1

Running head: CHILD WELFARE AND CLINICAL SOCIAL WORK

Child Welfare and Clinical Social Work

Erica Harrison

SOCW 5220

Dr. Joseph DeFilippis

The child welfare system has existed in America for less than two centuries. In that time,

there has been shifts in who provides child welfare services, how they are funded, and how they

are controlled. Two things that have changed very little are the existence of racial prejudices in

the delivery of these services as well as the detrimental effects of poverty on family functioning

(Warde, 2017). This paper will discuss the development of the child welfare system while

examining how social values and governmental policies have influenced the consistently high

rates of children of color within the foster care system and other inequities.

Topic Overview

The purpose of the child welfare system is to protect children from harm and neglect. In

the United States, the child welfare system addresses the wellbeing of children by investigating

reports of abuse and neglect, and by caring for children that are removed from their homes

through the foster care system (Warde, 2017). Over the history of the US, child welfare services

have been provided in several different ways. Before the government became involved in social

services in the mid 1900’s, the welfare of poor and orphaned children was left to local

communities. With societal changes including large population increases, the Civil War, the

Great Depression, and the recognition of child abuse, different polices have been enacted to aid

in the protection of poor and dependent children. Some of these include the Social Security Act,

Aid to Families of Dependent Children, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, and the

Adoptions and Safe Families Act (Warde, 2017).

Delivery of Services

The child welfare system is considered to be a universal program because it aims to

protect all children regardless of race, social class, ability, and immigration status (Warde, 2017).
3
CHILD WELFARE AND CLINICAL SOCIAL WORK
While this is the official stance of the program, a large body of evidence points to ways in which

service delivery is biased (Warde, 2017). One example of this is the disproportionate number of

families of color that are reported and investigated in comparison to white families, which has

led to more children of color being removed from their homes (McRoy, 2004). How welfare

workers decide to remove children has been a controversial topic due to the history of poor

children, often of color, being removed from homes that were judged to be ‘unfit’ or ‘broken’ by

middle class white people (McRoy, 2004). While child welfare services were not

institutionalized until the mid 1900’s, discrepancies in how children’s situations were judged and

acted upon have existed since the start of the system (Warde, 2017).

The child welfare system has been financially supported by the federal government since

the signing of the Social Security Act in 1935 (Warde, 2017). States receive aid from the federal

government, and then they distribute funds to local organizations (Segal, 2015). One criticism of

states being in control of child welfare funding is that they are able to divert funds away from

local child protection groups to organizations promoting marriage and family preservation

(Olson, 2005). The society and governmental support of these types of programs hints at the

influence of the Charity Organization Societies on child welfare services (Segal, 2015). In

alignment with Charity Organization Societies, the services that provide child protection and

home removals lean more toward pathologizing families than recognizing the impact of

economic and social conditions (Segal, 2015; Warde, 2017).

History

Prior to the Civil War, children had almost no rights in terms of protection from harm

(Gordon, 2011). Children that were poor, abandoned, or orphaned in the 17 th and 18th centuries

were provided a place to stay in alms houses or poorhouses or were otherwise indentured to work
4
CHILD WELFARE AND CLINICAL SOCIAL WORK
for families (Abramovitz, 1988). In the early 1800’s, orphanages run by charities or religious

groups slowly began spreading around the US (Gordon, 2011). It was around this time that

communities began to notice the increasing numbers of poor children that lived in deplorable

conditions (Warde, 2017). Just before the Civil War, large numbers of mostly poor immigrants

came to the country (Warde, 2017). When the aftermath of the Civil War left even more children

without caregivers, the number of orphanages around the country increased dramatically

(Gordon, 2011).

Eventually, people noticed that the conditions of orphanages were not much better than

those of alms houses and poorhouses (Gordon, 2011). Due to high numbers of needy children, no

formal financial aid, and increasing disapproval from the general population, orphanages began

placing children with families that were willing to care for them (Gordon, 2011). This was

considered the first form of foster care in the country (Warde, 2017). Unfortunately, black

children were entirely excluded from these developments, and most black children that were

poor or orphaned remained in alms houses during this time (McRoy, 2004).

The first organization dedicated solely to protecting children, called the New York

Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NYSPCC), was formed in 1875. The group

was created after a missionary asked the founder of the American Society for the Prevention of

Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) to help her rescue an abused child after the police refused to help

(Warde, 2017). The ASPCA founder sought a lawyer’s advice, and when they became aware of

the lack of government involvement or any official means to protect children from harm, they

decided to form the NYSPCC (Warde, 2017). Eventually, community workers around the

country heard of the group and formed their own chapters (Gordon, 2011). While people in these

groups were essentially doing social work, they were not officially trained or educated in the
5
CHILD WELFARE AND CLINICAL SOCIAL WORK
social work profession (Myers, 2008). Professional social workers entered into the field when the

privatization of these groups led to their need for trained professionals (Myers, 2008).

The government had very little involvement in the protection of children before the 20 th

century. As a result of the Great Depression, families and community organizations struggled to

adequately care for poor children (Gordon, 2011). In 1935, the signing of the New Deal

increased the government’s role in providing social services (Myers, 2008). The Social Security

Act included Aid to Dependent Children, which gave states financial assistance to support poor

families and provide child protection and foster care services (Myers, 2008).

Over the next few decades, organizations dedicated to child protection slowly shifted to

government-controlled realms (Myers, 2008). It was not until 1962, however, that changes to the

Social Security Act recognized Child Protective Services as a necessity for public child welfare

(Myers, 2008). In 1974, Congress passed the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act

(CAPTA) (Myers, 2008). The act provided federal funding to states to improve their ability to

address child abuse and neglect (Myers, 2008). The act also required states to provide statewide

accessibility to child protection services (Myers, 2008). Once black and immigrant children were

included into child protection laws, they experienced large amounts of discrimination and

judgement (Warde, 2017). Welfare workers, now employed by government institutions, used

primarily white, middle-class standards to determine the welfare of poor, colored children

(Warde, 2017). In effect, Black, Native Indian, and Hispanic families were, and still are, more

likely to be reported, investigated, and have children removed from the home (Warde, 2017).

Inconsistencies in state-provided child welfare services led to the creation of the National

Center on Child Abuse and Neglect in 1974, which trained staff throughout the country and

created guidelines on mandated reporting (Warde, 2017). Concerns about the wellbeing of black
6
CHILD WELFARE AND CLINICAL SOCIAL WORK
and Native Indian children in foster care prompted the signing of the Indian Child Welfare Act in

1978 (Warde, 2017). This act allowed tribal governments to participate in child placement

decisions in an attempt to decrease the number of Native Indian children being placed into white

homes (Warde, 2017). Not long after this, court rulings allowed relatives caring for displaced

children to be provided funds similar to foster care families (Warde, 2017). This change

increased the likelihood that black children could be cared for by relatives rather than being

placed in white homes (Warde, 2017). While activists and liberal policy makers have made

efforts to reduce the presence of racial biases in the execution of child welfare, they are largely

held back due to the numerous other systems that perpetuate racism and poverty in this country

(McRoy, 2004).

Social Values

The main social values reflected in the child welfare system include liberalism,

individualism, capitalism, patriarchy, and white nationalism. Reform liberalism, similar to left-

wing ideals, acknowledges the need for the government’s participation in promoting the

wellbeing of society (Mullaly, 2007). In terms of child welfare, reform liberalism is reflected

through the government’s involvement in providing child protection services. By doing so, the

government aims to provide more equal opportunities to children that are abused and neglected

by attempting to improve their situations and outcomes (Mullaly, 2007).

The high value of individualism in the US complicates the ways in which child welfare

services are provided. While children are exempt from the demands of individualism, their

families are not. Consequently, poor families in the US are much more likely to be investigated

and labeled neglectful or abusive to their children (Warde, 2017). The unwillingness of the

government to provide adequate aid to families, as well as the harsh judgements placed on poor
7
CHILD WELFARE AND CLINICAL SOCIAL WORK
families from child protection workers, points to the strong individualist values within the child

welfare system (Warde, 2017). Another factor contributing to this ideal within the welfare

system is the culture of poverty (Gorski, 2008). There is a general consensus by Americans that

all poor people are similar in their laziness, lower intelligence levels, less engagement in child

rearing, and heavier substance use (Gorski, 2008). While these assumptions are all myths, it does

not change the fact that poor people are blamed for their situations (Segal, 2015).

Poor people of color are judged more harshly than any other group in the US (Romero &

Agenor, 2017). American society largely views poor people of color as untrustworthy strangers

(Romero & Agenor, 2017). Capitalism plays into this as poor people are also viewed as

unproductive to society (Mullaly, 2007). While reform liberals believe the government should be

involved in increasing opportunities for the disadvantaged, most of the interventions they support

are on the individual level rather than structural (Mullaly, 2007). A patriarchal example of this is

the idea of putting poor mothers to work rather than supporting them to provide their own in-

home childcare (Covert, 2014). Furthermore, the interventions in place are consistently accessed

less by populations of color (Chow & Vu, 2013). By providing less social welfare assistance to

the poor, the government is able to have more control over their population by placing their

children in more upstanding homes (McRoy, 2004). Schiele (2013) considers this to be a form of

new-style racial regulation in comparison to the old-style that contributed to the creation of

Native American boarding schools.

The patriarchal, white nationalist values of America have significantly impacted the

development child welfare policies. One way this exists today is through the promotion of

marriage (Onwachi-Willig, 2005). By giving preferential treatment to married families and

punitive consequences to non-married families, the government plays a part in controlling the
8
CHILD WELFARE AND CLINICAL SOCIAL WORK
reproductive choices of poor people (Onwachi-Willig, 2005). Poor families of color have

historically been held to the same standards as white middle-class families (McRoy, 2004).

Because families of color are reported more often for instances of abuse and neglect, they also

experience more intrusion into their personal lives by the government and local institutions

(Warde, 2017).

Efforts have been made to increase the transparency of child welfare services, including

the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (McRoy, 2004). The act, as well as ones before it,

was put in place to prevent children from lingering in the foster care system (Warde, 2017).

States are now required to provide thorough records of children in foster care along with plans of

action for their placements (McRoy, 2004). One controversy of the hastening of adoptions has

been the permanent separation of children from parents who have mental illness or are

incarcerated for minimal charges (Warde, 2017). The helpful intentions of these provisions are

even further dissolved when one considers the issues surrounding the deportation of Chinese and

Mexican immigrants that has separated children thousands of children from their parents in the

US (Schiele, 2013)

Social Justice

There are several issues that continue to exist in the child welfare system. One problem

that was recognized early on by communities was how influential poverty is on children’s

experiences of neglect and abuse (Myers, 2008). In line with America’s values of individualism

and social conformity, people are more approving of the government spending money on

children being removed from their homes than on supporting their unfortunate parents (Gordon,

2011). This dynamic coupled with the structural racism of our society leaves poor people of
9
CHILD WELFARE AND CLINICAL SOCIAL WORK
color at the bottom of the societal ladder (Reisch, 2013). Existing in this position unfortunately

increases the government’s ability to implement social controls (Onwachi-Willig, 2005).

Social workers that work within child welfare services struggle to enact social change

(Myers, 2008). Instead, they are left implementing the restrictive, racially biased policies of the

American government (Myers, 2008). What makes this worse is that children are the ones who

are affected the most by the system’s mistakes. With higher numbers of children being removed

from families that cannot care for them, more children end up aging out of the foster system

(McRoy, 2004). This happens to more than 20,000 children each year, and they are more likely

to experience early parenthood, unstable relationships, higher arrest rates, lower graduation rates,

and higher rates of homelessness, health problems, substance use, and unemployment (McRoy,

2004). In this regard, the child welfare system can only do so much when American society

continues to perpetuate these issues.

Conclusion

With the enactment of child welfare policies over the last two centuries, America has

made significant strides in its effort to protect children from harm. Child welfare systems are

well established, professionally staffed, and federally funded (Warde, 2017). While children are

now safer from abuse and neglect than they were in the past, the values of American society

coupled with governmental control leave children in poor families with very little chance of

improving their wellbeing (Gordon, 2011). While social workers do what they can to help

families and children in need, their actions remain small as they struggle to enact social change

(Myers, 2008).
10
CHILD WELFARE AND CLINICAL SOCIAL WORK

Resources

Abramovitz, M. (1988c). Women and the poor laws in Colonial America. In Regulating the lives

of women (pp. 57-80). South End Press.

Chow, J. C. & Vu, C. M. (2013). Human services in the United States: A focus on safety net

programs for ethnic minority families and children. In Reisch, M. (Eds.), Social policy

and social justice (pp. 431-439). Sage Publications.

Covert, B. (2014, September 30). Here’s what happened the one time when the U.S. had

universal childcare. Think Progress. https://archive.thinkprogress.org/heres-what-

happened-the-one-time-when-the-u-s-had-universal-childcare-c965a3178112/

Gordon, L. (2011). Child welfare: A brief history. VCU Libraries.

https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/child-welfarechild-labor/child-welfare-

overview/

Gorski, P. (2008). The myth of the culture of poverty. Poverty and Learning 65(7).

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/apr08/vol65/num07/The-Myth-

of-the-Culture-of-Poverty.aspx

McRoy, R. (2004). The color of child welfare. In Davis, K. E. & Bent-Goodley, T. B. (Eds), The

color of social policy (pp. 37-63). CSWE Press.

Mullaly, B. (2006). The new structural social work: Ideology, theory, practice (3rd Ed.). Oxford

University Press.
11
CHILD WELFARE AND CLINICAL SOCIAL WORK
Myers, J. (2008). A short history of child protection in America. Family Law Quarterly 42(3).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254142517_A_Short_History_of_Child_Protect

ion_in_America

Olson, S. (2005). Marriage promotion, reproductive justice, and the war against poor women of

color. Dollars & Sense. http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2005/0105olson.html

Onwuachi-Willig, A. (2005). The return of the ring: Welfare reform's marriage cure as the

revival of post-bellum control. California Law Review, 93(6). https://www-jstor-

org.proxy.seattleu.edu/stable/30038499?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Reisch, M. (2013). U.S. social policy and social welfare: A historical overview. In Social policy

and social justice (pp. 431-439). Sage Publications.

Romero, D. & Agenor, M. (2017). The welfare family cap: Reproductive rights, control, and

poverty prevention. In Ross, L. J., Roberts, L., Derkas, E., Peoples, W., & Toure, P. B.

(Eds.), Radical reproductive justice: Foundations, theory, practice, critique (pp. 381-

396). The Feminist Press.

Schiele, J. H. (2013). Social welfare policy: Regulation and resistance among people of color.

Sage Publications.

Segal, E. A. (2015). Empowerment series: Social welfare policy and social programs (4th Ed.).

Cengage Learning.

Warde, B. (2017). Inequality in U.S. social policy: An historical analysis. Routledge.