Impact of Child Deaths in Care on Child Welfare Policy-Making: A Comparative Analysis

Impact of child deaths in care on child welfare policy-making:  A comparative analysis

Background:  The most recent data from the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) estimates 1,580 child fatalities due to abuse and neglect in 2014.  Some of these children were known to child protective services.  For example, in 29 reporting states, 12.2 percent of child fatalities involved families who had received family preservation services in the previous 5 years. Although a rare occurrence, these child deaths typically receive extensive public attention.  State-level policy-makers in administrative and legislative branches often take action.  But the effectiveness of the action for improving child welfare practice is questionable.  This study utilizes theories of the policy process (e.g., agenda setting, social construction) to analyze the impact of child fatalities on policy-making. 

Method:  The study examines resulting policy change in a state child welfare system (Massachusetts) following several deaths of children in care.  This study conducts a comparative case study and utilizes a framework offered by Gainsborough (2010) who previously analyzed three U.S. states’ policy responses following child tragedies.  Several sources of data were used to examine the Massachusetts case:  commissioned reports, media reports, the federal Child and Family Services Review report, NCANDS data, the state budget, filed legislative bills, policy documents.  Variables for comparison included:  characteristics of the maltreatment case(s), historical context (e.g., previous reform actions), specifics of the media attention (length, depth, framing [individual vs. systemic]), role of policy actors (politicians, union representatives, advocacy groups), current politics (in legislative, administrative, and judicial branches), state budget and competing state “problems” (e.g., opioid crisis).

Findings:  In many ways, the Massachusetts experience followed a predicted pattern:  public outrage aimed at the agency and its workers, turnover in agency leadership, production of numerous reports, calls for more training.  Because earlier tragedies has already led to some of these typical efforts there was a presumed effort to achieve more substantive change.  The role of the workers’ union in seeking caseload reduction was notable.  Quick action was taken but mostly in the context of administrative practice.  This was particularly common across the states observed.  Data and empirical findings played almost no observable role in the changes that were proposed.  The role of the media in calling attention to the problem and framing the problem as agency mismanagement was confirmed and common across cases.  Similarly, media lacked a role in furthering sustainable solutions.  Time horizon for policy change was identified to be a key factor.  Potentially more efficacious change may require a shift in the social construction of vulnerable children. 

Conclusion and Implications:  Child welfare is a domain for fruitful comparative analysis because numerous systems operate under common guidelines but with some independent policy-making capacity.  Although there are identifiable common patterns in response to child deaths in care understanding how these tragedies might lead to important and sustainable improvements is needed.  This in-depth comparative study offers nuanced findings regarding episodic versus sustainable policy reforms.