Husband of Georgia child welfare director arrested on DUI, hit-and-run charges – Atlanta News First

Report on Traffic Incident and its Relation to Sustainable Development Goals

Incident Summary

On October 16, Jason Broce, the husband of Georgia’s Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS) Director Candice Broce, was arrested in Bartow County. The arrest followed a two-vehicle accident where Mr. Broce allegedly fled the scene. Georgia State Patrol (GSP) located the vehicle, a Ford F-150, and initiated a traffic stop, noting erratic driving. Two children, aged five and eight, were present in the vehicle at the time of the incident.

Charges and Observations

The GSP report details several observations leading to the arrest. The suspect’s vehicle was observed weaving across lanes and nearly reversed into the patrol car upon stopping. The trooper noted physical signs of impairment in Mr. Broce, including the strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. A breath sample returned positive for alcohol, and Mr. Broce was deemed unable to safely complete field sobriety evaluations due to unsteadiness.

• Hit and Run
• Driving Under the Influence (DUI)
• Child Endangerment

Implications for Sustainable Development Goal 3: Good Health and Well-being

This incident directly contravenes the objectives of SDG 3, which seeks to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.

1. Target 3.6: This target aims to halve the number of global deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents. Driving under the influence is a primary contributor to traffic accidents, injuries, and fatalities, undermining efforts to create safer road conditions for all citizens.
2. Community Health: The act of impaired driving poses a significant and immediate threat to the health and safety of the driver, passengers, and the wider community, conflicting with the foundational principles of public health and well-being.

Implications for Sustainable Development Goal 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The circumstances of the arrest also have significant relevance to SDG 16, which promotes peaceful and inclusive societies, provides access to justice for all, and builds effective, accountable institutions.

• Target 16.1 & 16.2: These targets focus on reducing all forms of violence and ending abuse and violence against children. Placing two young children in a vehicle operated by an impaired driver constitutes a severe form of child endangerment, which is a direct violation of their right to safety and protection from harm.
• Rule of Law: The arrest and subsequent booking of the suspect underscore the application of the rule of law, a cornerstone of SDG 16. The statement from DFCS Director Candice Broce, “I would never expect nor ask to be treated differently than anyone else in these circumstances,” reinforces the principle of equal accountability.
• Institutional Accountability: While the Governor’s office and DFCS offered no comment on the personnel matter, the incident highlights the critical importance of accountability, particularly when it involves individuals connected to institutions charged with protecting vulnerable populations, such as children.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • This goal is relevant due to the central issue of driving under the influence (DUI). The article details a driver impaired by alcohol, which directly relates to the harmful use of substances. Furthermore, the hit-and-run accident described is a matter of road safety, a key component of public health and well-being.
2. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • This goal is connected through the charge of “child endangerment.” The presence of two young children (ages five and eight) in the vehicle with an impaired driver constitutes a form of potential violence and abuse against children, which SDG 16 aims to end. The article also touches upon the theme of justice and institutional accountability, as the arrested individual is the husband of the director of the Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS). Additionally, the embedded link to the “Stolen Sobriety” investigation explicitly discusses the credibility issues of labs within Georgia’s child welfare system, directly questioning the effectiveness and accountability of institutions meant to protect children and families.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Targets under SDG 3:
   • Target 3.5: Strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance abuse, including narcotic drug abuse and harmful use of alcohol. The article’s focus on a DUI arrest is a direct example of the consequences of the “harmful use of alcohol.” The driver’s “strong odor of alcoholic beverage,” “bloodshot and watery” eyes, and a positive breath sample all point to this issue.
   • Target 3.6: By 2020, halve the number of global deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents. The incident began with a “two-vehicle accident” and a “hit and run,” which are the exact types of events this target aims to reduce. The driver’s impaired state (“weaving heavily, crossing both the fog line and center line”) highlights a major cause of road traffic accidents.
2. Targets under SDG 16:
   • Target 16.2: End abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of children. The charge of “child endangerment” directly aligns with this target. Placing two young children in a vehicle operated by an intoxicated driver who was involved in a hit-and-run is a form of neglect and abuse that puts them at high risk of violence and injury.
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. This target is relevant through the “Stolen Sobriety” investigation mentioned in the article. It describes how “drug-free parents are failing drug screens in Georgia” because the labs contracted by the “child welfare system have their own credibility issues.” This points to a failure in institutional accountability and effectiveness.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicators for SDG 3 Targets:
   • Implied Indicator for Target 3.5: The number or rate of arrests for Driving Under the Influence (DUI). The detailed account of the GSP trooper stopping and arresting Jason Broce for DUI serves as a case study. Tracking the frequency of such arrests would measure the prevalence of the harmful use of alcohol in the context of driving.
   • Implied Indicator for Target 3.6: The number of road traffic accidents and hit-and-run incidents. The article begins by reporting a “two-vehicle accident” and one vehicle “leaving the scene.” Data on these specific events are used to measure progress in road safety.
2. Indicators for SDG 16 Targets:
   • Implied Indicator for Target 16.2: The number of filed charges or reports of child endangerment. The specific charge against Jason Broce is a direct data point. An increase or decrease in such charges would indicate trends in the protection of children from abuse and neglect.
   • Implied Indicator for Target 16.6: The number of wrongful accusations or overturned cases within the child welfare system due to institutional failures. The “Stolen Sobriety” investigation, which found that labs had “credibility issues” leading to wrongful accusations, implies that tracking such errors is a key measure of institutional accountability and effectiveness.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: atlantanewsfirst.com