Contradictory Constraints: Parental Experiences of Safety Net Reductions and Financial Hardships while Navigating the Child Welfare System

Parents who have lost custody of their children may still need to provide for them during visits, even if their access to food assistance and other supports has been reduced.

Many families involved with the child welfare system are from low-income backgrounds and are often families of color. In fact, strong evidence suggests that poverty is the principal predictor of a child welfare investigation while growing causal evidence suggests that poverty drives child welfare system involvement.[1, 2, 3] These parents’ economic status makes them eligible for public benefits which they rely on in the absence of sufficient income to support themselves and their children.[4, 5]

Public assistance such as SNAP and TANF are known to reduce the likelihood of child maltreatment risk and child welfare system contact,[6, 7] but access to those supports can be reduced or lost completely when children are removed from the home as a result of a child welfare investigation. In theory, it may seem to make sense that a parent who does not currently have custody of their children should not continue to receive the same level of benefits. But in practice, such reductions may have the unintended consequences of delaying or entirely preventing family reunification—the desired result when the home environment is deemed safe for the child’s return. In a deeply trying time when families most need a supportive safety net, it is removed while they navigate their child welfare case. Moreover, the economic barriers to reunification driven by reduction of the safety net are coupled with additional financial hardships resulting from navigating the complex child welfare system, including child support[8, 9] fines and job scheduling precarity.[10, 11]

“I was getting food stamps. Then it got cut off because it was just me. I think I might’ve got a little bit still. The kids were still coming for visits and I was still having to provide food and all these things, and it put a barrier in my way. I feel like the department should be removing barriers, right?… I mean it meant that money that I was supposed to be putting towards bills and that, I had to put towards food. I mean that’s basically it. Money was—I had to rob Peter to pay Paul type of thing. This bill didn’t get paid because the kids had to eat when they came to visit, because if I can’t provide as a mother, then you continue to punish me and I don’t get my kids back. You know what I mean? It’s all a big tug of war really. It’s a power struggle I feel like.” – Stephanie, a white mother of two daughters and a son.

Policy and Practice Implications

Current public-benefit policies operate in contradiction to stated system goals aimed at improving equity in child welfare and support for low-income families with children. Policy and practice considerations to build a more equitable child welfare system and support low-income parents and their children include:

  • Build safety nets and stopgaps for low-income families impacted by the child welfare system, like Illinois’ Norman Funds and Kentucky’s new Family Preservation Program.[12]
  • Encourage family reunification and preservation with the provision of necessary material resources for parents during visitations, including diapers, wipes, food, and drinks.
  • Ensure access to monetary resources through economic support programs, such as the growing number of basic income pilot programs nationwide.[13, 14]
  • Reduce financial strains on low-income, system-impacted parents such as by ending the harmful practice of charging child support for children who enter foster care.[15, 16]
  • Improve scheduling security for hourly workers through legislation, like the increasingly common “Fair Work Week” laws being implemented around the United States.[17, 18]

The contents of this brief are derived from the dissertation study The Nexus of Poverty, Place, Race, and Bureaucracy: A Multi-Method, Multi-Level Examination of Child Welfare Investigations by Melanie L. Nadon. Findings presented here are based on a qualitative study using data from 21 interviews with child welfare-impacted parents in a Midwestern state (Chapter 3).

For more information, see: Nadon, M. (2024). The Nexus of Poverty, Place, Race, and Bureaucracy: A Multi-method, Multi-level Examination of Child Welfare Investigations. The University of Chicago. https://knowledge.uchicago.edu/ record/12700?v=pdf


References

[1]Putnam-Hornstein, E., Ahn, E., Prindle, J., Magruder, J., Webster, D., & Wildeman, C. (2021). Cumulative rates of child protection involvement and terminations of parental rights in a California birth cohort, 1999–2017. American Journal of Public Health, 111(6), 1157–1163. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306214
[2]Kim, H., & Drake, B. (2018). Child maltreatment risk as a function of poverty and race/ethnicity in the USA. International Journal of Epidemiology, 47(3), 780–787. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyx280
[3]Slack, K. S., Holl, J. L., McDaniel, M., Yoo, J., & Bolger, K. (2004). Understanding the risks of child neglect: an exploration of poverty and parenting characteristics. Child Maltreatment, 9(4), 395–408. https:/doi.org/10.1177/10775 59504269193
[4]Roberts, D. (2009). Shattered bonds: The Color of Child Welfare. Hachette UK.
[5]Dettlaff, A. J., & Boyd, R. (2020). Racial disproportionality and disparities in the child welfare system: Why do they exist, and what can be done to address them? The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 692(1), 253-274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716220980329
[6]Johnson-Motoyama, M., Ginther, D. K., Oslund, P., Jorgenson, L., Chung, Y., Phillips, R., … & Sattler, P. L. (2022). Association between state Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program policies, child protective services involvement, and foster care in the US, 2004-2016. JAMA Network Open, 5(7), e2221509-e2221509. https://doi.org/10.1001/ jamanetworkopen.2022.21509
[7]Maguire-Jack, K., Johnson-Motoyama, M., & Parmenter, S. (2022). A scoping review of economic supports for working parents: The relationship of TANF, child care subsidy, SNAP, and EITC to child maltreatment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 65, 101639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2021.101639
[8]Berger, L.M., Cancian, M., Kim, H. Ko, A., & Pac, J. (2024). Child Support and Child Welfare System Interactions. Institute for Research on Poverty. University of Wisconsin—Madison. https://www.irp.wisc.edu/resource/child-support-and-child-welfare-system-interactions/
[9]Cancian, M., Cook, S. T., Seki, M., & Wimer, L. (2017). Making parents pay: The unintended consequences of charging parents for foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 72, 100-110.
[10]Kemp, S. P., Marcenko, M. O., Hoagwood, K., & Vesneski, W. (2009). Engaging parents in child welfare services: Bridging family needs and child welfare mandates. Child Welfare, 88(1), 101–126.
[11]D’Andrade, A. C., & Chambers, R. M. (2012). Parental problems, case plan requirements, and service targeting in child welfare reunification. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(10), 2131–2138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.child youth.2012.07.008
[12]Anderson, C., Grewal-Kök, Y., Cusick, G., Weiner, D., & Thomas, K. (2023). Family and child well-being system: Economic and concrete supports as a core component. [PowerPoint slides]. Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago. Retrieved from: https://www.chapinhall.org/wp-content/uploads/Economic-Supports-deck.pdf
[13]Kelly, A. (2024). “Illinois is launching a basic income pilot for 400 families in the child welfare system in the hopes of reducing maltreatment.” Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/illinois-basic-income-program-reduce-child-abuse-neglect-parents-ubi-2024-8
[14]Coccia, A. (2023, Feb.) “Supporting Young Adults through a Guaranteed Income.” Center for the Study of Social Policy. https://cssp.org/resource/supporting-young-adults-through-a-guaranteedincome
[15]Duerr Berrick, J., Nepomnyashy, L., & Simmel, C. (2024, March 26). Making parents pay for foster care: A bad idea for families. New Jersey Monitor. https://newjerseymonitor.com/2024/03/26/making-parents-pay-for-foster-care-a-bad- idea-for-families/
[16] Berger, L.M., Cancian, M., Kim, H. Ko, A., & Pac, J. (2024). Child Support and Child Welfare System Interactions. Institute for Research on Poverty. University of Wisconsin—Madison. https://www.irp.wisc.edu/resource/child-support-and-child-welfare-system-interactions/
[17]Lambert, S. (2020). Fair work schedules for the U.S. economy and society: What’s reasonable, feasible, and effective. https://policycommons.net/artifacts/4580376/fair-work-schedules-for-the-us-economy-and-society/5403865/
[18]Kwon, C., & Raman, A. (2023). The Real Effects of Fair Workweek Laws on Work Schedules: Evidence from Chicago, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia. SSRN Scholarly Paper 4609755. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4609755

Categories

Uncategorized