By Julia Saltzman, J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School
STUDENT VOICES: The views expressed below are those of the student author and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Access to Justice Lab.
A new study hypothesizes that providing families with financial resources can prevent child mistreatment and mitigate the harms associated with the family regulation system. The study, called Empowering Parenting with Resources or EmPwR, randomly assigns cash transfers to half of 800 families referred by the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). Families receive monthly cash transfers to use as they see best. Both the business-as-usual group (the group receiving no additional cash) and families receiving financial support will continue receiving DCFS social services.
If the study’s hypothesis proves correct, the findings could have implications for access to justice and child welfare policy. Should the payments reduce child mistreatment and prevent families from entering the family regulation system (also known as the child welfare or family policing system), the study would demonstrate an evidence-based solution to reduce family separations and their associated harms. Moreover, families would avoid legal procedures required when a state seeks to place temporarily a child in foster care or permanently terminate parental rights. These legal procedures have documented due process concerns, including that parents often lack a guaranteed right to counsel. Given that 83% of families involved in state child welfare agencies live below 200% of the federal poverty line, the study’s results could have far-reaching consequences.
The Relationship Between Poverty and Family Regulation System Involvement
Annually, over three million children are subject to a state investigation for alleged child maltreatment. Every 2.5 minutes, a child is separated from their family and placed into state custody. Neglect, rather than abuse, accounts for 76% of allegations and 64% of child removals.
Poverty is one of the most predictive indicators of child maltreatment. The signs of neglect are often connected with the forced circumstances of poverty. For example, a parent may not be able to afford a coat or medical care for their child or may leave a child without supervision to attend work. As one parent advocate summarized: “If I wasn’t poor, I wouldn’t be unfit.”
When a state agency substantiates an allegation of neglect following an investigation, it must respond with escalating interventions, depending on state law and the family’s circumstances. The agency may be required to provide social services, place children in foster care, or initiate termination of parental rights. But as one judge tasked with adjudicating child protection cases stated, “We shouldn’t be taking kids away from their parents because they don’t have food or a refrigerator.”
Traditional state strategies to assist families, such as parenting classes or mental health treatment, may not effectively address maltreatment in circumstances closely related to poverty. Research suggests that families receiving state child welfare social services are more likely to be re-reported to the agency, although this assertion is not causal, and in fact establishing causation here is unusually difficult without randomizing services. (If families that are in more danger of mistreatment are more likely to be selected to receive services, and services help but are not a total cure, then we’d see the same thing). Meanwhile, other research suggests that even years of ongoing services may not improve family functioning or healthy child behavior, although again, establishing causation is unusually challenging in this context without a randomized study. However, other research (subject to the same concern about establishing causation) has found limited evidence that these services lower the odds of a subsequent report. And some credit state child welfare agencies for the declining rates of reported physical and sexual abuse over the past several decades, though rates of neglect remain largely steady.
To illustrate how traditional services may not meet family needs, one caseworker explained how following procedures, he removed one family’s children from their mother’s care due to unsafe living conditions largely caused by landlord neglect. In his view, the system failed the family because the agency lacked resources to remedy the landlord’s wrongs. This example shows the immediacy of the connection between access to justice and family welfare concerns. State law frequently provides remedies for tenants whose landlords fail to maintain housing units in habitable condition, but if accessing those remedies requires paying a lawyer at market rates, those remedies might as well not exist for families most likely to become involved in the child welfare system. Similarly, federal benefits programs may provide benefits to families in need, but administrative burdens may prevent families living in poverty from accessing those benefits and maintaining program requirements, Meanwhile research has shown that mandated reporters such as teachers and social workers may mistakenly believe reporting families will result in increased resources for the child, when in reality, it may lead to punitive interventions. As Professor William Schneider, one of the researchers leading the EmPwR study, posited, “we can keep giving people treatments that don’t match the problem, or we can try and think of a better way.”
Disproportionate Impact on Families of Color
Many disparities in the criminal legal system are replicated in the family regulation system. Demographic disparities, for example, are stark. Before turning eighteen, 53% of Black children experience a child welfare investigation, compared to 28% of White children and 37% of all children. Children of color disproportionately experience removal and foster care, and their parents are more likely to have their parental rights permanently terminated. Interventions to combat racial disproportionality, including race-blind review of state-supported allegations, have thus far had little measurable impact.
These disparities matter. Research describing the potential short-and long-term harm to children removed from their parents suggests that the trauma associated with family separation increases risk of depression, development delays, attachment issues, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Individuals with a foster care history are more likely to become involved with the criminal legal system, experience homelessness, drop out of high school, and experience worse mental and physical health outcomes. Children in foster care face high rates of physical and sexual abuse. Again, causation is unusually hard to establish here without randomization, but these findings are a reason for concern. Though less research has been devoted to parents, some advocates believe involvement with the family regulation system causes poor outcomes for parents as well. Even short of removal, system involvement may still cause harm: families report experiencing state investigations as “invasive” and “humiliating”, and the threat of investigations may cause families to conceal their hardships rather than seek out support.
EmPwR Study Details
The study will be the largest guaranteed income pilot program for families involved in the family regulation system, and its sample population will be racially and geographically diverse, including participants living in urban, suburban, and rural communities. The cash transfer amount varies by family size and local cost of living. Researchers will analyze data from three different sources: DCFS records, qualitative interviews with caseworkers and parents, and parent surveys.
Other smaller-scale randomized control trial studies have already begun exploring the relationship between financial support and child welfare outcomes. For example, a privately funded program in Washington, DC aims to explore how “additional income affects mothers’ family stability, parental commitment, and other indicators of socioeconomic wellbeing.” A pilot program administered by the New York Office of Children and Family Services is underway. Earlier studies suggest that forms of economic support can reduce reports of child maltreatment: every $1 increase in the minimum wage is associated with a 9.6% decrease in reports of neglect; increases in the earned income tax credit has also been associated with reduced child maltreatment; and, supportive housing interventions led to fewer removals and fewer substantiated allegations.
The EmPwR study also builds on several categories of research exploring the impact of financial support on child and family wellbeing. First, medical research suggests that increased income to parents of newborns improves child health and wellbeing, including increasing brain activity associated with cognitive and social-emotional skills later in life. Second, some studies suggest that providing families in poverty with guaranteed income improves outcomes such as better physical health and a more harmonious home environment. Again, however, findings are mixed: some studies found that a moderate unconditional cash transfer to families with young children did not significantly affect material hardship, maternal well-being, or family relationships. Third, studies providing unrestricted cash transfers to returning citizens suggest financial support can reduce recidivism and support people as they reintegrate in their communities. These categories of research may suggest that combatting societal harms that are connected with poverty requires solutions targeting poverty rather than traditional social services.
Potential Study Implications
States allocate immense resources to state agencies and courts tasked with child welfare in the name of keeping children safe, spending nearly ten times as much on foster care and adoption than on family reunification. Advocates seeking evidence-based reforms should watch for the results of the EmPwR study. Perhaps by addressing poverty directly, states may be able to create a system that genuinely prioritizes both child safety and family stability while reducing overall costs.
If you’re interested in more on this topic, listen to our Proof Over Precedent podcast episode.