The emerging leadership within the federal child welfare offices is showing its true colors, and they are not the shades of the rainbow pride flag. The Trump administration just rescinded the previous administration’s requirement that states maintain at least some foster homes that affirm and support LGBTQ+ youth.
While I was reading the news about how the recently appointed leadership is trying to reverse what we assumed was a settled common-sense approach to supporting gay and lesbian kids in foster homes, I had two thoughts.
First, the only surprise is that the revised policy took as long as it did to emerge publicly. It is consistent with other policy approaches in the Trump administration that are radically regressive in their desire to bring us back to the days of social denial. This new policy is cloaked in a child savior mentality about saving young people from their true selves.
My second thought was: This is the prerogative of any administration, to choose where they will spend their political capital. While I applaud Biden’s work on affirmative placements for LGBTQ+ youth, his administration also spent time and energy on non-solutions to ideological racial equity issues instead of addressing the persistent problem of child fatalities, the failing and frustrating attempts across states to benefit from the Family First Prevention Services Act , and the diminishing ability of child welfare agencies to recruit and retain enough qualified team members.
In both cases, these are examples of prioritizing culture war issues over core practice and policy improvements that are mission-critical. And it puts many of us in the quandary of deciding if we should work with political leadership that at least sometimes champions that which we find morally objectionable.
Those choices require us to consider the limits of compromise. The slippery slope questions. Since every child welfare professional makes ethical decisions daily, we should prepare, mentor and encourage them to make ethical choices rooted in ideals and not ideology.
I’ve always thought it is fun sitting at the adult table, but it comes with a price. The cost is more than simply saying, “I was at the meeting when that was discussed.” Or “I had a role in that decision.” Our actual responsibility is to promote practices and policies that lead to safer kids, stronger families and more supportive communities.
As a family-serving professional you must decide: Do I work within a system alongside its representatives with whom I disagree? Or do we advocate from the sidelines hoping to win more people to our point of view? These can be career-defining ethical decisions.
There are further complications and unpleasant realities. Whatever you choose, if you are in a position of authority and responsibility, you factor in the need to keep the lights on and ensure that staff can put food on their own tables. In addition, as a leader, you want to find opportunities to make lemonade from lemons. These are the unique decisions leaders must make.
At the end of the day, personal ethical decisions are just that: personal. They should not be driven by what others are thinking or how we want to be perceived. Layering on our professional role adds to the complexity.
Our skills need to be intentionally developed and refined, so we don’t let ourselves off the hook. We can’t espouse support for gay, lesbian and trans youth at our agency meetings, then ignore governmental actions that we believe will challenge their safety. You can’t ignore your moral compass in exchange for a reduction in regulations or increased funding.
For agency leaders, the attention to ethical decision-making — doing our best to do the right thing — is a form of role modeling for our team members. Principled decisions will inspire them in their work with families. Expedient and transactional choices will re-enforce their cynicism about the nature and intent of the system. The latter will lead to the loss of the organization’s soul. We are most persuasive when we are ethical.
Actively practicing the arts of advocacy, respectful behavior, empathy, honesty, the humility to acknowledge mistakes with a willingness to learn from them and having the courage of conviction to make difficult decisions when faced with a situation where we are conflicted but confused — these are qualities in short supply, but they are what families need and deserve from us. Those we decide to affiliate with says a lot to others about our character and intentions.
Every day poses the question: How do we know if we are doing the right thing? When we leave our house with the best intention of serving others, we will also be conflicted about what we do and how we do it.
Child welfare professionals should follow the NASW Social Work Code of Ethics. This is a practical baseline, even for those who are not trained or degreed social workers.
Beyond that, leaders can ask with whom they want to align themselves and why. Partnering with the powerful can be a venal exercise, primarily self-serving in nature, or it can be a noble way to advance change.
Any ethical decision requires understanding objective facts and research, detached from how we think we can exploit a situation. The extent to which a decision brings anxiety, or what my grandmother referred to as “agita,” seems to be a good barometer, a form of taking your personal inventory.
Leaders can apply analytical reasoning to a decision that will serve their clients and their community, in the short term and over time. An ethical decision should bring us closer to whatever we believe is greater than ourselves and our current flawed reality. What good is a choice that results in nothing more than a photo-op or a LinkedIn post?
There is no perfect decision, especially in our work. That’s why every partnership we consider requires an offramp for self-correction, enabling us to evaluate and reposition our choice. The current environment is murky and unsettled, so making the right choices will be even more difficult. Our failure will come when we don’t do what we know to be best.
