Ending ‘Child Poverty Surveillance’: NYU Professor On Schools & Child Welfare
Receive captivating stories like these directly to your email inbox. Register for Newsletter.
School staff in New York City report potential cases of child abuse or neglect to a state hotline throughout the year. However, investigations resulting from these reports rarely uncover evidence of maltreatment.
From August 2019 to January 2022, only 24% of investigations prompted by school staff calls discovered proof of abuse or neglect. This is in contrast to the citywide rate of 36% in 2020, indicating that K-12 workers make unsubstantiated allegations more frequently than professionals in other fields.
Among school staff, teachers misreport more often than others. Two-thirds of the calls they make to the state hotline turn out to be unfounded, according to data acquired by through a public records request.
In the meantime, families say these investigations cause profound uncertainty and lasting trauma for their children. Parents recount their children experiencing recurring nightmares, constantly fearing that a caseworker might arrive at their door to take them away.
Darcey Merritt, an associate professor of social work at New York University, has extensive experience working with families affected by the child welfare system. She believes that the system disproportionately penalizes low-income families who genuinely care for their children but struggle to meet their basic needs due to limited resources.
Merritt advocates for reimagining child welfare in order to better support these families. She suggests a complete overhaul of the existing system, stating, "We need to start the whole thing over."
interviewed Merritt to gain insight into the issues she identifies within child protective services and possible solutions. The following conversation has been edited slightly for clarity and length.
: What should individuals working in schools understand about the child welfare system?
Darcey Merritt: Poverty cannot be separated from neglect; it is inappropriate to do so.
On any given day, 76% of children and families involved with child welfare are there due to neglect in some form. Neglect is intrinsically linked to poverty, including supervisory neglect and physical neglect, where individuals lack adequate food, clothing, and housing.
Many of these issues related to neglect are structural and beyond the control of parents. However, child protective services often blames parents for their involuntary socio-economic circumstances. This is problematic.
Teachers are mandated to report any concerns about a child’s safety as a precaution. But there should be a more effective way for mandated reporters to address the root cause of the problem. For instance, if a child consistently has dirty clothes, let’s find a solution for that without involving child protective services.
I believe there need to be changes in state laws regarding mandates, encouraging or even requiring reporters to first find ways to address the issue. For example, if parents lack sufficient child care, let’s help them find child care. If they don’t have enough food, let’s assist them with accessing food. If their laundry machine is broken, and they can’t afford to fix it because they’re behind on rent, let’s find a solution. These are all real situations that occur.
What might these changes involve?
We need a complete overhaul and reserve child protective services for cases involving physical and sexual abuse. We should establish a separate institution or agency that collaborates with communities and neighborhoods to provide support for all other children. Reporting a child due to poverty shouldn’t be the immediate response. Ultimately, it comes down to society’s willingness to invest the necessary resources and support to ensure that families have access to a basic standard of resources.
We need to show more respect for these parents because they genuinely love their children and are victims of an unequal society.
Just to clarify, are you suggesting that child protective services should not be responsible for handling neglect cases?
I believe that assisting these families is important, but child protective services may not be the most suitable agency to address neglect cases related to poverty.
In New York State, starting in 2021, mandatory reporters are required to undergo implicit bias training. However, I don’t believe that this requirement goes far enough in addressing the underlying issues.
It is not enough to simply provide training and consider the problem solved. We need to establish a system that allows us to assess whether decisions are influenced by unconscious bias. For instance, if a child’s parent has a history with the criminal justice system, there may be a tendency to report them. This perpetuates a cycle of harm within punitive systems.
We have a Western perspective on safety and family well-being that often focuses on deficits. We rarely consider family dynamics and functioning from a strengths-based perspective. Through my research, I have interviewed many mothers who express love for their children but acknowledge the need for assistance.
This is a significant problem, and racial disparities will continue as impoverished parents have few options besides relying on government assistance. Black children are disproportionately involved in the child welfare system, and Native children experience the highest disproportionality, although this often goes unnoticed.
I find that Native American children, followed by Black and Latino children, are most impacted by this issue. White children, on the other hand, are not overrepresented in the system.
Some parents have personal experience or know others who have dealt with child protective services or the Administration for Children’s Services in New York City. However, other families are completely unaware of these agencies. There is a clear difference between communities in terms of their familiarity with these organizations.
Once you have experienced involvement with child protective services, you become aware of what it entails. Even the language used by parents becomes institutionalized. For example, individuals involved with the criminal justice system might say, "Someone caught a case." Similarly, mothers impacted by ACS use phrases like "I caught an ACS case." This language has become normalized.
Conversely, there are groups who have no knowledge of ACS or child protective services.
What are the negative consequences of both overreporting and underreporting to child protective services?
Underreporting poses the risk of overlooking genuinely endangered children who are being abused by their parents.
The challenge lies in the belief that out of caution, anything potentially problematic needs to be reported. We must distinguish between issues linked to poverty.
On the other hand, overreporting leads to immediate trauma when CPS intervenes. Once a child is removed from their home, even temporarily, it causes immediate distress. Moreover, families face ongoing intrusions from workers and are compelled to participate in various programs and therapy that may not address their actual needs, such as financial assistance.
Personally, I have coined the term "child poverty surveillance" for CPS, as it reflects their focus on impoverished families.
When making decisions about child safety, it is crucial to approach the issue subjectively. We must reflect upon our implicit biases and be mindful that poor Black children may be treated differently than their white counterparts.
Considering that you work in New York City, do mandated reporters, like school staff, tend to overreport or underreport?
Mandated reporters lean more towards overreporting.
What messages do these individuals receive during their training? Are they encouraged to report when in doubt or advised to proceed with caution?
I believe the prevailing message is "when in doubt, report." That seems to be the guidance they receive.
In educational institutions, particularly ones that lack sufficient resources, they are unable to provide assistance to families with their basic and financial needs. Instead, teachers are legally obligated to report to child protective services. This approach is illogical and causes harm in the process, as it fails to address the problem effectively.
In light of the current system, how can mandated reporters in schools navigate the difficult task of protecting children in genuine danger while avoiding unnecessary harm to families? How can they make a judgment call in such situations?
Undoubtedly, this is a challenging situation. I recently discussed this matter with my partner, who teaches in Philadelphia. Although he is not a social worker, he is compelled to assume the role due to the responsibilities associated with being a teacher.
When faced with concerns about a child, my suggestion is to first gather information from the family. It would be prudent to exercise caution before contacting the state hotline. Exploring potential solutions should be prioritized.
This places a significant burden on teachers, as they also find themselves taking on the role of social workers. Therefore, it becomes crucial to identify the resources available within the school community, such as nurses or climate officers, who can provide assistance.
I should note that I am specifically referring to cases where neglect is linked to poverty. There are separate instances of intentional neglect, where a parent intentionally exposes their child to abuse. However, the neglect I am addressing is unintentional in nature.
Child protective services should not be the default option for cases of unintentional neglect stemming from poverty. Instead, another agency specifically tailored to address these situations should be established.
Sign up for Newsletter to receive more stories like this directly to your inbox.
