doesn’t pay for senior pictures, doesn’t help pay for prom, doesn’t pay for a senior yearbook?

Until age 21, the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program has available for each child in foster care who has attained age 17 ½ funds to pay room and board, college or educational expenses, security deposits, and rent. Also, until age 21, the Children’s Division, as legal custodian, provides a monthly subsidy for each child in its care. But, at age 21, the juvenile justice and foster care systems say to each young man and woman in foster care, “Go forth and support yourself.”

At age 21, were we totally able to support ourselves? I wasn’t! And didn’t we have someone upon whom we could call for help? When we needed a loan to pay rent, what did we do? Went to mom and dad! When we needed someone to co-sign for our first apartment, what did we do? Went to mom and dad! When we wanted to buy our first car, what did we do? Have mom and dad go with us. Whom do children in foster care have to ask for that loan, to co-sign that lease, or to go with them to buy that first car?

With all of these impediments, we nevertheless expect children in foster care to be totally and completely responsible. We don’t expect them to model their parents by using drugs. We don’t expect them to model their parents by committing crime and becoming incarcerated. We don’t expect them to model their parents by abandoning their children. We don’t expect any negative behavior. We expect them to behave like model citizens.

When a foster child doesn’t go to school or acts up in school, what do we do? We suspend him. We kick him out of school for 5 to 10 days. And if a foster child is truant or shows up late for class, what do we do? We suspend him. I don’t care what year you are in college, but I suspect you can figure this out: “If I don’t come to school, you’ll give me permission not to have to come?”

Would you go some place everyday where all you do is feel stupid? If you’re a freshman here and are forced into fourth year French, and you’ve never taken a French class, are you going to attend that class regularly? Probably not. Especially if you learn that if you don’t go, the instructor will give you permission to be absent, or that, if you act up in class because of your ADHD, which has never been diagnosed or is untreated, you’ll get kicked out of class.

So what’s the conclusion? I guess the question is, if you were the consumer, like the abused and neglected child and their parents, not the seller or provider of services, how would you rate the juvenile justice and child welfare systems in its dealings with you? Much of what we don’t do well is inadvertent. Much of what we should do and don’t do is inadvertent. There is no intention on anyone’s part to do harm. But what we need to do, I think, as we develop programs, as we enact legislation, as we improve policies, as we evaluate programs and policies, is examine whether or not they “do no harm.”

Whatever you do, whatever field of endeavor in which you enter to help our children and families, whether its delinquency or child welfare, promise yourselves that you’ll “do no harm.” Thank you very much.