There is a callous culture present in how the White House is currently conducting business. It was exemplified publicly when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was talked down to by the president and vice president and mocked by certain members of the media in attendance.
It might not seem like it, but that incident at the White House could be a foreshadowing of federal family policy over the next few years.
Previous presidential administrations have had their own unique conservative or liberal perspectives on how we should respond to those in need. We’ve adjusted to the changes, understanding that the unwritten requirement of most human service job descriptions includes finding a single pearl, in a pool of oysters. But in the same way Zelenskyy dramatically discovered, those of us in helping professions need to understand, this time there will be no pearl.
Very soon we could see an entire population of individuals and families jettisoned into oblivion because our traditional values are being replaced with transactional arrangements. Instead of supporting families through the daily slog of poverty, trauma and acute and chronic difficulties, parents and children will quickly become the rounding error on the slash-and-burn mission to cut budgets.
But this is not just about government spending. This time we are cascading toward a diminished role for government, especially those programs striving to do the most good for the least prepared and able.
We know that 21st century child welfare requires a systems approach, addressing the Social Determinants of Health and the Five Protective Factors. Our priorities are child safety and family preservation, dependent on a wide array of resources to accomplish these goals. But with massive cuts to programs and budgets, the assault on our values, and the belittling of the battered and fragile, the entire web of resources that we refer to as the safety net will be dismantled.
It is more absolute and aggrieved than in the past, which is why many of our colleagues in government and philanthropic settings are stymied about what to do next.
Unlike those areas where government plays a limited role, child welfare is steeped in a unique version of the social contract, a philosophy that brings the system and families together to remediate concerns about child safety. It is the agreement between the public and government, justifying the authority of the state and exemplifying why society will permit the infringement on parental rights in exchange for benefits and protection from a sometimes intrusive government.
On a practical level, this means that parents willingly or unwillingly make changes when they believe that doing so will help them and their children. It is a leap of faith that is softened by the expectation that the government will provide something in return for their cooperation. That contract will soon expire for thousands of families.
Prior to this, through the leanest of times, we’ve had resources for families, affirming that government and community partners recognized the vulnerability of certain citizens. That could end abruptly, like it almost did for the Ukrainians. If we can humiliate and chase a foreign president out of the White House, do we believe that a single mother, with insufficient income, who has a couple of kids with special needs, will have a chance of getting what she requires to remain on the other side of the child welfare door? An inevitable tide of challenge will overwhelm families and organizations, who “hold no cards.”
As William Butler Yeats wrote in his poem, “The Second Coming”:
“… Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold,
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned …”
We haven’t yet figured out how to navigate this new culture of dispossession, as well as the lack of values such as respect, trust, equity, compassion and the golden rule. The lines are further blurred when members of Congress, who ostensibly support family strengthening and child safety, also endorse actions that degrade families who are struggling to find a hand up.
As a veteran of state and local government, and of philanthropy, I know there is no way for the latter to backfill all that will be lost if we see a wholescale retreat of the federal government from funding child welfare. Even if funders provide supplementary grants to nonprofits, it is mostly a well-meaning gesture. We cannot fill the federal hole.
More distressing, we have few alternatives for the undoing of our belief about our obligation toward the most vulnerable. Faith communities and committed individuals will want to help. But it will not be enough. The child welfare system requires substantial, integrated supports for families seeking to avoid the vast labyrinth of child protection.
However, we can’t remain immobilized. It’s time to get smarter and stronger.
State and local government, philanthropy and the business community can partner to support the increased capacity building of nonprofits, schools and even faith communities who are willing, but not quite able to carry on during this period. They can encourage and invest in innovations and promising practices that will help adjust to the new reality. They can teach organizations how to create sustainable development strategies, enhance their ability to measure outcomes and gather narratives about successful efforts to strengthen families.
Funders can convene community conversations. We can highlight the ripple effects of insufficient income and dispossession, as well as untreated mental health and substance use disorders. We can creatively lift our voices on social media, making sure that our framing of a story is as clear and convincing as those who have the main stage.
Proverbs 31:8-9 reminds us, “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves; ensure justice for those being crushed.” The Zelenskyy event, and the aggressive dismantling of the social supports in our communities are harbingers of what is to come. We know what is possible and probable. It’s time we act.
