I am honored to publish this essay from Christina Faucett. Christina has been a licensed foster parent in the state of Washington for six years and has adopted one child from the foster care system. Prior to becoming a foster parent, she was a CASA for three years. She is currently a member of the DCYF Parental Advisory Group and is passionate about fixing what is broken in our child welfare system to keep Washington kids safe. She lives in the Seattle area with her husband and daughter. You can follow her on X at @DCYFWAtch.
In 2023, the Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) completely rewrote their Caregiver Report to Court form. This form is the only voice foster parents have in the dependency process, since they are not parties to the case, and thus are not entitled to receive legal counsel, file motions, read pleadings, or speak in court unless called on by the judge. Given this, one might expect that changes to the caregiver report form would by preceded by extensive communication and feedback from caregivers as part of the editing process. This did not happen.
I first became aware of these changes in the fall of 2023 when I was provided the new form to submit in my foster child’s dependency case. I then reached out to connections I had in DCYF to ask how these changes had come about, and who had participated in the process of editing the form. After being stonewalled by DCYF employees, I submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, the results of which I finally received a couple of weeks ago.
My FOIA response revealed that the committee convened by DCYF to make the changes to the caregiver report to court included only one caregiver. However, it included three representatives of birth parents, including one former birth parent who had a child in foster care, a parent attorney and a social worker from the Office of Public Defense (which represents and provides assistance and advocacy for birth parents in dependency cases), along with other court and DCYF employees, and one CASA representative. At no point were caregivers informed of this committee’s existence, invited to participate on the committee, or asked to give feedback on the committee’s proposed changes.
The only foster parent representative on the committee works with Amara’s Family Connections Program, which encourages foster parents to maintain relationships with biological parents. Although this foster parent is a representative for what is called the “1624 Consultation Team” (named for the bill that created the group), which is a group of elected foster parent representatives who are supposed to raise the questions and concerns of foster parents in meetings with DCYF, no other 1624 representatives appear to have been informed of the pending changes. The Foster Parent Association of Washington also does not appear to have been informed of the pending changes. An August 2, 2023 post to their website states, “This seems to have been a sudden change and not everyone in the system is aware of it.”
Adding to the confusion, DCYF released two different Caregiver Report to Court forms, a long form and a short form. However, the forms have some completely different questions. For example, “Are you maintaining open and viable communication with the child’s biological parent?” is only included in the short form, not the long form. Even after an entire year of work on this by the committee, the reports still have numerous typos and errors. The new report was released with instructions that caregivers could submit it to the child’s CASA, not just their social worker, even though the CASA program in some counties did not want this responsibility and refused to submit the forms to the court on behalf of caregivers.
While not all of the changes to the caregiver report form are bad, a quick look makes it clear that DCYF is trying to limit input from foster parents to information that supports reunification, while simultaneously diminishing their opportunity to highlight their own relationship with the child (whom they may have raised for years, possibly from birth).
Some examples of changes:
A question soliciting caregivers’ thoughts on the Department’s case plan has been replaced with a question asking “Do you have any additional information that may help reunite the child or youth successfully with their biological family?”
A general question about how the child’s visits with parents are going has been replaced with, “What’s working well with family time? Explain.”
Other changes imply that caregivers have obligations they do not have. For example: “How have you included the parents of the child in the medical and dental appointments?” It is the social worker’s responsibility, not the caregiver’s, to inform parents of medical/dental appointments. The communication question mentioned above likewise implies that caregivers have an obligation to communicate directly with biological parents. Caregivers may have many legitimate reasons (including privacy and safety reasons) not to communicate directly with birth parents.
The old form had two questions about the child’s relationship with the caregiver and adjustment to living in the caregiver’s home. On the new long form these questions have been replaced with one question which is relegated to the bottom of the form under “additional information.” The short form doesn’t even ask caregivers about their relationship with the child living in their home; it only asks about the child’s behavior in the home. A question asking caregivers to “Describe child or youth’s interactions with positive adults (i.e., coaches, teachers, church, mentors, other relatives)” is given higher billing on the long form than the questions about their relationship with their primary caregiver.
DCYF has lost around 800 licensed foster homes since 2019, and since their six-month pause on issuing all new foster parent licenses from November 2022, to April 2023, the number of unfilled emergent placement needs has skyrocketed. If DCYF wants to achieve their goal of eliminating short-term stays for foster children and youth in offices and hotel rooms by December 2024, they need to start treating caregivers with the respect they deserve, not trying to further stifle their voices.
As readers digest the report that follows, the content may cause significant discomfort stemming from painful, lived personal experiences and perspectives shaped by social constructs made implicit through centuries of white supremacy and structural oppression. Readers are invited to practice self-care while navigating this content and to consider reading the findings with a group to engage in collective reflection.
Tyrone Howard et al, Beyond Blind Removal: Color Consciousness and Anti-Racism in Los Angeles County Child Welfare. UCLA Pritzker Center for Strengthening Children and Families, March 2024, page 5.
For several years, and accelerating after the murder of George Floyd, concerns about the overrepresentation of Black children in child welfare compared to their share of the population have been a leading factor behind proposals to reform child welfare services. One reform proposal–known as “blind removal”–seemed blessedly simple: just hide the race and ethnicity of a child being considered for placement in foster care, and racial differences in child removal will disappear. Los Angeles County was one of the jurisdictions that decided to pilot this new approach, and an evaluation of this pilot was released last month. On first reading, the evaluation looks like evidence that the pilot failed to reduce disproportional Black representation in child welfare. On second reading, the weaknesses of the study come into focus, and it appears to be proof of nothing. On third reading, it becomes clear that the poor quality of the evaluation reflects the evaluators’ and agency’s response to a legislative mandate to pilot a program that they no longer supported because it was “color-blind,” as they proceeded in their plans to develop the “color-conscious” programs they preferred. Apparent from the beginning was that neither the sponsor, nor the agency, nor the researchers stopped to examine the data on blind removals provided in a TED Talk, nor did they consider the basic assumptionbehind this approach.
On July 13, 2021, the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors passed a motion requiring the Los Angeles Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS) to pilot the blind removal concept. The sponsor, Supervisor Holly Mitchell, was influenced by the publicity around an experiment in New York State suggesting that the simple process of hiding racial details about children reported to CPS had been successful in erasing much of the racial disproportionality in foster care placements. A TED talk by Jessica Pryce, the scholar who “discovered” the use of this procedure in Nassau County New York, has been viewed 1.37 million times. In that talk, Pryce presented, to thunderous applause, her finding that after five years of implementing blind removal, the proportion of children entering foster care who were Black plummeted from 57 percent to 21 percent. A post entitled The power of wishful thinking: the case of race-blind removals in child welfare showed that the numbers cited by Pryce were simply wrong. The Black percentage of children who were removed fluctuated from year to year during and after the implementation of blind removals, ending up higher in FY2020 than it was before implementation of the program. But the supporters of blind removal did not seem to have much interest in anything that would cast doubt on this apparently simple fix for the stubborn fact of racial disproportionality in child welfare.
The blind removal pilot evaluation
This month, the Pritzker Center quietly released its report on the Los Angeles pilot, Beyond Blind Removal: Color Consciousness and Anti-Racism in Los Angeles County Child Welfare. The pilot ran from August 2022 to August 2023 in two county offices, West Los Angeles and Compton-Carson. The blind removal process began after the office had investigated an allegation of maltreatment and determined that the removal of a child or children was the only safe alternative. The case was then referred to a panel of administrators in West LA, and to one administrator outside the supervisory line in Compton-Carson. In both offices, the case reviewers were given case details that left out all information that could signal race or ethnicity, including name, race, ethnicity, zip code, income, and school district. Cases were not referred for blind removal when “exigent” circumstances were present, which means there was “reasonable cause to believe that the child was in imminent danger of serious bodily injury (which includes sexual abuse).” In West LA, a “Coach Developer” presented the case to a team of case reviewers with the investigative social worker and supervisor present, and the case reviewers voted at the end of the meeting on the decision to remove the child. The decision would then be conveyed to the social worker and supervisor. In Compton-Carson, the final decision was made in the blind removal meeting between the social worker, supervisor and case reviewer.
To assess the results of the pilot, the researchers used three separate administrative datasets from the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) for hotline referrals, petitions filed, and cases that went through the blind removals process. The referral and removal datasets covered five years and three months from April 1, 2018 to June 30, 2023. The blind removal datasets covered the pilot period, from August 1, 2022 to July 31, 2023 in West LA, and September 1, 2022 to August 31, 2023 for Compton-Carson. It is strange and unfortunate that the referral and removal datasets did not cover the last month of the pilot in West LA and the last two months in Compton-Carson; we will see below that this omission caused a serious problem. For referrals and removals, the evaluators calculated a “Disproportionality Index” (DI), which depicts racial overrepresentation when greater than one, equal representation at one, and underrepresentation when less than one.
The researchers found that the total number of children who were removed from their families by each office trended downward during the study period but “racial disproportionality persisted with Black children overrepresented in removals in both offices and Latinx children overrepresented in the West LA office in most quarters.” They found very few non-exigent cases identified for removal in West LA went through the blind removal process. The office petitioned for the removal of 46 children over the period, of whom less than half (21 out of 46) received a blind removal review. The reasons these children were not referred for blind removal were not documented. The researchers report that the pilot was implemented with more fidelity in Compton-Carson, but they reported the results using different categories than they used for West LA, which made it hard to understand or compare the results of the two offices.*
Responses to a survey of workers and administrators provided little evidence of positive change. Social workers and supervisors largely perceived no change in how much they talked about race and ethnicity, the amount of support they received for talking about race and ethnicity and “managing their racial and ethnic biases in their work.” In addition, social workers and supervisors “mostly perceived no changes in how they conducted their daily work.” However, the researchers took pains to share the comments of the minority of employees that expressed positive views, reporting that “[s]ome interviewees came to understand that racial biases and stereotypes might unconsciously affect how decisions are made in the child welfare system.” And a fifth of social workers and supervisors “perceived greater engagement and support across key aspects of their work as defined in the Core Practice Model.”
But majorities of the staff interviewed expressed negative views about changes brought about by the pilot. Most important was the perception that the pilot worked against the prevailing approach of addressing disproportionality through race-conscious policies. As the authors put it, the blind removal pilot “was perceived as contradicting concerted efforts to address racial disproportionality in child removals by explicitly talking about race and increasingly building bridges with individuals and organizations in Black communities to support Black families.” The increased workload for administrative staff was a negative outcome, mentioned as a “source of frustration” by the authors.
A sloppy, poorly-planned and badly-documented study
While it would not be surprising if the pilot was not the cure that its sponsors hoped for, the sloppy research design and presentation make it difficult to accept the results as proof of the failure or success of blind removal in achieving its goal in reducing disproportional removals of Black children. The lack of a comparison site was a big problem. One cannot compare trends over time and assume that nothing changed other than the pilot. The two pilot sites chosen were far from ideal. The West LA office has both a small caseload and a very small proportion of Black children in the population served–only 5.9 percent. The authors report that there were only 46 children removed during the entire pilot, only 21 of whom went through the blind removal process. The total number of Black children removed per quarter, as shown in Figure 4 below, ranged from 0 to what looks like six. Compton-Carson had three times as many cases as West LA. However, 81 percent of the service area population was Latino, and only 17 percent was Black. In the Compton-Carson office, the number of Black children removed was five or less in the last four quarters and the bulk of the children removed were Hispanic. The researchers also assessed Hispanic disproportionality, but it was almost nonexistent at Compton-Carson. Almost all of their discussion of disproportionality relates to Black children, so one might expect them to choose two districts with enough Black children to provide meaningful numbers of removals.
Source: Beyond Blind Removal, page 31.
Even more problematic is the way the data were grouped for display and analysis, as shown in Figures 4 for West LA and Figures 9 and 10 for Compton-Carson. The researchers pooled their data for each calendar quarter despite the fact that in both sites, the pilot started and ended in the middle of a quarter. To make matters worse, data for the final month of the West LA pilot and the final two months of the Compton-Carson pilot are not provided because data were not available for the remaining one or two months–as mentioned above. So the reader cannot see the actual numbers of removals for the pilot period at either site; in only two of the four quarters shown was the plot was operational throughout the quarter.
The confounding of the effects of different interventions is another problem with the study design. This one cannot be blamed on the researchers, who warned that it would be a problem, as discussed below. Figure 9 shows that there was a decrease in the proportion of Black children removed in Compton-Carson starting in the second quarter of 2022, and a concurrent increase in the number of Hispanic children who were removed. This trend began before the blind removal pilot started but after the commencement of 4DX, another initiative to reduce disproportionality that was implemented in January 2021. Figure 10 shows the consequent decline in the Black DR, which falls below one in the first half of 2023, meaning that Black children were underrepresented in that period. The researchers conclude that the “decline cannot be attributed to 4DX because the intervention was not evaluated, nor can it be attributed to blind removal because this intervention was confounded by 4DX and other interventions meant to serve Black families more effectively, such as the Eliminating Racial Disparities and Disproportionality (ERDD) roundtables, and interventions designed to improve assessment of safety versus risk.”**
Additional Note: “4DX refers to the “Four Disciplines of Education,” a “leadership and goal-setting concept” implemented in some counties with the goal of reducing disproportionality by 10 percent.
Missing information is also a problem. It would be impossible to assess the effect of the blind removal process without knowing how often the panel or individual reviewing the cases reversed the decision to remove a child, and whether there was any pattern in terms of race and ethnicity. The authors report that of the 21 children who were referred for blind removal in West LA, the panel agreed with the decision to remove all but two of the children. DCFS reported that those children had situations that “stabilized” presumably between the initial removal decision and the meeting, but the numbers are too small to make any general conclusions. In any case, there wre few reversals of the initial decision, and it appears that these reversals did not relate to race but to changes in the child’s situation. In Compton-Carson, the researchers did not even report on how often the initial removal decision was reversed in the blind removal meeting.
It is also odd that the authors devoted so much of their analysis to topics and periods outside of the one-year blind removal pilots. Much of the text and graphics is devoted to analysis of referrals (not addressed by the pilot), and they usually refer to the entire five-and-a-quarter-year period with little mention of what happened during the pilot. Much of the analysis simply documents the disproportionality in referrals and foster care placements throughout the period–something that really does not need more documentation and was not the reason for funding the pilot. Concentrating on the full period also allowed the writers to disregard the effect of the pilot. In the most flagrant example, the authors state that “Further, while overall child removals decreased in the Compton-Carson office, Black children were disproportionately represented in removals by the office during most quarters for which data were analyzed with a very slight upward trend collectively.” Clearly, the quarters during which the pilot was implemented show a downward trend. The authors are probably right that this proves nothing about blind removals, but this presentation gives the impression that they wanted to avoid saying anything that could be quoted by those wanting to demonstrate the pilot’s success.
A pilot that was doomed to fail?
The report’s section on “Timeline and Related Events” provides clues to the origins of the problems with the pilot’s design. In the wake of George Floyd’s murder and the subsequent demonstrations, the authors report that “child welfare systems and their stakeholders began having deeper and more honest conversations about addressing the longstanding connections between racism and the child welfare system.” It was in that context that the Pritzker Center invited Jessica Pryce to present a three-part series on how to eliminate bias in the child welfare system, which included a discussion of blind removal. The following September, DCFS Director Bobby Cagle expressed interest in developing a blind removals pilot, and DCFS and the Pritzker Center worked to develop a pilot and evaluation plan. But at the same time, Casey Family Programs notified the Center that DCFS also wanted to implement a the “Four Disciplines of Execution,” or 4DX, a framework bills itself as a “simple, repeatable formula for executing your most important priorities.” The Pritzker Center evaluators report that they warned against implementing both programs simultaneously in the same offices, as it would be impossible to identify the source of any change that occurred.
In February 2021, DCFS submitted a letter to the Doris Duke Foundation in support of a grant to the Pritzker Center to evaluate blind removal. But in March, 2021, DCFS withdrew its plan to pilot blind removal. Meanwhile, 4DX was implemented in regional offices throughout Los Angeles County with a goal of “safely reducing entries” into foster care for Black children by 10 percent. The Pritzker Center met with DCFS to discuss an evaluation of 4DX, but no plan was developed. Also in July 2021, the LA County Board of Supervisors passed the motion to pilot blind removal and designated the Pritzker Center as evaluator.
In October 2021, DCFS began meetings with the Pritzker Center to plan the blind removal pilot. It appears that they considered only sites that were in the supervisory district of Holly Mitchell, the Supervisor who had pressed for the pilot. The updates from DCFS to the Board of Supervisors shed more light on the site selection. Only one site was required in the motion that was passed by the Board of Supervisors. In its first update, dated September 13, 2021, Director Bobby Cagle proposed selecting just the West LA office, because it was apparently the only appropriate site that had not implemented 4DX. Cagle argued that it would be a mistake to pilot blind removal at one of the other sites because the “core of the 4DX work is rooted in authentically seeing and addressing families through a cultural lens.” Shifting to a methodology that negates this approach, Cagle argued, would be “contradictory to helping staff make the adaptive change toward leaning into a family’s natural strengths, focusing on natural supports, and activating community partners as resources to mitigate Black/African American children from entering care.” But in the second progress report, dated May 2, 2022, Compton-Carson was listed as a second pilot site with no explanation. And in the third progress report, dated August 1, 2022, the new DCFS Director, Brandon Nichols, explained that Compton-Carson was added because it had already implemented 4DX, unlike the other sites that were still in the implementation phase.
It is understandable that a second site was added, as the numbers in West LA are so small, even though Cagle inexplicably reported to the the Supervisors that the two offices “have the additional benefit of serving a large enough population of Black/African American children to allow for sufficient sample sizes during the pilot phase.” We can now understand the lack of a comparison site, since it appears that no sites were available within the supervisory district that had not implemented 4DX or other interventions, and the small number of available sites may not have included one that was comparable to West LA. But it is clear that not only did the implementation of 4DX possibly contaminate the results of the pilot, but the various programs got into each other’s way in Compton-Carson. That office implemented not only blind removals and 4DX but also another program called Eliminating Racial Disparities and Disproportionality (ERDD), which provided “roundtables, cultural brokers, and father involvement.” The authors of the study report that because of the blind removal process, Black children could not be referred to ERDD until they had been removed, while it was normally used to prevent removals.
Reading between the lines, it appears that DCFS and the Pritzker Center were saddled with the blind removal pilot at a time when they had already lost interest in that program. Both the Center in its evaluation and Cagle in his updates made clear that they saw a conflict between the idea of blind removals and the color-conscious vision behind the other approaches they were implementing, and they both favored the latter. The Pritzker authors wrote, “Colorblind approaches are widely considered harmful to Black people and people of color because they seek to negate race and all the experiences that come with being a racial minority in this country.”
The Pritzker Center also had methodological reasons to avoid blind removals: they had already warned about the problems of evaluating any program when another program is implemented at the same time. Even though the 4DX implementation was complete, one might assume that lasting effects would be expected–and hoped for. It does not appear that anyone had looked closely at Pryce’s data; Cagle was still saying on August 1, 2022, that “[g]iven the successful research findings from New York’s study, …DCFS is excited about piloting Blind Removals in the hopes of achieving similar outcomes…”
To add insult to injury, the county was forced to pay for its no-longer-wanted blind removals pilot. In a classic example of an unfunded mandate, the Board of Supervisors directed DCFS to find $150,000 to fund the blind removals pilot, a directive with which DCFS duly complied. And the Pritzker Center had no choice but to accept the funds that DCFS was directed to provide. Despite their clear negative feelings, the authors tried to justify their work on blind removal, arguing post facto that “the blind removal pilot was viewed as an opportunity to assess the attitudes and perspectives of DCFS staff and social workers toward race, racism and racial bias. Thus, whereas the strategy itself involved a color-blind protocol, the day-to-day experience of blind removal involved significant and insightful discussion about the role of race in child removal.” But it seems unlikely that the pilot was viewed beforehand as an opportunity to assess staff attitudes. And the “insightful discussions” are hard to reconcile with the survey results showing no change in how most workers did their jobs or talked about race and ethnicity.
In the end, the authors tried to reconcile their original goal with the final product by saying the report “articulates a vision that thoroughly documents the pilot, but necessarily urges readers and stakeholders to imagine a color-conscious future for Black families that goes well beyond blind removal.” Bizarrely, though, they insisted that for some jurisdictions, “blind removal may be a worthwhile effort given the possibilities it holds when implemented with proper support and the insights it can afford concerning race and racism within the agency.”
Blinded by ideology
In addition to the difficulties caused by the adoption of multiple interventions at the same time, the blind removal evaluation was flawed from the beginning by the failure to question basic assumptions behind the concept. In their explanation of the idea, the report authors state that “It is hypothesized that racial disproportionality will be reduced because the investigative team’s implicit biases will be mitigated by the case reviewers’ input on the case’s merits for removal.” The missing piece is the assumption that such implicit biases are a major cause of disproportionate removals of Black children. The agency and the evaluators completely ignored the research that suggests that the bias (if any) is probably in the other direction. Most recently, a paper by Brett Drake and a star-studded group of researchers*** shows that once reported to CPS, Black children were slightly more likely to have been substantiated as victims of neglect and placed in foster care than White children until 2011 and somewhat less likely to be substantiated or placed thereafter. In the last few years before the Covid-19 pandemic, they calculated that Black children were about 80 percent as likely to be substantiated and placed as white children, whether or not demographic factors were held constant. Perhaps the increasing concern about disproportionate removals of Black children has been causing social workers and supervisors to be biased in the opposite direction.
Even if the evaluators did not learn from prior research, they could have tried to assess whether investigator bias was actually a cause of disproportionate removal of Black children. They could have collected data at both sites about the proportion of decisions that were overturned by the reviewers, the reason for these reversals, and whether being blind to race had any impact at all. Perhaps they would have learned something about what happens when race and ethnicity are hidden, or perhaps they would have found that hiding these characteristics is impossible. But the authors of the evaluation were apparently too blinded by ideology to even consider the possibility that past rather than current racism is behind current disproportionalities in child welfare. Of course it is not just the researchers, but also the leadership of DCFS, that labored under the assumption that the biases of social workers determine the disproportionality in child removals.
The assumption that disproportional representation in child removals reflects racism in the child welfare system does more damage than simply leading to the adoption of ineffective programs. If the assumption is wrong, as the research suggests, then Black children’s overrepresentation in reporting, substantiations, and removals reflects their real need for protection. And if a child welfare system finds a method that is actually effective in reducing Black children’s representation in child welfare systems, then we are effectively lowering our standards for safely parenting Black children. And that is obviously fine with the authors, who made no bones about their feeling that concerns about child safety unnecessarily interfered with implementation of the pilot. As they wrote:
In general, the West LA staff strongly believed that the slightest concern about safety trumped involvement in the pilot. Though well intentioned, these safety concerns may be informed by bias and thus impede the widespread application of blind removal to families in the West LA office. Across child welfare systems, safety concerns are often prioritized over diverting families from system involvement.
Beyond Blind Removal, page 27.
It is obvious that the authors believe child safety should take a back seat to diverting Black families from child welfare involvement. And there is reason to fear that this happened in Compton-Carson, where removals of Black children fell sharply between Quarter 2 of 2022 and and the same quarter of 2023. Perhaps the LA County has found an intervention that is effective in reducing the removals of Black children absolutely and relative to other groups. Cagle reported that 4DX produced a 47 percent decrease in Black children removed within seven months. That is a pretty radical change–a change that may have severe costs to Black children.
The blind removal report tells a strange and complicated story. It is the story of a pilot program that was apparently imposed by a politicians on a child welfare agency and an evaluator that had moved beyond that program in search of more color-conscious approaches. It is a story of an agency that adopted these preferred approaches simultaneously with blind removal, making it impossible to evaluate any of the interventions. It is the story of researchers and an agency who never stopped to examine the data on blind removals provided in a TED Talk, and who never stopped to think about the assumptionsbehind this approach. It is the story of an attempt to make it appear that this pilot was anything other than a waste of time and money.
Many thanks to Brett Drake, who made me aware of this report and who shared his thoughts about it.
Notes
*They report that Compton-Carson had higher fidelity to the model because more children’s cases (195) were referred to blind removal than the number of children for whom court petitions were filed (146). But this is confusing compared to the description for West LA, which speaks of the proportion of petitioned children who were subject to blind removal. When I requested clarification from the researchers, they simply restated the language from the report.
**In his first update to the Board of Supervisors, Cagle reported that the offices participating in 4DX had experienced a 47 percent reduction in Black children removed between January and August of 2021. The Compton-Carson data shown above documents part of that drop in the Compton-Carson office.
***Brett Drake et al., “Racial/Ethnic Differences in Child Protective Services Reporting, Substantiation, and Placement, With Comparison to Non-CPS Risks and Outcomes: 2005-2019. Child Maltreatment 2023, Vol 0(0) 1-17.
Greetings to my faithful readers! I’m trying out a different format for Child Welfare Monitor–a monthly newsletter format that highlights events and information that catch my eye. I’m not ruling out a single-issue piece now and then, particularly when there is a major new report or data source to discuss and analyze. Please let me know what you think of the new format. If you can think of a more exciting title than “Child Welfare Update,” let me know. And if you do find this to be a useful resource, please share it with your colleagues.
Adam Montgomery convicted of Harmony Montgomery’s death
In December 2021, Manchester, New Hampshire Police announced the disappearance of Harmony Montgomery, who would have been six years old if she were alive. We learned that Harmony’s noncustodial mother, Crystal Sorey, had called the police a month earlier to say that she had not seen or heard from her daughter since April 2019, two-and-a-half years earlier. The country was rapidly transfixed by the search for Harmony. We soon learned that the little girl, who was blind in one eye, had first been removed from Sorey at the age of two months by the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF) due to Sorey’s substance abuse. Harmony’s father, Adam Montgomery, was in jail at the time. Harmony was returned to her mother at seven months, and removed again at ten months. At almost three years old, and after two straight years in foster care with the same family that fostered her from the start and wanted to adopt her, Harmony was returned to her mother for the second time. At age three-and-a-half, Harmony was removed from her mother for the third time. Since Harmony was first removed, Adam Montgomery had been released from prison and begun visiting her. In February, 2018, a judge awarded Montgomery immediate custody of Harmony, without waiting for an assessment of his wife or a study of his living situation in New Hampshire.
A shattering report by the Massachusetts Child Advocate revealed the many missteps by all the professionals tasked with keeping Harmony safe. The OCA concluded that “Harmony’s individual needs, wellbeing, and safety were not prioritized or considered on an equal footing with the assertion of her parents’ rights to care for her in any aspect of the decision making by any state entity.”
Two years after the search for Harmony began, Adam Montgomery has been convicted of her death, thanks to the testimony of his wife. She told prosecutors that after Harmony soiled her bed at night he beat her viciously on the head in the morning of December 9, 2019 and again that afternoon in the car when she soiled herself once more. He then injected opioids and ate fast food as Harmony died of her injuries in the back of the car. He concealed Harmony’s body for months until renting a U-Haul and dumping her remains somewhere outside Boston. Her body has never been found. Montgomery is already serving 32 1/2 years in prison for another case and I hope he will never see the light of day, but what about all the professionals who failed to prioritize Harmony’s needs? And what has Massachusetts done to ensure that there will be no more Harmonies? The adoptive parents of Harmony’s brother have been speaking out; I assume Harmony’s foster parents are too devastated to do so, but their hearts must be broken.
Race trumps child welfare I: Black children don’t get attached?
Harmony Montgomery’s case illustrates, among other things, what happens when the importance of attachment for young children is disregarded. Attachment theory, which is widely accepted and taught in classes on psychology, social work and human development, posits that a strong attachment is central to the development of infants and affects their brain development and their ability to form relationships throughout life. The critical role of attachment in human development, which has been confirmed in mammals as well as humans, is the reason that the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) set a timeline requiring states to file for termination of parental rights after a child had spent 15 of the last 22 months in foster care. That is the deadline that Harmony’s team disregarded when they returned her to her mother after two years in foster care and continued to work with both parents after her return to foster care at the age of three-and-a-half. The continued disruptions were so devastating for Harmony that her foster parents, according to the OCA, could no longer meet her needs when she was placed with them for the third time, and asked that she be transferred to a specialized therapeutic home.
But some lawyers that counsel parents in child protection cases are being told that attachment theory does not apply to Black children. In Race Trumps Child Welfare, Naomi Schaefer Riley calls attention to a paper called “The Weaponization of Whiteness in Child Welfare,” originally published by the National Association of Counsel for Children. The paper calls attachment theory a “tool to justify the separation of families” and a manifestation of “racism in psychology.” The authors take aim at professionals who utilize attachment theory to argue for the adoption of Black children by White foster families who have raised them from infancy rather than returning them to their parents or placing them with kin. They argue that a Black child who has lived with a White foster family for the entire two-and-a-half years of his life should be placed with a relative who has never even seen the child. Black families, they say, belong to a collective culture, which emphasizes the needs of the group as a whole over the needs of an individual. Thus, any suffering to an individual child, they imply, is justified by the gain to the group–though it is hard to understand how Black people as a whole gain from the traumatization of young Black children.
Race Trumps Child Welfare II: ABA “addressing bias in medical mandated reporting” in Michigan
The American Bar Association (ABA) has announced that its Center for Children and the Law is piloting a new initiative in Michigan “to address overreporting by medical professionals of Black, Indigenous and Latino/a children to the child welfare system.” Without a footnote, the ABA reports that “injuries in Black children are 9 times more likely than those in White children to be reported as abuse despite evidence that child abuse and neglect occur at equal rates across races.” (Italics are mine.) Equal across races? I wonder what data they are using. While I am the first to acknowledge that maltreatment substantiation rates may not reflect actual incidence of abuse or neglect, evidence suggests that the two-to-one Blsck-White difference in child maltreatment substantiation rates is likely an understatement, not an overstatement. Moreover, Latino children nationwide are not reported to CPS disproportionately to their share of the population.
The pilots, funded by the Children’s Bureau, will use a “multisystem approach developed by the ABA’s Stop Overreporting Our People (STOP) project” to “address each decision made from the time a medical provider has a concern about maltreatment through child welfare hotline report and investigation to the decision of the judicial officer to remove the child from the home.” In Michigan, according to Child Maltreatment2022, of the 174,000 referrals to the hotline in Federal Fiscal Year 2022, about 68,000 were screened in, about 139,000 children received an investigation or alternative response (down 12 percent from the previous year), and 23,500 were substantiated as victims of abuse or neglect–a whopping 37.7 percent drop over the previous year. Of those “victims,” a total of 2,760 or 11 percent were placed in foster care–along with an additional 956 children who were not substantiated as victims but may have been siblings who were deemed to be equally endangered. Despite the precipitous drops in investigations and substantiations and the very low proportion of children substantiated as victims that were placed in foster care, the ABA isn’t satisfied…or doesn’t bother to look at data. The Michigan pilots will also focus on how doctors are trained to report maltreatment, according to the ABA. Discouraging doctors from reporting the signs that they are uniquely trained to spot may not strike all readers as a good idea.
Where was CPS?
Utah:Abuse in plain sight: Ruby Franke, a parenting influencer who achieved fame by promoting her strict parenting style, was sentenced to up to thirty years after pleading guilty to aggravated child abuse of two of her children. Franke rose to prominence with a youtube channel called 8 Passengers (now taken down) that documented her life with her husband and six children and was criticized for promoting abusive discipline methods. She eventually formed a business partnership with another woman named Jodi Hildebrandt, who encouraged and participated in the abuse of Franke’s children. Both women were arrested in August 2023, after one of Franke’s children escaped the home and ran to a neighbor’s house asking for food and water. The neighbor noticed the child’s open wounds, duct tape around his ankles and wrists and emaciation and called the police. After the arrest, the oldest daughter posted on social media that: “We’ve been trying to tell the police and CPS for years about this, and so glad they finally decided to step up.” “Several of us tried to help,” one neighbor told the Salt Lake Tribune. “I know people left food on doorsteps knowing the kids might not be eating; I know people were making phone calls to DCFS, to the police — people really did try and care. No one was looking the other way.”
New Mexico: $5.5 million settlement reached in eight-year-old girl’s brutal death: The Santa Fe New Mexicanreports that the New Mexico Children Youth and Families Department (CFYD) has agreed to pay $5.5 million to the brother and half-siblings of Samantha Rubino, acknowledging that it placed Samantha and her brother in the care of a man (Juan Lerma) with a history of child abuse and domestic violence, who had been investigated once before for abusing her and had not seen either Samantha or her brother for two years. Samantha died of blunt force trauma to the head, and Lerma placed her body in the trash. This is the latest in a series of big-money settlements by CYFD, funded by the taxpayers. New Mexico’s system is in crisis, with a backlog of 2,000 investigations of abuse and neglect. Is it too much to hope that the legislature will decide it is better to spend money up front to keep children safe than to pay massive settlements to their survivors?
The march continues to remove protections for homeschooled children
The powerful homeschool lobby continues its crusade to eliminate the few regulations that still exist to protect homeschooled children. In Nebraska, LB 1027 would eliminate two of the three minimal documents required for homeschool enrollments. It would bar school districts and Health and Human Services from investigating educational neglect in a homeschool setting. And it would give one parent the power to make homeschooling decisions without input from the other parent. The unicameral legislature’s Education Committee heard testimony from the Nebraska Christian Home Educators Association, the president of a Christian homeschoolers’ co-op, and another homeschooling parent. There was no testimony against the bill. The Education Committee has recommended the bill, and it is headed for a floor vote.
In West Virginia, legislators have tried to bar abusive parents from homeschooling ever since an eight-year-old girl named Raylee Browning died of sepsis, possibly caused by drinking toilet water, in 2018. Teachers had called CPS multiple times because Raylee was constantly hungry and covered in bruises. To avoid further problems, her guardians removed her from school for the ostensible purpose of homeschooling, thus enabling them to torture ber to death without interference. Every year since 2019, legislators have introduced Raylee’s Law, which would prohibit homeschooling if the parent or home educator had a pending investigation for child abuse or neglect or had been convicted of abuse, neglect or domestic violence. This very modest bill, which probably wouldn’t even have saved Raylee because her guardians did not have a pending investigation when they withdrew her from school, nor were they convicted of abuse, has never gotten through the legislature. This year it was voted down in the Education Committee by 15-5 after several legislators outlined their concerns–such as the fear that it would force children to enter public school before an investigation could be completed!
This year, the sponsors of Raylee’s Law managed to get a version of the legislation included in a bill that removes certain testing requirements for homeschooled children, and it passed by a voice vote. Unfortunately the amendment that passed was watered down further from the original bill, which itself was very weak The amendment that passed requires that a parent cannot withdraw a child for homeschooling if there is a pending child abuse or neglect investigation. But if the complaint is not substantiated within 14 days, the superintendent must authorize homeschooling. And the bill to which it was attached (HB 5180) reduces protection of homeschooled children by removing the requirement that parents submit academic assessments for homeschooled children in certain grades, as well as the requirement that the parent or home educator submit evidence that they have a high school or post-secondary degree.
Readers who care about the protection of homeschooled children and the drastic disproportion of power between homeschooling parents and advocates for their children should give to one of my favorite organizations, the Coalition for Responsible Home Education. They are doing their best on a shoestring budget, but they can’t afford to go to every state where protective legislation is threatened.
From the “Are you kidding me?” department
“Safe Haven laws” are a way for new parents who are not ready to raise a child to surrender their newborns safely without any questions or legal consequences. The laws exist in all 50 states. The Committee to Eliminate Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities has endorsed these laws as a way to protect vulnerable infants and recommended that they be amended to extend the age of protected infants to age 1 and to expand the types of safe havens allowed. And it turns out that this option has existed in Europe since Pope Innocent III required churches to install “Foundling Wheels” in 1198!
In New Mexico, mothers are told they can anonymously surrender their infants through “safe haven baby boxes” located around the state. But recent media coverage from local stations KRQE and KOB4 has revealed the state’s Children Youth and Families Department (CYFD) has been investigating these surrenders–because they are required to do so by the state’s safe haven law. CYFD Secretary Teresa Casados told KRQE that “state law requires CYFD to investigate to ensure the mother was not forced to give up her baby, to make sure she is safe, and to inform the father of the child as well.” (She was apparently not asked what would happen if the father had raped or abused the mother.) She also explained that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) requires CYFD to look into each case and notify “all the tribes and pueblos” to ensure they are following the Act’s requirement that placement with a Native family be preferred. It is not clear that any other state has interpreted ICWA this way. New Mexico legislators rushed to draft legislation to retain the right of mothers to surrender their infants safely and anonymously, but the short session ended before a bill could be passed.
Never underestimate a persistent child advocate
John Hill, the Investigative Editor at Civil Beat, a nonprofit news outlet in Honolulu, Hawaii, has never given up on his quest to find out how a six-year-old girl named Ariel Sellers was placed with Lehua and Isaac Kalua, the adoptive parents who tortured her, culminating in her murder two-and-a-half years ago. The Kaluas have been charged with murder and abuse of both Ariel and her then 12-year-old sister, among other charges. The prosecution alleges that Ariel was kept in a dog cage and denied food, and that Lehua Kalua caused her death by duct-taping her mouth and nose. For more than two years, according to Hill, the Hawaii Department of Human Services has stonewalled in accounting for its actions in the adoption of Ariel, who was renamed “Isabella Kalua” by her adoptive parents. But Hawaii’s Public First Law Center, motivated by a series of columns written by Hill, has filed a motion to receive the foster and adoption records for Ariel and her siblings. Now Hill is asking uncomfortable questions about the January 2024 death of 10-year-old Geanna Bradley, who was also allegedly tortured and starved to death by her adoptive parents.
In a bizarre twist, the Honolulu Star Advertiser has reported that the Kaluas have retained custody over Isabella’s three sisters, who were removed from the home in September 2021. But apparently the state of Hawaii hasn’t moved to terminate the parental rights of the Kaluas. A special master appointed to oversee the interests of Ariel’s sisters is concerned that the failure to terminate the rights of the Kaluas will interfere with efforts to find permanent families and educational opportunities for the girls. (And already has, I would think!)
The guaranteed income craze continues
At its February oversight hearing, the Director of the District of Columbia Child and Family Services Agency announced a forthcoming grant from the Doris Duke Foundation to a guaranteed income for some low-income families. The announcement was greeted with congratulations from the Council Chair who referenced the great results from the recent Strong Families, Strong Futures pilot, which provided 132 new and expecting mothers with $10,800 in the course of a year. I don’t know where she got her information. An article in the Washington Post reported on interviews with three of the mothers participating in the pilot. One of the mothers took the money as a lump sum. Setting aside about $5,000 for essential expenses, she used the remaining money on a $6,000 trip to Miami preceded by the purchase of new clothes, shoes, gadgets and toys for all of her three children and a $180 hair and nails treatment for herself. Another mother decided to spend $525 on a birthday party for her one-year-old, who clearly couldn’t appreciate it. Program coordinators said that the mothers reported spending most of their funds on needs such as housing, food and transportation. But I’m not sure how I feel as a DC taxpayer to see my money spent in ways that I personally find wasteful, nor am I sure that allowing such spending provides appropriate training in how to budget scarce resources. Such no-strings-attached money giveaways might not be the best use of taxpayer money, even if foundations choose to support it.
And the prize for cynical use of data goes to….
Kentucky! The State’s Cabinet for Health and Family Services (CHFS) is crowing about Kentucky’s drop from the highest rate of child maltreatment “victimization” to number 13 among the 50 states and the District of Columbia. In a statement reported by Spectrum News1, CHFS said this improvement “demonstrates the efforts made by the Department for Community Based Services and its many partners to increase the provision of child welfare prevention services and reduce child abuse and neglect within the Commonwealth.” But child advocates and family court judges are not convinced, citing a longstanding problem with hotline workers screening out cases that should be investigated–exacerbated by the adoption of an actuarial screening tool at the hotline in April 2022. The report quotes two family court judges and a CASA program director who linked child deaths to the failure to investigate prior reports involving the same families. According to one judge, “The alarm has to be sounded because I’m not joking when I say children are perishing in the state of Kentucky because of this ‘Structured Decision Making’ tool….'” The judges are right. One has only to look at Kentucky’s commentary in the Children’s Bureau’s report, Child Maltreatment 2022.
An overall decrease for child victims was observed between FFY 2021 and FFY 2022. Kentucky has worked diligently over the past several years to implement a safety model which includes the implementation of SDM® Intake Assessment Tool and a thorough review and modification of the state’s acceptance criteria to ensure a focus upon children and families with true safety threats versus risk factors. This shift in the approach to the work may have contributed to the decrease in child victims this year.
Children’s Bureau, Child Maltreatment 2022, p. 13
In other words, they changed the screening criteria to screen out more cases and voilà! Fewer child victims! Amazing! The percentage of referrals that was screened in decreased from 45.5 percent in 2021 to 39.9 percent in 2022, and the maltreatment substantiation rate decreased from 14.9 to 12.3 per thousand children during the same period. But both of these rates have been decreasing since FFY 2018, so more factors than the new screening tool are likely responsible. It’s unlikely that a decrease in actual maltreatment is among them.
The placement and workforce crises continue
Every month brings another crop of articles on the intertwined placement and workforce shortages plaguing child welfare. February’s news on the placement crisis included a story from Texas Public Radio reporting on the release of hundreds of incident reports about “Children Without Placements” in the state from 2021 to 2023. They include stories of children squaring off to fight each other in the hallway of a Houston hotel that resulted in the hospitalization of one youth. These incidents, occurring at a rate of about two a day, often involved injured staff, injured youth, and calls to police.
In a state that requires some social workers to supervise youths in hotels and other unlicensed placements, its not surprising that about one in four caseworkers left the job in January, according to the head of the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS). And even workers who don’t have to supervise unruly youths are dealing with untenable caseloads and terrible working conditions. Some states are taking action to attract and retain workers. The Governor of Maine announced a series of three one-time lump-sum payments of $1,000 to recruit and retain child welfare workers. Let us hope it is enough to reduce the state’s high caseloads.
And now for some good news: efforts to keep siblings together
It’s always nice to read about people who see a need and create a program to meet it. February brought news of two new “foster care villages” to house larger sibling groups, an idea I have promoted in the past. In California, the actor Christian Bale achieved a dream he has nurtured for 16 years–breaking ground on Together California, a new foster home community in Palmdale, Los Angeles County. The project will include a dozen foster homes built to accommodate up to six siblings and staffed by full time, professional foster parents. A 7,000-square foot community center will offer academic, therapeutic, social, and recreational activities for young people in the foster homes and the surrounding community, which is very short on such resources.
In South Carolina, a new foster care “village” called Thornwell is transforming old houses built about 100 years ago to house foster families and large sibling groups. Two homes are in use, a third is under renovation and more homes await renovation provided the funds and parents can be found. Foster parents will pay one dollar of rent per month and receive free utilities. Children will be eligible for Thornwell’s early learning center, charter school, and recreational facilities. Here’s hoping for more programs like Together California and Thornwell!
“Child Maltreatment Victims Have Decreased for the Past Five Years to a New Low,” proclaimed the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) as it released Child Maltreatment 2022, its long-awaited annual compendium of child maltreatment data shared by the states. Contrary to the headline, the report says nothing about the actual incidence of child abuse and neglect. It does show that in Federal Fiscal Year 2022, calls to child protective services hotlines almost rebounded to pre-pandemic levels. But the number of investigations and assessments that CPS undertook in response to these calls did not bounce back as much as calls, and states are confirming even fewer allegations of maltreatment as they did in FFY 2021 and 2022. Moreover, child fatalities are up for the fifth year in a row. Some of the most striking and interesting results are discussed below, though this is not an exhaustive summary of the report’s contents.
Referrals and Reports
The annual Child Maltreatment reports, produced by the Children’s Bureau of ACF are based on data that states submit to the National Child Abuse and Neglect (NCANDS) data system, and this latest report concerns Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2022, which ended on September 30, 2022. NCANDS uses the term “referrals” to connote contacts to child protective services (CPS) hotlines. In 2020, the number of referrals dropped sharply as schools closed and children vanished into their homes. In FY 2021, with some opening of schools and society, the referral rate rose slightly but was still much less than in FFY 2019. But in FFY 2022, the referral rate bounced back to 58.6 per 1,000 children, bringing it close to the rate of 59.7 per 1,000 in FFY 2019. Some states mentioned in their commentaries that the pandemic continued to suppress referrals somewhat in FFY 2022, which began in October 2021. That fall and winter in particular, there were still temporary school building closures and increases in absenteeism due to big waves of infection. This continued pandemic effect may help explain the failure of referrals to reach their 2019 level.
Source: Child Maltreatment 2022
As usual, the state-by-state tables document huge differences in referral rates, from 21.1 per 1,000 children in Hawaii to 180.7 per 1,000 in Vermont. Vermont reports in its commentary that its very high referral rate reflects that the state counts all calls to the hotline as referrals, suggesting that most states do not do so. And indeed, Connecticut and Alabama report that none of the calls that are assigned to alternative response are included in NCANDS, resulting in a far lower number of calls than the number they actually receive. Louisiana reports that some referrals are neither screened out nor accepted; these are calls related to open investigations or in-home or out-of-home service cases; it appears that these are not counted as referrals at all. These inconsistencies between states make it difficult to interpret state-by-state differences in referral rates.
Once a state agency receives a referral, it will be screened in or out by hotline staff. In general, referrals are screened out if they are deemed not to contain an allegation of child abuse or neglect, contain too little information to act on, are more appropriately assigned to another agency, or for some other reason do not fall under the mandate of the child welfare agency. In NCANDS, a referral becomes a “report” once it is screened in, and it then is assigned for an investigation or alternative response. The 47 jurisdictions that reported both screened-in and screened-out referrals collectively reported screening in 49.5 percent of referrals and screening out 50.5 percent. The national screened-in referral rate was 29.0 per 1,000 children, an increase of one percentage point from the rate in FFY 2021. In that year, as shown in Child Maltreatment 2021, the 46 states reporting screened in 51.5 percent of referrals and screened out 48.5 percent. So as the number of referrals increased, it appears that the states screened in a lower percentage of them.
State by state differences in the percentage of referrals that are screened in were vast; ranging from 16.9 percent of referrals to 98.7 percent in Alabama. But as discussed above, differences in which calls are reported in NCANDS will affect these percentages, making the data hard to interpret. Some of the very high rates reported, such as the 98.7 percent for Alabama, and Texas’s reported 84.5 percent, are hard to understand.
Indiana’s commentary provides an example of how a state can purposely reduce its screen-in rate. The state reported that the Department of Children’s Services “partnered with the Capacity Building Center for States as well as ran internal events targeted at reducing our screen-in rate.” Added to the types of allegations to be screened out during FFY 2021 were “sexting concerns among adolescents,” “pre-adolescent children exhibiting potentially sexually maladaptive behaviors,” and “educational neglect.” Some child advocates might be concerned about excluding these types of allegations, as all of them could indicate serious problems in the home, and the exclusion of educational neglect is particularly surprising. Perhaps the changed screening guidelines are one reason the number of Indiana children receiving an investigation or alternative response fell from 139,343 in 2020 to to 123,644 in 2022, a decrease of 11.6 percent.
Screened-in Referrals by Referral Source
Before the pandemic, teachers were the most common source of screened-in referrals, submitting 21 percent of all referrals that were screened in in FFY 2019. They lost that position in FFY 2020 with the pandemic school closures, while legal and law enforcement personnel increased their share of reports. It is not surprising that teachers did not recoup their leading role in 2021, since many students were still attending school virtually for some part of the year. But even in 2022, legal and law enforcement personnel still submitted slightly more screened-in referrals than education personnel–21.2 percent of screened-in referrals compared to 20.7 percent for education personnel. Medical personnel submitted 11.2 percent of referrals and social services personnel 9.8 percent. Because these data are available only for referrals that are screened in, they reflect both the number of referrals each group submits and the extent to which they are screened in. It seems likely that teachers submit more referrals than law enforcement but that their referrals are more likely to be screened out.
Source: Child Maltreatment 2022
Child Disposition Rates: The “Footprint” of CPS
In every state, screened-in reports may receive an investigation, which results in a determination (or disposition) about whether or not maltreatment has taken place. Some states assign some reports (often those deemed to be lower risk) to an alternative track (often called “alternative response” or “family assessment”) that does not result in a formal disposition as to whether maltreatment occurred and who was the perpetrator. ACF calls the proportion of children receiving either an investigation or an alternative response the “child disposition rate.” This is an important indicator, because it can be seen as a measure of the “footprint” of CPS–the number of children it actually touches.
For FFY 2022, an estimated 3,096,101 children, or 42.4 per 1,000 children, received an investigation or alternative response, as shown in Exhibit S-1 of the report, reproduced above. That rate has dropped 12.7 percent since FFY 2018. Not surprisingly, the biggest drop was during the pandemic, but it dropped again in 2021 and rose by only one percentage point from 41.4 in FFY 2022, remaining significantly lower than before the pandemic.
The diversity in child disposition rates across states is striking. Disregarding the 15.0 in Pennsylvania, which excludes most neglect cases from NCANDS,1 this rate ranges from a low of 17.1 per 1,000 children in Maryland to a chilling 131.3 in West Virginia (over one out of 10 children!). The opioid crisis and its catastrophic effects on children in West Virginia has received considerable media attention. It is worth noting that West Virginia’s child disposition rate has decreased from 143.2 in FFY 2018. Below West Virginia, Arkansas and Indiana have similar child disposition rates of 79.9 and 78.8 respectively, far above the next group of states at about 66. The five states with the lowest child welfare “footprint,” (other than Pennsylvania) are Maryland, Hawaii, South Dakota, Connecticut and Louisiana.
Some states or jurisdictions, including Alaska, Arizona, the District of Columbia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Montana, North Dakota, Rhode Island, and South Carolina, had very large decreases in their disposition rates between FFY 2021 and FFY 2022. These may reflect purposeful policy changes to reduce the role of child welfare (such as Indiana’s addition of categories to be screened out), but it may also affect other factors such as the workforce crisis that is affecting child welfare in most states.
CPS Workforce Data and Child Disposition Rates
Child Maltreatment 2022 also provides interesting data on state child welfare workforces although the quality of the data is impossible to assess. Table 2-4 of the report provides the CPS caseload, which is obtained by dividing the number of intake, screening, investigation and alternative response workers by the number of “completed reports,” meaning reports with a disposition. That is not a very meaningful number, because it leaves out all the alternative response cases, while the workers who handle these cases are included in the numerator. In order to get a better sense of the number of children seen by each worker, I divided the number of children receiving an investigation or alternative response by the number of workers in the 20 states with the highest populations, minus the four states that did not provide workforce numbers–Florida, Georgia, New York and Ohio, as well as Pennsylvania.1
Among the 15 states in the table below, there is a staggering variation in the number of children per worker, which ranged from 21.1 in Wisconsin to 199.4 in Indiana. As child welfare commentator Dee Wilson explains in an unpublished analysis, “Differences of this magnitude develop over time when policymakers do not staff child welfare systems in accordance with workload standards.” We must also keep in mind that we do not know if the data are truly comparable between states.
Children Per Worker, FFY 2022
Source: Child Maltreatment 2022
“Victimization”
An investigation can result in a variety of dispositions, depending on the state. Most states use the term “substantiated” to indicate that the allegation was verified, but some states use another term, usually “indicated.” In NCANDS, a “victim” is defined as “a child for whom the state determined at least one maltreatment was substantiated or indicated; and a disposition of substantiated or indicated was assigned for a child in a report.” A reader might think the terms “victim” and “victimization” reflect the true number of children who experienced abuse or neglect. But there are many reasons they do not provide such a true count. Many cases of child maltreatment go unreported. Children assigned to alternative response will not be found to be victims unless their case is reassigned to the investigation track. And finally, substantiation is not an accurate reflection of whether maltreatment occurred. Adults can lie, children can lie, perhaps when coached by adults, the youngest children are nonverbal or not sufficiently articulate to explain what happened or didn’t, and making a determination of whether maltreatment occurred is difficult. So it is not surprising that research suggests that substantiation decisions are inaccurate2 and a report to the hotline predicts future maltreatment reports and developmental outcomes almost as well as a substantiated report.3 For all of these reasons, it is widely recognized that the number of children estimated to be victims of maltreatment is likely an underestimate. And over time, events such as the coronavirus pandemic or changes in state policies can be confounded (innocently or cynically) with actual changes in child maltreatment victimization. For that reason I generally put quotes around “victimization” or replace it with “substantiation,” and use the terms “substantiated victims” or “children found to be victims of maltreatment” instead of “victims.”
The 2022 report provides an estimate of 558,899 substantiated victims of maltreatment, or 7.7 per 1,000 children, down from 8.2 in FFY 2021. States differed greatly in the “victimization rates” that they found in FFY 2022. Of course these differences can stem from the factors mentioned above, as well as from actual maltreatment. The number of substantiated victims per 1,000 children ranged from 1.6 in New Jersey to 16.5 in Massachusetts. We know that New Jersey has been intent on reducing CPS involvement in the lives of families, no doubt encouraged by its effort to exit a class action suit monitored by the Center for the Study of Social Policy, one of the founders of the upEND movement to abolish child welfare. So its low victimization rate is not surprising (An article by Sarah Font and Naomi Schaefer Riley discusses the New Jersey experience in more detail.) New Jersey’s “victimization” rate has dropped by more than half since FFY 2018.
The number of children found to be victims of maltreatment has declined every year since FFY 2018. The change in state “victimization rates” between FFY 2018 and FFY 2022 ranged from a 48 percent decrease in Kentucky to a 14.5 percent increase in Nevada over those five years. Many things could explain these changes other than an actual change in maltreatment, including policy changes made by state legislatures or agencies. Two of the largest states made it more difficult to substantiate maltreatment in FFY 2022, and both found a decline in the number of maltreatment victims. In Texas, the legislature narrowed the definition of neglect, requiring the existence of both “blatant disregard” for the consequences of a parent’s action or inaction and either a “resulting harm or immediate danger.” Perhaps this helps account for the drop in the number of substantiated victims from 65,253 to 54,207. In New York, the level of evidence required to substantiate an allegation of abuse or neglect was changed from “some credible evidence” to “a fair preponderance of the evidence.” The number of victims found in New York dropped from 56,760 to 50,056. States reported other reasons for changes in their rates of “victimization,” including changes in the use of alternative response, new screening and intake tools, reduction in investigation backlogs, and the continued effects of the pandemic.
It is instructive to look at the changes in the number of referrals, screened-in referrals, child disposition rates, and child “victimization rates” between FFY 2021 and FFY 2022, as the nation came out of the pandemic. Thinking about the process as a funnel starting with referrals and ending with victims, we can see that the effect of the increased referrals is further attenuated at each stage. While the number of referrals increased from 4,010,000 to 4,276,000, an increase of 6.6 percent, the number of screened in referrals increased only 3.3 percent. The number of children receiving an investigation or alternative response increased by only 2.0 percent. And the number of children substantiated as victims decreased by a whopping 7.2 percent. It’s just another way of describing what we have already seen–that the child welfare system’s response is not keeping up with the public’s renewed reporting activity.
Source: Child Maltreatment 2022 and author’s calculations
Demographics and “Victimization”
Younger children are more likely to be substantiated as maltreatment victims. The likelihood of being a substantiated victim of maltreatment is is more than twice as high for an infant younger than one than for a two-year-old, and drops a bit with every one-year increase in age. Girls are more likely to be substantiated as victims than boys, with a rate of 8.2 per 1,000 children, compared to 7.1 for boys. This is probably related to sexual abuse; girls are the overwhelming majority of victims of substantiated sexual abuse, as shown in Exhibit 7-F of the report.
In terms of race and ethnicity, American Indiana and Alaska Native children had the highest rate of substantiation as a victims, at 14.3 per 100,000 children, followed by Black or African-American children with a rate of 12.1 per 100,000 children. The rate for Hispanic children was 7.0 per 100,000 and for White children it was 6.6 per 100,000. Again, the number of substantiated victims is not equal to the number of actual victims. These rates reflect the extent to which these children are reported to CPS, the referrals are screened in, and they are substantiated. If, as many assert, there is systematic bias affecting referral, screening, and investigation, then the total number substantiated will also reflect that bias.
Victimization Rate per 1,000 children by Race and Ethnicity, FFY 2022
American Indian/Alaska Native: 14.3
Asian: 1.3
Black or African-American:12.1
Hispanic: 7.0
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander: 9.3
Two or more races: 9.4
White: 6.6
The claim that these rates are biased has resulted in a movement to eliminate racial disproportionality in child welfare or even to eliminate child welfare itself, as promulgated by the upEND Movement. However, evidence confirms that the Black-White difference in substantiation rates is actually less than the disparities in other indicators of child risk and adversity. A group of prominent child welfare researchers led by Brett Drake estimated the “expected rate” of being reported to CPS, using several categories of risk and harm that are known to be highly correlated with the risk of child abuse and neglect, such as poverty, single-parent families, teen birth rate, very low birth weight, and homicide. Drake et al. reported that the disparity in all the measures of risk, and in all of the measures of harm except accidental deaths, were greater than the disparity for CPS reports, as measured by NCANDS. In other words, there was a greater disparity in risk and harm to Black children compared with White children than there was in CPS reporting. Thus, given their likelihood of being abused or neglected, Black children appear to be reported to CPS less than White children, not more. And even when adjusted to account for confounding factors, Black children are less likely to be substantiated (and placed in foster care) than White children. So if anything, the “victimization rates” provided in CM 2022 may underestimate the true disparities in child maltreatment substantiation of Black and White children.
CM 2022 also provides information on the number of substantiated victims with different maltreatment types. Three-quarters of the substantiated victims, or 74.3 percent, were found to have experienced neglect, 17 percent physical abuse, 10.6 percent sexual abuse, 0.2 percent sex trafficking, and another 3.4 percent another type of maltreatment. (These percentages add up to more than 100 because some children were found to be victims of more than one type of maltreatment during the year.) As shown in Table 3-9 of the report, some states diverged from the pattern that substantiated allegations are for neglect–and instead found more (or almost as many) children to be physically abused than neglected. These states include West Virginia, where 76.2 percent of substantiated victims were found to have suffered physical abuse; Vermont, (58.6 percent); Tennessee (51.8 percent), Alabama (53.5 percent), South Carolina (47.5 percent), and Ohio, with 46.6 percent.5 Corporal punishment often opens the door to physical abuse, some of these states are in regions where corporal punishment is known to be more prevalent. But the absence of Mississippi on this list (with only 16.0 percent of victims substantiated for abuse) and the presence of Vermont are surprising. Perhaps liberal Vermont is simply reluctant to find neglect in cases associated with poverty; only three percent of its victims were found to be neglected. And perhaps in Mississippi, a state that allows corporal punishment in the schools, the standard for finding abuse is may be high.
Substantiation by Reporting Source
Chapter 7 of CM 2022 contains an interesting table plotting the number of substantiations for each reporting source. We have seen that legal and law enforcement personnel made only slightly more screened-in reports than education personnel in FFY 2022: Table 7-3 of the report shows that each group made approximately 21 percent of the reports that were screened in. Yet the reports made by law enforcement personnel accounted for 38 percent of the substantiated victims, and the reports of educators accounted for only 11 percent of the substantiated victims. So reports from law enforcement personnel were over three times more likely to be substantiated than reports from teachers. Medical personnel did better but not quite as well as the police: they made 11 percent of screened-in reports, which accounted for 13 percent of substantiated victims. An analysis by The Imprint shows that social services personnel have a slightly higher share of substantiated reports than of total reports, while nonprofessionals have a substantially lower share. The data align with increasing criticisms of teachers as making too many reports that do not rise to the level or abuse or neglect. Whether that is true, or whether reports from teachers are automatically devalued because of their source, cannot be ascertained from this information.
Fatalities Continued to Increase
CM 2022 reports an estimated increase in child maltreatment fatalities for the fifth consecutive year. The report provides a national estimate of 1,990 children who died of abuse or neglect in FFY 2022 at a rate of 2.73 per 100,000 children in the population. That number has increased every year since 2018, and the 2022 estimate is a 12.7 percent increase over the estimate from 2018. The increase in child fatalities started before 2018; Child Maltreatment 2017 reported an 11 percent increase in child fatalities from 1,550 in FFY 2013 to 1,720 in FFY 2017. That amounts to a 28 percent increase between FFY 2013 and FFY 2022.
Source: Child Maltreatment, 2022
There are many caveats to be made about year-to-year comparisons of child fatalities. First, there is nearly universal agreement among experts that the annual estimates of child fatalities from NCANDS dramatically undercount the true number of deaths that are due to child maltreatment. As CM 2022 states, some child deaths may not come to the attention of CPS at all. That can happen if nobody makes a report, perhaps because there are no surviving children in the family, or if the family is not already involved with CPS. For this reason the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act (P.L. 112-34) requires states to describe in their state plans all the sources used to compile information on child maltreatment deaths, and to the extent that information from state vital statistics departments, child death review teams, law enforcement agencies and medical examiners or coroners is not included in that description, to explain why that information is not included and how it will be included. Most states that comment on fatalities report using at least some of these sources, but the extent to which they are capturing actual fatalities is unclear. Only Virginia reports that it does not collect child fatality data from external sources.
Second, the fatalities reported in the 2022 report did not all occur in 2022. The report explains that child fatalities reported in CM 2022 are generally those that were determined to be due to maltreatment in 2022, not those that actually occurred during 2022. That is because It may take more than a year to find out about a fatality, gather the evidence (such as autopsy results and police investigations) to determine whether it was due to maltreatment, and then make the detrmination. Some states report that the deaths they reported may have occurred as long as five years before 2022. However, each state has its own way of determining which fatalities to report. California, for example, explains that the fatalities reported in the 2022 report were actually fatalities that occurred in FFY 2021 and were known to the state by December 2021, meaning that the estimate is truncated.
The meaning of the increasing fatalities is not obvious. Just like “victimization,” the classification of a death as a maltreatment fatality depends upon whether the fatality was even reported to the child welfare agency as well as whether the correct decision was made to substantiate the fatality as due to maltreatment. As mentioned above, states are supposed to gather the information about fatalities from other sources like medical examiners, but the extent to which they are receiving this information, and the extent to which these other sources are identifying maltreatment, is unclear.6
From the explanations that some states provided in their commentaries, it appears that annual maltreatment fatality counts can reflect a variety of factors. Year-to-year changes are often attributed to random fluctuations due to small numbers or timing issues. In their commentaries, states often explained a year-to-year jump by explaining that many children in one family died, or or that a large group of fatalities that occurred the previous year were reported in the current year.
Some states reported on societal issues that have contributed to increasing child fatalities over time. For example, Washington’s commentary suggests that the opioid crisis has contributed to its increase in fatalities from 19 in FFY 2021 to 31 in FFY 2022. The state reports that between FFY 2021 and FFY 202 the percentage of child fatalities in the state that were due to opioid ingestion or overdose rose from less than one percent to 23 percent of child fatalities. Of the deaths and near-fatalities that qualified for a review because they occurred in families touched by the system in the previous year, that percentage jumped from 28 to 44 percent. Ohio reported that it attributes the increase in child fatalities to an increase in the overall death rate due to violence. Other states commented on the type of deaths that have increased, such as unsafe sleep coexisting with substance abuse.
Changes in how maltreatment fatalities are defined can also affect fatality counts, and in the case of Texas, the change resulted in a decrease in child fatalities from 206 in FFY 2021 to 176 in FFY 2022. Specifically, Texas attributes this decrease to the new law that makes the definition of neglect more stringent. Considering that the new law requires both “reckless disregard” of the consequences of parental action or inaction and actual harm, and given that death is certainly harm, this suggests that those investigating the deaths did not consider that the parents or caregivers exhibited such reckless disregard. Texas reports that deaths from unsafe sleep, drowning, and vehicle-related fatalities declined in FFY 2022 under the new definition of neglect.
Some states attribute increases in reported fatalities to improvements in the accuracy with which they report child fatalities. Commentaries from states that experienced an increase in child maltreatment fatalities in recent CM reports include accounts of their improvements in their ability to identify such deaths. These included several states that reported an increased awareness of unsafe sleep practices and hot car deaths resulting in more reports involving these cases, the creation of a Special Investigation Unit that investigates child fatalities to determine whether they are due to maltreatment (Mississippi); requiring mandated reporters participating on child fatality review boards to report suspected maltreatment fatalities to the local child welfare agency (Ohio); the development of capability to track fatalities at report, during investigation, or in care (Maine); ensuring that documentation of deaths is included in the states CCWIS system (Maryland); increased training of staff and partners on reporting child fatalities (Texas); and implementation of death review panels (Arkansas). Therefore, it is not possible to determine the extent to which the increase in reported child maltreatment fatalities reflects better identification, more maltreatment deaths, or a combination of the two.
Demographics and child maltreatment fatalities
Infants under a year old are more than three times more likely to die of maltreatment than one-year-olds, and the fatality rate generally decreases with age. In contrast to the different rates of substantiated abuse or neglect, boys have a higher maltreatment fatality rate (3.26 per 100,000 boys) than girls (2.25 per 100,000). Black children have by far the highest fatality rate of all the groups for whom information was available; 6.37 per 100,000 black children died of substantiated maltreatment, compared to 3.37 for American Indian or Native American children, 1.99 for White children, and 1.68 for Hispanic children. The maltreatment fatality rate for Black children is over three times as high than the rate for White children, a difference that is even more stark than the difference in the “victimization rate,: which is twice as high for Black children than for White children.
Source: Child Maltreatment 2022
The question of bias has to be addressed again when talking about fatalities from maltreatment. It is theoretically possible that racial bias could play a role in whether a fatality is substantiated as maltreatment. But it is likely that there is less opportunity for bias when it comes to fatalities, as the fact that harm was done cannot be disputed even if the parent’s role may be unclear. Drake et al. found that in 2019 indicators of risk and harm for Black children are usually between two and three times greater than those for White children, while the Black-White homicide disparity was four times as great as that for White children. So while we cannot rule out any role for bias, it is unlikely to be the main cause of the disparities in child maltreatment fatalities.
The data showed that most of the perpetrators of child fatalities were caregivers; more than 80 percent of child fatalities involved “one or more parents acting alone, together, or with other individuals.” NCANDS does not collect the official cause of death, but it does ask for the type of maltreatment that was substantiated in each fatality. Thus, one child can be found to have suffered more than one type of maltreatment, though it is not clear that each maltreatment type that was substantiated must have contributed to the fatality. Over three quarters (76.4 percent) of the children who died were found to have suffered from neglect, and 42.1 percent were found to have endured physical abuse.
It is worth noting that CM 2022 was originally released on or about January 8 without a press release and then disappeared from the internet for about three weeks. It is hard to avoid speculating about the reasons for the removal of CM 2022 and then its publication several weeks later. Could it be that officials were trying to figure out how to spin the five years of increase in fatalities? When the press release finally appeared along with the restored report, ACF had elected to basically recycle last years headline, New Child Maltreatment Report Finds Child Abuse and Neglect Decreased to a Five-Year Low. Once again, the press release failed to explain that victimization is not actual maltreatment. It did mention the increase in child maltreatment fatalities and, surprisingly, did not raise the possibility that better measurement contributed to this increase, which might have helped their case.
In the press release, Children’s Bureau Associate Commissioner Aysha Schomberg is quoted as encouraging “agencies to pay particular attention to data in this report that is disaggregated by race.” There is something perplexing about this suggestion. Paying attention to race means observing the stark disparities in child maltreatment “victimization” and fatal child maltreatment, between White children and Black and Native American children. ACF and its allies at Casey Family Programs, the Center for the Study of Social Policy and other like-minded organizations typically argue that these disparities are not due to different rates of maltreatment but to racial bias built into the system. But ACF’s press release accepts these “victimization” rates as a true indicator of child maltreatment, which suggests that the racial disparities in child maltreatment are real. And if that is indeed the case, as I believe it is, isn’t the right answer to protect Black and Native American children through a stronger and better-functioning CPS, rather than trying to weaken or abolish it?
ACF’s Communications team’s misuse of the term “victimization” to suggest that maltreatment is declining is disappointing in a government agency with a responsibility to inform the public. We will never get an accurate measure of child maltreatment because so much of it occurs behind closed doors. So what is the real meaning of CM 2022? The failure of the child disposition rate to keep up with the increase in reports suggests a decreasing response by child welfare to reports of maltreatment, with the slight uptick after the pandemic disguising a downward secular trend over the entire period. The continuing decline in substantiations despite the increase in referrals, while not indicative of declining maltreatment, shows even more clearly how child welfare systems are seeking to reduce their involvement with families. Could the increase in child fatalities be the consequence of this reduced involvement? It is possible, but the improvement of fatality reporting in some states makes it impossible to answer this question definitively.
Notes
In Pennsylvania, referrals that involve non-serious injuries or neglect are assigned to General Protective Services (GPS), and information on these cases is not reported in NCANDS.
Theodore Cross and Cecilia Casanueva, “Caseworker Judgments and Substantiation,” Child Maltreatment, 14, 1 (2009): 38-52; Desmond K. Runyan et al, “Describing Maltreatment: Do child protective services reports and research definitions agree?” Child Abuse and Neglect 29 (2005): 461-477; Brett Drake, “Unraveling ‘Unsubstantiated,'” Child Maltreatment, August 1996; and Amy M. Smith Slep and Richard E. Heyman, “Creating and Field-Testing Child Maltreatment Definitions: Improving the Reliability of Substantiation Determinations,” Child Maltreatment, 11, 3 (August 2006): 217-236.
Brett Drake, Melissa Jonson-Reid, Ineke Wy and Silke Chung, “Substantiation and Recidivism,” Child Maltreatment 8,4 (2003): 248-260; Jon M. Hussey et al., “Defining maltreatment according to substantiation: Distinction without a difference?” Child Abuse and Neglect 29 (2005): 479-492; Patricia L. Kohl, Melissa Jonson-Reid, and Brett Drake, “Time to Leave Substantiation Behind: Findings from a National Probability Study,” Child Maltreatment, 14 (2009), 17-26; Jeffrey Leiter, Kristen A. Myers, and Matthew T. Zingraff, “Substantiated and unsubstantiated cases of child maltreatment: do their consequences differ?” Social Work Research 18 (1994): 67-82; and Diana J. English et al, “Causes and Consequences of the Substantiation Decision in Washington State Child Protective Services,” Children and Youth Services Review, 24, 11 (2002): 817-851.
The ideal numerator would be the duplicated count of children who received and investigation or alternative response, because even if one child is investigated five times, each investigation needs to be counted. But CM 2022 does not provide that number, and I am assuming that there won’t be enormous differences in repeat responses by state.
Pennsylvania also has a high percentage of abuse findings but that reflects the fact that it does not report General Protective Services cases in NCANDS.
Each state submits both a child and an agency file. The Child File contains case-level data on reports that resulted in a disposition in the reporting year. The Agency File contains data that are not reportable at the child-specific level and often gathered from agencies external to CPS, like medical examiners vital statistics departments and child fatality review teams. Child fatalities can be included in the Child File, which means the entire record of the case from report to disposition is included (as well as any previous cases) or it can be included only as part of the aggregate total in the agency file. States must report as part of the Agency File the total number of victims who were not reported in the Child File, so that those that were reported are not double-counted.
By Antonio R. Garcia, Jill Duerr Berrick, Melissa Jonson-Reid, Richard P. Barth, John R. Gyourko, Patricia Kohl, Johanna K.P. Greeson, Brett Drake, and Victoria Cook
A note from Child Welfare Monitor (CWM): CWM welcomes submissions from authors who represent points of view that are more evidence-based and child-centered than what is typically presented by leading media outlets and other child welfare publications. We are privileged to share this commentary from an illustrious group of child welfare scholars from schools of social work and social policy around the country. While this essay does not mirror the views of CWM in every detail, we share the authors’ basic premise regarding the need to reform, rather than abolish, the child welfare system.
Over the past couple of years, while teaching classes, presenting lectures, or offering invited talks and workshops, students and participants have inquired about the need to abolish the child welfare system. Some have questioned whether they should continue their pursuit of a career in this field. They are aware of the growing calls by abolition advocates, particularly UpEND and JMac for Families, to completely eradicate child welfare services, despite offering no evidence as to its likely impact on child safety or permanency.
Abolition advocates have successfully convinced a few scholars, an unknown number of students, and a surprising number of community members and decision-makers that child protective services must be eliminated. Acting on briefs supplied only by activist groups, the United Nations has even called for all major child welfare laws in the United States to be repealed or replaced.
Why? The narrative built by the abolitionists includes two major parts: First, classist and racist bias largely determines who has contact with the child welfare system, with poor children as well as Black and Native American children being routinely and unnecessarily harassed. The resounding narrative–largely offered by lawyers, not child welfare scientists–is that the interventions and intentions of child welfare services and its staff are inherently racist (e.g., Roberts, 2022). Some child maltreatment scholars (e.g., Briggs et al., 2023) have even gone so far as to reiterate Roberts’ claim that the modern child welfare system (CWS) was intentionally designed as a mechanism of racial oppression. This conclusion flies in the face of history as documented child welfare historians (e.g., Myers, 2004). Purveyors of this narrative ignore efforts like those of pioneering African American women pursuing the development of child welfare facilities for African American children who were routinely insufficiently served by family and community (Peebles-Wilkins, 1996); they fail to mention the work of the Children’s Defense Fund, and a diverse coalition of policymakers, who helped to shape the modern CWS through their work to expand family preservation and support services. Nor do they acknowledge that the Title IVE program was, in part, explicitly developed to extend equal protections to Black children (Hutchinson & Sudia, 2002).
Second, those who denigrate child welfare services argue that CWS interventions do more net harm than good, and for that reason should be abolished. Child welfare services are said to sever familial connections (Roberts, 2022), and unjustifiably surveil children and families (Gruber, 2023). To that end, they argue that the best way to protect children and families is to abolish the current system and replace it with family and community-based responses (Kelly, 2021). This proposed alternative to CPS is remarkable for the degree to which it is vague and undefined. Nothing approaching a concrete plan for such a system has ever been suggested to our knowledge. Given the historical lessons of relegating unwanted or abused children to orphanages, orphan trains, indenture, or detention centers, it is difficult to point to an example of American communities fully embracing the care of children whose parents are unable to care for them.
The abolition movement sidelines any past record of successful reforms of child welfare or hope for future evidence-based or incremental change. Anxious, perhaps, that reforms have been uneven or too slow, the proponents of abolition do not suggest improving the complex and intricate web of local, state, and national child welfare policies that have been developed over the last 40 years. Critically, their proposals have no evidence base. Instead, they rely on ideology that disregards the best available evidence (Barth et al., 2020).
The degree to which the abolition narrative is taken seriously is troubling. Child safety is contingent upon training qualified professionals to respond to signs of abuse and neglect – and ensuring institutions have the resources to recruit and support them. Tuition is covered for many social work students if they agree to “repay” their time by working for the state’s child welfare system after graduation. The premise is to promote and retain a highly educated, culturally responsive child welfare workforce and prepare them to rely upon critical thinking skills and the best available evidence to promote child safety and permanency. With many states facing unheard-of staff shortages following the pandemic, the additional decrease in interest in the field is distressing.
1) receiving and responding to community signals about risk or harm to children;
(2) assessment of need coupled with a proportionate response;
(3) rights protections to ensure fairness and equity when placement outside the family is required; and
(4) procedures for accountability and quality improvement.
Without these key elements, we contend that children will be left in peril. Many community members will not know how to respond to signs of risk and harm to children. The progress we have made in the last few decades toward developing, implementing, and evaluating prevention and early intervention services to address trauma and promote healing will be disrupted. Supports for foster parents, kin, and child welfare staff will be disbanded. The elimination of court oversight will eliminate rights protections for parents, children, and extended family. Racial inequities in economic hardship will make it more challenging for communities of colorto develop responses, which will likely yield an even larger gap in unmet needs for children of color.
Still, many in our field are challenged by having to choose between abolition and reform. At the core of this debate, we are contending with the interplay of science, practice, ideological beliefs, and conflicting values. What types of evidence are or should be used to guide our decision-making? How do we best balance the support of families with a child’s need for safety without defending the status quo? Said another way, we see no reasonable likelihood that abolishing child welfare services would result in a world where families are better supported to provide care that is not injurious to their children and children are better protected from the harsh realities of child abuse, including fatalities.
The debate offers an opportunity to examine current practice and whether it advances the needs of vulnerable children and families. We underscore in our paper that current services and funding are inadequate. To that end, we delineate alternative pathways to abolition providing some practical, evidence-informed recommendations, including but not limited to the following:
Create a robust family support and prevention infrastructure outside of Child Protective Services (CPS);
Reduce poverty and financial hardships through universal basic income supports and targeted economic supports for families in great need;
Resume the child welfare waivers program to expand and test innovations in case finding and response to family needs; and
Continue to improve alternative systems for reporting less serious concerns and connecting families to existing resources to reduce the number of families who are subject to unwarranted CPS investigations.
As discussed in our paper, we believe implementing these recommendations offers a holistic roadmap for (1) improving outcomes for all children and families and (2) mitigating racial inequities in exposure to economic hardship and access to services and programs.
Although many jurisdictions have a long way to go in fully aligning practices with our valued principles, the child welfare system, on the whole, has made much headway. We have made progress toward reducing foster care entries, enhancing permanency, supporting youth who must emancipate from care, and developing alternative response paths for less severe cases. The number of children in foster care is now lower by more than 175,000 children than it was in 1991, despite population growth (US DHHS, 2022; US DHHS, 2000).
We have made advances in the development and implementation of evidence-based, and culturally appropriate parenting programs, and there are innovative approaches to screening and collaboration with other systems such as family drug courts and other models that are being adopted around the country. Research indicates that families are better served by caring and competent child welfare staff. At a minimum, this means we need trained child welfare professionals to determine if abuse or neglect are occurring and how best to provide services to mitigate risk factors. If removal to foster care is required, trained social work and legal professionals need to be engaged in reunification services and the determination if it’s safe for children to go home.
Finally, it is critical that these efforts are continuously evaluated. Abolition would end the now-routine national reporting of the number of victims of child maltreatment, and their characteristics (i.e., NCANDS; Children’s Bureau, 2023). We would not know if new family- and community-based approaches were helpful or harmful, particularly for the families of color for whom both reformists and abolitionists are concerned. State-level systems that track the provision of services and outcomes would also end, meaning that trends in family needs and gaps in response systems would likely go undetected. We would also lack data to influence policy to end harmful practices and expand funding for effective prevention and intervention services.
As we note, “it is difficult to imagine how eradicating the only structures that exist to address this issue [child maltreatment] would result in any outcome other than jeopardizing the safety and well-being of children as well as reducing accountability to the families that CWS [the child welfare system] serves.”
This is a contentious moment in the journey to create opportunities and healing for all children and families. We hope our message conveys a sense of urgency to engage in critical, evidence-informed practice and policy – and to reflect upon how values, biases, and morals can impact decision-making. The famous words of Nelson Mandela may be instructive: “There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children.” In efforts to enhance practice and policy, we need child welfare professionals to gain the skills, cultural humility, self-efficacy, and motivation to ensure children live lives free of violence and abuse. Policymakers need to stay grounded in the pathway that has led to significant improvements in child welfare services and rely on research-based reforms. Our children deserve nothing less.
References
Barth, R. P., Jonson-Reid, M., Greeson, J. K. P., Drake, B., Berrick, J. D., Garcia, A. R., Shaw, T., & Gyourko, J. R. (2020). Outcomes following child welfare services: What are they and do they differ for Black children?. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 14(5), 477-499. https://doi.org/10.1080/15548732.2020.1814541
Briggs, E., Hanson, R., Klika, J. B., LeBlanc, S., Maddux, J., Merritt, D., … & Barboza, G. (2023). Addressing systemic racism in the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children publications. Child maltreatment, 28(4), 550-555.
Children’s Bureau. (2023). National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/data-research/ncands
Gruber, T. (2023). Beyond mandated reporting: Debunking assumptions to support children and families. Abolitionist Perspectives in Social Work, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.52713/apsw.v1i1.12
Hutchinson, J.R. (2002). Failed child welfare policy: Family preservation and the orphaning of child welfare. Washington DC: Child Welfare League of America.
Kelly, L. (2021). Abolition or reform: Confronting the symbiotic relationship between ‘child welfare’ and the carceral state. Stanford Journal of Civil Rights & Civil Liberties, 17(2), 255–320. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/stjcrcl17&i=271
Peebles-Wilkins, W. (1996). Janie Porter Barrett and the Virginia Industrial School for Colored Girls: Community response to the needs of African American children. In E Smith and L Merkel-Holguin (Eds.), A history of child welfare. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.
Roberts, D. (2022). Torn apart: How the child welfare system destroys Black families, and how abolition can build a safer world. Basic Books.
U.S. DHHS. (2022). The AFCARS Report. Washington, D.C.: Administration for Children and Families.
U.S. DHHS. (2000). The AFCARS Report. Washington D.C.: Administration for Children and Families.
To my readers: This blog summarizes a report that is the culmination of nine months of work. It is part of my advocacy for children in the District of Columbia, which I share in my blog, Child Welfare Monitor DC. But I think this post and the underlying report will be of interest to child advocates, policymakers and researchers around the country because the findings and issues discussedare widely applicable.
“We are not here to save children.” That is what I was told on the first day of my training as a child protective services worker at the District of Columbia’s Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA). And indeed, the District is on the cutting edge of the current movement in child welfare around the country that considers child protective services as a “family policing system” that unnecessarily harasses and separates families, especially families of color. The problem with this perspective is that some families do not provide a safe environment for children to grow and develop. In some of these families, children die. That is what happened to the 16 children whose cases are discussed in a new report, which is summarized in this post. And indeed, analysis of the limited information provided suggests that CFSA did not take advantage of the opportunities it had to protect children even after long histories of CFSA involvement in their families. As a result, three children were beaten to death, three more were poisoned by opioids, and others died of burns, a car accident, and unknown causes when the deaths might have been preventable if the agency had been more protective.
When a child dies of abuse or neglect after that child’s family has been on the radar of the agency designed to protect children, it is important for the public to know whether and how this death could have been avoided. The essential question is whether the agency could have prevented the death by doing something differently. Did staff miss any red flags, and therefore fail to take action when necessary? If the death was preventable, what factors must be remedied in order to prevent such failures in the future? It is not enough for the agency itself to have access to this information, or to have an internal team review it. Agencies can fail to learn from their mistakes when they are blinded by ideology, self-interest or just inertia.
For those reasons, federal law requires every state to have a law or program that includes “provisions which allow for public disclosure of the findings or information about the case of child abuse or neglect which has resulted in a child fatality or near fatality.” In compliance with this requirement, DC Code requires the Mayor or the Director of CFSA, upon written request or on their own initiative, to provide findings and information related to “[t]he death of a child where the Chief Medical Examiner cannot rule out child abuse, neglect, or maltreatment as contributing to the cause of death.” In March 2023, we requested such findings and information for all the fatalities that met the criteria and were reviewed by CFSA’s internal fatality review team between 2019 and 2021. It took more than six months of meetings and emails to receive the information that is presented in this report. We agreed to restrict our request to cases reviewed in 2019, 2020 and 2021 and to withdraw our request for information on near-fatalities, which CFSA only began tracking in October, 2022.
Not surprisingly, CFSA interpreted the disclosure requirements in a way that restricted the information provided as much as possible. If a medical examiner did not rule the manner of death to be an abuse or neglect homicide or “undetermined,” no information was provided. Therefore, the agency did not release any information on cases where the manner of death was labeled as accidental, even if it found a parent responsible for the death or removed the children. The “accidental” deaths for which information was not provided included one child who died after he was left in a baby swing for two hours, which most ordinary people would consider to be neglect. The death of seven-week-old Kyon Jones, whose mother told police that she threw his body in a dumpster after she rolled over him while high on PCP, was not included because his body was never found and therefore it did not meet the criteria for release of the information–even though CFSA removed the surviving children from their mother.*
In addition to omitting some cases in which neglect or abuse played a role, CFSA heavily redacted the information it did provide, with many pages and large portions of others blacked out. CFSA refused to provide the names of the children, parents and caregivers, providing a rather convoluted interpretation of DC Code, which clearly requires the release of this information. (See the full report for more information about their reasoning). In three cases, the child’s identity was clear from media coverage of the case, and we used the child’s name. A major source of redactions was the exclusion of “personal or private information unrelated to the child fatality.” It appears that CFSA’s legal team interpreted this term much more broadly than a social worker or researcher would, because they redacted almost all information about parents’ history of criminal activity, substance abuse, mental illness, and domestic violence–which are obviously relevant to many of the fatalities we are discussing.
On investigations, it is unfortunate that DC Code requires that the agency release only ”a description of the conduct of the most recent investigation or assessment” rather than all investigations regarding the family in question. It appears that the agency interpreted “the most recent investigation” as the fatality investigation itself rather than the most recent investigation before the fatality, but the law ought to require a description of all previous investigations. The agency also disregarded language that requires it to provide “the basis for any finding of either abuse or neglect.”
For most cases, we received very little information aside from a list of the previous referrals (reports to the CPS hotline) including only the date of the report, the allegation category and the disposition; an account of in-home and foster care case activities for the families that had such cases; and an account of the investigation of the fatality itself. The information about the parents was heavily redacted, and almost the entire history of agency involvement was blacked out in most cases. Despite the limited information provided, the redacted summaries included some new information, some of which was startling and disturbing. The report is based on the 16 case summaries provided by CFSA, occasionally supplemented with information from the agency’s annual fatality reports, which are available to the public. These cases affected 15 families, as one family had two fatalities in one year. Unless otherwise noted, the information is based on the case summaries. The full report, from which this blog is excerpted, contains summaries of each case.
Cause and Manner of Death
CFSA classifies child deaths by cause and manner. “Cause of death” is the specific disease or injury that led to the death. Manner of death refers to the circumstances that caused the death, and falls into five categories: natural, accidental, suicide, homicide, and undetermined. Of the 16 cases for which information was provided by CFSA, three (19 percent) were abuse homicides, six (37 percent) were neglect homicides, and seven (44 percent) were undetermined in manner. The latter were the cases for which CFSA provided information because the Medical Examiner was unable to rule out child abuse or neglect homicide as the manner of death.
The most common causes of death were blunt-force trauma and opioid poisoning, each claiming the lives of three children, as shown in figure below. The remaining children died from a variety of causes, including drowning, asphyxia, thermal and scald injuries, injuries from a car accident, and unknown causes.
Abuse deaths: Blunt Force Trauma
Three of the children died of blunt force trauma–one of the two most common causes of death in the sample. The murders of two of these children – Makenzie Anderson and Gabriel Eason – – became known to the horrified public through press coverage of their deaths in February and April of 2020. Each of them died from head trauma inflicted by a parent or stepparent. Makenzie suffered from multiple contusions to the face and head, skull fractures, and other injuries, and her mother pleaded guilty to manslaughter, receiving a ten-year prison term with seven years suspended on the condition that she obtain mental health treatment and have no unsupervised contact with children. Gabriel’s autopsy found abrasions and contusions to the head, face and torso; contusions to the heart and thymus gland; liver and kidney laceration; new and healing fractured ribs; and a brain hematoma. His stepfather was sentenced to 12 years and eight months in prison and his mother, who did not seek medical help for Gabriel or his critically-injured three-year-old brother, was sentenced to four years of probation and three years of supervised release.
But there was a third homicide by blunt force trauma. A three-year-old girl died of trauma to the abdomen in the home of an aunt where she was placed by CFSA after being removed from her drug-addicted mother. Her injuries included contusions to the forehead and abdomen, a lacerated liver, and blood in the abdominal cavity. No charges were filed against either the aunt or her boyfriend, and the case received almost no public attention.
Neglect deaths: Opioid Poisoning and other causes
Three children (a three-year-old girl, a three-year-old boy, and a three-month-old girl) died of synthetic opioid toxicity, with fentanyl implicated in all three deaths. (One of the children had also ingested a controlled substance called eutylone.) There is no information about how the children might have ingested the drugs, but all lived with parents who were known or alleged to abuse substances. These deaths never became known to the public, which is not surprising since it appears that none of the parents were arrested or charged.
A 17-month-old boy died of “complications of thermal and scald injuries,” and his mother told the investigator that she had no idea how it happened or how he ended up face-down in the bathtub several hours later. A seven-year-old died of injuries from a car accident. His mother was a long-time substance abuser and was arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in the accident. She was driving from Florida to Washington and her children were not sitting in car seats or belted in. A five-month-old boy died of asphyxia by drowning after being left alone in the bathtub with a one-year-old sibling while their mother searched for her car keys.
Deaths for Which the Manner was Undetermined
Two deaths has known causes but the manner – whether abuse or neglect or something else – was not determined. A twelve-year-old girl with asthma died of an untreated bacterial infection and pneumonia but also had enough bruising from two separate beatings in the previous two days to support a CFSA substantiation of the mother for physical abuse. It is unclear why this was not considered a medical neglect homicide. A ten-month-old girl died of asphyxia but the manner of death was undetermined. Her mother had left her in the care of her father and returned to find her unresponsive.
The cause as well as the manner of death was unknown or undetermined in five cases. These included an 18-month-old boy with a subdural hematoma, which could have been caused by abuse or a fall, an 11-month-old girl whose mother reported leaving her unsupervised on her stomach with a bottle in her mouth for about 40 minutes, a nine-month-old boy put to bed with a bottle and found face-down on a pillow; a two-month-old girl who died while sleeping with her mother, and a three-month-old girl found unresponsive by her parents one morning. Unsafe sleep practices may have contributed to some of these deaths, but other unsafe sleep fatalities were categorized as accidents, for which case summaries were not provided.
Demographics
A quarter of the children who died were younger than six months old and half of them were one-year-old or younger. Another quarter were two or three. This is not surprising as young children are more vulnerable and similar results are found nationally. But older children were not invulnerable to abuse or neglect, including the seven-year-old who died in a car accident and the 12-year-old who died of an untreated bacterial infection and pneumonia.
Fifteen of the decedents were African American and one was classified as “African-biracial.” According to the latest data from Kids Count, 54 percent of children in the District of Columbia are Black. So Black children were overrepresented among the children who died of maltreatment or possible maltreatment. The overrepresentation of Black children among children who died points to Black children’s particular need for protection. And it suggests that current emphasis in the District and around the country on reducing the involvement of Black families in child welfare may cause more suffering and more deaths among Black children.
The prevalence of large families among those that lost a child due to abuse or neglect is striking. More than two thirds of the mothers of children who died by maltreatment had four or more children. The average mother in the group had 4.6 children, often with more than one father.
Histories of System Involvement
All the families had been the subject of at least one report to the CFSA hotline before the fatality, or else they would not be included in this report. But many of the families that lost a child had experienced a large number of reports prior to the fatality. Among the 16 fatalities included in this report, only six occurred in families that were the subject of five reports or fewer in the last five years. Five occurred in families that had between six and 10 reports, three occurred in families with 10 to 15 reports, and one family had 24 reports. Three of the families had actually experienced a previous child fatality–a shocking statistic considering the rarity of child fatalities overall.
The families of the two children – Makenzie Anderson and Gabriel Eason – whose abuse homicides shocked the District of Columbia in February and April 2020 were both known to CFSA before the deaths, and the last report to the hotline came five months before the fatalities of both children. Makenzie Anderson’s family was reported to the hotline eight times within five years of her death. The last report alleged exposure to unsafe living conditions, inadequate supervision, and substance abuse by a parent, caregiver, or guardian. All those allegations were unfounded (not confirmed) by CFSA. Gabriel Eason’s family was the subject of 17 prior calls to the hotline since 2012, including 12 in the five years preceding Gabriel’s death. The most recent report was for unexplained physical injury in October 2019 and was also unfounded by CFSA.
Substance abuse by the parent or caregiver was the most frequent allegation CFSA received regarding the families in the five years before the deaths, with 30 substance abuse allegations collectively accumulated by the families of the 16 dead children during that period. Another eight reports concerned positive toxicity of a newborn, a reflection of parental substance abuse. Substance abuse by the parents was observed or alleged in the families of all but four of the victims included in this report. Inadequate supervision was the second most common allegation, with 25 allegations concerning the 15 families. Almost as common was educational neglect, referring to children with excessive school absences, with 24 allegations received in the five years preceding the fatality. Ten of the 15 families had at least one report for educational neglect before the child’s death. Another major theme was exposure to domestic violence, with 17 allegations received by the families. Domestic violence was mentioned in nine of the 16 case histories as the subject of an allegation or in notes from social workers or police.
Most of these families could be described as “chronically neglectful.” According to the Child Welfare Information Gateway, “Chronic child neglect occurs when a caregiver repeatedly fails to meet a child’s basic physical, developmental, and/or emotional needs. Chronic neglect can have long-term, negative consequences for child health and well-being.” Working with chronically neglectful families is especially difficult and requires special training and skills, which many CFSA social workers may lack. Perhaps that is one reason why they struggled so hard to engage some of these families. Four of the children died while an in-home case was open. Three out of four of the in-home case narratives from CFSA portray caregivers who evaded offers of help from CFSA and other providers and refused to cooperate with efforts to monitor conditions in their homes.
System Failures
The information received suggests several areas where failures in policy and practice by CFSA and other agencies may have allowed these deaths to happen. These areas include:
Screened out and unsubstantiated reports: Research points to the difficulty of determining correctly whether a child has been maltreated, as well as the absence of significant differences in subsequent outcomes between children with a substantiated allegation of maltreatment and those with an unfounded allegation. Without information on how hotline and investigation decisions were made, we cannot assess the agency’s performance in these areas. But the fact that most previous reports for families with a subsequent death were screened out or unfounded is concerning.
Flawed management of in-home cases: Four of the deaths reviewed here happened while an in-home case was open for the family. In three of these cases, workers struggled to complete face-to-face visits with the families because parents evaded these visits. Social workers and supervisors could have filed a petition to involve the court, an option known as “community papering.” But they did not exercise this option–or they started too late, as in the case of the child who died after a meeting was finally scheduled to discuss community papering the case. The meeting was cancelled after the agency received word of the child’s death.
Too many chances: The mother of the seven-year-old killed in the 2020 car accident had been given numerous chances to recover from drug addiction and had relapsed many times over 18 years of involvement with CSFA. The family of the 17-month-old who died of complications of thermal and scald injuries had 24 referrals to CFSA between 2016 and 2021. Three in-home cases were opened and closed, but the children were not removed until the little boy died.
A fragmented health care system: In its findings on Gabriel Eason’s death, CFSA pointed out that Gabriel was taken to different medical providers for his various injuries. Because they use different information systems, the providers could not see records of the earlier injuries.
The reaction of CFSA and the criminal justice system after the fatalities obviously did not contribute to the fatalities themselves but may illustrate a pattern that contributes to future deaths. Specifically, CFSA’s tendency to place siblings informally after fatalities and the police and US District Attorney’s failure to charge parents raise concerns.
Informal placements after fatalities: CFSA, and child welfare agencies around the country, have been criticized for relying on informal placements with family members, rather than formally removing the children, placing them with the relatives, and opening a case to monitor their safety and well-being. In at least four of the 16 cases reviewed here, CFSA did not officially remove the siblings of the children who died but instead relied on informal placements with fathers or other relatives to keep them safe. Nothing was done to assure that the children were not returned to the home from which they had been removed as soon as the investigations closed, or to verify that the parents or caregivers had rectified the conditions leading to the child deaths.
Failures by the criminal justice system: The failure to bring charges against some of the parents and caregivers described here is quite concerning, particularly in the case of the three-year-old who died of blunt-force trauma and the infant and two three-year-olds who died of opioid poisoning. There has been considerable criticism of the US Attorney’s office in the District (which handles adult criminal prosecutions) for its low rate of opting to charge people for crimes. We do not know if the problem is the Metropolitan Police Department’s failure to bring the cases to the US Attorney or the latter’s failure to pursue them.
Recommendations
Without seeing the full case studies that were available to CFSA’s internal review committee, we cannot make detailed recommendations about how to avoid child maltreatment fatalities for children known to CFSA. The minimal recommendations that CFSA’s internal review team made show the need for the City Council, advocates and the public to have access to these complete case studies: in its 2021 report the agency made no recommendations other than those dealing with the fatality review process! Therefore, our first recommendation is to the City Council, urging it to require that CFSA release comprehensive case histories on all proven or suspected child maltreatment fatalities. Our next blog post will discuss the legislative changes that are needed.
The lack of information on how screening and investigation decisions in particular were made precludes specific recommendations. Perhaps a new audit of the hotline is in order. Some changes to hotline screening policy might be advisable, especially around educational neglect. School absences should be investigated regardless of the age of the child (requiring a change in the law) and their academic performance. And perhaps investigative workers could benefit from better training in forensic interviewing techniques that might help them better evaluate parents’ and childrens’ statements for veracity and perceive more subtle signs of abuse or neglect.
The case narratives make clear that in-home social workers struggled to complete home visits to the families of the children who later died. The agency must change its policy to encourage “community papering,” making court involvement routine after a certain number of missed visits or other instances of noncooperation. CFSA might also want to consider strengthening its in-home practice, perhaps by reinstating the Chronic Neglect Units, which were eliminated barely a year after they were implemented. These units would employ specially-trained social workers with lower caseloads and longer time periods to work with families.
Despite the current ideology favoring family preservation and reunification at all costs, the agency must also recognize that sometimes it must give up on a parent and find a safe, permanent alternative for the children. Giving parents multiple chances with successive children over many years belies the true purpose of child welfare services – to protect children.
Not all needed changes fall in CFSA’s bailiwick. Reforms in the criminal justice system are also necessary to ensure that parents who killed one child cannot harm more children. Couples who refuse to cooperate with prosecutors, and parents who expose children to opioids due to their own abuse or drug dealing must also be charged. Other jurisdictions do it, and the District must do it as well.
DC Health and medical providers also have a crucial role to play in making children safer. Encouraging the adoption of a comprehensive medical information platform across the region to prevent families from using different doctors to hide abuse and neglect would be a welcome step. A campaign by DC Health to educate young women on how an early pregnancy, especially when followed quickly by others, compromises their future and that of their children, is a crucial necessity. It must be accompanied by improved access to long-acting reversible contraceptive methods.
In summary, even with the very minimal information we received, some conclusions emerge. CFSA’s extreme deference to parents and guardians emerges clearly through the redactions in these narratives. This is in direct contrast to the picture that is being painted by the foundations, advocacy groups and public agencies dominating the child welfare conversation. Their accounts portray interventionist child welfare agencies that remove children rather than giving their families the help they need and want. We are seeing the opposite here: families who evade offers of help from the agency and providers and refuse to cooperate with efforts to monitor conditions in the home. The goal of such parents often appears to be to avoid surveillance by outsiders rather than to improve their ability to care for their children. And CFSA workers often seem unwilling or unable to intervene in a way that will protect these children.
‘The tragic deaths of children whose families are known to CFSA are the tip of a much larger iceberg. For every child who dies of abuse or neglect, an unknown number of others are living in fear or pain from abuse, suffering chronic neglect that will cause lifelong intellectual an emotional damage, or lacking the loving attention necessary for optimal mental, emotional and physical development. Sadly, it is only the children who die whose cases can be used to learn lessons to prevent similar tragedies in the future. This information must be public, so that the public can push for a system that protects all children who are not receiving the parental care they need to survive and thrive.
*The case, which received media coverage, was included and easily identifiable in
Instances of censorship and restrictions of free speech from both ends of the political spectrum have drawn increasing concern as the country’s polarization has increased. I have been very grateful that a digest of child welfare news and opinion articles funded by the federal government has for years been sharing my work–which often takes aim at the ideology prevailing in child welfare. But last July, the government contractor that prepares these digests declined to share one of my opinion pieces–while continuing to share other commentaries with a different perspective. My attempt to get an explanation has resulted in a series of bizarre communications that only heighten my fears that a government-funded organization is censoring the views that it shares.
Child Welfare in the News (CWN), a daily email sponsored by the US Children’s Bureau, has contributed significantly to Child Welfare Monitor‘s growth from its creation in 2016. CWN is an “email subscription service that provides a daily collection of news stories and opinion pieces from across the country and around the world.” It is an activity of the Child Welfare Information Gateway (CWIG), which is part of the Children’s Bureau and is managed by a consulting firm called ICF. For several years, I have been sharing links to Child Welfare Monitor commentaries with the ICF librarians who put together CWN and they have in turn provided links to these pieces, along with excerpts, in their daily mailings. At least until last July.
On July 24, 2023, I published The Misuse of Lived Experience in Child Welfare. The gist of the piece was that while all lived experiences are valid and valuable, their use can be problematic when experiences that support a particular perspective are highlighted and those that contradict it are not, or when evidence from data and research are ignored in favor of curated narratives. When I shared the blog post with the CWN staff as usual, I received a message saying “We’ll get back to you in a few days with a response on this article.” This was unexpected. When I checked for an update on July 31, an ICF librarian responded that “we are still working to review this article, and expect to have a response soon.” I emailed again on September 7 and heard that “We’ve not yet received a response or decision on this article.”
I replied asking to whom my commentary had been submitted and why, what the review criteria would be, and when I could expect a response. Receiving no answer, I wrote on September 14 to the Communications Director of the Administration on Children and Families, parent agency of the Children’s Bureau. I also submitted a Freedom of Information Act request asking for any emails that contain my name or that of Child Welfare Monitor.
On September 22, I received a response from Kai Guterman, the “Senior Manager of Knowledge Management” at ICF, which included the following: “As you know from your past submissions, The Child Welfare Information Gateway is a service of the Children’s Bureau and as such, as part of our standard process our team reviews all requests submitted. Upon our review, this request was not selected for posting as it contains personal fundraising links.” I was totally baffled by this response. I was not aware of any “personal fundraising links” in my piece, but an alert reader informed me after I published this blog that the photo I used of the family of Vanessa Peoples (the mother whose bad experience with CPS was cited by Dorothy Roberts in her book), came from a GoFundMe page set up to help her and her family. Not realizing that at the time I replied, asking Mr. Guterman to describe these links so I could remove them and allow the post to be shared by CWN. Thirteen days later I received the following response:
Thank you for following up and agreeing to exclude the fundraising link.
We have conducted a review of the Misuse of “Lived Experience” in Child Welfare blog submission request. While we appreciate your submission, it has been determined that it will not be included in the Child Welfare in the News since this specific blog post has a strong emphasis on storytelling, calls out individuals [sic] names, makes personal opinion statements about individuals, and focuses on editorial and opinion-based content.
As you consider future submissions, please review how much editorial or opinion-based content is included and ensure the content is not driven by or connected with fundraising purposes.
Email from Kai Guterman, Senior Manager of Knowledge Management, ICF, October 5, 2023
This message from Mr. Guterman was even more confusing than the previous one. It is certainly true that my blog post names several individuals, including the writer Dorothy Roberts and several people who have shared their lived experience with the child welfare system in writing and/or in oral testimony, and I included links to all of their writings. But not many news or opinion articles shared by CWN fail to name individuals. And my post does not make any “personal opinion statements” about these individuals other than summarizing or quoting their views and saying that other types of experiences also exist. The “strong emphasis on storytelling,” leaves me totally baffled. Indeed, the major point of the essay was to question the use of individual stories to make policy. Is it possible that Mr. Guterman missed the point of my blog or did not read it at all? Moreover, removing articles that tell stories would probably exclude more than half the content that is currently included in CWN–pretty much every news story and many opinion pieces as well.
And finally, Mr. Guterman asserts that my piece “focuses on editorial and opinion-based content.” Yes, most of my blog posts are opinion pieces and are labeled as such in the CWN emails, along with opinion pieces by other authors. Since I published my lived experience blog, the newsletter has shared numerous opinion pieces. At least four of these commentaries were by a writer named Richard Wexler. From beginning to end, Wexler’s essays “focus on editorial and opinion-based content,” as Mr. Guterman put it. Here is one example from Child abuse: the surge that wasn’t, a commentary from August 17, 2023 that was shared by CWN.”The American family policing system, a more accurate term than “child welfare” system, is built on ‘health terrorism’ – misrepresenting the true nature and scope of a problem in the name of ‘raising awareness.'” Some of Wexler’s pieces “have a strong emphasis on storytelling.” For example, in Child Well-Being Doesn’t Require Family Policing, also shared by CWN, Wexler devotes seven paragraphs to the story of one family that he says was victimized by a false accusation of child abuse.
As far as “calling out individuals,” CWN shared a piece by Wexler entitled Attn: New Hampshire “Child Advocate – there are horrendous institutions in your state too.” In that commentary, Wexler “calls out” the New Hampshire Child Advocate by name, telling readers that she was “understandably proud of herself” for getting two New Hampshire teenagers out of an abusive institution. But she “took matters too far” when she said according to a local news station that she and her staffers could finally get a good night’s sleep after removing the two teenagers from the institution. But nobody should be getting a good night’s sleep as long as “children are institutionalized,” according to Wexler. “And [the Child Advocate], of all people, should know it” because last year her predecessor issued a report exposing abuse at a New Hampshire institution. He goes on to label as “disheartening” her proposal to form a commission to address the issue of residential care.
It is noteworthy that Wexler’s pieces tend to endorse the prevailing ideology about child welfare, albeit often in an extreme way, while mine tend to challenge it. But Wexler is not the only author of opinion pieces that tell stories and mention individuals and nevertheless are shared by CWN. In addition to commentaries by Wexler, the newsletter has shared opinion pieces with titles like “The Child Welfare System Is Failing Children, Separating Black and Brown Families,” and “What To Do When Children’s Services Comes to the Door,” which also endorse the prevailing view. But my essay has been rejected, ostensibly for the same characteristics that these pieces display. Could it be that the creators of CWN are discriminating based on viewpoint?
As Mr. Guterman mentioned, ICF produces CWN under contract for the Children’s Bureau, which has wholeheartedly endorsed the prevailing view of child welfare promoted by a group of well-heeled foundations and nonprofits, consulting firms and influential commentators. This narrative portrays a racist child welfare system that disproportionately investigates, intervenes with and separates Black children and families. It disregards the evidence that the need for protection is also much greater among Black children, suggesting that they are more likely underrepresented in relation to their need. The dominant viewpoint asserts that foster care is harmful and rarely necessary and that “prevention services” including financial aid can eliminate the need for most child removals. It holds that children should almost never be placed in non-family placements such as group homes or residential treatment centers. Proponents of this perspective hailed the Family First Act, which has failed to add significant preventive services while catastrophically reducing the availability of placements for the most troubled and traumatized young people, resulting in an explosion in the number of youths staying in offices, hotels and other inappropriate placements.
In my censored commentary, I provided examples of how the child welfare establishment and its preferred authors tend to share only the lived experiences that support their views, while ignoring experiences that support different viewpoints. And I gave examples of foster care alumni who have shared experiences of foster care and group homes that contradict the ones that have been repeatedly highlighted. Instead of choosing only the personal stories that support preferred views, I suggested that it is more useful to survey large samples of foster care youths or alumni. And I reported that such surveys result in much more positive views of foster care and group homes than those of the individuals who have been highlighted.
Over the years, Child Welfare Monitor has consistently expressed views that sharply question those of the child welfare establishment. But the CWN staff has never declined to share a piece because of its content. The website description of CWN states that the inclusion of a link “does not imply endorsement of any view expressed in a story and may not reflect the opinions of Child Welfare Information Gateway, the Children’s Bureau, or either organization’s staff.” So they clearly do not need to vet submissions for viewpoint.
The reason for the sudden change in practice (without notification or a change in the website language) remains a mystery, but one might speculate that it has something to do with a decreased tolerance for diverse views. But ICF or the Children’s Bureau would be violating the spirit and possibly the letter of the First Amendment if it were purposely excluding from a government publication content that does not fit the prevailing view. The Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot discriminate against speech based on viewpoint, stating that: “When the government targets not subject matter but particular views taken by speakers on a subject, the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant. Viewpoint discrimination is thus an egregious form of content discrimination. The government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction.”
The possibility of viewpoint discrimination by the federal government or its contractor is deeply disturbing. But ICF’s dishonesty is also concerning. I was told for weeks that the article was still under review. When I persisted, I was told that my piece was censored because of “personal fundraising links” that I could not identify. When I asked to be shown the links so I could remove them, I was then given an entirely different explanation. And the new explanation was equally absurd, citing issues with my blog that either did not exist or were common to many other pieces shared in CWN. So there must be another reason they have not given me, and discrimination based on viewpoint is the only one that comes to mind.
It is unfortunate that my attempt to tell the truth about child welfare has finally come up against the increased intolerance for diverse views, even in a government-funded clearinghouse. Unless I find an organization that wants to take my case to court, it is unlikely that “The Misuse of Lived Experience” will be published in Child Welfare in the News. I’ll have to rely my readers to share my writing with their colleagues. Please share this blog and my censored post and urge people to follow Child Welfare Monitor. We cannot let the censors win.
“Those closest to the problem have the answers to solving it. Every child welfare policy and project should prioritize incorporating the expertise, perspectives and experiences of the people whose lives have been directly impacted by the system. We call this ‘centering lived experience.'” There is a lot of truth in these words from an organization called Think of Us and a lot of good in the current focus in child welfare and other fields on considering the actual experience of people affected by systems when developing new policies and practices for these systems. But the emphasis on lived experience has potential pitfalls. When experiences that support a particular perspective are highlighted and those that contradict it are not, and when evidence from data and research are ignored in favor of narratives that may be outliers, there is a risk of adopting policies and practices that hurt, rather than help, children and families.
As described in a brilliant article by Naomi Schaefer Riley and Sarah Font, it is “individuals and groups with a platform” like foundations, government agencies, and journalists, that “select the people with lived experience to serve on advisory boards, testify to Congress, give media interviews, or otherwise disseminate their story.” The “lived experiences” that are selected tend to support the views of what I call the “child welfare establishment,” which includes federal, and many state and local child welfare agency leaders; foundations and nonprofits; consulting firms; and influential commentators and writers. They tend to believe that foster care is harmful and rarely necessary, and that on the rare occasions when children are youth must be placed in foster care, they should almost never be placed in “congregate care” placements such as group homes or residential treatment centers.
Let us start with the idea that foster care is rarely necessary, and the child protective services (or the “family policing system” as author Dorothy Roberts and others put it) removes children from loving parents who just need a little bit of help, thus harming rather than helping children. The story of Vanessa Peoples illustrated this thesis so well that it was shared by numerous media outlets before being picked up by Dorothy Roberts to begin her book, Torn Apart, about how the child welfare system “destroys Black families.” Peoples was a mother of three small children who was apparently doing everything right; she was married, going to nursing school, about to rent a townhouse and was even a cancer patient. But Peoples attracted the attention of both the police and child welfare and ended up hogtied and carted off to jail by police, placed on the child abuse registry, and subjected to months of monitoring by CPS after she lost sight of her toddler at a family picnic in June 17 when a cousin was supposed to be watching him.
From the information provided by Roberts and others, it sounds like Peoples’ was the victim of a hyperactive agency and police department, but it is also possible that critical details were omitted from the narrative. Moreover, Roberts did not include any narratives from people with a very different experience, like this one from Kiana Deane writing in The Imprint: “For me, meth became the pernicious thief that stole my home, my sense of belonging and, at times, my well-being. Being placed in a foster home saved me. Though foster parenting is not for everyone, I couldn’t imagine a world without the protection of the foster care system.” The Kiana Deanes are not asked to testify before Congress, highlighted in books by trending authors, or interviewed by the mainstream media for stories on foster care. (But kudos to The Imprint, which has published many narratives from youths who are grateful that they were placed in foster care.)
Then there’s the issue of group homes versus foster family homes. We all “know” that group homes and residential treatment centers are houses of horror because that is the only thing we ever hear. In the two hearings it held on the Family First Act, the Senate Finance Committee heard from only one person with “lived experience” in a group home, and that was Lexie Gruber, who told Senators about the locked food cabinets, punitive disciplinary system, over-medication, and the lack of emotional support that characterized her group home experience in Connecticut. But Senators did not hear from anyone like Imani Young, who wrote in The Imprint: “Eventually, OCFS (the Office of Children and Family Services) brought me to a wonderful placement called St. Christopher’s. …While in the NY child welfare system, I wanted to feel safe, comfortable, respected and not neglected, and St. Christopher’s made me feel all of THOSE above. They taught me independent living skills, helped me manage my money, got the counseling I needed, and taught me that there’s more to life.”
Other than the selective presentation of lived experiences to be highlighted, another problem with using individual narratives to develop policy is that each person presents their own version of their story, which may leave out crucial details. It is rare for a journalist, author, or Congressional committee to check up on the accuracy of a story that supports the broader narrative they are seeking to portray. Vanessa Peoples’ wanted to portray herself as an innocent victim who did nothing to merit the intervention of CPS, and Roberts had no interest in finding inaccuracies in her story. Lexie Gruber, too, was intent on making the case against group care. She did not talk about the support that she must have gotten from the group home in order to get into college, or any other positive aspects of the care she received.
When the media, congressional committees or advocacy groups select only one set of lived experiences to highlight, real harm can result. Take the passage of the flawed Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA) in 2018 after only two hearings with a “curated” group of invited speakers who were clearly chosen to support passage of the bill. Lexie Gruber was the only former foster youth who spoke at the hearing on group homes and other congregate care placements, which was titled No Place to Grow Up: How to Safely Reduce Reliance on Foster Care Group Homes. When it was finally passed in 2018, FFPSA contained drastic restrictions on federal reimbursements for group homes and other residential placements. I wrote in a recent post about how those restrictions have contributed to a placement crisis around the country, with the most troubled foster youth spending weeks or months in offices, hotels, jails, hospitals and other inappropriate and harmful settings. I don’t claim that hearing from Lexie Gruber caused Congress to impose drastic restrictions on group homes, but it was certainly used to support that action.
Don’t get me wrong. Every individual’s story has value. Such stories allow us to visualize the reality behind dry data and statistics. But, to make policy, we need to know whether a story we hear is an outlier or representative of the average experience. It’s not that outliers don’t matter; we need to have protections to ensure that the worst possible outcomes (like the killing of 16-year-old Cornelius Fredericks in a residential treatment center run by Sequel Youth and Family Services) don’t occur. But making policy assuming the outliers represent the majority can lead to disastrous outcomes, like the congregate care provisions of FFPSA.
In contrast to individual narratives, surveying a representative sample of people with lived experience in a particular setting or system can provide information that is useful for policy purposes. Such information is not guaranteed to be accurate; survey response rates are often suboptimal and those who do respond may differ systematically from those who don’t. Nevertheless, such surveys are a much more accurate way of assessing lived experience than relying on individual anecdotes.
And it happens that in child welfare, surveys of older foster care youth and alumni present a much more positive picture than what has been presented by the child welfare establishment and the media. In four studies of former foster care youth reviewed by Barth et al, majorities said that they were lucky to have been placed in care. Most recently, the CalYOUTH study followed a cohort of 727 youth who were in foster care at age 17, with personal interviews every other year until they were 23 years old. At 23, 68.4 percent of the 621 respondents said that they were lucky to have been placed in foster care. And 57.4 percent were “generally satisfied” with their experience in foster care.
There are few studies of youth perspectives on residential care, but a recently published study in a leading child welfare journal reports on the experience of 450 youths placed in 127 licensed residential care programs in Florida between 2018 and 2019. The youths responded to a validated quality assessment that asked them to rate their facilities on elements of service quality in seven domains based on evidence and current best practice standards. Overall, youth provided high ratings of their residential programs on all seven domains. The mean ratings indicated that youths felt their facilities were “mostly to completely” meeting the standards across all domains.1
This does not mean that there are no children who could have stayed safely with their families and not been placed in foster care had the right help been provided. Nor does it mean that there are no terrible group homes. The current placement crisis (to which FFPSA has contributed) means that more youths will be placed in neglectful or even abusive homes or facilities than if this crisis did not exist. But when advocates of one point of view choose to share only those experiences that support their viewpoint, the use of lived experience to support particular policy proposals can lead to policy choices that are harmful to the people they are intended to help.
Note
But not all surveys are based on large, scientifically-chosen samples. For example, the nonprofit,Think of Us, which has the aim of “centering lived experience,” published a report called Away from Home: Youth Experiences of Institutional Placements in Foster Care. That report is based on the responses of 78 young people residing in what it called “institutional placements, which included group homes, homes for pregnant and parenting teens, and therapeutic residential treatment facilities around the country. Among the conclusions of the report were that institutional placements were prisonlike (“carceral”), punitive and traumatic for their residents and failed to meet child welfare mandates to provide safety and wellbeing. The methodology section, relegated to an Appendix, reveals that the 78 participants were recruited through an “open call for participation through youth advisory boards and community partners.” Assuming that these are advisory boards and community partners of Think of Us, and knowing that the nonprofit and its CEO are associated with the dominant viewpoint on group care, one has to wonder whether the recruitment process produced an unbiased sample.
After its premiere on June 2 on Amazon Prime Video, Shiny Happy People: Duggar Family Secrets, reached more viewers in its first nine days than any other Amazon docuseries. The series exposes the fundamental moral corruption underlying the Duggar family, the subject of TLC’s long-running reality series, 19 Kids and Counting, as well a spinoff entitled Counting On. The Amazon series reveals the Duggar family involvement with a fundamentalist Christian movement that endorsed physical child abuse, sanctioned educational neglect, and created a culture of sexual abuse of women and girls. One issue that was not discussed in the series is the key role that unregulated homeschooling plays in allowing the abuse and exploitation of children like the Duggars to occur and persist.
For someone who was hardly aware of the Duggars and their reality-shows empire, Shiny Happy People was a revelation. I learned that the Duggers were the poster children for an organization called the Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP), which was formed in the 1960s by a minister named Bill Gothard in reaction to the civil rights, women’s rights, and student protest movements, and to the cultural changes of the period. The first principle of IBLP was “Authority.” Just as God was the ultimate authority over mankind, so did IBLP preach the father’s ultimate authority over his family. Girls remained under the authority of their fathers until they transitioned by arranged marriage to the authority of their husbands.
To reinforce its authority, IBLP preached (and the Duggars used) physical punishment starting from infancy. As babies, the Duggar children were subjected to “blanket training,” promoted by the book To Train Up a Child, which is popular in Christian homeschooling circles. Babies are shown a desirable object, told not to touch it, and hit every time they reach for it. The point is to teach obedience. The survivors interviewed for the series spoke of receiving physical punishment for just about any transgression, no matter how minor.
In 1984, IBLP published a home-schooling curriculum consisting of “wisdom booklets” based on the Bible, which was marketed as an academic curriculum but according to survivors contained little if any actual education. Children learned that all fossils were created by God at the same time and that the rhythm of rock music could be traced to satanic ritual; girls were taught to identify what items of female clothing are provocative and should be avoided. It’s not surprising that many survivors spoke of struggling financially after leaving home without preparation for further education or work beyond the minimum wage level.
The children of IBLP families were brought up with frightening visions of hell and taught to constantly examine their own thoughts for evidence of sin, especially the sin of lust. This practice may have backfired. Survivors interviewed for the series reported that IBLP families were rife with sexual abuse. It was eldest son Josh Duggar’s admitted abuse of his sisters among other girls that put an end to the long running series, 19 Children and Counting. It was replaced by a new series called Counting On, which focused on some of the family’s daughters, but that show in turn was suspended after Josh Duggar was arrested for receipt and possession of child pornography. He is now serving 12.5 years in prison.
IBLP is not the only Christian home schooling movement that promotes physical punishment and educational neglect. The Revolt of the Christian Home-Schoolers, a brilliant article by Peter Jamison in the Washington Post, tells the story of Christina and Aaron Beall, who were brought up in families that were both active in a religious community led by Gary Cox, an evangelical pastor and pioneer of Maryland’s home-schooling movement. (Cox’s son later ran for Governor of Maryland and lost in a landslide to Wes Moore.) Christina and Aaron could not bear to watch their children grow up the way they did – in fear of being beaten several times a week. They rejected corporal punishment for their four children and eventually decided to send them to public school.
Christina and Aaron’s children were lucky. But states’ policies toward homeschooling provide little protection for those who need it, like the Duggar children. The Amazon series did not address the policy context of the abuses suffered by the Duggars and all the other children brought up in IBLP and similar movements, or how future children in these environments could be protected. As Eve Ettinger, the oldest of nine children homeschooled in a fundamentalist Christian home, explains in Salon Magazine, it is the failure of states to meaningfully regulate homeschooling that allows abuse and neglect to take place in these homes.
Before continuing, it is important to note that It is not just fundamentalist Christians who homeschool. Homeschoolers include Black parents who wish to avoid racism in the public schools, parents of elite athletes or musicians whose schedule does not allow for attendance at regular schools, and other parents who simply want to have more input into their children’s education than the public schools allow. And most of these parents are no doubt well-meaning and provide an excellent education. But when homeschooling parents abuse or neglect their children, the protections provided to other students are not available.
According to the Coalition for Responsible Home Education (CRHE), an advocacy group started by homeschool alumni, 11 states require nothing of homeschooling parents, not even notification to the school district when they begin homeschooling. Another 16 states require only that parents who intend to homeschool give notice to state or local officials. The remaining states have some combination of requirements for subjects covered, hours of schooling, academic assessments, parent qualifications, or other provisions. Only nine states require academic assessments that are meaningful because they must be submitted to the government or require a certain level of achievement. Only 11 states require any qualifications (usually a high school degree or GED) for parents who want to homeschool their children, and only two states conduct background checks for parents who want to homeschool their children. Of those two states, Pennsylvania prohibits homeschooling if a parent or other adult in the household has been convicted of any of a range of offenses. Arkansas prohibits homeschooling if a registered sex offender lives in the household, but parents may petition the sentencing court to have this restriction waived. No state provides for monitoring of parents who begin to homeschool during or after a child protective services investigation, or for those with histories of child welfare involvement. Such provisions have been introduced in several states but have failed to become law due to opposition from the homeschool lobby. Shockingly, no state requires that a state employee or contractor ever set eyes on the child once homeschooling is approved.1
The lack of meaningful standards and monitoring of home education opens the door for educational neglect by parents who reject the importance of anything but a biblical education. Such educational neglect was described eloquently by many survivors in the Amazon series, who reported that their learning outside of religious principles was minimal and that they spent most of their time doing chores and caring for their younger siblings. Such children “graduate” from home schools without the knowledge and skills necessary to thrive in American society. A 2013 article in the Washington Post described one Virginia student’s struggle to fill the gaps in his home education. This determined young man needed several years of remedial education and other courses at the local community college before he could fulfill his dream of attending a four-year-college.
Even worse, the lack of contact with educational staff isolates homeschooled children from adults outside their families, churches, and fundamentalist homeschooling circles, leaving them particularly vulnerable to long-term maltreatment. Teachers and other school staff have traditionally been the most common reporters of child abuse and neglect.2 When a child is being abused or neglected at home, it is teachers and others at school who see the bruises or the hunger. If the child does not go to school, that extra set of eyes is missing; there remains only the hope that a doctor or other professional (if the child is lucky enough to see one) will notice something is wrong. The importance of educators as mandatory reporters was illustrated in a chilling manner by the Connecticut Office of the Child Advocate, which found that of children withdrawn from public schools to be homeschooled between 2013 and 2016, 36 percent had at least one prior accepted report for suspected abuse or neglect to the Department of Children’s Services, and the majority of these families had multiple prior reports for suspected maltreatment. So it is not surprising that a disproportionate number of the horrific abuse deaths that make the news (such as the Hart children, Natalie Finn in Iowa, Matthew Tirado in Connecticut and Adrian Jones in Kansas), involved parents who hid their abuse behind the guise of homeschooling, even though schooling rarely took place in these homes.
Before the 1980’s, homeschooling was not even addressed in state laws. The first achievement of the new homeschooling movement was the legalization of homeschooling in the 1980s and early 1990s in every state, as described by Milton Gaither in his history of American homeschooling. This came about thanks to the work of the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLADA) and allied groups. Since that time, HSLADA and state-level homeschool lobbies have often been successful in getting legislatures to strike requirements that were included in the original legislation. For example In Virginia, homeschool groups succeeded in removing the requirement that homeschooling parents have a bachelor’s degree, replacing it with the lower requirement of a high school degree or GED. In Arizona, the requirements that parents pass a proficiency exam and that students take annual standardized tests were both removed, and the new requirement that parents have a high school diploma or GED was later removed. In Iowa, homeschooling was completely deregulated in 2013.
Homeschool lobbies have also been successful at thwarting attempts to add regulations to protect children, some of which were inspired by egregious instances of abuse. After the 13 Turpin children and young adults were found imprisoned (some chained to their beds) and emaciated in their home in California, a horrified public learned that their parents had elected to homeschool as an individual private school, an option available in that state. California Assemblyman Jose Medina introduced a bill that would require a fire inspection for all private schools, regardless of size.3 Due to a massive outcry from the homeschooling community, the inspection requirement was eliminated, leaving a bill that required nothing but identification of homeschooling families by name and address. When the eviscerated bill was scheduled for a hearing, hundreds or perhaps thousands of homeschooling families poured into the capitol building, testifying for three hours. No committee member even moved to approve the bill, and it died that day.
The Covid-19 pandemic resulted in a jump in homeschooling enrollment which has not yet subsided. There has been an estimated 30 percent rise in homeschooling enrollment since the beginning of the 2019 school year. This increasing trend makes the need for regulation of homeschooling more urgent. CRHE’s recommendations for protection of at-risk children include prohibiting homeschooling by parents who have committed offenses that would disqualify them from teaching school, requiring that students be assessed annually by trained mandatory reporters, and flagging certain at-risk children (such as those in families with a history of child protective services involvement) for additional protections and support. CRHE also recommends requiring a high school degree or GED for the primary homeschooling parent, instruction in the same subjects as public schools, maintenance of academic records, and assessments of annual progress with interventions in case of inadequate progress, among other recommendations.
With Shiny Happy People, Amazon Prime exposed the abuse and neglect hiding behind the happy facade that the Duggar family presented through its reality shows. But unfortunately the series did not let watchers know how we can protect today’s homeschooled children from such maltreatment by increasing regulation and oversight. I wish the series had ended by urging viewers to contact their state legislators and urge them to mandate reasonable regulation and oversight for homeschooling, so that no more children will be victimized.
In Federal Fiscal Years 2020 and 2021, teachers lost their top ranking as maltreatment reporters to legal and law enforcement personnel due to Covid-19 school closures. It is my guess that they will gain it back in 2022.
There actually already was a fire inspection requirement for schools with 6 or more children, but there was no record that the Turpin home had been inspected.
In my last post, Family First at five: Not much to celebrate, I discussed how the Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA) made it more difficult to provide residential care (often pejoratively called “congregate care” by the Act’s supporters) for the most troubled foster youth while doing little to ensure the development of alternatives. The result has not been surprising–an exacerbated placement crisis, with foster youth around the nation sleeping in hotels, offices, jails and other inappropriate settings. An important new book provides an international perspective on residential care. It shows that the U.S. ranks very low in the percentage of foster youth that are in residential care, casting doubt on the advisability of trying to further reduce residential placements. The obvious conclusion is that we would do better to increase the quality of residential care by raising standards for staff.
The new book, Revitalizing Residential Care for Children and Youth, is a compilation of research on residential care in 16 high and middle-income countries, edited by James K. Whittaker, Lisa Holmes, Jorge F. Del Valle, and Sigrid James, who are professors at universities in the US, England, Spain, and Germany, respectively.1 The editors define “residential care” as “any group setting where children spend the night,” encompassing settings that vary in size and function and that operate under the auspices of child welfare, juvenile corrections, or mental health. The 16 countries are viewed through a common template, making comparisons possible. However, there are problems with such comparisons. As explained in the second chapter, countries differ in the terms they use for different types of care and how they define these terms, among other things. The editors’ definition of “residential care” does not ensure that the same facilities are being counted across nations. A small group home with paid staff might be classed as “foster care” in some countries, and some facilities (like those for youth offenders) might be counted in the residential totals for some countries and not others.
Keeping in mind the impossibility of obtaining data that is totally comparable across countries, there appears to be a striking variation between nations in the utilization of residential care for youths who are in out-of-home placements. The editors defined the residential care utilization rate as the proportion of out-of-home care dedicated to residential care rather than family foster care or other types of out-of-home placements. This percentage ranged from seven percent in Ireland and Australia to 97 percent in Portugal, as shown in Figure 29.1, which is reproduced below. The United States had the third lowest residential care utilization rate, with ten percent of children in out-of-home placements being in residential settings. Moreover, the number of children in U.S. residential care fell by about 25 percent between 2015 and 2019. According to the editors, it appears that countries in the low-utilization category have made legislative changes (like FFPSA and California’s Continuum of Care Reform in the US) that have led to drastic reductions in residential care. But the countries with medium utilization rates (between 30 and 55 percent) seem to be focused on improving residential care by strengthening the elements believed to be associated with quality care rather than reducing the utilization of residential care.2
Source: James Whittaker et al, Revitalizing Residential Care for Children and Youth, page 430.
The authors also found great variability in the education and training requirements for residential care staff. These range from no minimum qualification in the United States, Canada and Australia, to high school level (Israel, Argentina and Portugal), to rigorous multiyear vocational training and/or university education in the other countries. A number of countries use both vocationally trained and university educated staff. For example, in Germany, about 70 percent of residential care staff hold a 3.5 to five-year vocational degree as educators (or in fewer cases two years as assistants) and 30 percent have Bachelors’ degrees in social work or “social pedagogy.”3
The editors found that it is countries with lower educational requirements for staff that have turned against residential care and have sought a drastic reduction of its use. Among those countries was, no surprise, the United States, along with Australia and England. In contrast, countries with a high qualification requirement have higher utilization of residential care. This correlation is not surprising. There is no doubt, say the volume’s editors, that “the quality of the services is directly related, in any field, to the qualifications, training and experience of the professionals who provide them.” In child welfare, they argue, “[I]t is difficult to carry out the work without a qualification based on the learning of very diverse theories related to child development, the clinical expressions of trauma, listening and helping techniques, the framework of family relationships, and ecological theories.” The editors suggest the existence of a vicious cycle, where low staff qualifications may led to poor quality and outcomes, which in turn lead to reduced funding, making it harder to recruit well-qualified staff.
Unfortunately, available data do not tell us what proportion of children and youth in residential care in each country are there for time-limited treatment for behavioral issues with a plan to “step down” to a family setting. Available data suggest that a majority or large minority of children and youth in residential care in the middle-utilization countries have a mental health diagnosis, which does necessarily mean that they are in a time-limited therapeutic setting. Most likely, the residential care population in the middle-utilization countries is a combination of youths with issues that require treatment in residential care and those who could be in family foster care if available As one of the editors notes in the introductory chapter, “residential care across the globe …does not seem to be limited to the narrow treatment-oriented and time-limited setting it is generally reduced to in several Anglo-American nations. In fact, in many countries,…., children and youth still spend years in residential care programs.”
The assumption that family foster care is always the better choice unless a child cannot function in such a setting may be unique to the English-speaking countries. Small, family style group homes, whether freestanding or part of a campus of such homes, may be difficult to distinguish from foster homes, especially if they use a house-parent model. In fact, the authors say, some countries classify “a small “family group” home, staffed by paid staff” as a foster home. I have argued in the past that high-quality family-like group homes may be better for children than mediocre or poor-quality foster homes and are especially appropriate for siblings. Indeed, as discussed in the book, France has 28 children’s villages, which are family-like units especially for siblings.
The evidence shared by Whittaker et al. has important implications for the United States. Given our low position on the scale of residential care utilization, one might logically conclude that further lowering the number of children in residential care would be unrealistic. In the two countries with lower residential utilization rates than the United States, Ireland and Australia, news accounts document an urgent need for more foster parents, with young people being separated from siblings, moving from one emergency placement to another for lack of a suitable home, and spending nights at hotels. Instead of trying to bring the residential share of foster care even lower, the U.S. might be better advised to follow the example of countries like Germany and Finland, which are focusing on improving residential care programs rather than eliminating them.
Cross-national comparisons are valuable in many policy areas, and the absence of such comparisons in child welfare debates is particularly unfortunate. Reading this book brings home the lack of international comparisons informing Congress when it passed the FFPSA. As far as I know, the supporters of FFPSA’s drastic restrictions on residential care never referred to other countries’ use of residential options; that’s not surprising as such comparisons may have led to uncomfortable questions about the premise that too many foster children and youth were in residential care.
Some members of Congress who supported the residential restrictions in FFPSA may have been more concerned about budgets than ideological objections to residential care. Improving residential care costs money, while cutting it may appear to help balance budgets. FFPSA was designed to be budget-neutral, so that restrictions for funding of residential care were required in order to offset the increase in spending for services to families. And it apparently did not matter to Congress if those costs were by necessity picked up by states that had no other options: the federal government would see the savings.
Perhaps the federal coffers have benefited from the restrictions on federal funding for residential care, especially because federal spending for the “prevention services” side of Family First has been negligible. But it is hard to believe that states have gained financially from the new law. Spending as much as $2,000 a night for a hotel room complete with staffing and security for foster youth, as Washington State is reportedly doing, cannot possibly be a better use of funds than improving and expanding residential care. And the effects on children and youth are disastrous. One can only hope that state leaders will be brave and smart enough to take the first steps in the direction of revitalizing residential care to be a nurturing and therapeutic environment for children and youth and a field that is a source of pride for its practitioners.
Revitalizing Residential Care for Children and Youth should be required reading for anyone involved in making policy or drafting legislation regarding foster care. But it is probably too much to hope that the anti-residential crusaders will choose to read this important book. They find it more comfortable to continue believing that cutting funds for these programs without providing an alternative will save money and help children at the same time.
Notes
The countries studied include Argentina, Australia, Canada, Denmark, England, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Scotlad, Spain, and the United States.
Portugal, with 97 percent of its out-of-home youth in residential care, is in violation of its own law establishing residential care as the last option for out-of-home care. It appears that the country has not developed the supply of foster parents needed to shift the system toward home-based care. Argentina, with 86 percent of children separated from their families living in residential care, is only in the early stages of developing family-based foster care. In Israel, a system of residential facilities or “youth villages” developed as a means of social integration of immigrant groups, starting with survivors of the Holocaust. This system of residential care operates under the MInistry of Education. A separate child welfare system developed later under the Ministry of Labor, Social Affairs and Social Services, to serve the needs of maltreated children, and 63 percent of the children in this system are also in youth villages.
According to the editors, “[s]ocial pedagogy is grounded in a holistic understanding of the person and espouses participation, democratic processes, self-determination, and social and moral education within the context of everyday life as guiding values and principles for practice. Individualization (n contrast to standardization) and professional decision-making are further hallmarks of this approach.”
Child Welfare Monitor 