Child Welfare Policy

Slack, Kristen S.; Paul, June C.

doi:10.1002/9781118937334.ch18

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, we realized that we are currently operating within the confines of a child welfare system that only responds to cases in which children are maltreated or at risk of future harm. Unlike the USA, other developed countries favour a holistic approach with accessibility to more resources and benefits to meet the basic needs of all children and families (Berger & Slack, 2014;Slack & Paul, 2017). Thus, our recommendations-such as creating an external prevention infrastructure, reducing poverty and financial hardships, providing waivers and developing alternative systems for reporting concerns-challenge the existing infrastructure of the US child welfare system to shift away from its narrow focus on child safety.…”

Section: Critical Reflections Of Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 96%

The stark implications of abolishing child welfare: An alternative path towards support and safety

Garcia,

Berrick,

Jonson‐Reid

et al. 2024

Child & Family Social Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholars and advocates are at odds about how to achieve higher levels of child safety and permanency. Calls for change include the recent upEND focus on eradication of child welfare services to a radical refocusing of the present system towards prevention/early intervention. To clarify the implications of reform over abolition, we seek to portray a future in which the abolition of child welfare has occurred, in juxtaposition to maintaining four core elements of established child maltreatment programmes around the world: (1) receiving and responding to community signals about the risk to children; (2) assessment of need coupled with a proportionate response; (3) rights protections to ensure fairness when placement outside the family is required; and (4) procedures for accountability and quality improvement. For each of these functions, we outline abolitionist advocates' positions and implications for children and parents. Across these elements, we delineate how assigning these responsibilities to communities, as suggested by upEND, would likely (1) exaggerate racial and economic inequities and (2) create structural barriers that would increase harm to children. We suggest several evidence‐informed enhancements to practice, research and policy that would mitigate these inequities while also increasing safety and permanency.

show abstract

Section: Critical Reflections Of Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 96%