Parents shouldn’t lose their children to the child welfare system because they are poor or disconnected from supportive services. Public benefits and social programs can have a protective effect and help to prevent involvement with the child welfare system.
The broadening of access to SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly food stamps) benefits and the increase in monthly stipends through emergency allotments (EAs) during the pandemic was one such factor. It helped immensely by keeping food on the table for millions of families.
Now, however, that expansion has effectively ended for all 50 states as the last enhanced SNAP payouts were issued in February, and the program officially ended on Wednesday.
Allowing this lifeline to expire was unfortunate and will, in the end, cost the federal government money.
Research shows us that economic hardship is a key driver of child welfare system involvement, as highlighted in a thorough review by experts at Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago, where I am the executive director.
Imminent risk of abuse and neglect shouldn’t be the linchpin for families in need to get help and it doesn’t need to be. Preliminary evidence suggests even modest economic support can stabilize families and alleviate the need for more intensive intervention. And we know that across all developmental stages, children in families that have economic stability and have access to concrete services like SNAP, stable housing and health care, do better.
We know, for example, that economic and concrete support from the government is associated with decreased risk for both neglect and physical abuse. The majority of substantiated child protective services responses in the U.S. — 60 percent — are for neglect only, which is often the result of a lack of money or other support like childcare assistance. From my own experience I know that, if given a choice, most child welfare directors would want to put services in place in a home and not pull families apart. Not only is it damaging to the family, it’s also a much greater lift for social workers in the system once kids are taken away from their families.
Research has repeatedly demonstrated the negative effects of removing children from their homes. Based on this and other evidence, the Family First Prevention Services Act now puts federal resources at play at the front end of a child welfare system to prevent children and families from coming into the system by providing some of the services they need in their homes and communities.
While numerous policies and initiatives designed to promote improvements have emerged in the area of child welfare, promoting the well-being of children and families requires that we address challenges far upstream of child protective services. Just as we recognize that the role of emergency rooms is not to prevent but to triage and treat acute, severe problems, responsibility for the prevention of child maltreatment lies beyond the child welfare system alone. Financial support may reduce parental stress, and alternative pathways and inter-agency collaboration may provide mandated reporters with the ability to link families to critical resources.
Economic and concrete services won’t be a solution for every family, nor do they represent a complete picture of what government agencies can offer, but they’re likely to be a solution for enough families that it’s worth building a policy around. And it’s not a radical idea; it exists in child welfare already.
Children from low-income families who participate in SNAP or WIC (jointly or alone) have a lower risk of substantiated abuse and neglect reports than children who don’t participate in either program. Although being poor absolutely does not equate to neglectful or abusive parenting, experiencing economic and material hardship increases the likelihood that a family may become involved with the child welfare system. The vast majority — nearly 85 percent — of families investigated by CPS earn below 200 percent of the federal poverty line.
In January, Northwestern Professor Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach released a policy brief on her research that addresses ending emergency allotments of SNAP benefits. She found that, on average, EA payments reduce the likelihood that a household experiences food insufficiency by about 9 percent, with larger impacts for Black and Hispanic households with children. The inclusion of aggregated data for Black and Hispanic families is critical as they are disproportionately affected by poverty due to systemic inequities which, as previously stated, increases the likelihood of child welfare involvement. As Schanzenbach points out, food insufficiency baseline rates are already significantly higher for Black and Hispanic families than for White and Asian families.
Understandably, concerns about the fiscal repercussions of expanded social programs have been posed, but it is wrong to write them off as wasteful. In fact, they are investments that yield good returns. Figures for 2017 show that just a 13 percent increase in each state’s investment in public benefits programs would have reduced the number of child maltreatment reports by nearly 200,000 (nearly 30,000 fewer substantiated cases), lowered foster care placements by over 4,000, and saved the lives of 130 children.
In the long term, researchers estimated that the additional 13 percent state investment (which would total $46.5 billion nationally) would save up to $153 billion due to reduced maltreatment-related costs.
A 2020 study by researchers from the University of Michigan, UC Berkeley and Stanford concluded that the social safety net for families with young children, in part, pays for itself by reducing future reliance on government support.
“Childhood exposure to Food Stamps [SNAP] reduces the likelihood that individuals receive income from public programs in adulthood,” they wrote.
Collectively we saw expanded social programs lift millions out of poverty during the pandemic and when temporary programs ended, many plummeted back under the poverty line. One study documented the mind-boggling 41 percent increase in poverty (which equates to nearly 4 million children) after the monthly Child Tax Credit payments ceased. Again, Black and Hispanic families suffered the worst.
We are far removed from the question of how to aid those most in need and to set them on a positive course; we have decades of evidence and now we must activate the will. If lawmakers truly want to support all families, they will look to the evidence and maintain this vital lifeline.
Bryan Samuels is the executive director of Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago. He leads the organization in accelerating the use of evidence by those whose mission is to improve the lives of children, adolescents, and families. From 2010-2013 Samuels was commissioner of the Administration on Children, Youth and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Previously, he served as director of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services.