Child Adolesc Soc Work J (2016) 33:513–521
DOI 10.1007/s10560-016-0446-4
Bureaucratic Neglect and Oppression in Child Welfare: Historical
Precedent and Implications for Current Practice
Jessica L. Yang1 • Debora Ortega1
Published online: 9 May 2016
Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016
Abstract Historically, child maltreatment has been seen as
an issue warranting the involvement of the American
government. However, over time, the definition of child
maltreatment has changed; typically, maltreatment is often
understood as a violation of the parental right to care for
and protect a child. Consequently, the government, through
systems such as child protective services is expected to be
the acceptable parental alternative. As illustrated by the
numerous negative outcomes experienced, it is clear that
the system is not meeting the needs of abused and
neglected children. This bureaucratic neglect is allowed to
occur because of population primarily served by the child
welfare system, the poor and families of color. In this way,
dynamics of power and privilege manifest in the differing
expectations of appropriate care between biological parents
and the foster care system.
Keywords Child welfare
System
Bureaucratic neglect
Introduction
The American child welfare system was created to protect
children from abuse and neglect at the hands of their bio-
logical parents or guardians. In some instances, it is
deemed necessary to remove children from the care of their
biological parents in order to protect them. In America, the
foster care system serves nearly 400,000 children per year,
with over 50% either returning home to live with their
& Jessica L. Yang
Jessica.ramey.lo@gmail.com
1
Graduate School of Social Work, University of Denver,
2148 S. High Street, Denver, CO 80208, USA
biological parents (US Department of Health and Human
Services, 2015). However, for many of the children that do
enter foster care, the experience will be less than positive
both while in care, and after. The literature is quite clear
that they are substantially more likely to experience abuse
and neglect while in care. Additionally, they are likely to
experience negative outcomes related to overall function-
ing including, education, health (mental and physical), and
wellbeing (Barber & Delfabbro, 2003; Courtney et al.,
2007; Herrenkohl, Herrenkohl, & Egolf, 2003; Jonson-Reid
& Barth, 2000; Kools, 1997; Perry, 2006; Stott, 2012;
Vacca, 2008). There is an apparent disconnect in these
findings, why is it that in a system designed to protect
children from harm, youth are continuing to experience
maltreatment and negative outcomes?
This paper explores the bureaucratic policies and
behaviors that perpetuate neglect and abuse in the lives of
children for who the system is the legal guardian, as well
differential expectations about appropriate parenting
behavior between biological parents and the foster care
system (as the legally designated parent). Additionally, this
paper will explore issues related to the oppression of bio-
logical families and children by the foster care system
based on their status of class and race. Finally, we conclude
with a discussion of strategies to ameliorate bureaucratic
neglect and oppression for these children and their families.
Parenthood and Discipline: Rights
and Responsibilities of Biological Parents
Parental Rights and Parenthood
Throughout history, parents have had the freedom to raise
their child in any manner they choose, so long as it does not
123
514
violate the norms of society. This freedom, often referred
to as parental rights, has been echoed throughout a variety
of cultures and societies around the world (Huntington,
2006). In ancient Greece, for example, fathers had such
extensive and exclusive parental rights; they had the power
to decide if their child was allowed to live (Huntington,
2006). While this example pushes the idea of parental
rights to the extreme, it serves to illustrate the relative
freedom afforded to parents with regard to child rearing
relative to their culture.
In the context of American society, parental rights,
while vast, are limited in that a parent may not abuse or
neglect their child. Abuse and neglect is defined by societal
expectations regarding parental and child behavior, and is
therefore susceptible to change and determined by state
level statutes. However, the Child Welfare League of
America (CWLA) generally defines neglect as the ‘‘failure
of parents or other caregiver, for reasons not solely due to
poverty, to provide the child with needed, age-appropriate
care, including food, clothing, shelter, protection from
harm, supervision appropriate to the child’s development,
hygiene, education, and medical care (Child Welfare
League of America, n.d.).’’ The factors influencing that
definition are culturally and contextually bound, and inti-
mately tied to the concept of parental rights. In American
culture, factors influencing the spectrum parental rights, in
the normative sense, are factors generated from biological,
ethical, and religious influences (Hill, 1991; Huntington,
2006; Schoeman, 1980).
For many, the largest influencer of what constitutes
parenthood is biology (Hill, 1991). Biological parents, until
the invention of artificial insemination, were exclusively
responsible for the creation of their children. From a bio-
logical perspective, once a child is born, it is logical that a
parent would seek to ensure all of their child’s needs are
met. In mainstream America, typically it is the responsi-
bility of the parent to determine the needs of their child,
and take actions to ensure that those needs are fulfilled.
However, the larger goal is to raise the child to become a
self-sufficient being, in a manner deemed appropriate by
the parent within the context of their society and culture.
This serves to create the greatest possibility that the child
will grow up to become a healthy reproductive adult and
ensures the continuation of the human race (Hill, 1991).
This fundamental, biologically, and culturally rooted con-
struct of parenting helps to understand the deeply entren-
ched notion that parents should have the freedom to raise
their children with little interference from the outside world
and that this is their parental right (Schoeman, 1980).
In addition to the biological implications of parenthood
and parental rights, the familial relationship between the
parent and child generates a moral imperative in which the
parent is morally obligated to protect the interests of the
123
J. L. Yang, D. Ortega
child until such time when their child is capable of doing so
themselves (Huntington, 2006). This relationship, in which
the parent cares for the child and the child grows and
matures, is rewarding and beneficial to both parents and
children (Schoeman, 1980). Furthermore, the notion that
parents are supposed to love, care for, and protect their
children is seen as a critical American societal obligation
(Schoeman, 1980).
In some religious cultures, the relationship between
parent and child is seen as a unique, sacred, and an intimate
relationship, and safe from outside interference (Schoe-
man, 1980). Yet, religious institutions frequently prescribe
methods of child rearing, including discipline, in order to
preserve these bonds, promote positive development, and
teach children social norms (Gershoff, Miller, & Holder,
1999; Hoffman, 1983).
In America, the use of religious teachings as a guide to
parenting is deeply entrenched, with roots extending back
before the Declaration of Independence (Gershoff et al.,
1999). Within Christianity, there are several distinct ide-
ologies about the relationship between the parent and the
child concerning discipline (Mahoney, Pargament,
Tarakeshwar, & Swank, 2008). Within Christianity and
Judaism, there are two core beliefs about parental rights
and discipline. On the one hand, some believe it is the role
of the parents to model God’s love for a child by
employing discipline strategies to promote obedience and
faith (Mahoney et al., 2008). However this is a relationship
to be maintained between the parent and the child only
involving religious leaders for spiritual guidance. Con-
versely, some followers of Christianity and Judaism
believe that it is the spiritual duty of the parents to exert
power and control over their children, including the use of
corporal punishment, as a way of ensuring proper social
and spiritual development (Gershoff et al., 1999; Mahoney
et al., 2008). Interestingly, many Christian denominations
do not expressly oppose the use of corporal punishment,
however they believe parents should only discipline chil-
dren in this manner when the parent is calm, and the dis-
cipline is purposeful (Mahoney et al., 2008). Given that
discipline is more likely to cross into the realm of physical
abuse when an angry parent (Vasta, 1982) delivers pun-
ishment, this prescription may be a subtle attempt at dis-
tinguishing between the parental right to discipline and the
safety of the child. However, Mahoney et al. (2008) sug-
gest that the phenomenon is much more complex. They
suggest that the propensity of Christian parents to use
corporal punishment with their children may be a function
of the teachings of their particular denomination in com-
bination with how deeply religious the parents are. Fur-
thermore, the number of behaviors that parents deem
worthy of such punishment is also dictated by religious
beliefs and the degree to which they accept these teachings
Bureaucratic Neglect and Child Welfare
(Gershoff et al., 1999). Regardless of the specific ideology
and affinity for corporal punishment, it is clear that a
parent’s religion is a deeply influential factor in the deci-
sion of how and why to discipline a child, but ultimately
that relationship remains sacred and exclusively between
the parent, the child, and their higher power.
Legal and Legislative Precedents Related
to Parental Discipline
Despite the numerous social institutions and societal con-
structs that bestow upon parents the right to raise their child
how they see fit, there are often limits placed on those
rights. The societal laws used to govern a society, implicit
moral code, or the teachings of a religious text may all limit
parental freedoms. The American societal desire to protect
children has been part of the legal landscape since as early
as 1642. At that time in the state of Massachusetts, local
magistrates were provided the authority to remove children
from parents that were seen as unfit (Myers, 2008).
However, it was not until 1869 that the Supreme Court
delivered its first major ruling on parental rights in Pletcher
v. The People. This case involved a father who was found
guilty of confining his disabled son in his cellar during the
winter, asserting that it was his right as a parent to raise his
child as he sees fit (Myers, 2008). The Supreme Court
ruling determined that while parents do have the right to
raise their children as they see fit, they must do so with
‘‘reason and humanity.’’ Thus, the court upheld the crimi-
nal charges against the father and deemed that his actions
were inhumane and unreasonable. The case of Pletcher v.
The People helped to establish the precedent that parental
rights do not include the right to abuse, neglect, or other-
wise harm their children (Myers, 2008) and that the
American government retains the legal authority to deter-
mine what behaviors constitute abuse and neglect of
children.
For decades, the oversight and enforcement of child
protection was left up to the jurisdiction of the individual
states until the passage of the child abuse prevention and
treatment act (CAPTA) of 1974. Passage of CAPTA (P.L.
93-247) marked an important cornerstone in the American
legal landscape with regard to child abuse and neglect, as it
required the states to have formal policies for detecting and
responding to child maltreatment. Additionally, CAPTA
formally established the federal government as the body
that oversees and enforces child maltreatment detection
and treatment. Passage of CAPTA established the societal
position that children are deserving of protection from
abuse and neglect such that ‘‘reporting legislation is viewed
as a tool for identifying parents who mistreat children so
that society may deal with them for their crime of child
515
abuse’’ (H. Rep. No. 93-685, 1974, p. 242). This declara-
tion, established for the first time that nationwide, child
maltreatment would be seen as criminal behavior. Senator
Landgrebe further cemented the belief that children
deserve protection from parental abuse by stating that the
‘‘government certainly has the responsibility to protect the
right of all citizens, which means to protect them from
physical force or abuse. This of course includes children’’
(H. Rep. No. 93-685, 1974, p. 11).
However, Senator Landgrebe was also cautious of the
government taking on the role of child protection through
the dissolution of parental rights, as he stated that the
‘‘parent child relationship is unique and presents many
difficulties in attempting to protect the rights of children’’
(H. Rep. No. 93-685, 1974, p. 12). The senator further
elaborated that parental rights should not be easily termi-
nated, for fear of creating a totalitarian government.
Senators Landgrebe’s statements illuminate perhaps the
biggest paradox within child welfare policies: how is one to
protect children without limiting the rights of parents?
Some public policies attempt to strike a balance between
the inherent need to protect children, as pointed out by
Senator Landgrebe, while limiting parental rights as little
as possible.
Throughout American history, the pendulum of parental
rights has continued to swing between limitation and pro-
tection of parental rights, all in an effort to ensure the
protection of children. However, regardless of the pendu-
lums current position with regard to parental rights, the
value that children deserve a childhood free from abuse and
neglect remains constant and clear with a specific emphasis
on the best interest of the child. Therefore, the federal
government, through the use of policies, legislation, and
funding mechanisms, established a set of expectations
regarding appropriate parental behavior. Additionally,
consequences for violating those norms, including the
removal of children from allegedly abusive parents, have
been established, concretizing the place of the foster care
system as surrogate parents when biological parents and
their children become a part of the foster care system.
The Foster Care System as a Surrogate Parent:
Bureaucratic Neglect
Unfortunately, the foster care system as a surrogate parent
has not been immune to parenting problems when adopting
the role of legal surrogate parent. The most noted issue that
has plagued the foster care system, a phenomenon named
‘‘foster care drift,’’ occurred throughout the 1970s and
1980s (Hartley, 1984). During this time, public attention
was drawn towards the amount of time that children were
spending in foster care, as well as the lack of oversight for
123
516
foster care services in general. In response to these con-
cerns the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of
1979 (CWA) (P.L. 96-272) was enacted.
In congressional hearings prior to the enactment of the
CWA, several people, including Senator Cranston (D-CA),
Mr. Levine the head of the Children’s Defense Fund, and
the American Academy of Pediatrics all commented on the
fact that children are being lost in the foster care system.
Furthermore, they all recommended that specific actions,
such as the creation of a tracking system, be undertaken to
ameliorate the drift and loss of children in foster care
(Proposals Related to Social, 1979a, b, c). As such, The
CWA expanded CAPTA by establishing that each child
must have unique identifiable tracking information, goals
for family reunification, and limited the amount of time
allowed for a child to achieve a permanent placement
(either with family or substitute care) (Adoption Assistance
and Child Welfare Act, 1980). This, theoretically, limited
the amount of time a case could flounder as well as
expedited the path to permanency for children in foster
care.
However, even after enacting the CWA, changes were
slow to take hold and many children were still languish in
care, in the very system that was designed to protect them
from maltreatment and harm. In 1990 in a report to the
House of Representatives, Representative George Miller
provided testimony about how the state of child welfare
remained bleak at best. Representative Miller stated that he
was aware of more than 45 lawsuits that had been levied
against child welfare agencies because children had been
abused or neglected in care either through abuse or neglect
of a foster parent, failure of an agency to respond to the
needs of a child, or failure of an agency to comply with the
provisions of the CWA (Federally Funded Child Welfare,
1990). One example is the case, L.J. v. Massinga (1988),
which alleged that the Baltimore City Department of Social
Services (BCDSS) foster care program was out of com-
pliance with the CWA and that children were not being
properly cared for while in their care. Despite the fact that
the case of L.J. v. Massinga (1988) was filed in 1984, as
recently as 2007 the BCDSS was still attempting to comply
with the injunctions imposed as a result of that court case.
Despite the plethora of negative attention that child
welfare agencies attracted in the 1970s and 1980s, the
implicit consensus is that the foster care system in and of
itself exists as a ‘good’ entity (Balmer, 2004). Despite the
assumed good intentions of the foster care system, there are
a multitude of examples of neglectful behavior by the
system such as a failure to address abuse and neglect of
children while in care (Balmer, 2004) and inattention to
negative outcomes experienced by youth in care. However,
the numerous lawsuits filed against child welfare and foster
care agencies since the 1980s speak directly to experiences
123
J. L. Yang, D. Ortega
of maltreatment while in care. Furthermore, the rampant
workplace stressors child welfare worker face combined
with working in environments for which they are chroni-
cally undertrained and under supported, only exacerbates
the likelihood of experiencing abuse or neglect while in
foster care (Balmer, 2004). Essentially, the public foster
care system, in charge of protecting children, has a history
of neglecting the needs it has been assigned to guard and
engaging in bureaucratic neglect.
Additionally, it would behoove one to consider the
negative outcomes experienced while in care as expres-
sions of bureaucratic neglect. Many of the negative out-
comes experienced by youth in the foster care system can
be attributed to placement instability while in care (Chou,
1993). Placement instability in and of itself is not
neglectful. However, when the decision to move or place a
child is made on factors that are contrary to the child’s best
interest such as the cost of the home, the convenience to the
worker, or the first available bed, the focus shifts from the
interest of the child and moves closer to neglectful
behavior on the behalf of the system (Chou, 1993).
Because of these numerous moves, the wellbeing of chil-
dren in foster care including their medical, emotional, and
educational needs often suffer (Chou, 1993).
One specific negative outcome due to placement insta-
bility is the fact that children in foster care are more likely
to have more school absences than are allowed under tru-
ancy laws (Zetlin, Weinberg, & Kimm, 2004). These
numerous moves result in delays in enrollment, disruptions
to learning, increased risk of a failure to graduate and many
other experiences that culminate in the overall lower edu-
cational attainment of foster care alumni (Vacca, 2008).
Furthermore, these numerous moves can result in disrupted
social relationships that reduce support later in life and
increase risks of homelessness, poor independent living
skills, and a host of other negative experiences (Dworsky &
Courtney, 2009; Perry, 2006). The foster care system is
rarely, if ever held accountable for high rates of
absenteeism.
Presently, the authors are unaware of any lawsuits, court
actions, or other instances where child welfare agencies
were found culpable for the educational neglect of children
in foster care. Conversely, parents and children are brought
before judges in juvenile court every day all across the
country due to violations of truancy laws, even when the
absences were due to medical or social-emotional needs, as
this behavior would constitute educational neglect in many
states (Gleich-Bope, 2014). This example highlights the
disturbing differing expectations of the foster care system
as a parent. However, the foster care system should be held
to the same minimum standards of accountability as the
legal guardian of a child, just as parents are held to a
minimum standard as a legal guardian.
Bureaucratic Neglect and Child Welfare
In Who’s Best Interest: An Exploration of Policy,
Power, Oppression, and Bias
Street-Level Bureaucracy
In much the same way that CAPTA and state level criminal
codes establish guidelines for parents with regards to dis-
cipline and appropriate child rearing practices; foster care
policies provide guidance about how foster care workers
should attend to the needs of children in their care.
The foster care system is complex and functions at many
levels of government, however, accountability for foster
care policies are largely enacted at the federal and state
levels. Conversely, individual caseworkers, who are asso-
ciated with limited geographic areas, implement these
policies (Hagedorn, 1995) and therefore represent the
needs of a specific decision making context. Because of
gap between who is writing policy, and who is imple-
menting these policies on the ground, there is often a great
deal of mismatch between the policy as it is written, and
the policy as it is implemented.
Within many child welfare agencies, workers are often
functioning in an environment where they are overworked,
undertrained, and underqualified to provide the quality of
care to foster children outlined in policies like the CSW or
ASFA (Balmer, 2004). While many workers philosophi-
cally agree with the provisions of acts like the CWA or
ASFA, they often find themselves under an immense
amount of pressure in terms of time, policy requirements,
and expectations of the court (Lipsky, 1980; Smith &
Donovan, 2003). In response to these overwhelming and
sometimes competing demands, they employ discretionary
decision making as a means by which they can control their
workload and work demands (Smith & Donovan, 2003).
In Lipsky’s (1980) seminal work, he describes this
phenomenon as street-level bureaucracy, and discusses
how public service providers, such as foster care workers,
must make discretionary decisions in order to cope with the
high demands of their work. In the moment, these street-
level decisions may seem innocuous to workers, however,
overtime these small decisions mount, and ultimately shift
the implementation of a policy away from how its original
intent (Lipsky, 1980; Smith & Donovan, 2003). Further-
more, these case-by-case basis decisions serve to establish
a precedent for future cases (Lipsky, 1980) and can shift
the implicit expectations of the work environment (Smith
& Donovan, 2003). For example, research now indicates
that social workers cope with their work environment by
engaging in decision-making processes that are more
punitive towards families and adhere to stricter rules when
engaging with families (Tummers, Bekkers, Vink, &
Musheno, 2015). Often these punitive views are
517
detrimental to families as these workers are less likely to
engage with families in order to promote reunification,
resulting in longer tenures in foster care (Smith & Dono-
van, 2003). This stands in direct opposition to the
philosophies embedded with ASFA whereby families
should be maintained if possible and child welfare agencies
are to provide services to promote reunification in the event
that foster care is a necessary intervention (Adoption
Assistance and Child Welfare Act, 1980). This is but one
example of how decisions that foster care workers make on
a day-to-day basis directly alter the implementation of a
policy over time. This deviation from policy is concerning
given that these policies were implemented in direct
response to concerns of neglectful behaviors by foster care
agencies in order to protect children in foster care from
additional maltreatment.
Examining Power, Oppression, and Bias
with Regard to Best Interest
The implicit assumption behind the entire American foster
care system is that when parents are unable to care for their
children the government should assume care of the child,
as doing so would be in the best interest of the child
(Anyon, 2011; Balmer, 2004). The roots of this assump-
tions is deeply entrenched in our society, and is linked to
the medieval doctrine of parens patriae (Rendleman,
1971). The application of this doctrine in American case
law extends back for centuries. Interestingly, the history of
parens patriae is inextricably linked to the inability of poor
parents to properly raise their children and the need for
local governments to intervene in order to ensure the
proper upbringing of these children (Rendleman, 1971).
Modern society is not as brazen in its condemnation of
poverty in relation to one’s ability to parent. Explicit dis-
cussions of parental attributes and circumstances have now
shifted to discussions of how to promote the safety and the
best interests of the child. The idea that child welfare
policy at all levels should function to promote the best
interests of children with regard to safety and permanency
is a noble one, however it is highly subjective and exposed
to bias (Anyon, 2011). Using a Critical Race Theory lens,
one can see how the norms and expectations about
appropriate child behavior embedded in child welfare and
foster care policies greatly align with those of the White
middle class community (Hanna, Boyce, & Yang, 2016;
Nadan, Spilsbury, & Korbin, 2015). When considering the
markers for parental behavior deemed as child maltreat-
ment, disturbingly, research now suggests that simply
being a member of a marginalized community may be used
as a litmus test for determining if maltreatment occurred, or
123
518
if parenting approaches were unacceptable (Nadan et al.,
2015). Furthermore, once a child is in foster care there are
substantial disparities with regard to the rates at which
children of color enter foster care, how quickly their par-
ental rights are terminated, and once terminated the length
of time it takes to achieve permanency (Anyon, 2011).
These disparities and the reliance on culturally bound
expectations of parenting practices highlight marginaliza-
tion and oppression of communities of color who may
ascribe to different beliefs about parenting or be evaluated
differently by workers. Furthermore, the assumption that
the foster care system is better equipped to parent children
who have been maltreated despite issues with bureaucratic
neglect promotes feelings of powerlessness in families
served by the foster care system.
Once a child has entered into the foster care system,
agencies are tasked with joining with families in order to
provide services to reunify a child with their parents.
However, many agencies are understaffed, underfunded,
and overly bureaucratic, and children and their families
often get lost in the system (Hagedorn, 1995). Additionally,
dynamics of street-level bureaucracy, such as discretionary
decision-making practices, such as working with the ‘easy’
families as reunification is less difficult or providing ser-
vices in a routine fashion rather than in response to the
needs of the family (Brodkin, 1997) highlight power dif-
ferentials between foster care workers and parents. For
example, when foster care workers behaviors that promote
neglectful environments for foster children such as cutting
corners, providing services that are easily documented
rather than what may be most useful, and failing to follow
up with biological families or service providers are seen as
survival behaviors (Smith & Donovan, 2003). However, if
biological parents engage in these same behaviors when
their child is in foster care, they are viewed as uncooper-
ative, unwilling to do what is best for their child, or simply
labeled as difficult (Brodkin, 1997; Smith & Donovan,
2003).
In order for a child to exit foster care and return home,
the factors that prompted the removal of the child must be
ameliorated, however addressing the factors that lead to the
entry into foster care are complex, especially for families
of color. Systemic issues related to child maltreatment such
as poverty, unemployment, and unsafe neighborhoods are
all but impossible for individual families address. Addi-
tionally, lack of social capital and access to resources and
services, such as mental health services and substance use
treatment, to ameliorate maltreatment issues greatly
impacts more families of color (Anyon, 2011; Nadan et al.,
2015). In light of such overwhelming odds as well as a lack
of understanding about the child welfare process, many
families prematurely give up and disengage from the
reunification process (Darlington, Healy, & Feeney, 2010).
123
J. L. Yang, D. Ortega
Additionally, the social worker often has support for the
case plan in terms of enforcement from the court, and as
such the family does not have support to or feels powerless
to challenge the worker’s case plans (Hagedorn, 1995).
Moreover, one study found that foster care social workers
do not feel as though working with biological parents is
part of the purview of their job, and they create case plans
as a means to test the willingness of the parent to partner
with the agency to get their children returned to them
(Smith & Donovan, 2003). When the foster care system is
presented as an entity that knows what is best for the
children, despite the fact that ongoing bureaucratic neglect
is occurring, families who are savvy enough to understand
how to work the system and advocate for the needs of their
family and their children are often viewed very negatively
(Ayón, 2009).
Even the youth themselves are relatively powerless
when it comes to advocating for themselves within the
foster care system. Youth in general are considered to be a
relatively powerless group in that they do not vote, and that
they are dependent on adults, but foster youth are consid-
ered by some to be the most powerless group in society
(Chou, 1993). Foster youth who experience maltreatment
while in care have little recourse to confront the agencies.
Tort laws and a lack of formalized protected children’s
rights make legal action against foster care agencies diffi-
cult. Presently, case law is divided on the issue and the
Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on the rights of foster
children (Balmer, 2004). Beyond legal recourse, many
youth are unaware of even who to contact in the event of a
grievance. One study reported that youth often do not know
who their worker is, and in some cases, youth were notified
of their discharge from the child welfare system with
nothing more than a letter (McCoy, McMillen, & Spitz-
nagel, 2008).
Potential Interventions to Mitigate Bureaucratic
Neglect and Oppression
The child welfare system, while flawed, is not without hope
for change. It may seem as if the problems of oppression
and bureaucratic neglect within the system are too large to
overcome. However, we believe that outcomes for children
and families involved with the foster care system can be
improved through the development of critical conscious-
ness, implementation of anti-oppressive practices at the
agency level, as well as paradigm shifts and new legal
precedents.
Given the innumerable issues of power and oppression
families face perhaps the least intensive intervention to
combat power inequities within the foster care system, is a
shift in personal values and beliefs related to power and
Bureaucratic Neglect and Child Welfare
inequity. The development of a critical consciousness at
the worker level could be highly beneficial as it would
encourage workers to consider the ways in which their
practice is influenced by class and race bias and thus
reproduces oppression and is limiting to those they serve
(Sakamoto & Pitner, 2005). There are many specific
strategies that can employed to facilitate the development
of a critical consciousness, however the key element is the
development of individualized reflexive thought to specif-
ically examine power, oppression, and intersectionality in
their daily work. This process is highly individualized and
requires a great deal of buy in from individual level prac-
titioners. However, schools of social work as well as
agencies employing social workers can make a commit-
ment to instilling the value of lifelong learning to
encourage the ongoing work necessary to develop a criti-
cally conscious approach to social work (Sakamoto &
Pitner, 2005). Additionally, creating environments where
inter-group dialogues can be used to raise issues of power
and oppression at the student and professional level can be
particularly effective (Nagda & Zúñiga, 2003). It is note-
worthy that social work educators have already expressed
commitment for this idea in their support for addressing
power, promoting lifelong learning, and encouraging the
use of evidence and research in practice (National Asso-
ciation of Social Workers, 2008). Furthermore, other
helping professions such as nursing and counseling have
shown that promoting university and agency partnerships
can be helpful in promoting social justice by infusing
education and real world application for students and
workers (Constantine, Hage, Kindaichi, & Bryant, 2007;
Redman & Clark, 2002). Continuing to promote such
partnerships will be important in shifting worker paradigms
and awareness about issues of power and oppression for
families served by the foster care system.
At the agency level, a firm commitment to engaging in
anti-oppressive practices are particularly salient as these
practices are designed to address issues of structural
inequality (Dominelli & Campling, 2002). Additionally,
considering issues of historical mistrust in context of
specific foster care policies may be helpful in understand-
ing dynamics related to power, oppression, and marginal-
ization (Hanna et al., 2016). However, complex workplace
issues also contribute to the phenomenon of bureaucratic
neglect in child welfare. In many states, the demand for
child welfare workers far exceeds the number of available
workers. In an effort to find people for the job, states like
California have declassified child welfare work, and now
anyone can work in child protection rather than formally
trained social workers (Wong, 2001). Consequently,
scholars are now calling for a re-professionalization of
foster care whereby social workers and specialized attor-
neys are used to ensure high quality work, and prevent
519
bureaucratic neglect (Balmer, 2004). However, states are
also having trouble retaining workers due to issues of
burnout and overall feelings of ineffectiveness and inade-
quacy (Lizano & Barak, 2015). Given that workers report
feeling they don’t have enough time to do their jobs, and
the laws and policies are unclear (Smith & Donovan,
2003), it seems that policy reform to address issues of title
protection, and foster care policy would be highly benefi-
cial. Specifically, clarifying foster care policies, providing
additional levels of oversight (at the worker, agency, and
judicial levels) (Chou, 1993), and designing mechanisms
for worker and agency level accountability (Balmer, 2004)
could all address power, oppression, and bureaucratic
neglect.
Oversight and accountability are not simple issues to
address as judicial autonomy and governmental immunity
make reform in foster care agencies immensely difficulty.
However, if policies regarding the structure of child wel-
fare decision making, the creation of outside review boards
could be helpful in reducing judicial autonomy and pro-
moting fair and equitable foster care practices (Chou,
1993). Additionally, examining the rationale behind gov-
ernmental immunity, tort law, and individual worker cul-
pability could go a long way in addressing practices that
are inherently neglectful (Balmer, 2004).
Over time, as advances in the understanding of the
impact and significance of bureaucratic neglect increases,
interventions can be developed and tested with regard to
efficacy and reliability. In the meantime, this issue is
affecting the lives of foster children daily, and as such
cannot be left without attention. The solutions addressed
above provide places to start, but more importantly they
will draw attention to the issue of bureaucratic neglect and
its consequences, thus sparking a fire for change and
ensuring that oppression and neglect of children and fam-
ilies served by the foster care system continue to garner
attention, research, and intervention.
Conclusion
Throughout American history, child welfare legislation has
been part of the political landscape. While child welfare
policies have waxed and waned over time, the overall goal
of child welfare legislation is to illuminate the line between
acceptable and unacceptable parental behavior. Further-
more, the expectation that the child welfare system is that it
functions as an appropriate substitute parent. This expec-
tation has remained constant since the passage of P.L.
96-272 in 1974. However, the child welfare system, as a
surrogate parent has failed many children since its incep-
tion. Large systemic issues such as foster care drift and
poor worker practices are commonplace problems and are
123
520
only addressed through patchwork legislation. These
changes provide some immediate relief to a broken system,
but do little to address the larger systemic issues. Fur-
thermore, differing expectations exist between biological
parents and the child welfare system in that behavior that is
acceptable for one group, is grounds for removal for the
other. These differing expectations are allowed to exist due
to the power enjoyed by the child welfare system, and its
oppression of poor families as poor families continued to
be viewed as not worthy. Sadly, it is becoming evident that
children served by the child welfare system are not
enjoying childhoods free from abuse, but merely child-
hoods with less abuse. Radical changes to the child welfare
structure are needed to address inequalities within the
system in order to better serve families and reduce negative
outcomes for children served by the child welfare system.
References
Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, Pub. L. No.
96-272, 94 Stat. 500 (1979).
Anyon, Y. (2011). Reducing racial disparities and disproportionalities
in the child welfare system: Policy perspectives about how to
serve the best interests of African American youth. Children and
Youth Services Review, 33, 242–253.
Ayón, C. (2009). Shorter time-lines, yet higher hurdles: Mexican
families’ access to child welfare mandated services. Children
and Youth Services Review, 31, 609–616.
Balmer, S. (2004). From poverty to abuse and back again: The failure
of the legal and social services communities to protect foster
children. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 32, 935–966.
Barber, J. G., & Delfabbro, P. H. (2003). Placement stability and the
psychosocial well-being of children in foster care. Research on
Social Work Practice, 13, 415–431.
Brodkin, E. Z. (1997). Inside the welfare contract: Discretion and
accountability in state welfare administration. Social Service
Review, 71, 1–33.
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974, Pub. L. No.
93-247, 88 Stat. 4 (1974).
Child Welfare League of America. (n.d.). Child protection. Retrieved
from, http://www.cwla.org/programs/childprotection/childprotec
tionfaq.htm#definition
Chou, C. C. Y. (1993). Renewing the good intentions of foster care:
Enforcement of the adoption assistance and child welfare act of
1980 and the substantive due process right to safety. Vanderbilt
Law Review, 46, 683–712.
Constantine, M. G., Hage, S. M., Kindaichi, M. M., & Bryant, R. M.
(2007). Social justice and multicultural issues: Implications for
the practice and training of counselors and counseling psychol-
ogists. Journal of Counseling & Development, 85, 24–29.
Courtney, M. E., Dworsky, A. L., Cusick, G. R., Havlicek, J., Perez,
A., & Keller, T. E. (2007). Midwest evaluation of the adult
functioning of former foster youth: Outcomes at age 21.
Darlington, Y., Healy, K., & Feeney, J. A. (2010). Challenges in
implementing participatory practice in child protection: A
contingency approach. Children and Youth Services Review,
32, 1020–1027.
Dominelli, L., & Campling, J. (2002). Anti oppressive socail work
theory and practice. Palgrave Macmillan.
123
J. L. Yang, D. Ortega
Dworsky, A., & Courtney, M. E. (2009). Homelessness and the
transition from foster care to adulthood. Child Welfare, 88(4),
23.
Federally funded child welfare, foster care, and adoption assistance
programs. Hearing before the subcommittee on human resources
of the committee on ways and means, House of Representatives,
101st cong. 37 (1990) (George Miller).
Gershoff, E. T., Miller, P. C., & Holden, G. W. (1999). Parenting
influences from the pulpit: Religious affiliation as a determinant
of parental corporal punishment. Journal of Family Psychology,
13, 307–320. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.13.3.307.
Gleich-Bope, D. (2014). Truancy laws: How are they affecting our
legal systems, our schools, and the students involved? The
Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and
Ideas, 87, 110–114.
Hanna, M. D., Boyce, E. R., & Yang, J. (2016). The impact of
historical trauma and mistrust on the recruitment of resource
families of color. Adoption Quarterly, Advance online publica-
tion.,. doi:10.1080/10926755.2014.895469.
Hagedorn, J. M. (1995). Forsaking our children bureaucracy and
reform in the child welfare system. Chicago, IL: Lake View
Press.
Hartley, E. K. (1984). Government leadership to protect children from
foster care ‘‘drift’’. Child abuse & neglect, 8, 337–342.
Herrenkohl, E. C., Herrenkohl, R. C., & Egolf, B. P. (2003). The
psychosocial consequences of living environment instability on
maltreated children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
73(4), 367–380.
Hill, J. L. (1991). What does it mean to be a parent—The claims of
biology as the basis for parental rights. NYUL Review, 66, 353.
Hoffman, M. L. (1983). Affective and cognitive processes in moral
internalization. In E. T. Higgins, D. N. Ruble, & W. H. Hartup
(Eds.), Social cognition and social development (pp. 236–274).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Huntington, C. (2006). Rights myopia in child welfare. UCLA Law
Review, 53, 637.
Jonson-Reid, M., & Barth, R. P. (2000). From placement to prison:
The path to adolescent incarceration from child welfare super-
vised foster or group care. Children and Youth Services Review,
22, 493–516.
Kools, S. M. (1997). Adolescent identity development in foster care.
Family Relations, 46, 263–271.
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the
individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Lizano, E. L., & Barak, M. M. (2015). Job burnout and affective
wellbeing: A longitudinal study of burnout and job satisfaction
among public child welfare workers. Children and Youth
Services Review, 55, 18–28.
L.J. v. Massinga, 838 F.2d 118 (4th Cir. 1988).
Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. I., Tarakeshwar, N., & Swank, A. B.
(2008). Religion in the home in the 1980s and 1990s: a meta-
analytic review and conceptual analysis of links between
religion, marriage, and parenting. Psychology of Religion and
Spirituality, S,. doi:10.1037/1941-1022.S.1.63.
McCoy, H., McMillen, J. C., & Spitznagel, E. L. (2008). Older youth
leaving the foster care system: Who, what, when, where, and
why? Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 735–745. doi:10.
1016/j.childyouth.2007.12.003.
Myers, J. E. B. (2008). A short history of child protection in America.
Family Law Quarterly, 42, 449–463. Retrieved from http://
search.proquest.com/docview/222876629?accountid=14608
Nadan, Y., Spilsbury, J. C., & Korbin, J. E. (2015). Culture and
context in understanding child maltreatment: Contributions of
intersectionality and neighborhood-based research. Child abuse
& neglect, 41, 40–48.
Bureaucratic Neglect and Child Welfare
Nagda, B. R. A., & Zúñiga, X. (2003). Fostering meaningful racial
engagement through intergroup dialogues. Group Processes &
Intergroup Relations, 6, 111–128.
National Association of Social Workers. (2008). Preamble to the code
of ethics. Retrieved October 14, 2013, from http://www.
socialworkers.org/pubs/code/code.asp
Perry, B. L. (2006). Understanding social network disruption: The
case of youth in foster care. Social Problems, 53, 371–391.
Pletcher V. People, 52 III. 395 (1869).
Proposals related to social and child welfare services, adoption
assistance and foster care. Hearing before the subcommittee on
public assistance of the committee on finance, United States
Senate, 95th cong. 60 (1979a) (Senator Alan Cranston).
Proposals related to social and child welfare services, adoption
assistance and foster care. Hearing before the subcommittee on
public assistance of the committee on finance, United States
Senate, 95th cong. 146 (1979b) (Theodore Levine).
Proposals related to social and child welfare services, adoption
assistance and foster care. Hearing before the subcommittee on
public assistance of the committee on finance, United States
Senate, 95th cong. 310 (1979c) (American Academy of
Pediatrics).
Redman, R. W., & Clark, L. (2002). Service-learning as a model for
integrating social justice in the nursing curriculum. Journal of
Nursing Education, 41, 446–449.
Rendleman, D. R. (1971). Parens patriae: From chancery to the
juvenile court. South Carolina Law Review, 23, 205.
Sakamoto, I., & Pitner, R. O. (2005). Use of critical consciousness in
anti-oppressive social work practice: Disentangling power
dynamics at personal and structural levels. British Journal of
Social Work, 35, 435–452.
Schoeman, F. (1980). Rights of children, rights of parents, and the
moral basis of the family. Ethics, 91(1), 6–19.
521
Smith, B. D., & Donovan, S. E. (2003). Child welfare practice in
organizational and intuitional context. Social Service Review, 77,
541–563.
Stott, T. (2012). Placement instability and risky behaviors of youth
aging out of foster care. Child & Adolescent Social Work
Journal, 29, 61–83. doi:10.1007/s10560-011-0247-8.
Tummers, L. G., Bekkers, V., Vink, E., & Musheno, M. (2015).
Coping during public service delivery: A conceptualization and
systematic review of the literature. Journal of Public Adminis-
tration Research and Theory, 25, 1099–1126.
United States. Congress. House of Representatives. Committee on
Education and Labor (1974). Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act of 1974: Report from Senator Perkins, from the
Committee on Education and Labor on S. 93 together with
dissenting views. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.
(Senate Report 93-685).
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and
Families, Children’s Bureau (2015). Adoption and Foster Care
Analysis and Reporting System (Report No. 22). Retrieved from
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/afcarsreport22.pdf
Vacca, J. (2008). Breaking the cycle of academic failure for foster
children—What can the schools do to help? Children and Youth
Services Review, 30, 1081–1087.
Vasta, R. (1982). Physical child abuse: A dual-component analysis.
Developmental Review, 2, 125–149. doi:10.1016/0273-2297(82)
90007-7.
Wong, J. (2001). The state of the profession. Research on Social Work
Practice, 11, 217–222.
Zetlin, A., Weinberg, L., & Kimm, C. (2004). Improving education
outcomes for children in foster care: Intervention by an
education liaison. Journal of Education for Students Placed At
Risk, 9, 421–429.
123