Literature Review

Bureaucratic Neglect and Oppression in Child Welfare: Historical Precedent and Implications for Current Practice

Jessica L. Yang1 • Debora Ortega1

Published online: 9 May 2016

� 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

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

& Jessica L. Yang [email protected]

1 Graduate School of Social Work, University of Denver,

2148 S. High Street, Denver, CO 80208, USA

123

Child Adolesc Soc Work J (2016) 33:513–521

DOI 10.1007/s10560-016-0446-4

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

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

514 J. L. Yang, D. Ortega

123

(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

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

Bureaucratic Neglect and Child Welfare 515

123

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

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.

516 J. L. Yang, D. Ortega

123

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

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

Bureaucratic Neglect and Child Welfare 517

123

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).

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

518 J. L. Yang, D. Ortega

123

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

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

Bureaucratic Neglect and Child Welfare 519

123

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.

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.

520 J. L. Yang, D. Ortega

123

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.

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.

Bureaucratic Neglect and Child Welfare 521

123

Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal is a copyright of Springer, 2016. All Rights Reserved.