Institutional Injustices Within the Child Welfare System
Elysium C. McCullough
Old Dominion University
SOC 201 S An Introduction To Sociology
Professor Phil Austin
12/06/2023
Institutional Injustices Within the Child Welfare System
Background, History, and Scope
In the United States, the child welfare system and its child protective services have had a long history of differential and oftentimes unequal treatment towards ethnic minorities within the system, starting from the cases which social workers choose to investigate. This paper, with the assistance of peer-reviewed research, aims to analyze the research through a macro lens rooted in functionalist and conflict perspectives in order to answer three major questions regarding the child welfare system (CWS).
The CWS is a multi-faceted institution which can be broken down into four distinct steps: reporting, substantiation, out-of-home placement, and reunification. This process can be extremely traumatic for a child, who oftentimes are already familiar with or actively in a high-stress situation. Thus, it is important this process is as accommodating and unbiased for the children within the system as possible. The ultimate purpose of this institution is to maintain the safety and well-being of children, however there are often instances within the process that this is overlooked. As a result, flaws emerge within the system, sometimes making it an unsafe environment for children, particularly those of ethnic minorities (i.e. African American, Hispanic/Latinx).
As it pertains to ethnicity; “Black, Native American or Indigenous, and Latino families and families of low socioeconomic status have higher rates of child welfare involvement compared to their representation in the general population” (e.g., Derezotes et al. 2004; Sedlak et al. 2010; Feely and Bosk, 2021). This overrepresentation of minorities within the system is one of the first red flags that are present within the CWS, with Feely and Bosk attributing this overrepresentation to a structural racial bias. They are not the first to accuse the CWS of this bias, however, with many scholars choosing to investigate the system’s methods and statistics as they pertain to the ethnic makeup of children at different points in the system.
Historically, in states like Ohio, Marian Morton (2000), identifies how the CWS has disproportionately included black children in Cleveland, making up a resounding “67 percent of children kept at the center” in 1997 (p. 141). As if this statistic were not grim as it was, with more than half of the children in the Cleveland system being black, that does not even mention the fact that they were being kept in a detention facility, as there was not enough space in the orphanages, with the space that was available being reserved for white children (Marian Morton, p. 148). 50 years prior, a nonprofit with the goal of supporting CWS had criticized Cleveland for the “racial inequalities” (Marian Morton, p. 150) that were present within its CWS. However, as the data suggests, this had little to no impact on the injustices that were occurring, despite public opinion being against it. Ohio, although it is a much more recent example, is not the only culprit of these racial biases. In the 1800’s, it was common practice for Native American children to be placed with white, European settler families who were responsible for their assimilation. These children were intentionally separated from their families and placed with a more “suitable” family.
These historical injustices are not a thing of the past, as current research and activism suggests, and thus the purpose of this paper comes to light. When it comes to the child welfare system, there are clear, identifiable injustices which are not up for debate. However, by focusing specifically on the racial and ethnic injustices the paper raises the following questions: 1). How do race and ethnicity disproportionately reflect the shortcomings of the CWS? 2). Are the challenges faced by the children within the CWS also faced by their families? 3). And finally, are the injustices present within the CWS reflected on an institutional level?
Literature Review
“Acknowledging racial bias in child welfare reveals the need to radically transform the system from one that relies too much on punitive disruption of families to one that generously supports them” (Roberts, 2014, p. 1). By focusing on racial bias, poverty, the disproportionate effects of overrepresentation in the CWS, Roberts sets up a firm conflict perspective in her paper. As mentioned in the introduction, many researchers, including Feely and Bosk (2021) have identified this bias within the CWS which leads to overrepresentation. However, the difference between these researchers is that Roberts focuses her research on the effects of these biases. By analyzing the effect on families, one can broaden their understanding of just what this means for many children who are involved in the CWS. The harsh reality, as Roberts illustrates in her research, is that the families of the children almost always are blamed for the child’s involvement in the system, both by the children and the state (2014). This blame, although not unfounded, shows a lack of awareness and reflection on the part of the system, which is able to present itself as incapable of error. This sort of perception is a dangerous one to have, for an institution as large as the CWS is to not admit to its mistakes can only lead to more mistakes being made, with the parents being forced to take the blame. However, as a third party, this paper is able to acknowledge the CWS mistakes. Particularly, as they pertain to minorities. One of these such mistakes can be identified in how “black children are less likely than white children to be placed in out of home care for neglect rather than physical or sexual abuse, [however] black children are less likely to be reunited with their parents” (Chen and Hislo, 2007; Roberts 2014, p. 428). Essentially, regardless of the severity of the issue which resulted in a black child being in the CWS, they are more often separated from their families. This is a mistake which cannot be easily justified by a factor other than racial bias. This is further supported by Simons (2017), who claims that “black children are more likely to be forcibly removed from their homes, more likely to be investigated, and remain in the system for longer” (p. 348). By looking at these two pieces of information side-by-side, it is easier to draw conclusions about the CWS treatment of ethnically minority children, especially black children, considering the frequent removal of them from their homes. Home removal is a serious step taken by CPS, and it is often “reserve[d] … in case of emergencies” (Simons, 2017) however in instances regarding black children, they are often “removed without prior reasoning” (Simons, 2017, p. 349). As to why this may be the case, and racial bias has already been mentioned, it is important to be more specific and thus pose the question: What does racial bias look like in the CWS? For one, this could be rooted in how “stereotypical black men and women don’t fit … [as] a ‘model’ family” (Simons, 2017, p. 353). This idea of African Americans not fitting into the stereotype of a model family is not a new concept, seeing as the traditional “nuclear” family was a two-parent, white, middle-class household. However it is even more damning today, with factors such as poverty being a primary determinant in terms of mistreatment.
Poverty in the United States is a growing issue, with a rate of poverty over 10% in the past year. However, when this factor is a determinant for whether a child is removed from their home or not, that number quickly becomes frightening. Even though it is not surprising that income inequality is a factor in these home removals, according to Roberts (2014) “[The CWS] hides the systemic reasons for poor families’ hardships by primarily attributing them to parental deficits and pathologies that require therapeutic remedies rather than social change” (Roberts, 2014). This issue is something which Feely and Bosk (2021) address in their article as well, with how the CWS has attempted to take a race-blind approach to their processes. However, as they brought up, it is impossible to truly eliminate race and race-related factors from any social equation. This, in a way, is identifiable through the sociological scapegoat theory, and why the philosopher Rawls “veil of ignorance” theory falls short. Race is an issue which is deeply embedded in our society, especially in America, and as long as there is some dominant group it will bar the subordinate group from achieving equality. Thus, seeing as “African American kids are almost 3 times as likely to live in poverty as white children, and over six times more likely to to live in impoverished neighborhoods” (Simons, 2017, p. 352) it should come as no surprise that “poverty has been found to be the main factor of maltreatment … especially common in African American families and neighborhoods” (Simons, 2017, p. 352). This attempt at a race-blind approach within the CWS, as illustrated by the data provided in terms of its relation to poverty, is clearly failing children of ethnic minorities, as presented by the disproportionate numbers of not only African American children, which amounted to “nearly 60,000” in 2016 (Simons, 2017, p. 350) but also Hispanic children, which “has more than doubled in the last 20 years” (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1997, 2018; Simons 2017, p. 202).
In lieu of a race-blind approach, Feely and Bosk (2021) present a “structural risk perspective”. They identify that the inequalities within the CWS are a result of not only systemic inequalities, but also “biased decision-making” (Feely and Bosk, p. 52). And thus, the only way to identify and work towards solving the inherent inequalities within the system, these biases must be acknowledged, as “structural racism is systemic in nature, perpetuated through social institutions” (Feely and Bosk, p. 58). And thus, Feely and Bosk are able to continue and identify “risk” the primary tool of identification for maltreatment within the CWS as a tool which perpetuates “systemically racist social structures such as redlining, lack of equal access to education, and lack of equal access to capital which then in turn creates racially situated economic conditions” (Feely and Bosk, p. 58). This ties back into the original point of poverty, which has been manufactured by racist government policies intended to keep minorities oppressed, which is then enacted upon by the CWS as a means of enforcing minorities’ places in society. They are forced into poverty by an oppressive government and then are presented as a “risk” to their children which are then taken from them. All of this ties into the idea of a self-fulfilling prophecy, specific roles are assigned to these minorities which are then enforced by the institutions which assigned them, punishing them for filling that role.
This can also be seen within the prison system, seeing as how “between 1986 and 1991, black women in the prison system for drug offenses rose by 828%” (Richie, 2002; Roberts, 2014, p. 141). If that were not bad enough, many children who end up in CWS, which had in some places originated as detention facilities (Marian Morton, 2000) also end up in the prison system themselves. This is often a result of behavioral issues which are developed through socialization by peers within the CWS, the negative environments which they were raised in, and/or separation from their families. Ultimately, a cycle of repetition unfolds, in which these children may not necessarily be labeled “deviant” by the CWS as an institution, however often their parents are labeled as such, and in-turn often internalize that label and accept it for themselves as an extension of their family. Once they have accepted that label, if they do not end up in the prison system, there is a chance that one of two things occur. The first is that these children become hypervigilant and oppressive as adults towards their children, as a way to keep them out of the CWS. Or, they end up repeating the same behaviors or in the same situation their family did, as a result of being unable to achieve a status higher than what they were born into. Ultimately, this is a reflection of how the CWS as an institution disenfranchises children of ethnic and racial minorities, and the need for reform, using Feely and Bosk’s structural risk approach as a guide to do so.
Current Societal Example
In 2011, Paul Abbott and John Wells’ TV series Shameless aired for the first time. This show centered around a mixed-race household run by 21 year-old Fiona Gallagher, oldest of six children. Not only does this show present a non-nuclear household, with a single adult and five younger children, and the adult not even being a biological parent; but it also is openly critical of the child welfare system. As a mixed-race family living in the southside of Chicago, they are at higher risk to be targeted by CPS, and without a competent legal guardian the risks associated with a visit are quite steep. It is a constant threat in their lives, with the separation of their non-nuclear family being emotionally damaging, more so than any perceived challenges on behalf of CPS.
In season 3, episode 7 of the series which originally aired on March 3rd, 2013 the Gallagher’s worst fear comes to life. CPS arrives at their house, separating the children and sending them off to different foster homes after witnessing a scene of pure chaos. Throughout this episode, and the series as a whole the CWS is demonized, with one side character warning; “be careful, Frank. Those child-stealing liberal bastards are out for blood” (Macy and Hissirch, 2013). As the audience, quotes such as these leave a very firm impression of the CWS as an oppressive institution which has the goal of separating all children from their families. Within this episode specifically, despite the dramatization for television, there are very accurate issues represented as well. These include a “preference” for younger children, especially infants in foster homes. The younger children are, the more likely they are to be placed into “caring” homes. As for the older children, much like in Shameless, they are placed in homes, such as the ones mentioned in Morton (2000), that are not only gendered into “boys” and “girls”, but operate similarly to juvenile detention centers with tight curfews, poor treatment, and a general lack of freedom.
Shameless is not the only media to present the inequalities of the CWS, with movies such as The Blind Side and Instant Family showcasing the often uninformed placement of children and teenagers with foster families. Although each of these are very unique, they represent how social workers apart from the CWS often overlook many factors when deciding temporary home arrangements, almost always opting for the middle or upper middle class two parent households. These decisions are primarily motivated by the race and economic status of the families, biases which tend to be overlooked due to how they appear on paper. This is because one of the many factors which go into deciding on whether or not a household is suitable for foster children is income. On paper, this makes sense, a family must have adequate resources to support one or more children. However, when other socioeconomic factors such as education and ability (to achieve) are considered; white families are the ones which are most likely to fit the standards for raising a foster child. This is a fact that has been true for centuries, seeing as how Native American children were placed with white European families in the 1800’s.
Synopsis
Overall, this paper has analyzed a variety of different sources in an attempt to gain an understanding about the CWS as a whole, while focusing on the injustices present within it, taking a macro scale approach. While there was a focus on African American children, Hispanic children were also mentioned briefly in an attempt to gain a more nuanced understanding of how it affected minorities as a whole, not just one. Through the research, as well as the current television and movie examples provided at the end, I was able to get an understanding of this system from not only the public conception, but also from detailed researchers. It was fascinating to dive into the historical injustices and how poverty especially is a major influence in terms of what is considered a “risk” as well as the institutional biases which came with it. Coming into this paper I was familiar with the racial injustices from a government/policy perspective, however I was able to now analyze it through an entirely different lens, revealing a lot more about how the CWS functions as an institution. I would say although they may not have been addressed directly throughout the paper, the research questions which I posed were at the very least supported by the research done, if not outright answered. In the future, I would like to focus more on the CWS to prison pipeline, to see how those two institutions are linked. To conclude, I would cite the structural risk perspective as the primary method through which social workers within the CWS approach their cases in the least racially biased way possible. From the research I conducted, it is the most straightforward “solution” or at least path of progress as it pertains to “fixing” the child welfare system.
References
Davidson, R. D., Morrissey, M. W., & Beck, C. J. (2019). The Hispanic experience of the Child Welfare System. Family Court Review, 57(2), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12404
Ezell, J. M. (2019). First, do no harm to self: Perspectives around trauma-informed practice and secondary traumatic stress among Rural Child Protective Services Workers. Journal of Child Custody, 16(4), 387–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2019.1687061
Feely, M., & Bosk, E. A. (2021). That which is essential has been made invisible: The need to bring a structural risk perspective to reduce racial disproportionality in child welfare. Race and Social Problems, 13(1), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-021-09313-8
Macy, W., & Hissrich, M. (2013, March 3). A Long Way From home. Shameless. episode.
Morton, M. J. (2000). Institutionalizing inequalities: Black children and child welfare in Cleveland, 1859-1998. Journal of Social History, 34(1), 141–162. https://doi.org/10.1353/jsh.2000.0119
Roberts, D. E. (2014). Child protection as surveillance of African American families. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 36(4), 426–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2014.967991Simons, K. B. (2018). Catalyzing the separation of black families: A critique of foster care placements without prior judicial review. Columbia Journal of Law & Social Problems, 51(3), 349–389.