In recent years, policymakers have celebrated the Family First Prevention Services Act — a federal law designed to keep children safely at home by funding in-home support, mental health care and substance use treatment— as a game-changer. The theory behind the 2018 law is sound: If we strengthen families before a crisis hits, we prevent the trauma of removal and reduce the strain on overburdened foster care systems.
But in practice, without adequate safeguards, oversight and equity-focused implementation, family preservation can cross a dangerous line — leaving children in unsafe situations while services lag behind. Recent high-profile tragedies show the risk is not hypothetical.
Take the case of Tiffany Williams, a Dallas mother arrested in 2022 after her 5-year-old son was found dead in a home, marked by prolonged abuse and neglect. According to Fox News Dallas the family had a prolonged abuse and neglect history. Williams had a documented history with child protective services, including prior removals, yet the family never received a sustained, coordinated prevention plan. The tragedy illustrates a larger point: Family preservation is not the problem, but when services are piecemeal, under-resourced or lack timely oversight, children remain at risk. A detailed and accountable prevention plan could have offered both protection and support, and the system’s failure to provide that is what left this child vulnerable.
I have seen these failures firsthand. Over my 12 years in child welfare, including leadership roles in Indiana and Illinois, I’ve supervised high-complexity cases, led regional divisions, and recently authored a 12-point reform blueprint for a large state agency. I have also researched how bias in media portrayals of African American mothers influences public perception and policy — findings that underscore the urgency of culturally responsive reform.
The Family First Act’s core promise is worth fighting for. But we must acknowledge its Achilles’ heel: flexibility without accountability. Because Family First allows states flexibility in how to design and fund prevention services, implementation has varied considerably. Research shows that child welfare and preservation policies are primarily governed at the state level, creating significant differences in practice.
Budget constraints deepen the divide: States often juggle competing demands for education, healthcare, and public safety, and prevention too often gets the short end of the stick. Today, only a small share of child welfare dollars goes toward keeping families strong on the front end, while nearly half is still spent after children have already been removed from their homes.
National analyses confirm this patchwork. As of early 2025, 42 states, the District of Columbia, and four tribal nations have approved Title IV-E prevention plans, while others still lag in implementation, equity, and resource allocation. In practice, this means some families receive robust, culturally relevant support, while others — particularly in marginalized communities — receive little or nothing.
To protect children and honor the spirit of prevention, we need to strengthen the Family First Act implementation in five key ways:
1. Make prevention funding equitable and targeted.
Marginalized families, particularly Black families, often encounter disproportionate contact with child welfare systems due to structural barriers like poverty being misinterpreted as neglect. Experts suggest directing Family First Prevention Act dollars toward community-based support to address these disparities. To bridge service gaps effectively, federal and state agencies should collaborate with trusted community organizations and focus funding on areas with the greatest need.
2. Build mental health risk assessments into every prevention case.
The cases of De’Asia Watkins and Lamora Williams, both involving untreated postpartum disorders and fatal outcomes, show that mental health red flags cannot be ignored. Every family preservation plan should include culturally competent mental health evaluation and ongoing monitoring.
3. Require early warning and escalation protocols.
In too many tragedies, multiple reports and family pleas for help were not acted upon. Agencies must adopt standardized risk escalation triggers — so repeated allegations, prior removals, or patterns of high-risk behavior automatically prompt intensive oversight or removal when warranted.
4. Tie funding to measurable child safety outcomes.
Right now, performance metrics often focus on service delivery rather than results. States should only receive Family First Preservation Act reimbursements if they can demonstrate reduced maltreatment recurrence, timely interventions and improved permanency outcomes.
5. Invest in workforce stability and support.
A prevention-focused system cannot function when turnover is sky-high, and morale is low. My reform blueprint calls for competitive pay, trauma-informed supervision, and stay interviews to retain skilled workers, ensuring continuity for families and safety for children.
Critics might argue that these steps could erode the intent of the Family First Act. I argue the opposite: Without them, prevention becomes performative, offering political wins without real safety gains. Family preservation is not the absence of removal; it is the presence of safety, stability and adequate support.
Ultimately, this is not just a funding issue, it is a moral one. Every time a child dies or suffers severe harm in a home that was supposed to be “preserved,” public trust in child welfare erodes. Every time a family receives token services that fail to address core risks, we perpetuate a cycle of crisis.
The Family First Prevention Act remains one of the most important shifts in federal child welfare policy in decades. It recognizes that we cannot remove our way to safety, and that families, when properly supported, can heal. But implementation must match the ambition of the law. That means confronting hard truths about uneven performance, systemic inequities, and the very real dangers of a one-size-fits-all approach.
