New York City’s child welfare crisis

Child Abuse in New York City: A Call for Action

In May of last year, gut-wrenching headlines led the news for the briefest of moments — Jalayah Eason, 6, was dead. Another child in New York City victimized by horrifying family abuse.

As more details emerged, the tragedy deepened. There had been other children living in the home with Jalayah. Their school was concerned enough that it repeatedly called the NYC Administration of Children’s Services (ACS) to report signs of abuse.

But despite those reports, and horrific conditions in the home, ACS decided an investigation was “unfounded” and dismissed the case.

A year later, Jalayah’s death has officially been ruled a homicide, and her mother has been charged with murder. I’ll spare you the details of the abuse; Jalayah’s brief life has already been overshadowed by the cruelty of her death. Suffice it to say that no living thing deserved to suffer such torture. And no agency responsible for the oversight of children in New York should read her obituary without a deep sense of shame.

Child Fatalities and ACS’ Failures

Yet the death of children from abuse has become routine in New York City.

In the spring of 2023, NY1’s Annika Pergament investigated a series of child fatalities with shockingly similar circumstances — each child’s family had been investigated by ACS prior to their death. And ACS had done little or nothing.

In an interview with Pergament, Jess Dannhauser, commissioner of ACS, was unable to come up with any meaningful changes the agency had made after the childrens’ deaths other than provide “coaching” for workers. Despite obvious systemic strains and overworked personnel, Dannhauser had not even made a plea for additional resources or support.

You’d think Danhauser would be moved to more dramatic action by conscience. Failing that, outrage from the city or state government might force ACS to change. Except, there hasn’t been any.

In fact, our elected leaders have studiously avoided discussing not just these tiny victims, but anything related to ACS’ failures — for years. Silence envelops the City Council, the mayor’s office, and even reaches up to Gov. Hochul in Albany. Not one call for an investigation of ACS or an overhaul of the agency, let alone replacing Dannhauser or requesting a federal monitor to oversee an obviously broken system.

This silence is shocking. It dishonors the memory of the children we’ve lost — and it’s a dereliction of government’s most important duty. We can’t expect people to be perfect, but the job of a public servant is to serve and protect the public — to see a problem, acknowledge it, own it and then actually try to fix it. Our leaders’ silence exacerbates the vulnerability of New York’s children and signals a depressing disengagement from the very essence of public service.

Learning from New Jersey’s Success

How did we even get here? It’s been clear for years that elected office has become more about profile-building than policy solutions. That fundamental change — the prioritization of getting attention and eyeballs over delivering actual service — doesn’t bode well for a city and state facing big challenges. There’s something very bleak about how unwilling our leaders are to even be willing to try to meet foundational responsibilities.

Protecting vulnerable children is not impossible — it’s being done much more successfully elsewhere, including a stone’s throw away in New Jersey.

Over the last 20 years New Jersey, with the assistance of a court-imposed federal monitor, has transformed its child welfare program into one of the most effective in the nation, with smaller, more manageable caseloads for workers, real assistance for struggling parents and a steep drop in children entering the foster care system — not because they’ve been ignored, forgotten or dismissed, but because their families have been given assistance and provided with resources.

Here in New York it’s not that fixing ACS is too hard, or that the policy solutions are too out of reach — it’s that here, Jalayah and others don’t — or didn’t — matter enough to our leaders to even merit a debate about what more should be done to prevent these deaths going forward.

A Call for Action

It is past time to demand more than just shoulder shrugs from our leaders. We need sustained, committed action that addresses the root causes of these repeated tragedies. The children of New York deserve leaders who care at least as much about them as they do their own ambitions. The memory of Jalayah Eason and the countless others like her, demand no less.

Feinberg is a former Obama administration official and safety regulator and former interim president and CEO of New York City Transit.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis

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

• SDG 1: No Poverty
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
• SDG 4: Quality Education
• SDG 5: Gender Equality
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

The article discusses the issue of child abuse and the failure of the New York City Administration of Children’s Services (ACS) to protect vulnerable children. This connects to SDG 1 (No Poverty) as child abuse often occurs in families facing poverty-related challenges. It also relates to SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) as child abuse can have severe physical and mental health consequences. SDG 4 (Quality Education) is relevant because the article mentions that the abused children were attending school, indicating a potential failure in identifying signs of abuse within the education system. SDG 5 (Gender Equality) is connected as child abuse affects both boys and girls, but there may be specific gender dynamics at play. SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) is relevant because vulnerable children, particularly those from marginalized communities, may be at a higher risk of abuse. Finally, SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) is addressed as the article criticizes the lack of action by government institutions responsible for child protection.

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

• Target 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable.
• Target 3.2: By 2030, end preventable deaths of newborns and children under 5 years of age, with all countries aiming to reduce neonatal mortality to at least as low as 12 per 1,000 live births and under-5 mortality to at least as low as 25 per 1,000 live births.
• Target 4.1: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes.
• Target 5.2: Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres, including trafficking and sexual and other types of exploitation.
• Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.
• Target 16.2: End abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of children.

Based on the article’s content, specific targets that can be identified include ensuring social protection systems for vulnerable individuals (Target 1.3), reducing preventable deaths of children (Target 3.2), ensuring access to quality education (Target 4.1), eliminating violence against women and girls (Target 5.2), promoting social inclusion (Target 10.2), and ending abuse and violence against children (Target 16.2).

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

• Indicator 1.3.1: Proportion of population covered by social protection floors/systems, by sex, distinguishing children, unemployed persons, older persons, persons with disabilities, pregnant women, newborns, work-injury victims and the poor and the vulnerable.
• Indicator 3.2.1: Under-5 mortality rate.
• Indicator 4.1.1: Proportion of children and young people (a) in grades 2/3; (b) at the end of primary; and (c) at the end of lower secondary achieving at least a minimum proficiency level in (i) reading and (ii) mathematics, by sex.
• Indicator 5.2.1: Proportion of ever-partnered women and girls aged 15 years and older subjected to physical, sexual or psychological violence by a current or former intimate partner in the previous 12 months, by form of violence and by age group.
• Indicator 10.2.1: Proportion of people living below 50 percent of median income, by sex, age and persons with disabilities.
• Indicator 16.2.2: Number of victims of human trafficking per 100,000 population, by sex, age group and form of exploitation.

The article does not explicitly mention indicators, but based on the identified targets, relevant indicators can be used to measure progress. These indicators include measuring the proportion of the population covered by social protection systems (Indicator 1.3.1), under-5 mortality rate (Indicator 3.2.1), proficiency levels in reading and mathematics among children and young people (Indicator 4.1.1), prevalence of violence against women and girls (Indicator 5.2.1), proportion of people living below 50 percent of median income (Indicator 10.2.1), and the number of victims of human trafficking (Indicator 16.2.2).

4. Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Fuente: nydailynews.com

Join us, as fellow seekers of change, on a transformative journey at https://sdgtalks.ai/welcome, where you can become a member and actively contribute to shaping a brighter future.