May 3, 2004

Usually, the bad news about child welfare in the U.S. resembles late-night TV coverage of car crashes or gang shootings: discrete disasters put down to some individual’s gross negligence or criminal intent, momentarily illuminated by the hard white light of the cameras. Naturally, we stop in our tracks to honor and mourn the young victim, this particular life of trouble and promise that ended too soon.

But it’s rare for these individual tragedies, most often involving children of the poor and powerless, to generate the long-term pressure required for real reform – and often, the particulars of individual tragedies seem to point to different remedies. “Why weren’t those children taken from their parents years ago?” “What were those kids doing in foster care anyway?” “That social worker really dropped the ball.”

In light of that, the recent release of a three-year review of child welfare programs in all 50 states and the District of Columbia carried out by the federal Department of Health and Human Services is helpful, if not hopeful. The review process did not find a single state in substantial compliance in the critical area of child outcomes…meaning such basic goals as keeping kids safe; keeping families together; providing stable and permanent homes; preventing repeated abuse of children in care. In fact, no state even came close.

Here are the seven outcome measures examined during the review process:

• Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect.
• Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate.
• Children have permanency and stability in their living situations.
• The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children.
• Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children’s needs.
• Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs.
• Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs.

With regard to these…

• 16 states did not achieve “substantial conformity” on any measure;
• 18 states and DC did so in just one out of the seven areas;
• 7 states did so in two areas;
• Final reports haven’t yet been published on eleven states.

This kind of assessment pulls our gaze back from the series of heartbreaking snapshots (Logan, of Maine, killed; Rilya, of Florida, missing; Angelo, California, killed; Gabriel, North Carolina, killed…), so we can see something else: a systemic, nationwide failure, the kind of problem that can be addressed by changes in public policy, in procedures, in training and in a host of other elements. It takes us from the fruitless consideration of “what if” to a place from which anyone can take action.

And in the reports created by the review process, a wealth of detail emerges. We learn that there are shades of gray in the failures of the states; that some are doing a few things well; that there are best practices to be emulated and pitfalls to be avoided. California can learn from Alabama, Texas can learn from Maryland.

For example, from the California report (0 out of 7 on outcomes), here’s one example of an eminently fixable problem: California has set a 12-month time limit on in-home family services – supports that are critical in helping troubled families so that children can safely remain in their homes rather entering foster care. In the dry language of the report, “It was noted that because of this time limitation, services often were terminated without regard to an assessment of change in the level of risk.”

In other words, even if services are working -- keeping families together and keeping children from harm -- the state pulls the plug after 12 months without even asking the question, “Will this put children at risk?” Since when did family dysfunction follow a state bureaucracy’s schedule?

The state reviews, most of which have already been posted on the HHS website, make important and interesting reading. Between 2000 and 2003, federal and state teams analyzed child welfare data and practice, conducted case record reviews and interviews, and held conversations with foster parents, biological parents, children, social workers – a wide range of people with something at stake. The Administration for Children and Families and the Children’s Bureau then used the data to assess how well each state was performing in three broad areas: conformance with national standards, outcomes, and systemic factors.

Concerned about your own state’s inability to protect and care for these vulnerable children? Learn exactly how child welfare agencies in your state failed in their responsibilities to children, and where they succeeded, by reading your state’s assessment and key findings. Then, you can visit Connect for Kids’ organization database to search for groups that are doing work on these issues in your state (make sure you click on the State/Local button under “Scope of Work”).

And after you’ve done your homework – do something! We’d love to hear about any actions you take, and the results you receive. Send me an e-mail: susan@connectforkids.org.

Resource:

The Child Welfare League of America maintains a large and comprehensive database, the National Data Analysis System. It can be accessed through the CWLA web site, via free registration.

Susan Phillips is the Connect for Kids editor