Human Service Issue

Chapter 4

The History of Child Welfare in the United States

The child welfare system in the United States has undergone significant changes in the last few hundred years due to numerous factors such as urbanization, industrialization, immigration, mass life-threatening illness, changes within the family system, changing social mores (including the reduction of shame associated with divorce, out-of-wedlock births, and single parenting by choice), and the eventual availability of government financial assistance for those in need. Thus, to fully understand the current child welfare system, it is vital to understand its past.

Child Labor in Colonial America: Indentured Servitude and Apprenticeships

There are many ways in which children were mistreated in early America, but in this section, I will be exploring primarily two areas of mistreatment of children in Great Britain and Colonial America. First, the use of children in the labor market, otherwise known as child labor, will be explored, and second, the treatment of children who were, for whatever reason, without parents, including orphans and street children. By exploring primarily child labor and the treatment of orphans and street children, it should not be presumed that other forms of maltreatment did not occur in America’s early history. The rationale for exploring these two areas of historic maltreatment is that they represent a significant departure in how children are treated today. Another rationale is that these areas of maltreatment highlight key areas within child welfare, with regard to early child welfare advocacy and the development of laws, policies, and programs intended to protect children.

The historical treatment of children in England and Colonial America has in many respects served as a precursor for child welfare laws in the United States, including child labor laws and other child protective legislation. There was no official government child welfare system during Colonial America, but there was considerable mistreatment of children. If the government did get involved in child welfare issues, it was either because a child was orphaned or, for whatever reason, living on the streets. Government involvement was not particularly compassionate and the solutions were often punitive in nature.

During Colonial America, poor and orphaned children were expected to work, often within their own households and farms alongside their families. The hope of most parents during this era was that their children would be able to afford to buy farms of their own when they grew to adulthood. But children from poor and immigrant families were often expected to work in adult-like capacities, with children under 12 working alongside their parents in factories or other industrial-like settings, and children 12 and older working in apprenticed positions outside of their homes and away from their families.

During the many waves of early immigration, people seeking a better life in America often paid for their passage to the United States through a process called indentured service, which required that servants work off the cost of their travel by working for a master in some capacity once they arrived in America. If a family immigrated to the United States in this manner, their children, regardless of age, were required to work as well. The economic system of indentured servitude was extremely exploitative. Ship owners would often recruit unsuspecting and desperate individuals from other countries with stories of abundant life in America (Greene, 1995). Many individuals and families accepted the call, believing they could make a better life for themselves in Colonial America where opportunities for economic self-sufficiency were believed to be abundant.

Indentured servants were often told that the terms of their service would last for about 3 years, and then they would be free—free to buy land and to make a life for themselves that was not possible in many European countries (Alderman, 1975). In reality, the cost of their passage would be paid off in only about a year, and the remaining years of service were essentially free work. Masters often treated their bonded labor quite poorly. Servants received no cash wages, but were supposed to be provided with basic necessities, which, depending on the nature and means of the master, might range from sufficient sustenance to meager sustenance and substandard shelter. Thus, while indentured servants were not considered slaves per se, the treatment of them was quite similar (Martin, 2014).

Although most indentured servants were in their early 20s, Greene (1995) notes that children who immigrated with their families on bonded contracts were expected to work as well and were often treated no differently than their parents. Children were not allowed to enter into bonded labor contracts without the permission of their parents. However, very poor and orphaned children, particularly in London, were often kidnapped and sold to ship captains, who then brought them to America and sold them as indentured servants, most often to masters who used them as house servants. Also, local governments that were responsible for the poor would bind out poor and orphaned children in early America as a form of poor relief (Katz, 1996). Most local laws favored masters, as virtually all judges were in fact masters themselves, stipulating that child bonded servants could be kept until the age of 24. Laws also dictated that if a bonded servant ran away prior to the ending of their contract, they could legally face a range of punitive consequences, including having the time remaining on their contract doubled (Greene, 1995).

Indentured servitude eventually waned in favor of slavery, but the binding out of children who were poor and orphaned continued well into the 19th century. During the 400 years of the Atlantic slave trade, over 15 million Africans were brought to the United States through the West Indies or directly from Africa. Among these Africans were many children who were either forced or born into slavery along with their parents. In time, masters realized that slaves who had once experienced freedom were far more difficult to control than those born into captivity; thus, a market developed for captive slave children because they tended to be more submissive servants.

Children under the age of about 7 were more often sold with their mothers, but once the children reached the age of about 10, they were often sold off and separated from their families, particularly to fill this growing need for young African slave children born into captivity. Slavery was outlawed in 1865 with the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but the plight of Black children did not improve significantly, since the mistreatment of Black people in the United States became codified into law (Klarman, 2006). In fact, the legacy of slavery has created significant challenges for Black children to this day, including persistent high infant mortality rates, among other social problems (Matoba & Collins, 2017; Moras et al., 2018).

Another form of work that children engaged in during the early years of America was apprenticeship, which involved the training of children in some type of craft or artisan work such as making shoes or woodworking. Essentially, apprenticeship involved an artisan taking on an apprentice in early adolescence and teaching him a trade. Some children went to live with the artisan who trained them, while others did not (Schultz, 1985). Often the apprentices who left their families and lived with the artisan served as unpaid assistants. In fact, parents often had to pay to have their children apprenticed because they knew this was likely the only way their children would learn a trade. While most apprenticeships did not involve overt exploitation, the practice did reflect the focus on working children, rather than on education and play. Apprenticeships eventually became less popular when industrialization began in the late 18th century, as machines were developed, replacing the need for many craftsmen.

Child Labor During the Industrial Era: Children and Factories

By the mid-19th century, virtually all apprenticeships and indentured contracts had disappeared, and families were moving into the cities to work in factories (Bender, 1975). Children were the bulk of the workforce in many factories throughout the 19th century, with some children working 6 days a week, 14 hours a day. Child labor scholars estimate that hundreds of thousands of children—some as young as 6—were employed in factories in the mid-19th century, with the bulk working in the textile industry such as cotton mills. Excerpts of autobiographies written by individuals who worked in factories throughout their childhoods reference dismal conditions, with poor sanitation and air quality, repetitive work on machinery that left small hands bleeding, and very long days on their feet, which in many cases significantly shortened the life spans of these child workers.

Garment industry sweatshops began to spring up throughout New York and other large cities in the mid- to late 19th century. Although sweatshops eventually occurred in factory-like settings, their origin involved what was called “outwork,” where workers sewed garments and other textiles in their homes. Women and children were primarily hired for these tasks since they could be paid a lower wage. Because they were paid by the piece, they often worked 14 or more hours per day, 7 days a week. Children worked alongside their mothers, because their small fingers enabled them to engage in detail work, such as sewing on buttons—work that was challenging for adults.

Jane Addams and her friend Ellen Gates Starr founded the Hull-House of Chicago, the first U.S. settlement house that provided advocacy and what we now call wraparoun services to marginalized populations working in sweatshop conditions in Chicago. Addams was appalled by the conditions of those living in poverty in urban communities, particularly the plight of recently arrived immigrants, who were forced to live in substandard tenement housing and work long hours in factories, often in very dangerous working conditions. Hull-House offered several services for children and their widowed mothers, including after-school care for those children whose mothers worked long hours in factories.

Providing comprehensive services to those in need and living among them in their own community were some of the ways in which Addams became aware of the plight of children forced to work in the factories. In her autobiography Twenty Years at Hull-House, Addams wrote of her first encounter with child labor, including how during their first Christmas party at Hull-House, when Addams knew nothing of child labor, she noticed several young girls who refused to eat the candy at the party. When asked why, the girls stated that because they worked in a candy factory, they could no longer stand the sight of candy. Addams noted how girls as young as 7 would work at the candy factory from early in the morning until late at night.

Because of unsafe conditions many of the children were injured, and a few of the child workers were even killed. Addams described the indifference on the part of factory owners and the lack of recourse of parents, who signed away all of their rights when they “allowed” their children to work (Addams, 1912). Addams and her colleagues began an advocacy campaign against sweatshop conditions in Chicago factories early in the Hull-House’s existence, advocating in particular for the women and children who were most likely to work in these factories. Their activism seemed to pay off quickly when the Illinois state legislature passed a law limiting the workday to just 8 hours (from the previous 12- to 14-hour day). Their excitement was soon tempered though when the new law was quickly overturned by the Illinois Supreme Court as being unconstitutional.

Addams and the Hull-House networked quite extensively, joining efforts with trade unions and even the Democratic Party, which in 1892 adopted into its platform union recommendations prohibiting children under the age of 15 years old from working in factories. In her autobiography, Addams discussed how the greatest opposition to child labor laws came from the business sector, which considered such legislation as radicalism. Business leaders, such as those who worked in the Chicago area candy factories and glass manufacturing companies, argued that their companies would not be able to survive without the labor of children (Addams, 1912; Martin, 2014).

Addams and her Hull-House colleagues advocated on a federal level as well, with their support for the Sulzer Bill, which when passed allowed for the creation of the Department of Labor. In 1904 the National Child Labor Committee was formed, and Addams served as chairman for one term. In 1912, Julia Lathrop, Addams’s Hull-House colleague, was appointed chief of a new federal agency by President William Taft, focusing on child welfare, including child labor. As chief of the Children’s Bureau, Lathrop was responsible for investigating and reporting all relevant issues pertaining to the welfare of children from all classes and spent a considerable amount of time researching the dangers of child labor (Martin, 2014).

After several failed attempts, federal legislation barring child labor was finally passed in 1938 and signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, 3 years after Addams’ death. The Fair Labor Standards Act is a comprehensive bill regulating various aspects of labor in the United States, including child labor. The act outlawed what was deemed oppressive child labor and set minimum ages of employment and a maximum number of hours children were allowed to work. This act is still in existence today and has been amended several times to address such issues as equal pay (Equal Pay Act of 1963), age discrimination (Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967), and low wages (federal minimum wage increases).

The U.S. Orphan Problem

Throughout early America, one of the most vulnerable groups of children was orphans, both in terms of how they were treated as well as how they were exploited in the labor force. During the 1700s and 1800s in particular, attitudes toward children were harsh, and many orphaned or uncared for children roamed the streets, particularly in growing urban areas such as New York and Chicago. Street children were often treated harshly and punitively. If children were on the streets because their parents were destitute, they were sent to almshouses to work alongside their homeless parents. Older orphaned children were sold into indentured servitude or forced into apprenticeships, which provided cheap labor during an era that saw many economic depressions and a shortage of available workers (Katz, 1996).

The plight of the orphan did not appear to tug at the heartstrings of the average American during that era, not only because of the vast number of abandoned and orphaned children, but also because during the 17th through the early 19th century, children were not perceived to be in need of special nurturing because childhood was not considered a distinct stage of development. The influence of Puritanical religious beliefs as well as the general social mores of the times led to the common belief that children needed to be treated with harsh discipline and compelled to work or they would fall victim to sinful behaviors such as laziness and vice (Trattner, 2007).

A significant shift in child welfare policy occurred in the mid-19th century (1861 to 1865), when the Civil War left thousands of children orphaned, making tragedy a visitor in some respect to virtually every family in America. Coinciding with an increased concern for the plight of orphaned and disadvantaged children was a dramatic transition in the way childhood was viewed. The development of psychology as an academic discipline and a profession led to the emerging belief that children were essentially good by nature and needed to be treated with kindness, love, and nurturing to enhance their development and ultimate potential as adults (Trattner, 2007). As a result, settlement house workers, Charity Organization Societies (COS), and government officials were eager to address the problem of orphaned and abused children in the latter part of the 19th century. The most commonly suggested solution was the creation of institutions designed solely for the care of orphaned and needy children, which at the time seemed a quite compassionate alternative to living in almshouses or on the streets (Addams, 1990; Trattner, 2007).

Although some orphanages existed in the 1700s, they did not become the primary method of caring for orphaned and needy children until the middle to late 1800s. By the 1890s there were more than 600 orphanages in the United States (Trattner, 2007). Orphanages, or orphan asylums as they were often called, housed both parentless children and also half-orphans. And in fact, toward the early 1900s, the majority of children placed in orphan asylums were half-orphans placed into care primarily for economic reasons (Hacsi, 2017). Parents who were unable to financially support their children could leave them in the temporary care of an orphanage for a small monthly fee, but if they missed some payments the children could become wards of the state and the parents could lose all legal rights to them (Hacsi, 2017; Trattner, 2007).

Poor safety conditions in factories resulted in a relatively high prevalence of work-related injuries and death among the poorest members of society, leaving many children orphaned or half-orphaned. Additionally, a significant influx of poor immigrants in the late 1800s and early 1900s resulted in a vulnerable segment of society that often did not have an extended family on which to rely in cases of parental death or disability (Gratton & Moen, 2004). In addition, although infectious disease was nothing new to early America, several infectious disease epidemics spread through urban areas between the mid-1800s and the early part of the 1900s, including smallpox, influenza, yellow fever, cholera, typhoid, and scarlet fever, leaving many children orphaned (Condran & Cheney, 1982).

Orphan asylums were racially segregated until the 1960s, with many Black children being completely excluded from state-supported orphanages (Morton, 2000). By the latter part of the 1800s there were 353 orphanages, most of which were public (or government supported). Just over 78% of these institutions completely excluded Black children, while 19% accepted only a handful of Black children (Morton, 2000). There were only nine Black orphanages in the United States, which led to a movement among Black Christian women to raise funds for the creation of Black orphanages. An example is the efforts of Black church women, led by Mrs. E. Belle Mitchell Jackson in Lexington, Kentucky, who raised funds for the Lexington Colored Orphan Industrial Home (Byars, 1991).

Although the orphanage system was originally perceived as a significant improvement over placing children in almshouses or forcing them into indentured servitude, these institutions were not without their share of trouble, and in time reports of harsh treatment and abuses became commonplace. Although some orphanages were government run, most were privately run with governmental funding, but with little if any oversight or accountability. Because the government paid on a per-child basis, there was a financial incentive to run large operations, with some orphanages housing as many as 2,000 children under one roof. Obedience was highly valued in these institutions out of sheer necessity, whereas individuality, play, and creativity were discouraged through strict rules and harsh discipline.

The Orphan Train Movement

The next wave of child welfare reform involved the gradual shift from institutionalized care to substitute family care—the placing-out of children into private homes. This transition was prompted by a few different social trends, including increased complaints about institutionalized care, the development of compulsory public education (which meant that the education of an orphan was no longer linked with the provision of housing), and a growing problem of street children in big cities. In fact, have you ever wondered where the expression “farming kids out” came from? The origin of this term is rooted in the Orphan Train Movement, a program developed by The New York Children’s Aid Society that sent kids living on the streets to farms out west. Rev. Charles Loring Brace founded the orphan train program in the mid-19th century. Brace estimated that as many as 5,000 children were homeless and forced to roam the streets in search of money, food, and shelter. Brace was shocked at the cruel indifference of most New Yorkers, who called these children “street Arabs” with “bad blood.” He was also appalled at reports of children as young as 5 years old who were arrested for vagrancy (Bellingham, 1984; Brace, 1967).

Many factors contributed to the serious orphan problem in New York. Historians estimate that approximately 1,000 immigrants flooded New York on a daily basis in the mid-1800s (Von Hartz, 1978). Additionally, mass urbanization was occurring with poor rural families flocking to the cities looking for factory work. Industry safety standards were essentially nonexistent, and thus factory-related deaths were at an all-time high. An outbreak of typhoid fever also left many children orphaned or half-orphaned, their widowed mothers having no way to support them because there was no federal social welfare safety net. Harsh social conditions, coupled with the absence of any organized governmental subsidy, left many children to fend for themselves on the streets of New York, resorting to any means available for survival.

Brace feared that the temptations of street life would preclude any possibility that orphaned children would grow up to be God-fearing, responsible adults. He reasoned that children who had no parents, or whose parents could no longer care for them, would be far better off living in the clean open spaces of farming communities out west, where fresh air and the need for children and workers were plentiful. Because the rail lines were rapidly opening up the West, Brace developed an innovative program where children would be loaded onto trains and taken west to good Christian farming families who were open to caring for more children. Notices were sent in advance of train arrivals, and communities along the train line would come out and meet the train so that families who had expressed an interest in taking one or more children could examine the children and take them right then, if they desired.

Many survivors of the orphan trains have described their experiences of being paraded across a stage like cattle, with interested foster parents checking their teeth and feeling their muscles before deciding which child they would take. Few parents would take more than one child, and thus siblings were most often split up, sometimes without even a passing comment made by the childcare agents or the new parents (Patrick et al., 1990). It was almost as if the breaking of lifelong family bonds was considered trivial compared to the gift these children were receiving by being rescued from their hopeless existence on the streets.

Most children on the orphan train were not legally adopted but were placed with a family under an indentured contract, which served two purposes. First, this type of contract allowed the placement agency to take the children back if something went wrong with the placement. Second, children placed under an indentured contract could not inherit property; thus, farming families could take in boys to work on the farm or girls to assist with the housework but didn’t have to worry about them inheriting family assets (Trattner, 2007; Warren, 1995).

The orphan trains ran from 1853 to 1929, delivering approximately 150,000 children to new homes across the West, from the Midwestern states to Texas, and even as far west as California. Whether this social experiment was a glowing success or a miserable failure (or somewhere in between) depends on whom one asks. Some children were placed in good homes and eventually legally adopted by wonderful and loving parents, and they grew up to be happy and responsible adults. But others have shared stories of heartache and abuse, describing their new lives as no better than that of slaves, where they were taken in by families for no reason other than to provide hard labor for the cost of bed and board. Some orphan train survivors describe stories of having siblings torn from their sides as families chose one child (typically a younger child), leaving brothers and sisters on the train. And still others tell stories of failed placements, where farming families exercised their 1-year right-of-return option, sending the children back to the orphanage or allowing the children to drift from farm to farm to earn their keep (Holt, 1992).

Eventually new child welfare practices caught up with new child development theories, leading to a shift in focus from one of work and virtue to one of valuing childhood play. By the early 20th century, the practice of farming out children received increasing criticism, and the last trainload of children was delivered to its many destinations in 1929. Despite the controversy surrounding the Orphan Train Movement and similar outplacement programs across the country, even its harshest critics agree that it was a far better alternative than allowing children to fend for themselves on the streets of New York and other large urban cities. The Orphan Train Movement is also considered the forerunner of the current foster care system in the United States, representing a shift away from institutionalized care and toward a system where children are placed in private homes with substitute families.

Overview of the Current U.S. Child Welfare System

The U.S. child welfare system exists to provide a safety net for children and families in crisis, with the primary objective of keeping families together or reuniting children with their biological parents if they have to be removed from the home (Sanchirico & Jablonka, 2000). Federal and state laws have established three basic goals for children in the child welfare system:

·

· To ensure safety from abuse and neglect

· To ensure permanency in a stable, loving home (preferably with the biological parents)

· To ensure well-being of children with regard to their physical health, mental health, and developmental and educational needs.

Children living in contemporary Western societies face very different challenges than children living 100 or so years ago. Child protection has slowly transitioned from institutionalized care to primarily substitute family care or foster care over the past 100 years. By 1980, virtually no children remained in institutionalized care in the United States, excluding group homes, treatment centers, and homes for developmentally disabled children (Shughart & Chappell, 1999). Government public assistance programs, which developed in the 1960s, reduced the necessity for the removal of children from their homes due to poverty, because single mothers now had some place to go for financial help in raising their children (Trattner, 2007). Further, child labor laws now prohibit child exploitation in the workforce, and companies that violate these laws often face harsh fines.

The Mexican fast food chain Chipotle was recently fined $1.4 million for violating child labor laws in Massachusetts, including allowing adolescent employees to work in excess of 9 hours per day, and over 48 hours per week, sometimes late into the evening on school nights. The Massachusetts Attorney General estimated that Chipotle violated child labor laws 13,253 times in all 50 states! And Chipotle wasn’t the only restaurant chain to receive a hefty fine for violating child labor laws. Other offenders include fast-food chains, Burger King, McDonalds, and Wendy’s (Yaffe-Bellany & Zaveri, 2020).

Additionally, federal and state social welfare programs now exist that help alleviate poverty and also help protect families from the impact of various catastrophes such as natural disasters and health pandemics. For instance, the 2020 novel coronavirus pandemic prompted the rapid passage of federal emergency relief packages targeting lower-income individuals and families, as well as small businesses. Vulnerable groups of children are also far better protected from disparity in treatment through the passage of such federal legislation as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Despite these advances, there remain serious issues with how some children are treated within U.S. society. For instance, there remains significant disparity in treatment of children from certain ethnic groups, such as Black, Latina/o, and Native American children (Davidson et al., 2019; Lovato-Hermann et al., 2017; White, 2017). This disparity exists both with regard to the overrepresentation of children of color in foster care, as well as in other areas of child welfare, particularly Black and Native American children (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2016b; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS], 2018).

There are also serious problems with how older children are treated within U.S. society, particularly children of color and sexual minorities. For instance, very few effective systems are in place to assist runaway and homeless youth. Thus, many adolescents who experience physical and sexual abuse in their homes choose to live on the streets rather than trust the “system” to provide for their safety and care (Cochran et al., 2002). This is particularly true for children of color who face an increased risk of living on the streets (Morton et al., 2018). Another area of disparity involves the vast number of children charged as adults for crimes they committed as children, and most of these are children of color—primarily Black boys (Mallett, 2016). Black girls also experience disparity in treatment by organizations charged with the responsibility for their protection. For example, there is a growing recognition that Black and Native American female youth are far more likely to be victims of domestic sex trafficking and if they are apprehended, they are far more likely to be charged as prostitutes and sent back to the streets, rather than treated as victims (Hume & Sidun, 2017).

Demographics of Children in Substitute Care

The demographic makeup of children currently in the foster care system has changed considerably as well since the 1800s. Gone are the days where the majority of children placed into substitute care were orphaned due to industrial accidents, war, or illness. Instead, the majority of children currently in child protective custody have been removed from their homes due to serious maltreatment. Also, unlike earlier eras when orphanage placements were most often permanent, just over half of all children currently in foster care will be reunified with their biological parents (DHHS, 2018).

As of September 30, 2017 (the most recent statistics available), there were approximately 442,995 children in the U.S. foster care system. This represents about a 1.5% increase from 2016, but almost a 10% increase from 2013 (DHHS, 2018). Although the increase in children in care is modest, it still represents a steady upward trend, which is concerning. Also concerning is the disparity that exists with regard to which ethnic minority groups are more likely to have children in out-of-home placements. For instance, according to the latest statistics, approximately 44% of all children in foster care are White followed by 23% Black, and 21% Latina/o (DHHS, 2018). These demographics indicate an overrepresentation of Black children in the foster care system because Black people constitute only 13.4% of the general population and Latinos/as constitute 18.1%, whereas White people constitute 60.7% of the general population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018).

Most children who enter the foster care system are less than 1 year old, with the average age of children in care being between 7 and 8 years old. Most children enter the system because of neglect (62%) followed by parental drug abuse (32%), a parent’s inability to cope (14%), physical abuse (12%), and housing (10%). Interestingly, while the primary reason children were placed in orphanages a century or so ago was parental death, this now accounts for only 1% of all children entering the foster care system. The majority of children removed from their homes are placed in licensed nonrelative foster care homes (about 45%), followed by about one-third who are placed with relatives (32%). A smaller percentage are placed in pre-adoptive homes, group homes, and supervised independent living facilities (DHHS, 2018).

The average (mean) length of stay in foster care is about 20 months, but it appears that if children aren’t returned home or placed in a permanent home situation in the first 20 months of out-of-home care, chances increase that they will remain in placement between 2 and 4 years, with a small percentage remaining in substitute care for longer than 5 years (Child Trends, 2018). The greatest number of children who left the child welfare system in 2010 were infants and toddlers under 3 years of age, as well as those exiting the system at 17 years old and above (UDHHS, 2018). A significant problem that will be explored later in this chapter relates to children who are aging out of the foster care system. Despite an increase in services targeting this older adolescent population, kids who have spent most of their formative years in foster care face considerable challenges later on in their lives (Bender et al., 2015).

Important Child Welfare Legislation

The U.S. Constitution guarantees certain liberties to parents by giving them the right to parent their child in the manner they see fit. But such liberties have limits, and as such are balanced by the parents’ duty to protect their child’s safety and ensure their well-being. If parents cannot or will not protect their children from significant harm, the state has the legal obligation to intervene (Goldman & Salus, 2003).

The U.S. Congress has passed several pieces of legislation that support the state’s obligation to protect children, including the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) of 1974, which was established to ensure that child maltreatment is reported to the appropriate authorities. This act also provides minimum standards for definitions of the different types of child maltreatment. Among the many provisions in the legislation, CAPTA provides federal funding to states to support prevention efforts, as well as for the investigation and prosecution of child abuse, and also provides grants to public agencies (including Native American tribes) for treatment efforts and activities. CAPTA has been reauthorized and amended several times, most recently on January 7, 2019, as a part of the Victims of Child Abuse Act Reauthorization Act. The 2015 authorization expanded the definition of “child abuse and neglect” and “sexual abuse” to include child sex trafficking. The 2019 amendment provided increased civil protection for those who report suspected child abuse in good faith (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2019).

The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (Pub. L. No. 96–272), focuses on family preservation, with the goal of keeping families together by requiring that states develop supportive programs and procedures enabling maltreated children to remain in their own homes. This act also provides for the assistance of family reunification following out-of-home placements, and provides funding for adoption assistance, particularly for children with special needs. Other legislation is aimed at (1) improving court efficiency so that child abuse cases will not languish in the court system for years, (2) providing assistance to foster care children approaching their 18th birthday, and (3) bolstering family preservation programs designed as early intervention measures to circumvent out-of-home placement (Goldman & Salus, 2003; Whittaker, 2017).

In 1997 President Bill Clinton signed into law the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) (Pub. L. No. 105–89), which amended The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980. The primary goal of the ASFA of 1997 was to amend problems in the foster care system presumably caused by the previous legislation, including placing family reunification as a priority over a child’s health and well-being. Although this was not necessarily the intention of legislators when passing The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, many caseworkers interpreted this legislation as requiring that biological families remain intact regardless of circumstances, which resulted in children remaining in foster care for much of their childhoods due to a hesitancy to terminate parental rights.

The ASFA of 1997 was passed as a way of addressing this ambiguity in the former legislation, making the best interest of the child a clear priority. Among the various amendments of the act are a shortened timeframe for a child’s permanency hearing, financial incentives to states for increasing the number of adoptions of children in the foster care system, new requirements for states to petition for termination of parental rights, and the reauthorization of the Family Preservation and Support Program, which was renamed the Safe and Stable Families Program.

There have been both positive and negative consequences of the ASFA. Certainly no one wants abused and neglected children to languish in temporary placement, but expediting finding permanent homes should not be at the expense of biological parents’ rights to have an appropriate amount of time to meet the state’s criteria for regaining the custody of their children. Balancing the rights of the biological parents with the best interest of their child is challenging, particularly in light of the complexity involved in many foster care cases, but most human services professionals believe that striving for this balance must remain a priority.

In 2006, the Safe and Timely Interstate Placement of Foster Children Act (Pub. L. No. 109-239) was passed, which made it easier to place children in another state, if necessary. This legislation holds states accountable for the orderly, safe, and timely placement of children across state lines by requiring that home studies be completed in less than 60 days and that the children be accepted within 14 days of completion. The legislation also provides grants for interstate placement and requires caseworkers to make interstate visits when necessary.

Quite likely, the most significant federal legislation passed recently is the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (Pub. L. No. 110-351), which former president George W. Bush signed into law in October 2008. This law amends Title IV-E of the Social Security Act by enhancing incentives, particularly in regard to kinship care, including providing the kinship guardian financial assistance as well as providing family connection grants designed to facilitate and support kinship care. This legislation also includes provisions related to education and health care, particularly for children in kinship care, many of whom were not eligible for special assistance programs unless they were in nonrelative care. In fact, the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 was the first child welfare law that mandated educational stability for foster care youth. And finally, in 2011, the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act was passed, reauthorizing Title IV-B of the Social Security Act (Pub. L. No. 112-34) and extending funding authorization for the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services Program and the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program.

An earlier act that bears mention is the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA), which is a federal law that seeks to keep Native American children with Native American families. The ICWA was passed in response to a long history of forced child removal from Indian reservations, including forced removal of children into Indian boarding schools from about the 1880s through the early part of the 1900s, and then the subsequent removal of Native children by state child protection service agencies for maltreatment and placement into White homes. The intention of Congress was to protect the best interest of Native American children and promote the stability and security of Native tribes and families.

The ICWA serves as a policy framework for how to handle the placement of children who are eligible for membership in a federally recognized tribe, with the goal of promoting the role of tribal governments and preserving tribal families (on and off the reservation). The ICWA requires training for social workers about the law (including the historical injustices and reasons for this legislation) and its implementation, the development of tribal-based family programs, the development of intergovernmental agreements, funding for tribes to develop family supportive programs, and case consultation to tribal family members, agencies, human services practitioners, attorneys, and the court system. Essentially, the ICWA requires that prior to a Native American child being placed with a non-Native family, the identified tribe must first be contacted with the goal of keeping the child within the tribal community. Although there has been some erosion of the ICWA with recent court decisions that critics claim violated the ICWA in contested adoption proceedings, the overall goals of the ICWA remain intact with the goal of promoting Native families and righting the wrongs of past injustices against the Native American population (National Indian Child Welfare Association, n.d.).

Child Abuse Investigations

There are several ways that a child abuse investigation may be initiated, but all have their origin in a concern that a child is being mistreated in some manner. Mandated reporters are required by law to file a report with their state’s child abuse hotline immediately if they suspect that a child is being abused or neglected. Mandated reporters typically fall into several categories and include professionals who work with children as a part of their normal work duties, such as mental health professionals (social workers, counselors, and psychologists), teachers (and other school personnel), medical personnel (such as physicians and nurses), and law enforcement personnel.

Most states have strict laws that define the parameters of child abuse reporting, including delineating what constitutes a reportable concern, the timeframe in which a mandated reporter must report the suspected abuse, and the consequences of failing to report, including professional sanction such as probation or the temporary suspension of one’s professional license. In fact, in most states, the failure to comply with mandated reporting requirements is a crime (a misdemeanor or even a felony for repeated failures).

The most common reasons for not reporting a case of suspected child abuse include not being properly trained on the signs of potential abuse, not wanting to get a client in trouble, and failing to recognize that a mandated reporter is not an investigator, and thus does not need conclusive evidence of abuse prior to making a report. The majority of calls made to the child abuse hotline are from mandated reporters, but this does not preclude private citizens from calling the child abuse hotline if they suspect a child is being abused or neglected by a parent or caregiver. Thus, it is not uncommon for neighbors, friends, or even relatives to report suspected child abuse. Those who are not mandated reporters are allowed to call anonymously.

Due to the intrusive nature of an abuse investigation, federal and state laws exist to protect the privacy of family life. Thus, child abuse hotline workers must adhere to strict guidelines regarding what reports can and cannot be accepted, and which reports rise to the level of warranting an investigation. If the report of alleged abuse meets the stated criteria, then the report will be accepted and investigated in a reasonable timeframe. In fact, federal funding of state CPS agencies is tied to compliance with federal mandates that all child abuse reports be screened immediately and investigated in a timely manner (CAPTA, 2010). Although federal law does not specify a particular timeframe for conducting an investigation, most states have compliance laws stipulating specific guidelines mandating that reports of abuse be investigated anywhere from immediately for cases involving imminent risk to 10 days for cases involving moderate to minimal risk to the child (Kopel et al., 2003).

the child (Kopel et al., 2003).

Once a child abuse report is accepted, the case is sent to the appropriate regional agency and assigned to an abuse investigator, who is a licensed social worker or other licensed human services professional. The actual investigation will vary depending on the specific circumstances of the allegations, but most investigations will involve interviewing the child, the nonoffending parent(s), and the alleged perpetrator. Although the sequence of the interviews might change depending on the specific circumstances of the case, often investigators prefer to interview the child before the parents or caregivers to avoid the potential for the alleged abusive parent(s) influencing or intimidating the child (Cronch et al., 2006).

Types of Child Maltreatment

Child maltreatment is a crime regardless of who the perpetrator is and should always be reported to legal authorities, but CPS becomes involved only when the abuse is perpetrated by someone in a caregiving role to the child. This includes a parent, a relative, a parent’s boyfriend or girlfriend, a teacher, a childcare provider, or even a babysitter. The federal government has developed a definition of what constitutes the minimum standard for child abuse and neglect, establishing four general categories of child maltreatment: neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, and emotional abuse (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2016a). Each state and U.S. territory has the responsibility of defining child abuse and neglect according to state statute, in accordance with federal definitions. The following is the U.S. Health and Human Services’ definition of each type of abuse and maltreatment. However, again it is important to remember that each state, although bound to this minimum standard, will likely have additional criteria and scenarios that qualify as abuse (National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect, 2005).

Neglect of a child involves the failure to provide for a child’s basic needs. Neglect may be

·

· physical (e.g., failure to provide necessary food or shelter or lack of appropriate supervision)

· medical (e.g., failure to provide necessary medical or mental health treatment)

· educational (e.g., failure to educate a child or attend to the child’s special education needs)

· emotional (e.g., inattention to a child’s emotional needs, failure to provide psychological care, or permitting the child to use alcohol or other drugs) (CAPTA, 2018).

The existence of some of these indicators does not necessarily indicate child neglect, particularly because cultural values, standards of care in the community, and poverty may be contributing factors in caregiving challenges in meeting a child’s physical, medical, and educational needs. Rather, the manifestation of certain problems within a family system, such as not sending a child to school, may be an indicator of an overwhelmed family’s need for information and general assistance. Yet, if a family fails to utilize the information, assistance, and resources provided for them, and the child’s health and/or safety is determined to be at risk, then a CPS intervention may be warranted.

According to CAPTA (2018), physical abuse of a child includes intentional or unintentional physical injury ranging from burning, minor bruises, severe fractures, or even death, as a result of punching, beating, kicking, biting, shaking, throwing, stabbing, choking, or hitting with a hand, stick, strap, or other object. Sexual abuse includes activities by a parent or caretaker that include fondling a child’s genitals, penetration, incest, rape, sodomy, indecent exposure, and exploitation through prostitution or the production of pornographic materials. Emotional abuse of a child involves a pattern of behavior that impairs a child’s emotional development or sense of self-worth. This may include constant criticism, threats, or rejection, as well as withholding love, support, or guidance. Emotional abuse is often difficult to prove, and therefore most CPS agencies may not be able to intervene without evidence of significant harm to the child or an indication of another form of abuse (which almost always occurs alongside emotional abuse).

It’s important to understand the nature of child abuse, particularly how it can be transmitted from one generation to the next (Bentovim, 2002, 2004; Ehrensaft et al., 2003; Newcomb et al., 2001; Pears & Capaldi, 2001), and although the majority of parents who have been abused in childhood do not go on to abuse their own children, those who commit child abuse likely were abused in their own childhoods. Homes marked by violence, drug abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse contribute to the development of maladaptive patterns that can be passed down to the next generation. Although it might not make intuitive sense that someone who endured the pain of abuse would inflict this same abuse on their own child, the complex nature of child abuse oftentimes renders abuse patterns beyond the control of the abuser without some form of intervention. For instance, consider the opening vignette about Vanessa and then ask yourself how this information would impact your work as a child abuse investigator or child welfare caseworker.

Vanessa illustrates some of the dynamics at play with the intergenerational transmission of abuse and why it is so important for caseworkers to understand how trauma and behavioral patterns are often transmitted from one generation to the next. Individuals who have suffered significant childhood abuse and neglect often suffer from problems with emotional regulation, difficulty attaching to others, and an unstable self-identity (Bentovim, 2002, 2004). Issues such as poor parental modeling, lack of understanding about normal child development, and an individual’s level of residual anger and frustration tolerance affect a person’s ability to positively parent their children. This does not mean that all parents who come from abusive homes are destined to repeat the mistakes of their parents; far from it, in fact. Rather, what it does mean is that child abuse and neglect does not exist in a vacuum, and the more child welfare professionals understand the systemic nature of child abuse and maltreatment, the better they will be able to serve the families on their caseloads.

The Forensic Interview

Prosecutions of child abuse, particularly child sexual abuse, have steadily increased since 2000 (Connolly et al., 2017). Reasons for this include increased public awareness, mandatory reporting requirements, a significant change in attitudes regarding what constitutes child abuse, as well as the belief that abuse is no longer a private family matter. Yet, as the pendulum swung, the 1970s witnessed a sort of frenzy in child sexual abuse reporting, fueled in part by a popular contention among mental health experts that children were incapable of making false allegations (Bussey & Grimbeek, 1995). This belief fostered overzealousness among some therapists, who used misleading interviewing techniques to encourage disclosures, many of which were false. Examples of the types of questions most likely to lead to false confessions include leading questions, such as: “Did he touch you on your privates?”, forced choice questions, such as: “Did he touch you under your clothing or over your clothing?”, option posing questions such as: “I heard that your uncle has been bothering you”, or suggestive questions, such as: “Many kids at your school have said that your teacher has touched them. Did he touch you, too?”

The use of these types of leading questions used by well-meaning therapists was eventually met with harsh criticism, particularly among members of the legal community who represented those individuals falsely accused of sexually abusing children in their charge. By the 1990s considerable research existed that showed how asking children leading questions during abuse investigations significantly increased the likelihood of false and erroneous disclosures, particularly with preschool-aged children (Hewitt, 1999; Peterson & Biggs, 1997; Poole & Lindsay, 1998). In response to criticism and new research, CPS agencies across the country developed pilot programs that combined the resources of several investigative agencies, including CPS, police departments, and prosecutors’ offices. This coordinated approach not only prevents the trauma of duplicative interviews by separate enforcement agencies, but also allows for the highly specialized training of investigators on forensic interviewing techniques that avoid any type of suggestive or leading questions (Cross et al., 2007).

Although there is a general understanding among investigators of what constitutes a forensic interview, there was still concern that many interviewers used questions that were somewhat leading in nature, including an interviewer’s inadvertent reaction to a child’s response that either encouraged or discouraged an honest disclosure. For instance, an investigator who strongly believes that a child has been abused may inadvertently respond with frustration if a child denies the abuse, which may influence a child who wants to please the investigator to give a false disclosure of abuse. Even an expression of sympathy on the part of the interviewer in response to disclosures of abuse can inadvertently encourage a child to embellish somewhat to receive more of the interviewer’s compassion.

The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) developed a forensic interviewing protocol that teaches interviewers how to ask open-ended questions, using retrieval cues that rely on free recall. “Can you tell me everything you can remember?” is an example of an open-ended question. “Tell me more about the room you were in” is an example of a retrieval cue (Bourg et al., 1999; Sternberg et al., 2001). The idea behind the NICHD investigative protocol is that questions probing free recall will result in more accurate information than questions relying on other types of memory (Benia et al., 2015; Orbach et al., 2000). New research is being conducted all the time, examining a range of issues related to interviewing children when suspected abuse is involved. Examples include exploring appropriate interview settings, how to build rapport with the child, how to pace the interview, the use of body maps, and best practices for interviewing special populations such as immigrant children (Fontes, 2010; Morgan et al., 2013.

Risk Assessment and Decision-Making Models

Child abuse investigators are responsible for assessing the safety of children who are at risk of maltreatment, deciding what types and levels of services may be immediately needed to keep children safe, and determining under what conditions children are placed in out-of-home care for their protection (DePanfilis & Scannapieco, 1994). Many variables influence the outcome of an investigation, including the criteria a CPS agency uses to determine whether abuse is occurring and, if so, whether it rises to the level of warranting an intervention.

The process of investigating an incident of potential child abuse and maltreatment is complex and fraught with the possibility for bias. For instance, how does an investigator evaluate parental cooperation versus resistance? What about forthrightness versus deception? Such decisions require good clinical skills, the ability to read people, to determine whether someone is being truthful or hiding something significant. In other words, the process of investigating a suspected case of child abuse is wrought with the potential of personal bias influencing the investigative process, which could lead to some cases of abuse being unfounded, as well as cases where the family is meeting the federal minimum parenting standard being founded.

The importance of relying on a bias-free and fact-based decision-making model in making intervention decisions has been discussed among child welfare experts for decades (DePanfilis & Scannapieco, 1994), and according to the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA), there are several approaches now available to making risk assessments of child maltreatment in child protection cases. Safety assessments using structured decision-making tools are either statistically based (also called actuarial models) or consensus based (relying on the opinions of experts in the field, and existing research in child maltreatment).

Actuarial models of risk assessment assess families based on factors and characteristics that are statistically associated with the recurrence of maltreatment, whereas consensus-based models of risk assessment rely on the professional opinions of child maltreatment experts. Because the actuarial models of risk assessments are based on a statistical calculation, the validity of the inventories may be considered higher than the consensus-based model risk assessments. An example of an actuarial model for risk assessment and decision-making is the CRC Actuarial Models for Risk Assessment, which uses two subscales—one that assesses the risk for neglect, and one that assesses the risk for physical and sexual abuse. The subscales then provide a risk level based on the existence of variables statistically associated with child maltreatment, foster care placement, and recidivism within a 2-year period (Austin et al., 2005).

Many within the child welfare fields have expressed concern that actuarial models do not rely enough on clinical judgment, advocating for a dual approach to child abuse assessment. For instance, Shlonsky and Wagner (2005) encourage using both an actuarial risk assessment model and a clinical assessment that includes a comprehensive needs assessment and a strengths-based clinical evaluation that considers contextual factors such as poverty, mental illness, domestic violence, and other social and personal dynamics that highlight the causes of maltreatment. So, while actuarial risk assessment instruments are vitally important because they are effective at predicting the likelihood of future abuse, the caseworker’s clinical judgement is also vitally important because it highlights what the parenting plan should focus on and what services and intervention strategies will be most helpful in addressing the identified needs and contextual factors impacting the family system.

Another type of decision-making model are consensus-based approaches, which include theoretically and empirically guided approaches that rank a series of factors that have empirical support for their association with child maltreatment (CWLA, 2005). Some examples of consensus-based models for risk assessment and decision making include the Washington Risk Assessment Matrix, the California Family Assessment and Factor Analysis (also called the “Fresno Model”), the Child Emergency Response Assessment Protocol (Austin et al., 2005), and the Child at Risk Field System (CARF). The CARF provides the following guidelines for abuse investigators making a determination about abuse:

Where children were determined to be maltreated and unsafe, the offending parents

1. were out of control

1. were frequently violent

1. showed no remorse

1. may actually request placement

1. did not respond to previous attempts to intervene

1. location was unknown.

And the caseworker believed that

1. the parents were a flight risk

1. the child had special needs the parents could not meet

1. the conditions in the home are life-threatening

1. the nonoffending parent could not protect the children.

Where children were determined to be maltreated and safe, the parents

 possessed a sufficient amount of impulse control

 accepted responsibility for the situation in their home

 had appropriate understanding of the child, showed concern for the child and remorse for the maltreatment

 had a history of accessing help and services

 exhibited knowledge of good parenting skills.

Structured decision-making models, such as the British Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families (FACNF), tend to be more child-centered and holistic in their approach to decision making because they consider both a child’s developmental needs and also environmental (contextual) influences on a parent’s ability to meet those needs. In other words, structured models take the child’s family situation into account. Research has shown that when investigators used the FACNF instrument, they made better decisions, particularly in complex cases (Bartelink et al., 2015). Another promising risk assessment model involves shared decision making, where children are included in the decision-making process (Vis et al., 2011).

Family group decision-making models, such as the Family Group Conferencing (FGC) model, includes the involvement of the family system in child protection decision-making and problem-solving processes (Merkel-Holguin, 1996, 2004). The FGC model was developed in New Zealand in response to the large number of indigenous Maori children placed in out-of-home care. While research on the effectiveness of FGC in reducing future out-of-home placements has been mixed (Dijkstra et al., 2016), the model is valued by many in child welfare because the model acknowledges the impact of historic systemic factors involved in family problems, especially those experienced by indigenous populations.

Generalist Practice in Child Welfare

When a child abuse investigator determines a child must be placed into protective custody, the child may be removed from the home and placed in one of many environments, including relative foster care, nonrelative foster care, or an emergency shelter pending more permanent placement. The case is then transferred to a family caseworker who evaluates all the relevant dynamics of the case (i.e., reason for placement, nature of abuse, attitude of the parents). The family caseworker also assesses the strengths and deficits of the biological parent(s) as well as the family structure. A permanency goal for the child is then determined and can include the following:

1. Reunification with the biological parents

1. Living with relatives (kinship care)

1. Guardianship with close friends

1. Short-term or long-term nonrelative foster care

1. Emancipation (with older adolescents)

1. Adoption with termination of parental rights.

Although reunification with the biological parents remains the most common permanency plan, recent changes in many state and federal laws have shifted the focus from protecting the biological family unit to considering the best interest of the child. The reason for this shift can be traced to several high-profile cases in the mid-1990s where children were either seriously abused or killed after being reunified with their biological parents. In response, well-meaning child advocates launched campaigns in Washington, D.C., appealing to Congress to do something about the horrible plight of children who were returned to their biological families only to face further abuse and sometimes their deaths in a failed effort to keep biological families together. There was a perception that the government was failing vulnerable children, and while this was certainly the case in some situations, broadly speaking, there was little evidence of a systemic failure (Roberts, 2002).

Thus, while there was no documented increase of child maltreatment during this time period, newspaper and magazine articles highlighting tragic (albeit rare) cases of continued abuse or deaths when children were reunited with their biological parent(s) were passed around Congress. Articles such as “The Little Boy Who Didn’t Have to Die” were utilized in an effort to make an emotional appeal to legislators to shift priorities from family reunification to parental termination and subsequent adoption (Spake, 1994). The result of this campaign was the passage of the ASFA of 1997, which marked a clear departure away from family preservation and toward more rapid termination of biological parents’ rights, clearing the way for adoption of children in foster care placement.

The best interest of the child doctrine may sound great on the surface. Who wouldn’t want the best interest of the child to be the standard when considering the future of an abused child’s future? The problem noted with this standard among child welfare experts is that the doctrine does not specify who makes the determination of what is actually in the best interest of the child. In other words, the best interest of the child according to whom? According to the foster parents? The courts? The caseworker? Congress? Society in general? It doesn’t take much analysis to recognize how easily this standard could be abused. For instance, what if the caseworker determines that it is in the best interest of the child to be adopted by a family with two parents who are financially secure rather than be returned to the child’s poor single mother who, regardless of how diligently she tries to regain custody, works late nights and has no supportive family? The potential to make permanency plans that discriminate against biological parents who are marginalized members of society—such as parents who are poor, single, an ethnic minority, undocumented immigrants, gay or lesbian; who work too many jobs; who are too young or too old (and the list goes on)—is significant.

Dorothy Roberts, author of Shattered Bonds: The Color of Child Welfare (2002), cautioned that the AFSA of 1997 and the ensuing best interest of the child doctrine created many problems, including ethical dilemmas when caseworkers are required to pursue two permanency plans at the same time to comply with the new permanency plan timeframes—reunification with the biological family and adoption. What many caseworkers have done to accomplish this task is to place foster children in preadoptive homes, while at the same time planning for reunification with the biological parent(s). This creates a situation where the biological parents’ rights are often in conflict with the children’s rights, and where foster care families, who are by definition charged with the responsibility of fostering a relationship between the children and their biological parent(s), are now competing with the biological parent(s) for the children.

biological parent(s), are now competing with the biological parent(s) for the children.

Another possible conflict according to Roberts includes the act’s adoption incentive program, where states are given financial incentives of $4,000 for each child placed for adoption (above a baseline), $4,000 for foster care youth identified as special needs, and $8,000 for youth between the ages of 9 and 18. The potential for agency conflict of interest, and in some cases abuse, is evident as states scramble to replace lost revenue due to cutbacks to social service programs. Roberts warns that this new legislation was not directed at effecting faster termination of parental rights in cases with severe abuse because these cases were already relatively “open and shut.” Rather, it was the cases involving poverty-related maltreatment, most often in Black and Native American homes, that have been most affected by this new federal law. Roberts feared the new priorities have led to increases in social injustice in many CPS agencies, particularly against the poor, people of color, immigrants, and indigenous populations.

Despite these concerns, a review of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) annual reports shows that placements in pre-adoptive homes have remained relatively steady at about 4%, whereas relative placements (also called kinship care), have increased from 24% in 2001 (DHHS, 2006) to 32% in 2017 (DHHS, 2018). This increase may indicate that rather than placing children in the pre-adoptive homes of nonrelatives, most states opted to place children with relatives, an option made easier by the passage of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (referenced earlier in this chapter). In fact, AFCARS reports indicate that relative care placements didn’t begin to increase until 2010, just after the implementation of the Fostering Connections act, which placed kinship care as a priority (DHHS, 2011).

Working with Biological Parents of Children in Substitute Care

A caseworker works with the biological parents most closely when it is determined that the most appropriate permanency plan is parent reunification. Once a child has been placed into foster care, the caseworker must prepare a detailed service plan, typically within 30 days, outlining goals that the biological parent(s) must accomplish before regaining custody of their child. The specific goals must be related to the identified parenting deficits. It is then the responsibility of the caseworker to facilitate the biological parents’ achieving these goals. This might involve giving referrals to the parents or securing services for them, as well as monitoring their ongoing progress.

In fact, a part of any good case plan will involve a visitation schedule that supports and encourages the child’s relationship with the biological parents and provides them with opportunities to apply new parenting techniques that they’ve learned in parenting classes and counseling (Sanchirico & Jablonka, 2000). An effective caseworker will give consistent feedback to the biological parents about their progress toward meeting service plan goals, will balance constructive feedback with encouragement, and will protect the parent–child relationship. The effective caseworker will do whatever possible to remove barriers to complying with service plans, such as finding alternate mental health providers when waiting lists would cause unreasonable delays or resolving conflicts between goals, such as not scheduling visitation during the parents’ working hours when maintaining stable employment is a service plan goal.

It is also important for caseworkers to be aware that biological parents who have had their children removed are likely enduring emotional trauma in response to this loss, which may result in them behaving in ways that could be uncharacteristic for them. The strain of having to be accountable to external forces exerting control over their lives may render many biological parents vulnerable to feeling overwhelming shame, which may manifest in defensiveness that could be misinterpreted as indifference or a lack of remorse. An effective caseworker will understand this possible dynamic and will create an environment where biological parents will be able to overcome the barrier of defensiveness and shame and work on the issues identified in their service plan.

For instance, parents who are members of historically disenfranchised groups, such as Native Americans, may respond to child protection investigations with aggression or passivity, with some even opting to abandon their children rather than work with government and tribal agencies to regain custody. Child protection workers who are trained in the U.S. government’s historic abuses of Native American populations, including the forced removal of almost all Native children from their reservations in the late 1800s and again in the 1950s and 1960s, will likely have increased understanding and empathy for Native American parents who respond to investigations with resistance (Horejsi et al., 1992).

Working with Children in Substitute Care

The clinical issues that a child welfare caseworker may experience when working with children in foster care will vary depending on variables such as the age of the child, the length of time in placement, the reasons for placement (and the nature of the abuse and maltreatment), and the permanency plan (i.e., adoption or family reunification). Younger children are typically easier to place and may display fewer oppositional behaviors than adolescents, who are often placed in residential group homes, but behavioral problems exhibited by children removed from their homes are both expected and understandable, as such a disruption involves a significant amount of grief and psychological adjustment.

Children involved in the child welfare system are contending with either issues related to separation from their biological family members or the threat of separation (Riebschleger et al., 2015). The seminal work by Siu and Hogan (1989) on child welfare dynamics provides recommendations for caseworkers, including the importance of being familiar with the psychological dynamics involved in such separations as they relate to each developmental stage. It is important for caseworkers to acknowledge that these children are not just being separated from their biological parents, but are experiencing multiple separations, such as separation from their extended family, perhaps their siblings and their familiar surroundings, including their bedroom, house, neighborhood, and even their family pets. Caseworkers need to confront these separation issues head-on with the children on their caseload, resisting the temptation to avoid them in response to their own separation anxiety.

Caseworkers can respond to children dealing with separation issues by being honest with them (in an age-appropriate manner) regarding what is happening with their families, and by helping to prepare them for upcoming changes in order to reduce the anxiety associated with anticipating the unknown. Younger children are far more likely to be operating in the “here and now.” Thus, it is important for the caseworker to reassure the child that the separation is only temporary (if the goal is family reunification) and that the feelings of sadness and discomfort experienced after being separated will not last forever.

Children who have been removed from their homes also need to be reassured that they are not the cause of the family disruption. It is quite common for foster care children to feel responsible for their parents “getting into trouble,” and they may even be tempted to recant their disclosures of abuse in the hope that they can return home. Such children often reason that enduring the abuse is better than having their family torn apart and their parents being in trouble. In fact, some abusive parents tell their children that if they disclose the abuse the parents will go to jail and the children will be taken away. Thus, it is important that caseworkers anticipate the possibility of such prior conversations between children and parents and address this by reassuring the children that the current course of action will ultimately benefit and strengthen the entire family system.

Coming alongside children who have experienced a loss and permitting them to grieve involves having a high tolerance for a wide range of emotions. Lee and Whiting (2007) discuss the concept of ambiguous loss with regard to children in foster care. Ambiguous loss is defined as loss that is unclear, undefined, and, in many instances, unresolvable. Ambiguous loss in foster care situations can involve losses that are confusing for the child, such as the loss of an abusive parent. Children who are removed from an abusive home and placed in a foster home with caring, nonabusive parents may feel conflicted about the loss of the biological parent and entry into the child welfare system. Feelings may include confusion, ambivalence, and guilt.

Earlier research studies have found that people who endure ambivalent loss tend to experience similar reactions and feelings, including the following:

·

· “Frozen” grief, including outrage and an inability to move on

· Confusion, distress, and ambivalence

· Uncertainty leading to immobilization

· Blocked coping processes

· Feelings of helplessness, depression, and anxiety, and relationship conflicts

· Denial of changes or losses, including a denial of the facts

· Anger at the lost person being excluded

· Confusion in boundaries and roles (e.g., who the parental figures are)

· Guilt, if hope has been given up

· Refusal to talk about the individuals and the situation (Boss, 2004 as cited in Lee & Whiting, 2007).

With these reactions and feelings in mind, Lee and Whiting (2007) interviewed 182 foster children, aged 2 through 10. Children were asked about each of the reactions and feelings identified in Boss’ study as typical responses to ambiguous loss. The study showed that virtually all of the children interviewed exhibited these typical feelings, particularly feelings associated with confusion, ambiguity, and outrage about their situation. Several children noted confusion about their future—not knowing when they would see their parent(s) again, or how long they would be in foster care. The children also expressed feelings of uncertainty, guilt, and immobility.

Lee and Whiting (2007) recommend using the model of ambiguous loss when working with children in foster care, cautioning against pathologizing children’s feelings (and the consequential behaviors). In describing the application of this model of loss, Lee and Whiting urged child welfare professionals, including therapists, case managers, court personnel, and foster family members, not to see these feelings and their associated behaviors as pathological, but as coping strategies that were understandable considering their circumstances. Lee and Whiting discouraged child welfare professionals from encouraging children in substitute care to suppress their feelings and behaviors just because it might be easier for the foster parents. In fact, they theorize that the behaviors that often cause a disruption in foster care placements are the very behaviors that need to be expected and understood since they are manifestations of fears of interdependency and self-fulfilling prophesies that they are unlovable. If child welfare professionals adopt a strengths-based approach they will no longer perceive grief-based behaviors as deficits, but rather as strengths.

Siu and Hogan (1989) also cite the importance of caseworkers understanding the nature of grieving and thereby assisting foster care children to grieve the loss of their families. It is vital for caseworkers to be familiar with the range of possible expressions of depression among grieving children, which often manifest as irritability and can easily be mistaken for oppositional behavior. It is also quite common for children to express heartfelt grief for parents who have abused them. Even children who have been sexually abused may express that they miss an abusive parent. Effective caseworkers can express understanding and empathy for children as they express their grief and mourn their losses, without necessarily minimizing the reasons why the children are in placement.

Another trauma children in foster care experience is the disruption of their identity development. Removing children from their biological homes (and potentially their neighborhood and school) can be highly traumatic, resulting in a range of psychological and behavioral problems (Frederico et al., 2017). A considerable amount of children’s identities resides outside of themselves; thus, many children are dependent on external validation and encouragement. Consider the case of Vanessa in the opening vignette. Her identity was at least partly rooted in living in a rural community and being a lover of horses. She struggled when she was placed in a group home in the city, where she had limited access to outdoor space and no access to horses. An effective caseworker will understand the various dynamics of identity development, including understanding how removing children from their homes, even abusive homes, can undermine their identity development. Any acting out behavior on the part of the child should be viewed through this lens of identity disruption. Caseworkers can respond by providing comfort and encouragement to the child during the transition to a new environment, as well as by coming up with unique remedies to challenging situations in an attempt to address these identity dynamics, such as when Vanessa’s caseworkers made arrangements for her to take horseback riding lessons and volunteer at a local stable and visit her mom more regularly.

Continuity of Family Ties and the Need for Post-placement Counseling.

Picture yourself in a boat moored to a dock on the shore of a large lake. Being anchored to the dock provides you with a connection to the mainland and a sense of security, without fearing that you’ll become adrift at sea. But what if you need to get to the other side of the lake? You would have to pull up your anchor and drift across the water, and it wouldn’t be until you reached the other side and safely anchored yourself against that shore that you would feel secure and stable again. Many significant life transitions are like this—adrift at sea, caught between two shores, where continuity and stability are temporarily lost. Children who have been removed from their biological homes will undoubtedly lose their sense of continuity with their biological families and will feel adrift at sea during the time period when they have not yet established new bonds with their foster family. This is a temporary phenomenon and will pass in time, thus continuity and stability can be reestablished once again.

A 2016 study found that children in foster care remain strongly attached to their biological parents, even when their parents were highly abusive (Baker et al., 2016). In fact, Baker (et al.) found that all of the children in the study “yearned” for their parents, even the abusive parent. They further found that the majority of the children were afraid of being removed from their abusive homes, and blamed themselves for the removal, while at the same time feeling relieved and grateful for being placed in foster care. The results of this and similar studies highlight the importance of caseworkers recognizing the confusing and conflictual feelings most children experience when they’re removed from their home, in addition to the strong attachments they maintain with their biological parents, even when a parent is abusive and rejecting.

Siu and Hogan (1989) strongly recommend that caseworkers consider the importance of family continuity and stability when considering where to place a child. Ready access to the biological family and even close friends should be a priority in placement decisions. Although this can become challenging, particularly in areas where there is a limited number of available foster families, consideration should still be given to a placement that will facilitate ongoing parental involvement and the possibility of continuing ties with family members and friends. For instance, at times siblings must be placed in separate foster homes, and consideration to continuity issues needs to be extended in this situation. Often siblings in foster families do not visit each other regularly because of the geographic constraints placed on foster families, who are often responsible for providing transportation.

Far too often the foster care system, with all its complications, is ill-equipped to effectively foster a relationship between children in placement and their biological families. This is because if children do not have ready access to their biological families, they will most likely search for continuity and connectedness with their foster families, which, although necessary and important, can pose a risk to the continuing bond with their biological parents. Research has clearly shown that children who visit their biological parents more frequently have a stronger bond with them and have fewer behavioral problems, are less apt to take psychiatric medication such as antidepressant medication, and are less likely to be developmentally delayed. This underscores the importance of strengthening the attachment between foster children and their biological parents through regular and consistent visitation (McWey & Mullis, 2004). Restricting visitation for any reason other than the safety of the child will have a negative effect on this attachment and might even be subsequently used against the biological parents when the time comes to make reunification plans.

Removing children from their biological homes and placing them into foster care constitutes a psychosocial crisis. Siu and Hogan (1989) referred to this crisis as a critical transition, which throws an already fragile family into complete disequilibrium. In fact, most child welfare experts put foster care placement in the category of a catastrophic crisis, warranting a clinical intervention that involves trauma counseling (often referred to as trauma-informed therapy). Surprisingly, despite the vast amount of research on the trauma foster children experience—in relation to both their maltreatment and their out-of-home placement, only about half of children in placement receive the counseling that they need. One national survey found that the children who were the most likely to receive mental health services were younger children who had been sexually abused. Black children were the least likely to receive mental health services, as were children who remained living in their biological homes (Burns et al., 2004). Research on the needs of foster children is clear: All children in out-of-home placement need trauma-informed therapy to heal from their past and become fully functioning and healthy adults (Riebschleger et al., 2015).

Working with Foster Parents

Foster care can involve many different types of placement settings, including kinship care, a foster care emergency shelter, a child residential treatment center, a group home, or even an independent living program for older adolescents, but most frequently foster care involves placing a child with a licensed foster family (two-parent or single-parent family). Every state has certain guidelines and standards that prospective foster parents must meet (Barth, 2001). Licensure typically requires that families participate in up to 10 training sessions focusing on topics such as the developmental needs of at-risk children, issues related to child sexual abuse, appropriate disciplining techniques for at-risk children, ways that foster parents can support the relationship between the foster children and their biological parents, and ways to manage the stress of adding new members to their family. In addition, individuals who will be foster parenting children of a different ethnicity will undergo training focusing on transcultural parenting issues.

Foster parents provide an invaluable service by accepting abused and maltreated children into their homes and providing love, nurturing, and security, even though they know the children may be in their homes for only a short time. In addition to good training, foster parents benefit from caseworkers who are consistently supportive and available to them, particularly during high stress times when foster children are acting out. Foster placement will be far less likely to fail if the foster parents feel sufficiently well prepared and supported by their caseworker, which includes receiving sufficient training (Miller et al., 2019).

The success of a reunification plan depends largely on the cooperation of the foster parents. A foster parent who eagerly facilitates visitation and the sharing of vital information with the biological parents will help protect and maintain the continuity between the foster children and their biological parents. The caseworker plays a pivotal role in providing support and assistance to foster parents. A foster parent who feels unsupported by the caseworker will be far more likely to either purposely or inadvertently undermine the relationship between the foster child and the biological parents. Much of the time this action comes in the form of advocacy for the child, but unfortunately, this advocacy, as well meaning as it may be, has the potential of disrupting the necessary process of reunification. Thus, although it is certainly understandable that the process of emotional bonding with the foster child may make foster parents vulnerable to advocating for their perception of the best interest of their foster children, foster parents who take it upon themselves to protect their foster child by discouraging the relationship with the biological parents in any way are violating their designated roles, and their effectiveness as foster parents will likely be seriously compromised (Randle et al., 2017).

Family Reunification: Knowing When it’s Time to Return Home

Decisions about reunifying children in foster care placement with their biological parents are based on many factors, including the biological parents’ success in meeting their service plan goals. Even if these goals are sufficiently met, the timing of reunification will depend on factors related to minimizing disruptions in the child’s life, such as not switching schools during breaks if possible. If reunification is the plan from the beginning of placement, then the caseworker should be planning for this event from the initial stages of the case.

Problems arise when issues such as court postponements, additional service plan goals, changes in caseworker assignments, and other factors lead to delays in reunification. A judge may deem it perfectly reasonable to postpone a reunification hearing so that a child can complete the final 4 months of school without disruption. Such a decision can be devastating for the biological parents who have worked diligently to reach all service plan goals and go to court expecting to leave with their biological child, only to be told they must wait an additional 4 months to avoid their child changing schools in the middle of the school year. The potential for a biological parent to give up attempting to regain custody and to relapse into unhealthy behaviors out of discouragement and frustration is great, and caseworkers must be sensitive to the possibility of such frustrations leading to despair or relapse.

Therefore, even though reunification with biological parents is associated with several changes in the child’s life, many of which may be negative in nature (Lau et al., 2003), an effective caseworker will begin preparing the child for these transitions from the beginning of placement in foster care. Simply verbalizing what is going to happen, telling the child what to expect in the future, and giving children a voice in expressing their fears and frustrations, even if they do not have decision-making power, will go a long way in minimizing the negative effect of reunification, particularly for children who have been in placement for a significant amount of time.

Reunification is not just stressful for the child, it is stressful for the biological parents as well, and many biological parents are the most vulnerable to stress-related relapse in the weeks leading up to and following reunification (Lau et al., 2003; Mowbray et al., 2017). The combination of increased stress and the acting out of the child due to yet another transition can create a potentially volatile situation where negative behavior patterns resurface and unhealthy coping mechanisms are resumed. Any good reunification plan involves ongoing monitoring and provision of in-home services to prevent such problems during the reunification process. These services can be provided by the county child welfare office directly or by a contracted agency-based practice that specializes in providing services such as in-home case management and support. With good support services, many reunifications go quite smoothly, and in time the children and parents settle into a regular routine where healthier communication patterns and positive parenting styles will eventually lead to a positive response from the children.

Family Preservation Programs

Family preservation programs are comprised of a variety of short-term, intensive services designed to immediately reduce stress and teach important skills designed to reduce the need for out-of-home placement by intervening in a family crisis process before the dynamics deteriorate to the point of requiring the removal of the children. Services can include family counseling, parenting training, child development education, child behavior management, life-skills training, assistance with household budgeting, stress management, respite care for caregivers, and, in some cases, cash assistance (Nelson, 2017).

Research has found that family preservation programs are generally quite successful, with most remaining intact in the years following the suspension of services (Bezeczky et al., 2020). Higher-need families with complex problems have higher rates of repeat mistreatment, but even these families have relatively good success with intensive family preservation services (Schweitzer et al., 2015).

Despite the success of family preservation programs, including for high-risk families, certain populations, such as Blacks, are not consistently selected for family preservation programs. Reasons for this include caseworker bias based on the belief that the needs of the Black community may be too great to be appropriately handled by this program. And yet, when caseworkers underwent cultural sensitivity training, they increased their referrals for Black families who, as a whole, did quite well in the program (Denby & Curtis, 2003).

There are many types of family preservation programs, including different goals, program elements, services provided, and theoretical orientations. Most states will typically adopt a particular program and then implement it within the state’s county CPS agencies. Most family preservation programs typically offer 24-hour referral and response; in-home services offered on a 24-hour, 7-day-a-week availability; small caseloads; and emergency services. An example of a family preservation programs is the Homebuilders® program from the Institute for Family Development, which provides a range of in-home services for identified at-risk families involved in the child welfare system, including crisis intervention, parenting training, life-skills education, and counseling. Currently, more than half of all states in the United States use the Homebuilders® program.

Project Connect is another family preservation program that provides a wide array of services to identified at-risk families in the child welfare system, with a particular focus on parental substance abuse. Project Connect also provides 18 weeks of in-home skills training to parents focusing on child behavior management, child health care skills, and home safety training. Another family preservation program, Functional Family Therapy, provides in-home services to identified at-risk parents with adolescents.

Ethnic Minority Populations and Multicultural Considerations

Black Children and the U.S. Child Welfare System

Children of color are overrepresented in the foster care system, comprising nearly 54% of all placements in the year 2018 (DHHS, 2018). Black children are especially overrepresented in the foster care system, consisting of 23% of all children in substitute care in 2018, while constituting only 14% of the U.S. population. Black children also tend to be treated differently in the foster care system, including being less likely to receive in-home care and being more likely to be removed from the home than White children, despite experiencing similar level of maltreatment. While it is difficult to isolate specific reasons for disparities in treatment, experts suggest that racial bias and cultural misunderstanding are key components in case worker decision making (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2016b).

Black families are more likely to be referred to child protective services, Black children tend to remain in foster care far longer and are reunited with their families less often (Curtis & Denby, 2011). It’s somewhat ironic that Black children were initially excluded from government child protection programs and now they are the most overrepresented among all other racial and ethnic groups (DHHS, 2018). Some reasons for this overrepresentation relate to complex social issues such as the impact of institutionalized racism and intergenerational poverty, but as referenced earlier, other causes include cultural misunderstanding and racial bias on the part of case workers, including implicit bias (personal biases that an individual is not necessarily aware of) (Bruster et al., 2019).

A 2003 study found some very interesting trends with regard to the types of racial bias that existed in many child welfare agencies when comparing how Black and White children were treated in foster care, including how decisions were made, and while this study is several decades old, the findings appear to be quite relevant today. For instance, Surbeck (2003) found that most caseworkers exhibited racial partiality in how they assessed parent–child attachment, which led to delays in returning children to their biological parents. Although this finding was reciprocal (meaning that Black caseworkers showed partiality toward Black families and White caseworkers show partiality toward White families), the effect of this pattern has particular relevance to the Black community because the majority of caseworkers are White and Black children are disproportionately represented in foster care placements. Surbeck theorized that the White caseworkers’ lack of cultural understanding may have led them to misunderstand the nature of the parental bond between Black mothers and their children. A more recent study’s findings that Black families involved in the foster care system were far less likely to be referred for a range of services due to racial bias appear to support these earlier findings (Lovato-Hermann et al., 2017).

Native Americans and the U.S. Child Welfare System

Native Americans have a unique history with the U.S. government with regard to child welfare and protection policies that warrants special attention. The British colonization of North America involved an organized and methodical campaign to decimate the Native American population through invasion, trickery (such as trading land for alcohol), and ultimately the forced relocation of all Native Americans onto government-designated reservations, where the assimilation into the majority culture became a primary goal of the British and then U.S. governments (Brown, 2001). The few Native Americans who survived this genocide were broken physically, emotionally, and spiritually, suffering from alcoholism, rampant unemployment, and debilitating depression.

In the early part of the 19th century the U.S. government assumed full responsibility for educating Native American children. It is estimated that from the early 1800s through the early part of the 20th century, virtually all Native American children were forcibly removed from their homes on the reservations and placed in Indian boarding schools, where they were not allowed to speak in their native tongues, practice their cultural religion, or wear their traditional dress. During school breaks, many of these children were placed as servants in White homes rather than being allowed to return home for visits. The result of this forced assimilation amounted to cultural genocide where an entire generation of Native Americans was institutionalized, deprived of a relationship with their biological families, and robbed of their cultural heritage.

The ongoing campaign to assimilate the Native Americans into European American culture became even more aggressive between 1950 and 1970, when social workers with governmental backing removed thousands of Native American children from their homes on the reservations for alleged maltreatment, placing them in adoptive White homes. In reality, many of the problems on the reservations were the product of years of governmental oppression resulting in extreme poverty and other commonly associated social ills, and the U.S. government’s response to this was to tear Native American families apart rather than intervene with mental health services.

Between 1941 and 1978, approximately 70% of all Native American children were removed from their homes and placed either in orphanages or with White families, many of whom later adopted them (Marr, 2002). In truth, few of these children were removed from their homes because of maltreatment as it is currently defined. Rather, approximately 99% of these children were removed because social workers believed that the children were victims of social deprivation due to the extreme poverty common on most Indian reservations (U.S. Senate, 1974). The result of this government action has been nothing short of devastating. Native Americans have one of the highest suicide rates in the nation, with Native American youth, particularly those who have spent time in U.S. boarding schools, having on average 5 to 6 times the rate of suicide compared to the non-Native population. When these children graduated from high school, they were adults without a culture—no longer feeling comfortable on the reservation after years of being negatively indoctrinated against their cultural heritage, yet not being accepted by the White population either. The response of many of these individuals was to turn to alcohol in an attempt to drown out the pain.

As explored earlier in this chapter, in 1978, the Indian Child Welfare Act (Pub. L. No. 95-608) was passed, which prevented the unjustified removal of Native American children from their homes. The act specifies that if removal is necessary, then the children must be placed in a home that reflects their culture and preserves tribal tradition. Tribal approval must be obtained prior to placement, even when the placement is a result of a voluntary adoption proceeding (Kreisher, 2002). This act has for the most part successfully stemmed the tide of mass removal of Native American children from their homes on the reservations, but unfortunately many caseworkers still do not understand the reason why such a bill was passed in the first place, or why it is necessary, and they mistakenly believe that this act hampers placing at-risk children in loving homes.

Overall Native American families experience disproportionately high rates of poverty, alcohol and substance abuse, and health problems. Native American children experience neglect and physical abuse at higher than average rates, and Native American children on reservations experience excessively high rates of sexual abuse and assault, with lower than average rates of criminal justice intervention. Child welfare professionals are faced with complex challenges, including broken family systems, tribal corruption, remote and isolated communities, chronic and intergenerational substance abuse, domestic violence, and poverty-related stressors. Culturally appropriate intervention strategies can address these complexities in a way that honors and reflects cultural traditions and values.

Latina/o Children and the U.S. Child Welfare System

Latina/o children—including native-born children to native-born or immigrant parents (64%) and foreign-born (36%), primarily from Mexico, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Central and South America—have historically been slightly underrepresented in the child welfare system on a national level. But this trend has shifted in the past two decades, with Latina/o children now being slightly overrepresented in the child welfare population. For instance, in 2000 Latina/o children represented about 14% of the child welfare population while they represented just over 15% of the U.S. population, but by 2007 Latina/o children represented just over 20% of the child welfare population (Dettlaff & Earner, 2012; Dettlaff et al., 2009). On a state-by-state basis Latina/o children are significantly overrepresented in at least six states, particularly border states with a higher Latina/o population.

There is very little research on intergroup differences within the broader Latina/o population, but this should not be interpreted as there being complete homogeneity between the various country-of-origin subpopulations, or between native- and foreign-born children. The research that does exist reveals differences in the demographic characteristics and nature of maltreatment between native-born and immigrant children. For instance, native children were more likely to be emotionally and physically abused, as well as have neglectful supervision, while immigrant children were more likely to be emotionally and sexually abused, as well as experience far higher rates of family stress. Additionally, immigrant children were far more likely to be living in a two-parent home with at least one grandparent also residing in the home (Dettlaff & Earner, 2012). A new demographic trend includes Latina/o immigrant children who come across the border alone. These unaccompanied migrant youth represent a rather small percentage of the total Latina/o child welfare population, but they are a group worth noting because their numbers are increasing, they tend to be highly traumatized with complex needs, and they have little to no in-country social support (Frydman et al., 2014).

Risk factors for abuse in native Latina/o families involved in the child welfare system include alcohol abuse, drug abuse, poor parenting skills, domestic violence, excessive discipline, a history of child maltreatment, a recent arrest, low social support, high family stress, and difficulty meeting children’s basic needs. Risk factors in immigrant families include alcohol abuse, poor parenting skills, domestic violence, excessive discipline, a history of child maltreatment, low social support, high family stress (often related to their immigration experience), and difficulty meeting children’s basic needs. With regard to community risk factors, native-born families are far more likely to live in unsafe neighborhoods with high crime rates and with large numbers of unsupervised teens compared to immigrant families (Dettlaff & Earner, 2012).

Latinas/os in general have a number of cultural strengths that child welfare professionals can tap into when working with Latina/o families involved in the child welfare system. For instance, culturally, Latina/o families tend to have very close attachments to their children, have strong connections to their community, and have strong intergenerational ties and family-centered traditions. Additionally, although the stereotype of the macro Latina/o culture is that it is patriarchal in nature, the reality is that many subcultures within the larger Latina/o culture, such as Puerto Ricans, have a long history of feminism (CASCW, 2014).

Child welfare professionals using a strengths-based approach and who are appropriately trained can draw on these cultural values and traditions when working with Latina/o families, providing culturally congruent services. Another important factor relates to the history of trauma many Latina/o families and children experience, primarily as a part of their immigration experience. Thus, it’s highly beneficial for child welfare workers working with Latina/o families to be trauma-informed so that they can both recognize and appropriately respond to acute and chronic trauma within their caseloads of migrant populations (Igelman et al., 2007).

Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders

Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders (NHPIs) consist of a group of diverse people indigenous to the State of Hawai‘i and the U.S. territories of American Samoa and Guam, with Polynesian, Micronesian, and Melanesian backgrounds. There are approximately 1.2 million NHPIs living in the United States, constituting 0.05% of the U.S. population. While the majority of NHPIs reside in Hawai‘i, other states with high NHPI populations include California, Washington, and Florida. NHPIs are the fastest growing and most diverse racial groups in the United States.

NHPIs generally experience poorer health than other cultural groups in the United States, with higher than average rates of alcohol consumption, smoking, obesity, and diabetes. They also have the highest rates of cancer than any other U.S. cultural group and have the second highest rates of HIV infection and have the second shortest survival rate (White House, n.d.). NHPIs also experience higher-than-average poverty rates and higher-than-average levels of family stress related to social conditions and histories of mistreatment and bias. They also experience disproportionate rates of poverty, barriers to educational opportunities, and quality health care (Communities, E. P. I., 2014).

All of these factors impact family systems and increase vulnerability to becoming involved in the child welfare system. While the overall numbers of NHPI children involved in the child welfare system is small, they are overrepresented in all aspects of the child welfare system, including the juvenile justice system, particularly in Hawai‘i (Fong et al., 2014; Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 2010; Okamoto, 2011). Additionally, NHPIs experience disproportionate rates of incarceration, which also has implications for children and the child welfare system (OHA, 2010). These issues are actively being addressed with the human services and broader advocacy communities. However, the complex nature of the dynamics involved, the overt and covert racial bias and discrimination, and the highly diverse nature of the NHPI population creates a challenging situation for child welfare professionals that can be addressed only through extensive culturally based training and a multipronged approach that pairs case management, counseling, and advocacy on the micro and macro levels.

Alaska Natives

Alaska Natives consist of 13 federally recognized tribes of people indigenous to the State of Alaska. Although many Alaska Natives are genetically similar to Native Americans in mainland United States and South America, their histories of migration, cultures, and treatment by Russian and European settlers and the U.S. government are somewhat different. Similar to other indigenous populations, Alaska Natives have a long history of oppression, marginalization, exploitation, and annihilation, dating back to the 1700s, including being treated as servants and slaves and losing their land to Russian and later American ruling powers. Also similar to mainland Native Americans, Alaska Natives were historically not allowed to practice their native traditions or speak their native languages.

Many Alaska Natives fought against such treatment and attempts to rob them of their culture. While many of the remaining tribes remain strongly attached to their cultural traditions, the impact of centuries of mistreatment has resulted in a range of problems within their social structure and family systems, resulting in, among other dynamics, an overrepresentation in the child welfare system. In fact, children from Alaska are twice as likely to be placed in foster care than children from other states, with Alaska Native children being 7 times more likely to be in foster care than non-Native children (Vadapalli et al., 2014). Native Alaskan children are physically and sexually abused at significantly higher rates than the rest of the population. Girls are particularly vulnerable to rape and other forms of violence and abuse, exacerbated by excessively high rates of alcohol abuse, long dark winters, and a culture of secrecy.

A unique challenge facing child welfare professionals in Alaska is the remote location of many of the tribes, which makes regular visits and the offer of support difficult. But research clearly shows that, historically, child welfare caseworkers showed a lack of cultural integrity toward Alaska Natives by removing children from tribal lands despite members of the community being willing to care for them (Rieger & Kandel, 1999). More recent macro interventions focus on social justice issues and cultural rights of Alaska Natives as autonomous people who continue to suffer the consequences of mistreatment by the majority White culture. As with other indigenous people, child welfare professionals working with these populations must be appropriately trained so they can provide culturally congruent services that allow Native children to remain within their communities whenever possible.

Working with Adolescent Youth

Adolescents from troubled families face many unique challenges, particularly in out-of-home placement. About 35% of all children in foster care are youth between the ages of 11 and 20 (Kids Count, 2019). And of the 232,374 children who exited the foster care system in 2018, 43,103 of them were 14 years of age and older (just over 18%) (DHHS, 2018). Among this youth population, about 25,000 were 16 years of age or over, with many likely heading into very uncertain futures. While some adolescents are placed in kinship and nonrelative care, most are placed in group homes (also called therapeutic foster homes), particularly if they struggle with behavioral health challenges (behavior disorders or mental illness) and are not safe or compliant in a family home setting.

Group homes can be small and informal, or larger and more structured. Adolescents in the former typically attend a local public school, whereas teens who are placed in more structured environments often attend high schools located within the facility where they are housed. Treatment modalities in these facilities often include a combination of behavior modification where desirable behaviors are rewarded and undesirable behaviors are punished, individual therapy, group therapy, and family therapy.

Teens aging out of the foster care system are placed in specialized programs for transitioning youth, called supervised independent living programs. Despite specialized services, including life skills training and educational support, many foster alumni experience multiple challenges and considerable difficulty emerging into adulthood. For instance, one study found that between 31% and 46% of foster care alumni had experienced homelessness by the time they reached 26, over 40% of former foster youth drop out of high school, and fewer than half were unemployed as young adults (Dworsky et al., 2013). Another study found that aging-out foster youth faced increased risk for homelessness and housing instability in their early adulthood, but this trend was mediated for those youth who maintained a relationship with their foster parents (Fowler et al., 2017). An even more distressing finding is that many foster care alumni have been arrested at least once by the time they are 18 and close to half of all girls formerly in foster care had been pregnant one or more times by the time they were 21 years of age (Combs et al., 2018; Ryan et al., 2016). All of these dynamics increase the risk of aging-out foster youth to experience a lifetime of instability related to a range of social problems, including becoming involved in the child welfare system as parents.

Foster care alumni have reported that what they needed more than anything was stable and caring relationships with adults, preferably their family (Geenen & Powers, 2007). One potential solution developed to address these challenges is the Extended Foster Care Beyond 18 program, which allows youth to remain in foster care until their 21st birthday, or in some states even longer. Currently there are 25 states that offer this program (at the state’s expense). The Fostering Connections to Success Act of 2008 provides for some Title IV-E funding for states providing extended foster care under certain circumstances, such as if the youth is in school and working part-time (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2017).

Runaway and Homeless Youth

Unaccompanied youth who are homeless because they are kicked out of their home or they have run away face a number of challenges and are a focus of advocacy and federal policy responses. It’s difficult to determine the exact number of runaway and homeless youth because of varying ways this population is defined and various ways counts are conducted. For instance, the 2017 federal point-in-time count estimated that there were up to 41,000 runaway and homeless youth between the ages of 13 and 21, but an advocacy organization relying on phone surveys yielded an estimation of 70,000 (Fernandes-Alcantara, 2018), and an empirical study conducted in 2013 estimated there were up to 2 million runaway and homeless youth, aged 16 to 22, in the United States (Fernandes-Alcantara, 2013). The authors of the latter study found that many of these youth had run away from a foster care placement or had aged out of the foster care system and are living on the streets. Runaway and homeless youth (sometimes called “throwaway youth”) are far more likely to be living on the streets than in a shelter. They are also far more likely to participate in dangerous behaviors such as drug abuse (including needle sharing), panhandling, theft, and survival sex (sex for food, money, and shelter). These risky behaviors put homeless adolescents and youth at risk for HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and a range of other sexually transmitted diseases (Beech et al., 2002). Runaway and homeless youth are also at high risk for physical and sexual victimization, particularly those youth who are sexual minorities (McCauley et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2016).

Most youth who live on the streets left home because of physical and sexual abuse. In one seminal study of over 600 runaway and homeless youth, sexual abuse was cited as the chief reason they chose to live on the streets rather than remaining in their homes (Yoder et al., 2001). The fact that many of these teens will continue to experience sexual exploitation while living on the streets, whether through sexual attacks, trading sex for basic needs, or sex trafficking, highlights the tragic and cyclical nature of life for these kids.

Most runaway and homeless youth living in urban communities operate as a somewhat cohesive group on the streets, protecting each other and helping one another survive (Auerswald & Eyre, 2002). In fact, it appears that the more seasoned adolescents often take new homeless teens under their wings, teaching them survival tactics and welcoming them into the “fold.” Newer homeless youth who were interviewed talked about what a relief it was to have someone essentially mentor them into the ways of surviving street life. But without glamorizing this life, most teens, both boys and girls, talked of the horrors of being victims of domestic sex trafficking rings. In fact, runaway and homeless youth living on the streets identified the many ways in which they felt exploited, both by older teens and by adults who forced them into drug dealing and prostitution (Auerswald & Eyre, 2002).

Interestingly, many runaway and homeless youth have reported a strong belief in God, who they believe watches out for them and keeps them alive. In Auerswald and Eyre’s 2002 study, one teen stated that when they were not really in need, they would often get no offer of food and little money while panhandling. Yet when they were really in need, having gone without food for a few days, then whatever they needed would just come to them. One teen attributed this phenomenon to God knowing what he needed and providing for him when he needed it the most. In another study researchers found that over half of all runaway and homeless youth interviewed cited a faith in God as the primary motivation for survival (Lindsey et al., 2000).

Yet even with this surprisingly high percentage of faith-seeking runaway and homeless youth, an estimated 40% attempt suicide (Auerswald & Eyre, 2002). They are also at high risk for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety disorders, depression, substance abuse, and delinquency (Thrane et al., 2008). Many runway and homeless youth report losing all contact with people in their former lives, even siblings, extended family, and those who had been supportive of them in the past. Many also talked of feeling extremely lonely and distrustful but in desperate need of love and affection. Because the majority of runaway and homeless youth have run away from abusive homes, it seems likely that many were suffering from some form of emotional disturbance even prior to entering street life (Kidd, 2003).

Unfortunately, many of the runaway and homeless youth who were interviewed reported being highly suspicious of all adults, including outreach workers with social service agencies providing assistance to the homeless adolescent population. The overall perception among runaway and homeless youth of outreach agencies is quite negative, and adolescents who accepted assistance from these agencies were considered “sellouts” and foolish. The prevailing belief was that social workers and other outreach workers would force the teens to return to an abusive home environment, or they’d be turned over to the police or child protective services. Knowing these attitudes can aid social service agencies in developing outreach efforts and other services designed to overcome these negative perceptions (Kidd, 2003).

The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (RHYA) is federal legislation that provides programmatic funding for unaccompanied homeless youth, particularly the most vulnerable of these youth, such as racial and ethnic minorities and sexual minorities (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning youth). Originally passed in 1974, this act has been reauthorized several times, most recently in 2016. The RHYA provides funding for three types of services: (1) Street outreach services, (2) short-term shelter, and (3) transitional living services, consisting of longer-term housing. All three service domains include counseling and other supportive services. The Runaway and Homeless You uth and Trafficking Prevention Act, to address the significant risk of domestic trafficking among youth living on the streets.

Adolescents Who Join Gangs

Gangs consist of groups of individuals who actively participate in criminal activities on an organized or coordinated basis. Gang activity has become an increasingly severe problem in recent years, not only with regard to the number of gangs in operation within the United States (estimated to be somewhere between 700,000 and 800,000 nationwide), but also with regard to the type of violent activities in which many gang members participate. Gang activity remains primarily a big-city phenomenon, with some of the larger cities having more than 30 gangs operating at one time (National Youth Gang Center, 2005). Smaller towns and rural communities also experience gang problems, but these tend to be relatively sporadic with gangs that are loosely organized.

Gang members commit crimes such as theft, drug trafficking, assault, and intimidation. When gang members engage in turf wars where one gang is in conflict with another, gang fights often ensue, involving both serious assaults and homicides. In some urban communities, such as Chicago and Baltimore, drive-by shootings are a way of life, and parents respond by keeping their young children off the streets and away from windows. And even that doesn’t keep some children safe, as evidenced by the alarming number of children who are shot inadvertently by bullets that crash through living room windows.

Most gang members are between the ages of 13 and 25, but some studies found gangs that have members as young as 10. Most gang members come from backgrounds of poverty and racial oppression, live in high-crime urban communities, and live in neighborhoods with high gang activity (Vigil, 2003). Although there has been a recent increase in female gang activity most gangs are still primarily comprised of males (Chesney-Lind, 1999).

Every year the FBI releases a report on gang activity in the United States called the National Gang Report (NGR), which provides an assessment of gang activity across the country. The report is based on surveys of law enforcement agencies throughout the United States. The report categorizes gang activity into four categories: (1) street gang activity (neighborhood gangs and national gangs), (2) prison gang activity, (3) outlaw motorcycle gang (OMG) activity, and (4) cross-border gang activity (gang activity between the U.S./Mexico border). This year’s report shows an increase in the size of all gangs in the past 2 years, as well as increases in gang-related crime (National Gang Intelligence Center, 2015).

Neighborhood gangs pose a threat to residents, industry, and law enforcement. Prison gangs pose a threat to prison efficiency and the safety of both staff and other prisoners, as well as to the community in general since there remains a strong connection between prison gangs and street gangs. Gangs in general are increasing their criminal activities as well as the seriousness of the crimes they are committing. For instance, gangs consistently engage in drug trafficking crimes (e.g., manufacturing, trafficking, distribution), intimidation (e.g., threats, assaults, murder), and financial crimes (e.g., identity theft, credit card theft, money laundering). More recently street gangs have been increasingly involved in sex trafficking (international and domestic) and prostitution and have formed alliances with other gangs across the country and international sex trafficking rings to increase sex trafficking across the country. Activity between U.S. gangs and gangs and cartels in Mexico, referred to as Mexican Transnational Criminal Organizations (MTCO), has also increased significantly in the last 2 years, with prison gangs often facilitating the connection between the two. Threats against law enforcement, while remaining stable in numbers, have increased in boldness and level of violence (National Gang Intelligence Center, 2015).

According to the FBI, gangs have two primary goals: to make money and increase their power. They accomplish both goals through criminal activity, the former through trafficking and robbery, and the latter through intimidation and violence. The NGR (2015) also reports that street gangs and OMGs have increased their power and reach by seeking employment in law enforcement agencies, the military, and other government institutions, as well as coordinating with other criminal organizations, such as international sex trafficking rings and MTCOs.

Another interesting trend is the dramatic increase in gangs using social media for recruiting new members, communicating between gang members and other gangs, targeting rivals, facilitating criminal activity, and circumventing law enforcement. Social media has also been used to make threats to law enforcement. The most popular social media sites used by gang members are Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter. Additionally, prison gangs use smuggled cell phones to communicate with street gangs and new recruits via social media sites such as Facebook. In 2014 alone, the California Department of Corrections confiscated close to 15,000 cell phones from prisoners, many of which were smuggled in by corrupt prison staff in exchange for cash and sex (National Gang Intelligence Center, 2015). In response to the dramatic rise of gangs using social media, law enforcement agencies are now actively monitoring social media as a part of their surveillance of gang activity.

There are several theories regarding why people (primarily men) join gangs. Most sociological and anthropological theories focus on the sense of solidarity and feelings of belonging that gangs can provide members, particularly disenfranchised youth. Identifying risk factors is important so that effective intervention strategies can be developed and implemented. A comprehensive study facilitated by the U.S. Department of Justice evaluated the gang membership and backgrounds of over 800 gang members from 1985 to 2001 in an attempt to identify some of the reasons why adolescents join gangs. This study, referred to as the Seattle Social Development Project, confirmed that the majority of gang members were men (90%) and that gang members came from diverse ethnic backgrounds including White (European American), Asian, Latino, Native American, and Black, with Blacks having the highest rates of gang membership. Interestingly, the study found that the majority of gang members joined for only a short time, with 70% of youth belonging to a gang for less than a year (Hawkins et al., 2003).

The study identified multiple risk factors for gang membership, including living in high-crime neighborhoods, coming from a single-parent household, poverty, parents who approved of violence, poor academic performance, learning disabilities, little or no commitment to school, early drug and alcohol abuse, and associations with friends who commit delinquent acts. The study’s authors recommended early prevention efforts that target youth with multiple risk factors. Programs need to focus on all aspects of the adolescent’s life, including family dynamics, school involvement, peer group, and behavioral issues such as drug and alcohol abuse, as well as any antisocial and delinquent behaviors.

What this study seems to underscore is that for youth with multiple risk factors gang membership may be less an option and more a way of life. Adolescents who are fortunate enough to have cohesive families, where high-functioning parents work hard to maintain structure, provide accountability, and keep teens engaged in positive activities, can often avoid the temptation to join a gang. This is particularly true for Black youth living in large urban areas (Walker-Barnes & Mason, 2001).

Adolescents without the benefit of such positive influences, including those who have neglectful and uninvolved parents, often face a reciprocal pull into gang life where they are targeted by existing gang members who recognize the existence of these risk factors. Many adolescents are drawn to gang life because of the benefits gangs appear to provide such as a sense of belonging, a life of excitement, and the feeling of empowerment. The NGR (National Gang Intelligence Center, 2015) referenced aggressive attempts on the part of many gangs to recruit adolescents as young as 11. One example of recruitment tactics using social media include gang members posting rap music on YouTube in an attempt to engage interested youth and convince them to join their gang. Another example included a gang member who contacted a middle school student using an online chat platform and not only told him to join the gang but also demanded that he provide names of other middle school students.

Human services providers who work with youth gang populations may do so on school campuses, in agencies that target at-risk youth, in faith-based outreach agencies, at police departments, or within the juvenile justice system. Most outreach programs target adolescents who live in large urban communities where gang activity is prolific and violent behavior a fact of life, especially those who come from single-parent homes, have poor academic histories, and have shown early signs of delinquent behaviors. Human services providers also target social conditions on a macro level, such as poverty, racism, and the lack of opportunities in urban communities, because these factors contribute to the development of gang activity.

Many human services programs that target at-risk adolescents operate after-school programs or evening community programs that give adolescents a place to go to socialize other than the streets. This is particularly important for youth who are in search of a sense of cohesion, security, and social belongingness, elements that might be missing from their home life. In light of the research indicating that most gang members have relatively loose, short-term affiliations with gangs, these types of programs have the potential of being successful in steering even active gang members away from gang life. Finally, human services programs committed to reducing the gang problem must be willing to engage in active and aggressive outreach efforts, maintain a highly visible presence in the community, coordinate services with other gang intervention programs, and be willing to engage at-risk adolescents and their family on multiple levels.

Conclusion

Human services practitioners who work with troubled families have the opportunity to effect change that positively affects not only the present families but all future generations within that family system as well. While the area of child, youth, and family services is broad, what agencies have in common is a focus on strengthening and supporting families in need. One of the largest practice settings within the broader area of child, youth, and family services is child welfare. Child welfare agencies are charged with the responsibility of protecting children from neglect and abuse.

The challenges families in the child welfare system experience are often of a very complex nature, and can include mental health illness, substance abuse, poor anger management, and low coping skills on the part of the parents, and behavior problems, trauma, school problems, and identity issues on the part of the children. Child welfare workers are most effective when they develop expertise in the area of child development, as well as become acutely familiar with the history of government-sanctioned racism targeting certain ethnic minority populations such as Black and Native American and Alaska Native populations.

An increased focus on family preservation programs and other early intervention programs offers the best opportunity for reducing out-of-home placements, but these programs must be offered to all potentially appropriate families without bias. This can occur through sufficient federal and state funding of child welfare programs and the effective recruitment and training of social workers willing to work with a variety of families, from various cultures dealing with a wide range of life challenges.

Adolescents present a complicated and challenging case for social workers, particularly those exiting the foster care system with little to no support. Youth transitioning out of foster care face tremendous difficulty in adulthood and poor outcomes across a range of life domains. Youth opting to live on the streets rather than in abusive homes, foster care, or group homes, face even more hardship such as risks of HIV and STIs, physical and sexual violence, and sex and labor trafficking. Child welfare experts, including social workers, have been instrumental in developing innovative programs to address these challenges, such as extending foster care beyond a child’s 18th birthday. Federal legislation can assist by driving expectations and providing funding.

Summary

·

· The ways in which children were treated historically in the United States, with a particular focus on children from marginalized populations, are examined. The treatment of children since Colonial times, including how poor, migrant, and children of color were abused and exploited within the labor market, as well as how orphaned children and children without parental care were managed and cared for, are also explored.

· The role and function of the human services professional in the current U.S. child welfare system are analyzed. The structure and purpose of the U.S. child welfare system, with a particular focus on the role and function of human services professionals working within each phase of the child welfare system process, are explored.

·  The role and function of child welfare professionals working with children in placement and their families are explored. The impact on children of being involved in the child welfare system is explored, with a particular focus on removal, as well as how human services professionals can effectively respond to children in placement.

·  The relationship between historic mistreatment of ethnic minority populations and their current involvement in the U.S. child welfare system is analyzed. The disproportionality of children of color in the child welfare system is explored, including the role of racial bias in decision making and the nature of historic mistreatment of many ethnic minority populations, including Black, Latina/o, Asian, Native American, Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander, and Alaska Native populations.

Important factors related to working with the adolescent population are explored with a particular focus on key challenges many adolescents face. Challenges related to substance abuse and runaway and homeless youth are explored, as is the role of human services providers working with this at-risk population.

References

Addams, J. (1912). Twenty Years at Hull House; with autobiographical notes. Kindle Edition.

Addams, J. (1990). Twenty years at Hull-House. University of Illinois Press.

Alderman, C. L. (1975). Colonists for sale: The story of indentured servants in America. Macmillan.

Auerswald, C. L., & Eyre, S. L. (2002). Youth homelessness in San Francisco: A life cycle approach. Social Science & Medicine, 54(10), 1497–1512.

Austin, M. J., D’Andrade, A., Lemon, K., Benton, A., Chow, B., & Reyes, C. (2005). Risk and safety assessment in child welfare: Instrument comparisons. University of California, Berkeley, School of Social Welfare (BASSC), 2, 1–16.

Baker, A. J., Creegan, A., Quinones, A., & Rozelle, L. (2016). Foster children’s views of their birth parents: A review of the literature. Children and Youth Services Review, 67, 177–183.

Bartelink, C., van Yperen, T. A., & Ingrid, J. (2015). Deciding on child maltreatment: A literature review on methods that improve decision-making. Child Abuse & Neglect, 49, 142–153.

Barth, R. P. (2001). Policy implications of foster family characteristics. Family Relations, 50(1), 16–19.

Beech, M., Meyers, L., & Beech, D. J. (2002). Hepatitis B and C infections among homeless adolescents. Family Community Health, 25(2), 28–36.

Bellingham, B. (1984). Little wanderers: A socio-historical study of the nineteenth century origins of child fostering and adoption reform, based on early records of the New York Children’s Aid Society [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Pennsylvania. (Available from University Microfilm Incorporated (UMI), Ann Arbor, MI.)

Bender, K., Yang, J., Ferguson, K., & Thompson, S. (2015). Experiences and needs of homeless youth with a history of foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 55, 222–231.

Bender, T. (1975). Toward an urban vision: Ideas and institutions in nineteenth century America. The John Hopkins University Press.

Benia, L. R., Hauck-Filho, N., Dillenburg, M., & Stein, L. M. (2015). The NICHD investigative interview protocol: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 24(3), 259–279.

Bentovim, A. (2002). Preventing sexually abused young people from becoming batterers, and treating the victimization experiences of young people who offend sexually. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26(6–7), 661–678.

Bentovim, A. (2004). Working with abusing families: General issues and a systemic perspective. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 15(1–2), 119–135.

Bezeczky, Z., El-Banna, A., Petrou, S., Kemp, A., Scourfield, J., Forrester, D., & Nurmatov, U. B. (2020). Intensive family preservation services to prevent out-of-home placement of children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Child Abuse & Neglect, 102, 104394.

Bourg, W., Broderick, R., & Flagor, R. (1999). A child interviewer’s guidebook. Sage Publications.

Brace, C. L. (1967). The dangerous classes of New York and twenty years work among them. Patterson Smith.

Brown, D. (2001). Bury my heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian history of the American West. Henry Holt and Company.

Bruster, B. E., Lane, T. Y., & Smith, B. D. (2019). Challenging implicit bias: preparing students to practice with African American families. Social Work Education, 38(5), 654–665.

Burns, B. J., Phillips, S. D., Wagner, H. R., Barth, R. P., Kolko, D. J., Campbell, Y., & Landsverk, J. (2004). Mental health need and access to mental health services by youth involved with child welfare: A national survey. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 43(8), 960–970.

Bussey, K., & Grimbeek, E. J. (1995). Disclosure processes: Issues for child sexual abuse victims. In K. J. Rotenberg (Ed.), Cambridge studies in social and emotional development. Disclosure processes in children and adolescents (pp. 166–203). Cambridge University Press.

Byars, L. F. (1991). Lexington’s Colored Orphan Industrial Home, 1892–1913. The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society, 89(2), 147–178.

CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111–320). Retrieved September 9, 2012, from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/s3817/text

CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (P.L. 111–320). http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/s3817/text

Center for the Advanced Studies in Child Welfare [CASCW]. (2014). Latina/o cultural guide building capacity to strengthen the well-being of immigrant families and their children: A prevention strategy. http://cascw.umn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/CulturalGuide-Latino.pdf

Chesney-Lind, M. (1999). Challenging girls’ invisibility in juvenile court. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 564, 185–202.

Child Trends. (2018). Foster care. https://www.childtrends.org/indicators/foster-care

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2016a). Definitions of child abuse and neglect. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau. https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/laws-policies/statutes/define/

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2016b). Racial disproportionality and disparity in child welfare. https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue-briefs/racial-disproportionality/

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2017). Extension of foster care beyond age 18. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau.

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2019). About CAPTA: A legislative history. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau.

Child Welfare League of America [CWLA]. (2005). A comparison of approaches to risk assessment in child protection and brief summary of issues identified from research on assessment in related fields. http://www.childwelfare.gov/responding/iia/safety_risk/

Cochran, B. N., Stewart, A. J., Ginzler, J. A., & Cauce, A. M. (2002). Challenges faced by homeless sexual minorities: Comparison of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender homeless adolescents with their heterosexual counterparts. American Journal of Public Health, 92(5), 773–777.

Combs, K. M., Begun, S., Rinehart, D. J., & Taussig, H. (2018). Pregnancy and childbearing among young adults who experienced foster care. Child maltreatment, 23(2), 166–174.

Communities, E. P. I. (2014). Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders in the United States: A community of contrasts. Empowering Pacific Islander Communities. https://www.empoweredpi.org/research.html

Condran, G. A., & Cheney, R. A. (1982). Mortality trends in Philadelphia: Age and cause-specific death rates 1870–1930. Demography, 19(1), 97–123.

Connolly, D. A., Coburn, P. I., & Chong, K. (2017). Twenty-six years prosecuting historic child sexual abuse cases: Has anything changed? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23(2), 166.

Cronch, L. E., Viljoen, J. L., & Hansen, D. J. (2006). Forensic interviewing in child sexual abuse cases: Current techniques and future directions. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11(3), 195–207.

Cross, T. P., Jones, L. M., Walsh, W. A., Simone, M., & Kolko, D. (2007). Child forensic interviewing in Children’s Advocacy Centers: Empirical data on a practice model. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(10), 1031–1052.

Curtis, C. M., & Denby, R. W. (2011). African American children in the child welfare system: Requiem or reform. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 5(1), 111–137.

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.

Denby, R. W., & Curtis, C. M. (2003). Why special populations are not the target of family preservation services: A case for program reform. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 30(2), 149–173.

DePanfilis, D., & Scannapieco, M. (1994). Assessing the safety of children at risk of maltreatment: Decision-making models. Child Welfare, 73(3), 229–246.

Dettlaff, A. J., & Earner, I. (2012). Children of immigrants in the child welfare system: Characteristics, risk, and maltreatment. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 93, 295–303.

Dettlaff, A. J., Earner, I., & Phillips, S. D. (2009). Latino children of immigrants in the child welfare system: Prevalence, characteristics, and risk. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(7), 775–783.

Dijkstra, S., Creemers, H. E., Asscher, J. J., Deković, M., & Stams, G. J. J. (2016). The effectiveness of family group conferencing in youth care: A meta-analysis. Child Abuse & Neglect, 62, 100–110.

Dworsky, A., Napolitano, L., & Courtney, M. (2013). Homelessness during the transition from foster care to adulthood. American Journal of Public Health, 103(S2), S318–S323.

Ehrensaft, M. K., Cohen, P., & Brown, J. (2003). Intergenerational transmission of partner violence: A 20-year prospective study. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 71(4), 741–753.

Fernandes-Alcantara, A. L. (2013). Runaway and homeless youth: Demographics and programs (CRS Report No. RL33785).

Fernandes-Alcantara, A. L. (2018). Runaway and homeless youth: Demographics and programs. Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress.

Fong, R., Dettlaff, A., James, J., & Rodriguez, C. (Eds.). (2014). Addressing racial disproportionality and disparities in human services: Multisystemic approaches. Columbia University Press.

Fontes, L. A. (2010). Interviewing immigrant children for suspected child maltreatment. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 38(3), 283–305.

Fowler, P. J., Marcal, K. E., Zhang, J., Day, O., & Landsverk, J. (2017). Homelessness and aging out of foster care: A national comparison of child welfare-involved adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review, 77, 27–33.

Frederico, M., Long, M., McNamara, P., McPherson, L., & Rose, R. (2017). Improving outcomes for children in out of home care: the role of therapeutic foster care. Child & Family Social Work, 22(2), 1064–1074.

Frydman, L., Dallam, E., & Bookey, B. (2014 ). A treacherous journey: Child migrants navigating the US immigration system. Center for Gender & Refugee Studies. University of California Hastings College of the Law. http://www.uchastings.edu/centers/cgrsdocs/treacherous_journey_cgrs_kind_report.pd

Geenen, S., & Powers, L. E. (2007). Tomorrow is another problem: The experiences of youth in foster care during their transition into adulthood. Children and Youth Services Review, 29, 1085–1101.

Goldman, J., & Salus, M. (2003). A coordinated response to child abuse and neglect: The foundation for practice. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect.

Gratton, B., & Moen, J. (2004). Immigration, culture, and child labor in the United States, 1880–1920. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 34(3), 355–391.

Greene, J. W. (1995). From forge to fast food: A history of child labor in New York State. Volume I: Colonial times through the Civil War. New York Labor Legacy Project, Council for Citizenship Education, Russell Sage College.

Hacsi, T. (2017). From indenture to family foster care: A brief history of child placing. In A history of child welfare (pp. 155–173). Routledge.

Hawkins, J. D., Smith, B. H., Hill, K. G., Kosterman, R., Catalano, R. F., & Abbott, R. D. (2003). Understanding and preventing crime and violence: Findings from the Seattle Social Development Project. In T. P. Thornberry & M. D. Krohn (Eds.), Taking stock of delinquency: An overview of findings from contemporary longitudinal studies (pp. 255–312). Plenum.

Hewitt, S. K. (1999). Assessing allegations of sexual abuse in preschool children: Understanding small voices. Sage Publications.

Holt, M. (1992). The orphan trains: Placing out in America. University of Nebraska Press.

Horejsi, C., Craig, B. H. R., & Pablo, J. (1992). Reactions by Native American parents to child protection agencies: Cultural and community factors. Child Welfare League of America.

Hume, D. L., & Sidun, N. M. (2017). Human trafficking of women and girls: Characteristics, commonalities, and complexities. Women & Therapy, 40(1–2), 7–11.

Igelman, R., Conradi, L., & Ryan, B. (2007). Creating a trauma-informed child welfare system [Electronic version]. Focal Point, 21(1), 23–26.

Katz, M. B. (1996). In the shadow of the poorhouse: A social history of welfare in America. Basic Books.

Kidd, S. A. (2003). Street youth: Coping and interventions. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 20(4), 235–261.

Kids Count. (2019). Children in foster care by age group in the United States. Kids Count Data Center. https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/6244-children-in-foster-care-by-age-group?loc=1&loct=1#detailed/1/any/false/37,871,870,573,869,36,868,867,133,38/1889,2616,2617,2618,2619,122/12988,12989

Klarman, M. J. (2006). From Jim Crow to civil rights: The Supreme Court and the struggle for racial equality. Oxford University Press.

Kopel, S., Charlton, T., & Well, S. J. (2003). Investigation laws and practices in child protective services. Child Welfare, 82(6), 661–684.

Kreisher, K. (2002). Coming home: The lingering effects of the Indian Adoption Project. Children’s Voice, 11(2). 9–11.

Lau, A. S., Litrownik, A. J., Newton, R. R., & Landsverk, J. (2003). Going home: The complex effects of reunification on internalizing problems among children in foster care. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31(4), 345–358.

Lee, R. E., & Whiting, J. B. (2007). Foster children’s expressions of ambiguous loss. American Journal of Family Therapy, 35, 417–428.

Lindsey, E. W., Kurtz, D. P., Jarvis, S., Williams, N. R., & Nackerud, L. (2000). How runaway and homeless youth navigate troubled waters: Personal strengths and resources. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 17(2), 115–140.

Lovato-Hermann, K., Dellor, E., Tam, C. C., Curry, S., & Freisthler, B. (2017). Racial disparities in service referrals for families in the child welfare system. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 11(2), 133–149.

Mallett, C. A. (2016). The school-to-prison pipeline: A critical review of the punitive paradigm shift. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 33(1), 15–24.

Marr, C. (2002). Assimilation through education: Indian boarding schools in the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Libraries Digital Collections. http://content.lib.washington.edu/aipnw/marr/marr.html

Martin, M. (2014). Advocacy for social justice: Local and global implications. Pearson Publishing.

Matoba, N., & Collins, J. W. Jr. (2017, October). Racial disparity in infant mortality. In Seminars in perinatology (Vol. 41, No. 6, pp. 354–359). WB Saunders.

McCauley, H. L., Coulter, R. W., Bogen, K. W., & Rothman, E. F. (2018). Sexual assault risk and prevention among sexual and gender minority populations. In Orchowski, L., Gidycz, C. (Eds.), Sexual assault risk reduction and resistance: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 333–352). Elsevier.

McWey, L., & Mullis, A. K. (2004). Improving the lives of children in foster care: The impact of supervised visitation. Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 53(3), 293–300.

Merkel-Holguin, L. (1996). Putting families back into the child protection partnership: Family group decision making. Protecting Children, 12(3), 4–7.

Merkel-Holguin, L. (2004). Sharing power with the people: Family group conferencing as a democratic experiment. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 31, 155.

Miller, A. E., Green, T. D., & Lambros, K. M. (2019). Foster parent self-care: A conceptual model. Children and Youth Services Review, 99, 107–114.

Moras, A., Shehan, C., & Berardo, F. M. (2018). African American families: Historical and contemporary forces shaping family life and studies. In Handbook of the sociology of racial and ethnic relations (pp. 91–107). Springer, Cham.

Morgan, K., Dorgan, K., & Hayne, H. (2013). Body maps do not facilitate older children’s report of touch. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 54(1), 51–55.

Morton, M. H., Dworsky, A., Matjasko, J. L., Curry, S. R., Schlueter, D., Chávez, R., & Farrell, A. F. (2018). Prevalence and correlates of youth homelessness in the United States. Journal of Adolescent Health, 62(1), 14–21.

Morton, M. J. (2000). Institutionalizing inequalities: Black children and child welfare in Cleveland, 1859–1998. Journal of Social History, 34(1), 141–162.

Mowbray, O., Victor, B. G., Ryan, J. P., Moore, A., & Perron, B. E. (2017). Parental substance use and foster care reentry. Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions, 17(4), 352–373.

National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect. (2005). Definition of child abuse and neglect state statutes. Series 2005. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children & Families. http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/define.cfm

National Gang Intelligence Center. (2015). National Gang Report 2015. Federal Bureau of Investigation. https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/stats-services-publications-national-gang-report-2015.pdf/view

National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA). (n.d.). Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. http://www.nicwa.org/Indian_Child_Welfare_Act/

National Youth Gang Center. (2005). Highlights of the 2002–2003 national youth gang surveys. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/fs200501.pdf

Nelson, D. (2017). Recognizing and realizing the potential of “family preservation.” In J. K. Whittaker, J. Kinney, E. M. Tracy, & C. Booth (Eds.), Reaching high-risk families (pp. 13–30). Routledge.

Newcomb, M., Locke, D., & Thomas, F. (2001). Intergenerational cycle of maltreatment: A popular concept obscured by methodological limitations. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25(9), 1219–1240.

Office of Hawaiian Affairs [OHA]. (2010). The disparate treatment of Native Hawaiians in the criminal justice system. http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/10-09_exs_disparatetreatmentofnativehawaiians_rd-ac.pdf

Okamoto, S. K. (2011). Current and future directions in social work research with Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 20(2), 93–97.

Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I., Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Esplin, P. W., & Horowitz, D. (2000). Assessing the value of structured protocols for forensic interviews of alleged child abuse victims. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24(6), 733–752.

Patrick, M., Sheets, E., & Trickel, E. (1990). We are a part of history: The orphan trains. The Donning Co.

Pears, K. C., & Capaldi, D. M. (2001). Intergenerational transmission of abuse: A two-generational prospective study of an at-risk sample. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25(11), 1439–1461.

Peterson, C., & Biggs, M. (1997). Interviewing children about trauma: Problems with “specific” questions. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 10(2), 279–290.

Poole, D. A., & Lindsay, D. S. (1998). Assessing the accuracy of young children’s reports: Lessons from the investigation of child sexual abuse. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 7(1), 1–26.

Randle, M., Ernst, D., Leisch, F., & Dolnicar, S. (2017). What makes foster carers think about quitting? Recommendations for improved retention of foster carers. Child and Family Social Work, 22(3), 1175–1186.

Riebschleger, J., Day, A., & Damashek, A. (2015). Foster care youth share stories of trauma before, during, and after placement: Youth voices for building trauma-informed systems of care. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 24(4), 339–360.

Rieger, L., & Kandel, R. (1999). Child welfare and Alaska Native tribal governance: A pilot project in Kake, Alaska—Report of findings. University of Alaska Anchorage Justice Center.

Roberts, D. (2002). Shattered bonds: The color of child welfare. Basic Civitas Books.

Ryan, J. P., Perron, B. E., & Huang, H. (2016). Child welfare and the transition to adulthood: Investigating placement status and subsequent arrests. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(1), 172–182.

Sanchirico, A., & Jablonka, K. (2000). Keeping foster children connected to their biological parents: The impact of foster parent training and support. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 17(3), 185–203.

Schultz, C. B. (1985). Children and childhood in eighteenth century. In J. M. Hawes and N. R. Hiner (Eds.), American childhood: A research guide and historical handbook (Vol. 70, pp. 79–80). Greenwood Press.

Schweitzer, D. D., Pecora, P. J., Nelson, K., Walters, B., & Blythe, B. J. (2015). Building the evidence base for intensive family preservation services. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 9(5), 423–443.

Shlonsky, A., & Wagner, D. (2005). The next step: Integrating actuarial risk assessment and clinical judgment into an evidence-based practice framework in CPS case management. Children and Youth Services Review, 27(4), 409–427.

Shughart, W. F., & Chappell, W. F. (1999). Fostering the demand for adoptions: An empirical analysis of the impact of orphanages and foster care on adoptions in the U.S. In R. D. McKenzie (Ed.), Rethinking orphanages for the 21st century (pp. 151–171). Sage Publishers.

Siu, S., & Hogan, P. T. (1989). Common clinical themes in child welfare. Social Work, 34(4), 229–345.

Spake, A. (1994, November). The little boy who didn’t have to die. McCall’s, 142.

Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., & Orbach, Y. (2001). Use of a structured investigative protocol enhances young children’s responses to free-recall prompts in the course of forensic interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 997–1005.

Surbeck, B. C. (2003). An investigation of racial partiality in child welfare assessments of attachment. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 73(1), 13–23.

The White House. (n.d.). White House initiative on Asian Americans & Pacific Islanders (WHIAAPI) fact sheet: What you should know about Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders (NHPI’s). https://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/list/asian-americans-initiative/what-you-should-know.pdf

Thrane, L., Chen, X., Johnson, K., & Whitbeck, L. B. (2008). Predictors of police contact among Midwestern homeless and runaway youth. Youth Violence and Youth Justice, 6(3), 227–239.

Trattner, W. I. (2007). From poor law to welfare state: A history of social welfare in America (6th ed.). Simon and Schuster.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2018). Quickfacts data. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045218

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2006). The AFCARS report: Final estimates for FY 1998 through FY 2002. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/afcarsreport12.pdf

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS]. (2011). The AFCARS report 18. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/resource/afcars-report-18

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS]. (2018). The AFCARS report 25. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/resource/afcars-report-25

U.S. Senate. (1974). Hearings before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 99th Cong., 2nd Session (testimony of William Byler). U.S. Government Printing Office.

Vadapalli, D., Hanna, V., & Passini, J. (2014). Trends in age, gender, and ethnicity among children in foster care in Alaska. http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/2014_12-TrendsInAge-GenderAndEthnicityAmongFosterChildrenInAlaska.pdf

Vigil, J. M. (2003). Urban violence and street gangs. Annual Review Anthropology, 32, 225–242.

Vis, S. A., Strandbu, A., Holtan, A., & Thomas, N. (2011). Participation and health: A research review of child participation in planning and decision-making. Child and Family Social Work, 16, 325–335.

Von Hartz, J. (1978). New York street kids. New Dover.

Walker-Barnes, C. J., & Mason, C. A. (2001). Ethnic differences in the effect of parenting upon gang involvement and gang delinquency: A longitudinal, HLM perspective. Child Development, 72, 1814–1831.

Warren, A. (1995). Orphan train rider: One boy’s true story. Houghton Mifflin Co.

White, V. (2017). Disproportionality of American Indian children in foster care. Retrieved from Sophia, the St. Catherine University repository website: https://sophia.stkate.edu/msw_papers/812

Whittaker, J. K. (2017). The child welfare challenge: Policy, practice, and research. Routledge.

Xu, L., Carpenter-Aeby, T., Aeby, V. G., Lu, W., Fisher, L., Hardee, M., & Rowson, N. (2016). A systematic review of the literature: Exploring correlates of sexual assault and homelessness. Tropical Medicine & Surgery, 4(2), 212–223.

Yaffe-Bellany, D., & Zaveri, M. (2020). Chipotle is fined $1.4 Million in vast child labor case. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/28/business/chipotle-child-labor-laws-massachusetts.html

Yoder, K. A., Whitbeck, L. B., & Hoyt, D. R. (2001). Event history analysis of antecedents to running away from home and being on the street. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(1), 51–65.