Odin88

Man it absolutely, positively isn't bullshit. Judging someone based on them being 'bad' during their younger years is most definetly not the only factor. Now if you take in to account whether that person also comes from a low socio-economic background, less than satisfactory parents, single home (lack of a male role model - in the instance of young men particularly), etc etc, they can generate a very very good idea of who are 'at-risk' children. I don't have the studies on hand, but I know lots of studies have concluded this, and their ability to pick those 'at-risk' children is going to get better as time goes on. Studying this stuff, and most importantly doing something about it (i.e. proactive as opposed to reactive measures) is the smartest thing our society could do. If you look at the various crime prevention model studies relating to early intervention the thing that stands out (when something is correctly monitored) is how much money is saved by implementing these programs. If you save one person from going to prison for one year you save $50,000AUD (based on the cost here), now think about putting 50k into early 'at risk' parenting, think about all the other cost factors (i.e. damage, vandalism, less police required, etc etc) that can be taken into account when considering the cost:benefit ratio.

I might add that I am not a fan though of these fluffy courses, that really achieve nothing. But if you get serious with parents who suck, if you help provide role-models for young adolescents (particularly young men) when you know they need them than it definetly saves a shitload of money. Only problem is it takes quite a few years to get that investment back.