Reform Efforts
Front Door Reform Efforts
Reform efforts have attempted to mitigate the harm of the current front door of the child welfare system, offer alternatives to investigations, and respond to the economic needs of families and youth. The child welfare system has undergone several reform efforts that have had varying success in reducing harm to youth and families and increasing access to resources that assist families to stay intact.
However, these reforms still operate within the restrictive regulations of a system that is actively causing harm. Further, these efforts are often targeted to support families with small children and not accessible to older youth and their families
Examples of Front Door Reform Efforts:
Alternative Response/Differential Response allows for an alternative to a formal investigation of child abuse/neglect and formal findings with family court, allowing instead for a family assessment and voluntary services to help the family remain together. Many states have enacted legislation and programs to implement this strategy, giving thousands of families access to critical supportive services including mental health, parenting supports, and child care. However, these programs are often under-resourced and cannot provide the types and depth of services families need. It is also underutilized by child welfare systems that are risk-averse and plagued by structural racism that leads to a disproportionate amount of Black, Indigenous, and Brown families being assigned to investigations instead of accessing the assessment route of differential response. It is also mostly used by families with younger children and does not often offer services to older youth and their families.
Family Unification Program (FUP) vouchers, offer housing choice vouchers (section 8) to families with a housing need that are at risk of their children being removed or where housing is a barrier to being reunified with children who have been removed by the child welfare system. When paired with the supportive services through the child welfare system, these vouchers have led to thousands of families remaining intact and reunifying. The vouchers are limited in number, with far too few to meet the national needs. The vouchers are disproportionately used to reunify children after they have been removed and the parent has been deemed to work hard enough and be worthy of the resources by the system, as opposed to prevention efforts to keep families together and not remove the children. The vouchers also lack a funding stream for supportive services after a child welfare case has been closed, leaving families with time-limited supports that do not always meet their needs.
Specialty family courts, such as drug courts, that have specially trained judges and child welfare workers who understand that needs of parents in recovery from drugs and alcohol have led to higher rates of children remaining home and being safely reunified after removal due to abuse or neglect related to the parent’s drug use. And family-centered treatment that allows for children to stay with parents in treatment. These courts and treatment programs help to give access to supportive services such as treatment, case management, and parenting support. Most jurisdictions do not have access to funding for these specialty courts or treatment programs leading to far fewer around the country. They are also most often utilized by families with small children and not older youth and their families.
Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention (CBCAP) grants are already funding community-based family support services outside of the child welfare system that is available to any families who need or wish to access them. Unfortunately, CBCAP grants have been chronically underfunded, and thus their impact is small. This program is a critical tool for expanding the availability of voluntary community-based support services for families and young people to help them thrive and prevent system involvement.
Legal proposals to increase the state’s burden for the removal of a child from their family. Several states around the country have introduced legislation to increase the state’s (child welfare system) level of burden for removal of a child, helping to ensure that the child is being removed for safety issues and not for an issue that could be addressed by offering services and assistance to the family.