We too often conceive of “poverty-related neglect” as being about things we think should be linked to poverty. We are willing to call lack of food, shelter and medical care poverty-related neglect because our priors tell us those things should be caused by poverty.
Unfortunately, this leads to biased thinking. Poverty may directly cause some types of neglect, but it also may force changes in parenting and limit the range of “good choices” that parents are able to make. That is, poverty may create a context in which neglect is more likely to occur.
It’s time for policymakers, advocates, clinicians and researchers to recognize that we must try something new in child welfare policy. Policies that focus on prevention, such as the Family First Prevention Services Act, represent an important step in this direction. But we must also be willing to try new services, such as expanded social safety net programs and cash assistance, and recognize the broad role that poverty plays in neglect.
The research is increasingly clear that poverty is causally linked to child neglect. In other words, the probability of neglect increases in the context of poverty and this relation cannot be explained by any other factors. This does not, however, mean that poverty and neglect have a one-to-one relation or that the majority of families in poverty engage in neglect. For example, whereas only a relatively small proportion of smokers develop lung cancer, smoking is a well-established cause thereof.
Studies show that more generous state policies around cash benefits — such as tax credits, minimum wage, welfare payments or health care — are linked to lower rates of child maltreatment, and child neglect in particular. But cash assistance is likely not a cure-all for child neglect. Because like all people, families living in poverty are complex; they face challenges related to poverty, family, social networks, as well as struggles with substance use or mental health. It may be true that many poor families involved with the child welfare system already receive some benefits, but many poor families who receive food stamps are still hungry.
Research tells us that social welfare programs help to protect against child maltreatment, but we shouldn’t expect them to cure the problem alone, and certainly not at the levels at which they are currently funded. All parents need time and money to be able to provide safe and consistent care for their children and often parents use one to get more of the other, like paying for child care when the call to work an unexpected shift comes in. The evidence indicates that when these factors fall short, the risk for child neglect increases.
It is true that research indicates that neglect is often associated with substance use and domestic violence, including recent work. But let’s be clear: When caseworkers conduct an investigation, they don’t have the option to check a “poverty” box because by and large, caseworkers don’t have anti-poverty services to offer, aren’t trained about the role that poverty may play in neglect, and statutory definitions often exclude “poverty alone” from definitions of child neglect. If poverty doesn’t appear in administrative case notes or data that doesn’t mean it isn’t there, it means we have been unwilling to document it.
When we limit our understanding of the poverty-neglect nexus to material needs like lack of food or housing, we also miss opportunities to get to the root of the problem – that while poverty has a direct effect on parents’ ability to provide material goods for children, it also likely has broad effects on the choices and range of decisions that parents are able to make. We can continue to blame low-income parents for their circumstances, or we can try to help them change those circumstances.
Cash assistance is a missing tool in the child welfare caseworker’s toolbox, not a panacea, but without this tool research tells us that we are leaving families at risk and caseworkers without needed resources. The provision of temporary cash assistance may help stabilize parents so they have better choices and can make decisions that aren’t limited through the narrowed lens of scarcity.
This is not only good policy, it’s also likely to be cost effective. The federal government spends nearly $8 billion per year on out of home care for children (e.g., foster care, guardianship and adoption services) through the Title IV-E program.
Some have expressed concerns that families involved in the child welfare system will spend money recklessly if we seek to alleviate poverty through economic support. This is an old stereotype, and one that smacks of the myth of the welfare queen. There have now been hundreds of guaranteed basic income studies conducted. The results are clear that low-income families overwhelmingly use these funds on household essentials like groceries and bills. Families with child welfare system involvement are already highly monitored, and there is little reason to believe that they will spend funds differently than other disadvantaged families. However, more — rather than less — research and experimentation is needed to uncover the best approach for economic relief for child welfare system-impacted families.
There are also now a number of ongoing studies in places like Illinois, Michigan, Washington, D.C., New York and California that are looking at these questions in the child welfare context. Results from similar work in Indiana are important, where even a small amount of economic assistance reduced racial disparities in repeat maltreatment and child removal.
If we can help stabilize families and prevent child neglect for less, why wouldn’t we try? Policymakers have to make tough choices with limited resources. Evidence-based research can help make those choices and investments in science to understand what works and what doesn’t should not be considered a squandering of resources.
Correction: An editor’s error led to an incorrect dollar amount listed for federal spending on out-of-home care. That amount has been corrected and The Imprint regrets the error.
Co-signing onto this op-ed:
Kathryn Maguire-Jack, PhD, Associate Professor, University of Michigan School of Social Work
Megan Feely, PhD, Associate Professor, University of Connecticut School of Social Work
Emily Bosk, PhD, Associate Professor, Rutgers University School of Social Work
Rebeccah Sokol, PhD, Assistant Professor, University of Michigan School of Social Work
Shawna J. Lee, PhD, MSW, MPP; Professor, University of Michigan School of Social Work
Kristen Slack, PhD, Professor Emerita, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Gina Miranda Samuels, PhD, Professor, University of Chicago, Crown Family School of Social Work
Megan Finno-Velasquez, PhD, Associate Professor, New Mexico State University School of Social Work
Cassandra Simmel, PhD, Associate Professor & PhD Program Director, Rutgers University School of Social Work
Kelley Fong, PhD, Assistant Professor, University of California-Irvine Department of Sociology
Cathryn C Potter, PhD, Distinguished Professor, Rutgers The State University of New Jersey
Darcey Merritt, PhD, Professor, University of Chicago, Crown Family School of Social Work, Policy, and Practice
Kerri M. Raissian, PhdD, Associate Professor of Public Policy, University of Connecticut
Kate Marcal, PhD, Assistant Professor, Rutgers University
Tova Walsh, PhD, Anne Wackman Oros Associate Professor, Sandra Rosenbaum School of Social Work, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Kristen D. Seay, PhD, Associate Professor, University of South Carolina
Lindsey Bullinger, PhD, Associate Professor, Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter School of Public Policy, Georgia Tech
Frank Edwards, PhD, Associate Professor, School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University – Newark
Margaret Thomas, PhD, Assistant Professor, Crown Family School of Social Work, Policy, and Practice, University of Chicago
Melanie Nadon, PhD, Assistant Professor, Wayne State University School of Social Work
Todd Herrenkohl, PhD, Marion Elizabeth Blue Professor of Children and Families, University of Michigan School of Social Work
Lawrence Berger, PhD, Sheila B. Kamerman and Alfred J. Kahn Professor of Social Policy, Sandra Rosenbaum School of Social Work, University of Wisconsin-Madison
