Latagia Copeland-Tyronce's Social Welfare Policy Paper 1

Running Head: U.S. Social Welfare Policy Paper
US Social Welfare Policy Paper
Latagia Copeland-Tyronce [latagia.copeland@wayne.edu]
Wayne State University School of Social Work
Intro to Social Welfare Policy in the United States: SW: 7720
October 23, 2016

SOCIAL WELFARE ISSUE
The child welfare system (CPS) is the social welfare issue that I will be discussing in this
paper. There are several reasons why I chose child welfare and some of them are personal. One
of the main reasons that I chose this issue is because I have personally experienced the child
welfare system, both as a child and as an adult; and I can truly say that neither of my experiences
with the system was a positive one. Another reason that I chose child welfare as the focus of this
paper is due to the sheer scope and prevalence of the system within in this country. There is a
CPS agency in almost every county in every state in America.
CPS is a division within State and local social services and is considered to be at the
center of every community’s child protection efforts. CPS is the agency mandated by law to
conduct an initial assessment or investigation of reports of child abuse and neglect in the
majority of jurisdictions. More often than not, “services” are offered to families and children
where maltreatment has, or is likely, to occur. In most circumstances CPS does not work alone in
that many other professionals are involved in cases, including: law enforcement officers, health
care providers, mental health professionals, educators, legal and court system personnel, and
substitute care providers. Together, these professionals work to prevent, identify, investigate, and
address child abuse and neglect (DePanfilis, D., & Salus, M. K., 2003).
That said, CPS is typically the lead agency in coordinating the efforts of the various
disciplines working to protect children and to educate the community about the issues
surrounding child abuse and neglect. Moreover, nationwide CPS investigates millions of reports
of child abuse and/or neglect annually and employees a substantial governmental workforce;

including, GALs, social workers, case workers, foster parents, and district attorneys; the child
welfare system costs taxpayers billions of dollars each year.
According to the most recently released data (2013) by the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services Administration for Children & Families, 1,520 children died from abuse
and neglect in the U.S. with another 3.1 million children receiving preventative services from
CPS agencies in 47 states. The statistics further revealed that around 679,000 children were
victims of abuse and/or neglect and that children under one had the highest rate of victimization.
Moreover, of the children who experienced maltreatment or abuse, nearly 80% suffered neglect;
18% suffered physical abuse; and 9% suffered sexual abuse. It was revealed that in the vast
majority of cases where children were killed, and were where abuse and/or neglect was a factor,
that at least one parent was the perpetrator.
IMPACTED VULNERABLE POPULATIONS
In doing the research for this paper, and to my dismay, I discovered that there are many
definitions of what constitutes a “vulnerable population” and that they often vary by profession.
With that being said, most professions, including social work, would agree that vulnerable
populations are people and/or groups who are disadvantaged and/or marginalized based on their
economic, environmental, social, and/or cultural characteristics. These populations require
special care, considerations and protections. Vulnerable populations include, children, pregnant
women, prisoners, employees, military persons, terminally ill, physically/intellectually
challenged individuals, elderly individuals, ethnic minorities, refugees, economically and the
educationally disabled (Shivayogi, P., 2013).

Due to the very nature and function of the child welfare system/CPS in this country, I
think it is safe to say that it impacts several vulnerable populations, especially children.
However, for this assignment I will discuss the poor and African Americans. I chose to discuss
poor people and African Americans because I believe these populations are, by far, impacted the
most by the child welfare system. While it is undeniable that the child welfare system/CPS
impacts children just as it should, it also impacts the poor and African Americans in a disparate
way. There is no creditable evidence that shows and/or proves that African Americans
abuse/neglect their children at greater rates than whites.
Furthermore, although African Americans only account for 15% of the general child
population they make up 34% of the foster-care population and are more than twice as likely to
enter foster care compared with white children in 2004 (GAO, 2007). It is become apparent that
racial disparities are present at every critical decision point within the child welfare system.
While race plays a remarkable role in the disparities that exist within the system so does
socioeconomic status. According to University of Pennsylvania law professor Dorothy Roberts,
poverty is the leading cause of children landing in foster care. In fact, one study concluded that
poor families are up to 22 times more likely to be involved in the child-welfare system than
wealthier families (Roberts, D. E., 2002).
Since we now know that poverty is a significant factor in determining when and what
families come to the attention of CPS, and since African Americans are more likely to be poor,
African Americans are disparately impacted. Child welfare disparities have been well
documented and the reasons why hotly debated for decades now. However, I think many people

agree, myself included, that the factors which result in disparities are systemic and as such need
to be addressed through macro level interventions.
OVERVIEW OF THE ISSUE
While the child welfare system as we know it today is a relatively new concept, there has
always been some sort of mechanism and/or intervention in place for dependent and/or abused
children, that is children without proper parental care. However, the ways in which children were
viewed and their roles within the family structure has evolved over the centuries. At one point in
time, children were considered the property of their parents and had little, if any rights at all.
Furthermore, the vast majority of human existence childhood was almost nonexistent in that
children were expected to start contributing to the household as soon as they were old enough to
walk and talk. This was especially the case with African American children during slavery, who
instead of being considered the property of their parents, were considered the property of the
slave owner.
The history of child protection in America is best characterized as a series of three
phases or eras. The first phase extends from colonial times to 1875 and can be referred to as the
era before organized child protection. The second phase spans from 1875 to 1962 and is marked
be the creation and growth of organized child protection through nongovernmental child
protection entities. The final phase and/or modern era begins in 1962 and marks the beginning of
government-sponsored child protective services (Myers, 2008). Prior to 1875 there were no
formal organizations devoted exclusively to child protection in America.

Although child abuse was a prosecutable offence, and judges as well as magistrates had
the legal authority to remove children from abusive homes, neither of these things happened on a
consistent basis as the court, criminal or civil, rarely got involved, and when the courts did get
involved, the abuse had to have been particularly egregious. That said, by the ninetieth century
child protection became a priority and legislation started to be introduced. In 1866,
Massachusetts passed a law authorizing judges to intervene in the family when, "by reason of
orphanage or of the neglect, crime, drunkenness or other vice of parents," a child was "growing
up without education or salutary control, and in circumstances exposing said child to an idle and
dissolute life,” (1866 Mass. Acts ch. 283).
Organized non-governmental child protection came about in the U.S. with the case of
nine-year-old Mary Ellen Watson. In 1874 a religious missionary by the name of Etta Wheeler
discovered that Mary, who lived with her guardians in Hell's Kitchen New York, had been
routinely beaten and neglected. Ms. Wheeler made up her mind that she was going to rescue
Mary. Ms. Wheeler asked the police for help, but they refused to investigate. Ms. Wheeler then
sought the assistance of child helping charities, however, they too didn’t have the authority to
intervene. Finally, Ms. Wheeler sought advice from Henry Bergh, the founder of the American
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, who then asked his lawyer, Elbridge Gerry, to
find a legal way to remove Mary. Gerry filed a variant of the Writ of Habeas Corpus to remove
Mary Ellen from her guardians, and thus Mary was successfully removed.
After the successful removal of Mary, Bergh and Gerry created a nongovernmental
organization devoted to child protection, the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Children (NYSPCC). NYSPCC become the world's, and America’s, first organization entirely

devoted to child protection. Following the example of NYSPCC, there were some 300
nongovernmental child protection organizations scattered across America by 1922. However, for
much of the twentieth century many cities, and nearly all rural areas, had little or no access to
formal child-protective services. But for most abused and/or neglected children help came, if at
all, from family, neighbors, police, and courts that were willing to get involved (Myers, 2008).
During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, child protection was primarily the
responsibility of nongovernmental agencies called Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Children (or SPCCs). With the widespread adoption of SPCCs, the nations’ first, and the first in
the world, Juvenile court was created in Chicago in 1899. Other states soon followed suit, and by
1919, all but three states had established Juvenile Courts. The creation of the federal Children's
Bureau in 1912, along with the widespread use of Juvenile courts, signified the shift towards
governmental child protection. The Social Security Act of 1935 was the first legislation that
provided federal funding to encourage states to develop preventive and protective services for
vulnerable children (Myers, 2008).
In 1961, the Act was amended to include funding for Foster care payments under the Aid
to Dependent Children program to assist states in making maintenance payments for children
who are eligible for cash assistance and who live in foster care. These payments go to foster
parents to cover the costs of children's food, shelter, clothing, supervision, travel home for visits,
etc. It was during the Great Depression of the 1930s that nongovernmental SPCCs began to
significantly decline due to lack of funds. Since SPCCs relied almost exclusively on charitable
donations, with only a handful managing to survive the economic drought, by the 1940s many
SPCCs either merged with other organizations or closed all together.

In some areas, child protection was the responsibility of the juvenile court and/or the
police, whereas in other areas, organized protective work stopped all together. In 1956, Vincent
De Francis, director of the Children's Division of the American Humane Association, conducted
a national inventory of child protective services (Myers, 2008). De Francis only discovered 84
nongovernmental SPCCs which was considerably down from the high of 300 early in the
century; he also found that 32 states had no nongovernmental child-protective services. In these
states, and in states with SPCCs, government agencies were slowly assuming responsibility. A
decade after his first survey, De Francis again conducted a national inventory of child protection,
this time he found only 10 nongovernmental SPCCs left in the U.S. By 1967, nearly all states
had laws placing responsibility for child protection in government hands (Myers, 2008).
HOW POLICY HAS CHANGED OVER TIME
As previously discussed, and despite the passage the Social Security Act in 1935 and
1961, prior to 1967 child protection in the U.S. was mainly the responsibility of
nongovernmental agencies, and was hardly a national priority. However, the climate regarding
child protection began to change significantly; as the 1960’s gave rise to the third phase or
modern era of child protection in this country in which government becomes the main player.
The push for government child protection came about with the increased role of state and federal
governments in social services such as cash assistance for needy families. Moreover, it was
healthcare professionals, mainly physicians, that brought child abuse to the forefront, made it a
major priority, and sparked national interest in the issue (Myers, 2008).
As medical education evolved and incorporated child abuse training; physicians
discovered that many of the physical injuries that children were sustaining were a result of abuse

by a parent and/or caretaker. It was during this time that the medical professional brought
widespread attention to what was dubbed the "battered child syndrome.” (Kempe, C.H.,
Silverman, EN., Steele, B.E, et al. 1962). With increased awareness of child abuse and/or
neglect, and with the backing of the medical profession, the 1970’s witnessed the passage of
several landmark federal child welfare legislations. First, was the Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act (CAPTA), Public Law 93-247 (1974) which provided limited funding to states as
an effort to prevent, identify, and treat child abuse and neglect (Schene, P. A., 1998).
CAPTA also created the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, which developed
the protocol for receiving and responding to reports of child maltreatment, and established a
clearinghouse on the prevention and treatment of abuse and neglect. Second, was the Social
Services Block Grant, Title XX of the Social Security Act (1975) which provided funds that
states could use for social services to low-income individuals. However, a significant but
unknown proportion of these funds goes toward paying for services related to child protection,
including prevention, treatment programs, and foster care/adoption services. And lastly, there
was the passage of the Indian Child Welfare Act, Public Law 95-608 (1978) which seeks to
strengthen the role played by tribal governments in determining the custody of Indian children,
and specifies that preference be given to placements with extended family, then to Indian foster
homes (Schene, P. A., 1998).
CURRENT STATE OF POLICY
From the 1990s on up to now is, what I would consider, the current state of child welfare
in the U.S. During the 80’s and early 90s, in home preventative services and family preservation
was the main goal of our federal government; this was promoted through the passage of two key

pieces of federal legislation. The first, was the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act,
Public Law 96-272 (1980) which requires states that seek to maximize federal funding to
establish programs and make procedural reforms to serve children in their own homes, prevent
out-of-home placement, and facilitate family reunification following placement. The Act also
transferred federal foster care funding to a new Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, and creates
funds to help states pay adoption expenses for children whose special needs make adoption
difficult (Schene, P. A.,1998).
And the other, was the Family Preservation and Support Initiative, Public Law 103-66
(1993) which gave funds to states to encourage family preservation, support planning and
services. The laws’ main purpose was to help communities build a system of family support
services to assist vulnerable children and families prior to maltreatment, and family preservation
services to help families suffering crises that may have lead to their children being placed outside
the home/foster care. However, by 1997 attitudes began to change once more, and thus timely
child permanency, and permanency by means of adoption, became the goal of our federal
government. With this goal in mind, federal funding began to be geared towards out of home
placements and services, with the primary goal being adoption (Schene, P. A., 1998).
This was accomplished with the passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA),
Public Law 105-89 (1997) which reauthorizes and increases funding for the Family Preservation
and Support program, while changing its name to "Promoting Safe and Stable Families." This
law also requires states to move children already in foster care more rapidly into permanent
homes, by terminating parental rights more quickly and by encouraging adoptions (Schene, P.
A., 1998). While there are has been no new major federal legislation passed since 1997, there has

been some attention paid to the consequences of the legislation passed thus far. Some have taken
issue with the time limits placed on families who have a child or children in foster care. What
used to take years, now must be accomplished in a matter of months. Most parents have 15
months to “fully” comply with their case plan, and/or fix all the issues that lead to their
child(ren) being removed, or face the very real possibly of having the parental rights terminated
to the child(ren).
As discussed earlier in this paper, the poor and African Americans are affected
disproportionately by these policies, and have thus suffered a great deal as a result. There has
also been some controversy surrounding, the case plans themselves, often court ordered, in that
some believe that they are meant to be failed, and that many people simply can’t complete them
in the amount of time given. Other issues include, the lack of competent parental legal
representation and Constitutional implications. Moreover, there is a growing sense that the child
welfare system itself, is doing more harm than good. As a woman of color, who has had personal
encounters with the system, I must agree with the above analysis.
FUTURE TRENDS
During my research for this paper, I discovered that there are many challenges, as well as
suggested improvements regarding our current child welfare system and/or policies. However,
for the scope of this paper, I will focus on the trends that I believe are the most perinate and
likely to occur. One of the major issues that needs considerable attention, and that I believe will
be affectively addressed sometime in the future, is the issue of racial disparities. There have been
a great many suggestions on how to reduce these disparities, specifically African Americans,
from cultural competency training, for both legal and child welfare personnel, to policy changes.

And while culturally competent decision making could, and would, make a difference on a small
scale, I believe that policy would be the best route to address this issue, especially on a national
level.
Tackling the systemic over representation of African American children in Foster care
would require federal legislation, no doubt about that. The Act would be modeled after the
Indian Child welfare Act and would serve many of the same purposes for African Americans.
This unrealized Act was first conceived, written about, and proposed, by Southern Methodist
University law professor Jessica Dixon Weaver back in 2008. The African American Child
Welfare Act, as it would be known, would address many of the systemic factors that lead to
disparate outcomes and overrepresentation within the system. Although, no one at the time
seemed to be interested in taking up this cause, Ms. Dixion-Weaver makes a compelling and
thoughtful case as to the need of an African American specific federal child welfare law
(Weaver, J. D., 2008). I believe in the merits of this law and predict that in the future it could,
and would, be enacted, even if I have to lobby for it myself.
Having said that, child welfare future trends tend to focus primarily on prevention
services and education. One future trend, would be the increased utilization of technology to
expand provider-participant contact and service access. Examples include, using cell phones to
maintain regular communication with parents between intervention visits; and providing parental
education and support programs using internet resources; and community based programs that
also use the internet to link families with an array of resources within that community. Another
future trend, would be the working towards achieving a balance between formal services and
informal supports (Child maltreatment prevention: Past, present, and future, 2011).

Improving and enhancing the ability to reach all those at risk is another future trend in
child welfare. These trends are, and will continue to be, a focus because the most common
factors used to identify populations at risk for maltreatment, such as young maternal age,
poverty, single parent status, domestic violence, substance abuse, and mental health issues, are
simply not enough since no one, or combination of these, factor(s) determine actual child
maltreatment. And lastly, there will be increased effort in facilitating community prevention
programs instead of only focusing on individual parents and their children. The goal of
community prevention programs being to encourage greater collaboration amongst local service
providers such as, first responders, faith based organizations, and local businesses (Child
maltreatment prevention: Past, present, and future, 2011).
INTERVIEW WITH ADVOCATE
I chose to interview Ms. Angela Olivera as a child welfare advocate on Oct 20th of this
year. Ms. Olivera is an Assistant Professor of Policy for the Social Work program here at Wayne
State University. Professor Olivera has been working in and around the child welfare system for
some 32 years, and has extensive experience within the system, including managing several
agencies. This section is comprised of the highlights of our interview. When asked her opinion
about the current state of child welfare in the U.S., Professor Olivera said that she thought there
were a lot of things that need to be addressed. One policy that Professor Olivera talked about quite
a bit was the current policy regarding termination of parental rights based solely on pervious
terminations; Professor Olivera feels that this is unfair and that the law needs to be reviewed.
Professor Olivera made a point of saying that the system can’t “Hit everyone with the same
brush,” and that, “Cases need to be considered on a case by case basis.” Professor Olivera believes

that racism and biases are real issues within the child welfare system as we know it, and that these
biases lead to disparate treatment and outcomes. Substance abuse cases was one example that
Professor Olivera used to demonstrate her point. She noted that often white parents with substance
abuse, and other serious issues, were permitted to keep their children in the home; whereas, black
parents with the very same issues tend to have their children removed. Professor Olivera also noted
that she feels that people of different colors are viewed, and thus treated, differently just like in
cases of police brutality.
As part of her extensive experience working within the child welfare system, Professor
Olivera has worked with both predominately white and predominately black agencies; and because
of this she has seen firsthand the differences in the treatment of both parents and children. Professor
Olivera stated that she witnessed agencies refusing to place white children with black families,
while at the same time, placing black children with white families, and often without hesitation.
Professor Olivera noted that professionals within the system tend not to see their own personal
biases and that there are many things left unspoken.
Moreover, Professor Olivera believes that there is an implicit rule within the child welfare
system, and that is that white is right, brown is ok, and black is bad. Professor Olivera did state
that not all the predominately white agencies exhibited covert racism but that that was the case at
the agency she was employed at. When asked if better training could help elevate the issues within
the system, Professor Olivera stated that training doesn’t work, and therefore would not help.
Professor Olivera wrapped up by stating that the answer lies in people first acknowledging their
own personal biases so that they can make a conscious effort to address them; this in turn could

help reverse the systemic racism and discrimination that is so prevalent within the child welfare
system.
CHILD WELFARE IN CANADA
I choose Canadas’ child welfare system to examine and discuss because they are our
closest neighbors; and I have always been fascinated by the societal differences within our two
countries. Through my research, and to my great surprise, I discovered that Canadas’ child
welfare system has many of the same issues that ours has; because both systems share similar
policy and practice platforms. That said, there are some major differences, both positive and
negative, between the two systems. One of the main differences is that there is no federal
oversight, and therefore no national tracking system, in Canadian Child welfare like there is in
the U.S (Ziminski, D., 2016).
Another difference is that in Canada, each province and/or territory has its own child
protection legislation, and government agency responsible for child welfare. Moreover, because
each province has different legislation relating to child protection services, it makes it difficult to
compare foster care rates over time, or across the provinces. On a more positive note, Canada
does have strong family benefits and social welfare assistance, making the limitations for child
services funding less of a federal concern, unlike the perpetually cash strapped American system.
Each individual Canadian providence and/or territory is responsible for child welfare funding
(Ziminski, D., 2016).
Both systems seem to have shifted focus toward support for older foster youth and for
families post-adoption; and the use of evidence-based practices is also on the rise in Canada.

After doing the research for this paper I don’t believe that Canadas’ child welfare system is any
more successful than Americas.’ Recent reports indicate that the U.S. is better at achieving
permanency due to Canadas’ extreme Foster parent shortage. I do, however, think that Canada is
better at providing resources and services to families (Ziminski, D., 2016).
SPECIAL THANKS TO:
Professor Angela Olivera
Dr. Sandra Schiff

References
DePanfilis, D., & Salus, M. K. (2003). Child protective services: A guide for caseworkers.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children's Bureau, Office on Child
Abuse and Neglect.
Shivayogi, P. (2013). Vulnerable population and methods for their safeguard.Perspectives in
Clinical Research, 4(1), 53–57. http://doi.org/10.4103/2229-3485.106389
By OfficeAdministration for Native Americans (ANA)Administration on Children, Youth and
Families (ACYF)Children's Bureau (CB)Early Childhood Development (ECD)Family and Youth
Services Bureau (FYSB)Office of Child Care (OCC)Office of Child Support Enforcement
(OCSE)Office of Community Services (OCS)Office of Family Assistance (OFA)Office of Head
Start (OHS)Office of Human Services Emergency Preparedness and Response (OHSEPR)Office
of Legislative Affairs and Budget (OLAB)Office of Planning, Research & Evaluation
(OPRE)Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR)Office on Trafficking in Persons (OTIP -
END TRAFFICKING)Public Assistance Reporting Information System (PARIS). (2015, January
15). Child Maltreatment 2013. Retrieved October 03, 2016, from
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/resource/child-maltreatment-2013
United States., Government Accountability Office. (2007). African American children in foster
care additional HHS assistance needed to help states reduce the proportion in care: Report to
the Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Govt. Accountability Office.
Race Matters: Unequal Opportunity within the Child Welfare System - The Annie E. Casey
Foundation. (2006, January 01). Retrieved February 09, 2016, from
http://www.aecf.org/resources/race-matters-unequal-opportunity-within-the-child-welfare-
system/
Roberts, D. E. (2002). Shattered bonds: The color of child welfare. New York: Basic Books.
Burroughs, G. (2008). Ms. Magazine | Too Poor to Parent? | spring 2008. Retrieved February 09,
2016, from http://www.msmagazine.com/spring2008/tooPoorToParent.asp
Myers, J. E. (2008, Fall). A Short History of Child Protection in America. Family Law
Quarterly,42(Number 3). Retrieved October 2, 2016.
An Act Concerning the Care and Education of Neglected Children, (1866 Mass. Acts ch. 283).
Schene, P. A. (1998). Past, Present, and Future Roles of Child Protective Services. The Future of
Children, 8(1), 23. doi:10.2307/1602626
Kempe, C.H., Silverman, EN., Steele, B.E, et al. The battered-child syndrome. Journal of the
American Medical Association (July 7, 1962)

Child maltreatment prevention: Past, present, and future. (2011). Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of
Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on
Children, Youth and Families, Children's Bureau, Child Welfare Information Gateway.
Weaver, J. D. (2008, June). The African-American Child Welfare Act: A Legal Redress for
African-American Disproportionality in Child Protection Cases. SSRN Electronic Journal.
doi:10.2139/ssrn.1620656
Ziminski, D. (2016, July 7). Child Welfare in Canada: More Federal Assistance, Less Oversight
Compared to U.S. Retrieved October 23, 2016, from https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/news-
2/a-tale-of-two-systems-minimal-oversight-of-child-welfare-in-canada-compared-to-u-s/19433

Latagia Copeland-Tyronce's Social Welfare Policy Paper 1

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Similar a Latagia Copeland-Tyronce's Social Welfare Policy Paper 1

Similar a Latagia Copeland-Tyronce's Social Welfare Policy Paper 1 (11)

Más de Latagia Copeland-Tyronce, MSW (Policy), BS(Hons.)

Más de Latagia Copeland-Tyronce, MSW (Policy), BS(Hons.) (19)

Último

Último (20)

Latagia Copeland-Tyronce's Social Welfare Policy Paper 1