Regardless of who becomes president or governor, the 2024 election comes at a time when the country’s child welfare system is in transition. Those of us engaged in this work have a responsibility to speak to the candidates, providing a coherent, clear perspective on what we do, how we do it, and most importantly, why we believe it is connected to a much broader agenda on child and family well-being.
Public and private agencies charged with protecting children and supporting families are going through a period of self-examination, questioning how to balance the mandate for child safety with the responsibility of keeping families intact whenever possible — how to do their best with the least harm to families. This requires a commitment to wise policies and practices that substantially improve the safety and well-being outcomes for families.
Those of us who are serious about changing our approach to child safety and family well-being need to rally around an effective message for new leaders, with specifics, outlining the adaptive challenges that lie ahead. Our chances for reaching candidates are greater if we avoid the polemics and put forth a manageable, practical plan for success.
Let’s be unequivocal with candidates. Federal and state governments, as the largest funder and regulator of services, perpetuate multiple, arcane, overlapping and sometimes contradictory rules and regulations that prevent states and local communities from building the proactive support all families need. Nonprofits and philanthropy don’t control the regulatory and policy environment.
Fresh and different thinking in child welfare has been present in both the Trump and Biden administrations. They developed programming that prioritizes keeping kids safe in their own homes and communities, including more financial and policy support for their families. Many systems have improved their ability and capacity to support families in their own homes, resulting in fewer children entering foster care.
But the rate of abuse-related fatalities has steadily increased over the past five years. And the small but significant number of youth who present with serious behavioral challenges has overwhelmed most systems. Meanwhile, child welfare agencies are facing unprecedented workforce issues, with many operating at 50% vacancy rates for months on end.
Most troubling is the persistent entry of families into the system who could be served more effectively and less punitively using community-based family support services. When people hear the term “child protective services,” they think of child fatalities and the countless media stories of physical and sexual abuse that hold a legitimate level of horror all their own. But agencies mostly attend to situations that are not imminently dangerous. The reality of child safety messaging for the 2024 election cycle is nuanced, but our need to move away from a child-rescue crisis mode and into proactive strengthening of families must be embedded in the narrative.
Many child welfare cases are classified as neglect, which is often situational but in other cases is more chronic in nature. Situational neglect lends itself more readily to bipartisan support, because we have a consensus on the need: build strong families with the least amount of intrusion possible.
After years of research and scores of narratives from social workers and families, the profession has come to terms with the fact that our history of distinguishing poverty, racially biased practices and generational trauma from actual neglect has been imprecise and fraught with poor judgment. This resulted in labeling many families as “neglectful” and treating them in a punitive manner, sometimes separating children from their parents. It also created a significant backlog of cases in child welfare agencies, when an alternative, more family-friendly approach would have been more productive.
The next level of improvement won’t come in the form of individual strategies, but instead a cultural shift in the way that we regard and support families. This is a critical point to share with candidates, regardless of the office they are seeking.
Our messaging to candidates for national and state offices should include the reality that child welfare system is frequently the final stop for families who are beset by insufficient income for basic needs, the enduring remnants of generational poverty and trauma, untreated parental substance use and mental health problems, and complex child behavior issues that are too significant for other systems. These factors cause toxic stress in a family, putting kids at risk.
The Child Welfare League of America has called for an approach that creates a well-being system that is family-centered and child-focused, in which parents have access to resources and support necessary to protect and care for their children, including livable income; economic support like Earned Income Tax Credits and Child Tax Credits; stable housing; quality early childhood education; high-functioning schools and equitable access to physical and behavioral medical care. As a pro bono senior fellow for the Child Welfare League of America , I believe this is a reasonable way to frame the complexities around child safety and family well-being.
The child welfare system has traditionally addressed safety, permanency and well-being, with safety receiving the most focus and funding. Child protection remains our priority, but in a way that is more expansive. Safety has been viewed through the narrow lens of physical harm. Decades of research on brain development, trauma and attachment make it clear that safety must also include emotional and psychological well-being. Extreme interventions like separation of children from their families may be a temporary, sometimes necessary fix in a time of crisis, but it can sacrifice the child’s sense of emotional and psychological security, ultimately creating long-term negative outcomes.
The reframing of child safety might be a tedious and complicated narrative for the purposes of campaign sound bites. But it’s not a bridge too far to think we could seize the moments of change attached to the first year of a fresh administration. Perhaps the most straightforward thing we can tell candidates is that the best child protection system is one that proactively anticipates and provides families with what they need to care for their children, promoting protective factors and preventing over-intrusion.
Many forward-thinking communities have created partnerships and alternative services for parents to receive timely, responsive help and reduce the need for less forgiving government interventions. This has resulted in safely reducing the number of children entering foster care. Still, no tree grows to the sky. It’s time for the next level of innovation if we expect better safety and well-being outcomes for kids and families.
Let’s include family voices to inform and influence the path forward. Parents and youth can tell candidates to coordinate services, make them simpler, more accessible, predictable, respectful and less judgmental. Families can explain why we need a well-trained and supported cadre of professional helpers who aren’t hamstrung by the confusing and disconnected rules and regulations of multiple agencies.
Time is running out for us to step up and let the next administration know that a true child and family well-being system could reduce the myopic approach of waiting to identify risk, instead recognizing and responding to the need that all families have when raising their children.
