Material Support Provision through Child Protective Services: A Case Study of New York City and Connecticut

Background and Purpose: The child welfare system receives families in economic distress, without much of a safety net. Addressing the material needs of families involved with Child Protective Services (CPS) can prevent the substantial traumas and costs associated with more severe maltreatment and foster care. This study examines how child welfare agencies in politically progressive environments – perhaps especially driven to supplement a limited safety net with resources through CPS – are responding to this context of limited welfare support. (How) do they seek to meet families’ material needs and what opportunities and challenges do stakeholders see in this approach?

Methods: We draw on data from two qualitative studies: 1) ethnographic observations of investigative casework in two area offices of the Connecticut Department of Children and Families in 2018, including observations of home visits and interviews with investigators and investigated mothers; and 2) interviews with 15 purposively sampled key informants in New York City, including senior CPS administrators, administrators at contracted private providers, and system-impacted parents, in 2023–2024. Transcribed interviews and fieldnotes were coded thematically.

Findings: Progressive jurisdictions such as those studied are creating pathways to material support for families involved with CPS, such that CPS involvement is now a common conduit to basic assistance. For instance, these jurisdictions prioritize CPS-involved families for subsidized housing and childcare and CPS makes referrals to agencies that have “flex funds” for things like security deposits and other material needs. Informally, too, caseworkers try to get resources such as furniture, strollers, clothing, and food to families on their caseloads.

Positioning CPS as an entry point to material support may be an expedient way to target aid to a population considered “at risk” and to keep children out of foster care. Moreover, the practices we identify reflect a recognition that conditions of poverty drive child maltreatment and CPS involvement. However, interviewees emphasize that when resources flow through CPS, families must accept the ongoing threat of child removal to maximize their chances of obtaining needed assistance. Refashioning CPS as a resource provider also makes the agency an appealing option for adjacent professionals seeking assistance for the families they work with, expanding families’ exposure to an entity they find threatening.

Conclusion and Implications: Our findings highlight how a system oriented around child maltreatment allegations is emerging as a key access point and means test for assistance. The findings are especially relevant to public policy amidst a nationwide push to expand CPS into a broader “well-being” system that takes increasing responsibility for families’ economic integrity. For instance, currently under discussion are efforts to expand eligibility and applications for funding through the Family First Prevention Services Act, which can route federal dollars to child welfare systems for family support but which also requires families to be labeled “at risk” and comply with safety monitoring. This research offers a nuanced view of the implications of further shifting the safety net to run through the child welfare system.