Foster care in America: Caseworkers in denial, and their enablers

Like the family separations at the border, the case of the school district that threatened children with foster care if parents didn’t pay lunch money debts has raised tough questions about American child welfare.  And once again, American child welfare is desperate to avoid them.

Students in a Pennsylvania school district no longer have to fear
that their parents will be turned in to child protective services if
the parents can't pay off their school lunch debts. (Dept. of Agriculture file photo)

Imagine for a moment that you are listening to a discussion program on your local public radio station.  The role of police is mentioned briefly, but it is tangential to the topic at hand.  Nevertheless, a police officer rushes to call in to defend conduct that was never under attack; and the program is keen to put his recorded comment on the air.  “I want you all to remember” he declares, that police would never needlessly stop and frisk anyone, there’s no such thing as false arrest, and certainly no police brutality.  There’s so much more to these cases, you civilians just don’t understand.

A journalist on the panel rushes to agree, declaring that these are all extremely complex cases and police can never jail anyone without proof.  And they certainly don’t stop-and-frisk people “at the drop of the hat.”

You’d probably roll your eyes at the police officer and wonder why his comment was even on the program.  You’d really wonder about the journalist. Whatever happened to the skepticism in which journalists take such pride?  What about holding power accountable?

Of course this almost never would never happen if the issue were law enforcement.  But what if the issue were child protective services?

We got the answer last week.

Meet Laura the caseworker.  She was sooooo upset. 

She was listening to The 1A, a discussion program with listener participation produced for NPR by Washington, D.C. public radio station WAMU.  It is usually among the best such programs, with host Joshua Johnson asking thoughtful questions and skillfully steering the discussion. (Though he makes it sound easy, having actually hosted a somewhat similar public radio program a very long time ago, I can tell you it’s not.)

The topic of the program’s first hour on July 24 was school lunches, how we wound up where we are with such programs, and the general question of lunch shaming.  The news peg, of course, was that Pennsylvania school district that suggested children could be placed in foster care if their parents didn’t pay their lunch money debts.  Child protective services actually wasn’t on the menu for discussion.  But Laura the caseworker was still upset.

No, it wasn't the outrageous behavior of the school district that prompted her to call into the program. Rather, she feared that someone, somewhere might actually get the impression that child welfare systems arbitrarily and capriciously investigate families and remove children from their homes.

They do, in fact, do just that.  But every time there’s a serious possibility people might notice, it gets many those who work in the system upset.  Look at how desperate people in American child welfare have been to claim that what they do is nothing like what Trump did on the Mexican border. Of course there are differences – but there are far more similarities.  So many, in fact, that I’ve made a checklist.

The caucus of denial

Similarly, child welfare has what amounts to a “caucus of denial” that insists there is no racial bias in the field – despite the mountain of evidence that tells us otherwise.  What other field is so arrogant that large numbers of its practitioners actually claim that it is uniquely exempt from the racial bias that permeates American life?

It is an arrogance bred by nearly untrammeled power, combined with obsessive secrecy.  And too often, journalists are complicit in the efforts of child welfare professionals to distance themselves from the harm their work often does to the children that, usually, they sincerely want to help. 

It’s as if the journalists themselves, often of the same race and/or class as child welfare professionals, foster and adoptive parents, can’t bring themselves to believe that generally good well-meaning people, who are so much like themselves, could wind up harming children in much the same way as those who act from calculated cruelty – such as Trump or that Pennsylvania school district. 

Laura’s complaint

And that brings us to Laura the caseworker (1A doesn’t give the full names of listeners who comment), and why 1A inserted her irrelevant comments into the discussion – just to be sure no would, for even a second, think ill of child protective services.

At the end of this post, I’ll offer a reading list I hope the producers of 1A will look at before they venture into child welfare again.  But right now, let’s examine what Laura said when she left this voicemail on the program’s listener comment line:

I work in dependency court as a child welfare social worker in California for 6 years; and I just want 1A to remember that there are many more details that are not known to the public about why families get involved and, I can assure you it’s not just because they’re not paying the lunch money.

OK, let’s stop right there.  First, notice the finger-wagging arrogance throughout: “I just want 1A to remember…” “…I can assure you …” Next, notice how the worker hides behind confidentiality laws that are put in place at the behest of child welfare agencies themselves to shield them from scrutiny.  What she’s saying is: Trust us. We’re always right, but we just can’t tell you about it.

Laura continues:

There’s a strict criteria that dictates when and how much child welfare services can be involved.

That is simply not true. 

Oh, I’m sure there are thousands of pages of policy manuals but they don’t matter.  Many state laws   Who decides if it’s an emergency? The caseworker. The power is often abused.
literally define lack of food (or clothing or shelter) as “neglect” (and, well, if they’re not paying their lunch debt, who knows, right?) Caseworkers can remove children from their homes entirely on their own authority in an “emergency” (or ask law enforcement to do it for them).

And study after study has shown that at every stage in the decision-making process, from screening a hotline call, to substantiating a case, to removing a child to termination of parental rights, workers are more likely to act against the family if the family is African-American – even when the actual risk to the child is the same.

Laura concludes:

But it just really bugs me when there’s an allegation of just taking kids away for that, when really there’s so much more to the story.

Notice the hyper-defensiveness.  Nobody actually accused the child protective services agency of taking children because of school lunch debts.  The issue was the school district threatening to report families for that reason.  But, the producers of 1A were so sympathetic to her claim that they inserted it into a program that otherwise had little to do with the role of child protective services, but only with a school district’s threat to try to use the agency.

The journalist responds

After the caseworker-in-denial came the journalistic enabler.  Johnson turned to Laura Meckler, national education reporter for The Washington Post.  She promptly agreed with Laura the caseworker:  Said Meckler:

I think that’s right. These child welfare cases are extraordinarily complex. You have to prove that there’s abuse or neglect.

No, you don’t.

As noted above, a caseworker can have children removed entirely on her or his own authority. Children can be held for months, even years, in foster care before any court ever finds that there actually was abuse or neglect.  And even then the standard of proof is not “beyond a reasonable doubt” or even “clear and convincing” – it’s “preponderance of the evidence” – the same standard used to decide which insurance company pays for a fender-bender.

A couple of other details:

● The family might or might not get a lawyer – and if they do it’s probably an overwhelmed public defender who met them five minutes before the first court hearing.

● The judge knows that if she returns the child home and something goes wrong, her career could be over. Hold hundreds of children in foster care needlessly and the children will suffer terribly but the judge (and the caseworkers) will be safe.

● In most states, all the court hearings are secret.

Now, back to Meckler:

I think that what is much more likely to end up in a child welfare investigation is a report that there is no food in the house, and a child welfare worker comes to the house and looks in the fridge and there’s nothing there. That’s the kind of thing that lands somebody in losing their kids temporarily or potentially permanently. It’s not like this stuff happens at the drop of a hat.

So what Meckler really is saying is: If the family can’t pay the lunch money debt and can’t afford to feed the child at home, then it’s o.k. to take away the child – potentially permanently!  I guess it’s hard to see the extent to which child welfare confuses poverty with neglect if you have no problem with such confusion in the first place.

So how might this play out in the Pennsylvania school district case, had the district carried out its threat:

● The district phones in a report alleging that a child is being deprived of food because parents are neither providing lunches themselves nor paying for the school district to do so.

● Because the call comes from a “mandated reporter” it’s automatically given more credibility at a child abuse hotline, so it’s more likely to be accepted for investigation.

● The caseworker comes to the door and begins a process that, even if it does not result in foster care, is inherently traumatic for children – a process that is inflicted on one-third of American children, and more than half of African-American children.

● If the caseworker finds a spotlessly clean home (because CPS workers have an unfortunate tendency to equate cleanliness with being a wonderful parent, and vice versa) and if the pantry and refrigerator are well stocked with the right kinds of foods, then the worker almost certainly will close the case – with the children left much the worse for the whole experience.

But if, God forbid, the home is dirty or the cupboards are bare, or the housing is seriously rundown down or, worst of all, mom or dad smoked pot, then depending on the caseworker who came to the door and the community in which it occurred, the children might very well wind up in foster care.

At the drop of a hat.

A reading list

I don’t expect journalists unfamiliar with child welfare to know this; I certainly didn’t when I was starting out in journalism all those years ago.  But I do hope that producers venturing into this territory will do their homework.  So here’s the homework.  See especially the first  New York Times story and the excellent work from other NPR programs.

● The New York Times on how foster care has become the new “Jane Crow.”

● NPR’s LatinoUSA’s half-hour documentary about a typical child welfare case.

●The Times also reported on how parents can lose their children for smoking pot.

● NPR exposed what South Dakota child welfare does to Native American children.

● There’s this from the Houston Chronicle about a family whose children were taken solely because of inadequate housing.

● The Philadelphia Daily News, a small paper in a big city, did this story.  And this one.  And this one.

● The reporter who would go on to expose the Flint water crisis did this story for Detroit’s alternative weekly Metro Times about what typical child welfare agencies do in typical cases.

● There’s this story from KRIV in Houston and this one from the same station.

● There’s this story from WXYZ-TV in Detroit. (There were many more from WXYZ, but broadcast websites tend to be less good about keeping their stories online.)

● And the Biloxi, Miss. Sun-Herald  made how secrecy harms families the theme of a six-part series.

News and commentary round-up, week ending July 23, 2019

● By now almost everyone has heard about the Pennsylvania school district that threatened to turn in parents to child protective services – and risk having the children placed in foster care – if they didn’t pay their school lunch debts.  People were outraged.  But there is nothing unusual about school districts using child protective services agencies as a weapon to force families to do what they want. It happens because we allow it to happen.   

On the NCCPR Blog: How half a century of horror stories that bear no resemblance to what CPS agencies typically see, combined with politicians trying to score points by “cracking down on child abuse” have led us to this: a child welfare surveillance state where everyone is under constant suspicion and CPS is the weapon of choice for all sorts of bureaucratic bullies.

● Speaking of CPS bullying, there’s nothing unusual about child protective services agencies retaliating against families who dare to speak out against them.  What is unusual it putting the threat right into the case plan.  Thatt’s what happened in Arizona.

In an open letter, 27 scholars warn about the racial bias and other flaws in the use of predictive analytics in criminal justice.  The dangers are at least as great in child welfare.

● And David Kelly, special assistant to the acting commissioner for the  federal Administration on Children, Youth and Families writes on the Rethinking Foster Care blog about some of America’s great anthems, and the need for one for families.

The child welfare surveillance state: When the school bullies include the School Board President

● A Pennsylvania school district sent letters telling parents if they didn’t pay overdue bills averaging $22 each, their children could be placed in foster care.  They backed down when even the child protective services agency objected.

● But there is nothing unusual about a school district “weaponizing” CPS for its own convenience – because politicians and CPS agencies have spent decades encouraging it.

 

The Wyoming Valley West school district in action?
Drawing by Pimkie

We all know the classic story about the school bully who threatens to beat up little kids if they don’t give him their lunch money.  But what do you do when one of the school bullies is the president of the school board – and the threat is far more dire: A letter to parents warning that if they don’t pay up, their children might wind up in foster care.

You probably know the story by now.  But it’s important to understand the context.  

There is nothing unusual about school districts using child protective services agencies as a weapon. It happens because we allow it to happen. Half a century of horror stories that bear no resemblance to what CPS agencies typically see, combined with politicians trying to score points by “cracking down on child abuse” have led us to this: a child welfare surveillance state where everyone is under constant suspicion and CPS is the weapon of choice for all sorts of bureaucratic bullies. 

 ICYMI: Here’s what happened in Pennsylvania

The bullying that made headlines across the country is from the Wyoming Valley West school district in Luzerne County, Pa.

More than three-quarters of the students are considered “economically disadvantaged.”  Some of their parents had fallen behind in paying for their children’s school lunches.  About 1,000 students owed a total of $22,467 – an average of $22.47 per student.

What’s a school district to do?  Isn’t it obvious? Send out a letter to parents warning that if they didn’t pay up, their children might be taken away.  The letter reads like the text of those scam phone calls meant to dupe people into thinking they’re about to be arrested by the IRS.

But this letters is real.  It says:

“Your child has been sent to school every day without money and without a breakfast and/or lunch.  This is a failure to provide your child with proper nutrition and you can be sent to dependency court for neglecting your child’s right to food.  If you are taken to dependency court, the result may be your child being removed from your home and placed in foster care. ... [P]lease remit payment as soon as possible to avoid being reported to the proper authorities.”

The letter was sent by the district’s Director of Federal Programs, Joseph Muth.  They were staunchly defended by the School Board President, Joe Mazur.  According to the Wilkes Barre Times Leader:

Mazur insisted the letter “certainly did the job” in generating responses. “We took a drastic measure. It probably wasn’t very popular, but it never is when you try to collect payment.”

Well, yes. Kidnapping the children and holding them for ransom also would have done the job.  Was that going to be the next step?

To his credit, the board vice president was appalled.  But the district’s lawyer – who wrote the letter – was practically gloating about it to television station WBRE: 

The cruelty of the letters is mind-boggling – and so is the ignorance of the school board president and administrators. They have no clue concerning the enormous trauma a child abuse investigation inflicts on a family – even when it doesn’t lead to foster care placement.  (If they do know and did it anyway, then it’s even worse.) Apparently they also had no problem with the prospect of calling in scores of false reports, stealing caseworker time from finding children in real danger.

School officials and school board members should know better than most about what can traumatize a child, and the need to avoid inflicting such trauma. Those who don’t understand this don’t belong in jobs dealing with young people.

UPDATE, JULY 24: But clearly Mazur, for one, still doesn't get it. Because of the publicity, offers have been coming in to cover the parents' debt - and, NPR reports, the school district has been turning them down. When an assistant to  Todd Carmichael, a potential donor, contacted Mazur, Carmichael says "the conversation quickly became combative before Mazur abruptly hung up the phone.” [UPDATE 8:20PM - the school district has now changed its mind, and will accept the donations.]

"This really isn't about the money," Carmichael told NPR before the district changed its mind. "I think it's about teaching people who are struggling some sort of moral lesson they need to learn, no matter what the consequences are."

That also is one of the major failings of the so-called child protection system. It isn't about child protection at all, it's about punishing parents for their "moral failings."  The mentality cuts across all sorts of government systems that encounter poor people.  But this time ...

Even cps couldn’t stomach it

You know what you’re doing to families is inexcusable when even the child protective services agency won’t make excuses for it.

"Our agency was weaponized to terrorize children and families and that's something that's just unacceptable," Joanne Van Saun, the executive director of Luzerne County Children and Youth Services told WOLF-TV. "We want to support families and maintain families whenever possible." 

(The data, show that they’re not fully living up to that claim. Luzerne County takes away children at a rate 20 percent above the national average and five percent above the state average, even when rates of child poverty are factored in. But the county has been steadily improving in recent years - and at least they don’t want the school district to make things worse.)

After Van Saun and County Manager David Pedri wrote a letter to the school district demanding that it “cease and desist from making these representations” the district backed off. They plan to send letters of apology to the families.

While that should be what we expect from such child protective services agencies; sadly, it’s unusual.

I suspect that, while most CPS agencies wouldn’t have endorsed what the school district did, they wouldn’t condemn it either – since their party line is report! report! report!  Call in with anything and everything, no matter how absurd, they say, and let our “professionals” decide. 

In Philadelphia, for example, 114 miles away, the head of the city’s Department of Human Services reportedly tells people to just “follow their intuition” when deciding whether to call in a report. Late last year New York City’s Administration for Children’s Services decided that, what with families getting together for the holidays this was a great time to try to ratchet up their suspicion of each other.

And school officials can hide behind “mandatory reporting” laws that require them to report their suspicions.

That’s why there’s nothing unusual in the school district’s behavior.  There is, in fact, no penalty for a school district for weaponizing CPS.   In June, Searchlight New Mexico reported on how child protective services was weaponized by a school district in that state to bully a parent when she complained that her children were being bullied.  And last year, HuffPost and The Hechinger Report documented the extent of the problem nationwide.

Half a century of horror stories

After 50 years of building a child welfare surveillance state, it’s no wonder one study found that over the course of their childhoods one third of all American children – and more than half of African-American children – will have to endure a child abuse investigation, almost always due to an allegation that turns out to be false.

The corrosive effect on all of us was explained well in this courageous tweet thread from a family defense attorney.

Sen. Bob Casey has spent
years stoking fear and hysteria
about child abuse. Now that it's
backfired in a particularly obvious
way, he claims to be outraged.

Among the worst offenders in all this: U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa.  In 2011, he tried to score political points off of the notorious Penn State sex abuse scandal involving former foster parent and group home operator Jerry Sandusky by introducing legislation that would have turned every American into a mandated reporter of child abuse – even though there is not a shred of evidence that mandated reporting actually curbs child abuse, and even former proponents of mandated reporting have become skeptics.

Now, when the atmosphere of fear and paranoia he helped stoke backfires in a particularly obvious way, he rushes out a tweet condemning the school district.

Preventing further damage

Preventing further damage requires far more drastic action than simply telling a school district they should stop using CPS as a weapon to get their hands on lunch money.  Here are some crucial steps (supporting data and scholarship are available in NCCPR’s Due Process Agenda).

● Put teeth into laws making malicious false reporting illegal.  It should be made a criminal offense. That is currently the case only in a few states, including Pennsylvania. But such laws can’t be enforced until we …

● Replace anonymous reporting with confidential reporting.  That is, under most circumstances the accused would not know who made the report, but the CPS agency must be given a verifiable name and contact information.  Otherwise there is no way to enforce penalties for false reporting. 

Anonymous reports are, by far, the least reliable – and people who refuse to report even confidentially are likely to be less reliable still.  The fear mongers say banning anonymous reporting would lead to some real abuse being overlooked.  But we overlook far more such abuse now – when anonymous false reports deluge CPS agencies so they don’t have time to find children in real danger.

● Go in precisely the opposite direction from that proposed by Sen. Casey – abolish mandatory  reporting and allow professionals to use their professional judgment concerning when to report – judgment that is likely to be superior to that of an underprepared, undertrained, overloaded CPS caseworker. 

● Public information campaigns need to change from fear-based calls upon people to report based on “intuition” to education on what to report and what not to report. They also need to explain the consequences both of failing to report when there is reasonable cause to suspect abuse, and the harm that can be done by reports based on “intuition” or “gut feeling.”

Perhaps then fewer children will be threatened for their lunch money – by their own schools.