“Wrap-around services.” Do you agree this is the problem?

[Anonymous]

Following up on the recent panel discussion you can find (and discussed) here:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1183416.page

Gist was: youth in DC would not commit crime if they were given “wrap-around” services by the government / taxpayers.

Do you agree that is the problem / issue / solution to crime in DC?

Why or why not ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Following up on the recent panel discussion you can find (and discussed) here:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1183416.page

Gist was: youth in DC would not commit crime if they were given “wrap-around” services by the government / taxpayers.

Do you agree that is the problem / issue / solution to crime in DC?

Why or why not ?

I mean it might help a bit with prevention. But people who think this would be a solution fail to realize that it requires buy-in from the youth themselves. You can lead a horse to water but can’t make it drink.

Definitely wouldn’t hurt but it would need a honest cost/benefit analysis. Already spend tens of thousands of dollars on free public school for every single kid regardless of if the kid is skipping/doing work/putting in effort/actually benefiting. And public education is a HUGE if not the biggest expense of state/local governments (i.e. directly funded by tax payers, can not run deficits and print money like the fed does). Don’t want to create an even more expensive parallel service that costs the same/more and doesn’t make a massive difference.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think it makes much sense. There are far more services available today than there were a generation ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Following up on the recent panel discussion you can find (and discussed) here:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1183416.page

Gist was: youth in DC would not commit crime if they were given “wrap-around” services by the government / taxpayers.

Do you agree that is the problem / issue / solution to crime in DC?

Why or why not ?

I mean it might help a bit with prevention. But people who think this would be a solution fail to realize that it requires buy-in from the youth themselves. You can lead a horse to water but can’t make it drink.

Definitely wouldn’t hurt but it would need a honest cost/benefit analysis. Already spend tens of thousands of dollars on free public school for every single kid regardless of if the kid is skipping/doing work/putting in effort/actually benefiting. And public education is a HUGE if not the biggest expense of state/local governments (i.e. directly funded by tax payers, can not run deficits and print money like the fed does). Don’t want to create an even more expensive parallel service that costs the same/more and doesn’t make a massive difference.

p

If the clients don't want to use the wraparound services, that's the fault of the provider for not engaging the client. IMHO, you should just give the clients the cash and charge a user fee to recover the cost. You will quickly find out which services are popular and which services need improvement.

[Anonymous]

Yes and no. Factors leading to criminal behavior start from birth. By the time the kids have committed crime, a lot of damage has already been done. So yea, we could use more services, but starting from birth to promote healthy maternal attachment and effective parenting. As someone pointed out in that thread though, families have to take advantage of them, and many won’t. Some of these kids just flat out need to be removed from their environment, and we make it VERY difficult to do that. In short, they can and do help in certain circumstances but overall no, they won’t solve the problem.

[Anonymous]

Having fathers who are good role models in the home would be the thing that makes the biggest difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it makes much sense. There are far more services available today than there were a generation ago.

The problem is they exist in name, but not execution. As anyone who has worked in a DC school will tell you, Bowser loves sharing things that look good in a photo, but it doesn't actually trickle down to where it's needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Having fathers who are good role models in the home would be the thing that makes the biggest difference.

We have done that. They aren't getting locked away for minor crimes. They still don't seem to be interested in raising children. We need to motivate these young men. Perhaps provide a financial incentive?

[Anonymous]

“ We have done that. They aren't getting locked away for minor crimes. They still don't seem to be interested in raising children. We need to motivate these young men. Perhaps provide a financial incentive?”

Problem is that it’s pretty hard to be a good parent when you’re 16. Having a culture where parenthood was delayed until maturity would be a start, although that doesn’t address the generational trauma that also makes people terrible parents.

[Anonymous]

DC literally spends over $100 million per year on these type of services. Money can’t change a culture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having fathers who are good role models in the home would be the thing that makes the biggest difference.

We have done that. They aren't getting locked away for minor crimes. They still don't seem to be interested in raising children. We need to motivate these young men. Perhaps provide a financial incentive?

I think about this when I see the big groups of men in their 20s and 30s who gather on street corners near my house to smoke, shoot the sh*t, drink, listen to music, etc. I bet 90%+ of these men have kids. Very occasionally I see one of their kids with them at these gatherings.

A generation ago these men might have been arrested for public drug use, drinking, and the low level drug trade they engage in. Now they aren't. But either way, they aren't with their kids. Does this benefit anyone?

[Anonymous]

Generational trauma = Culture

And you can't change culture with wrap-around services. The community has to want to change. How do you promote cultural change in a dysfunctional culture? I have no idea. \

[Anonymous]

No. I think young teens are recruited into crime by older men. The crime rings need to be broken up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“ We have done that. They aren't getting locked away for minor crimes. They still don't seem to be interested in raising children. We need to motivate these young men. Perhaps provide a financial incentive?”

Problem is that it’s pretty hard to be a good parent when you’re 16. Having a culture where parenthood was delayed until maturity would be a start, although that doesn’t address the generational trauma that also makes people terrible parents.

What's wrong with having children at 16? They can vote at that age. I don't see why we need to add more age-gating to society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Generational trauma = Culture

And you can't change culture with wrap-around services. The community has to want to change. How do you promote cultural change in a dysfunctional culture? I have no idea. \

The first thing should be for the government to admit that these groups have been wronged. Next, reparations would be a huge step forward in addressing the inequality created by systemic discrimination. After 300 years of reparations, then we can see if we need to do anything else.