Communique — Documents — Home

—Nancy K. Young, Ph.D., and Sidney L. Gardner, M.P.A.

Many policy experts in the child welfare field have warned about the implications of welfare reform for child protective services. Child abuse and neglect are not caused by poverty, just as child abuse and neglect are not caused by substance abuse. The child welfare case load is, however, often a subset of the welfare case load, with estimates of 50 to 90 percent of child protective service (CPS) clients receiving income support through public assistance. The correlation among child protection cases and substance abuse problems is also alarming, with similarly high estimates of population overlap. These three intersecting arenas call for dramatic policy and practice changes to protect children as States move forward with welfare reform.

Both experience and research have documented the substantial need for substance abuse treatment services among parents in the CPS system. However, current policy and daily practice typically lack any sustained connections between the two systems other than pilot projects or smaller scale demonstrations. Despite service plans and court orders that include a referral to substance abuse treatment, many clients in the CPS system who need treatment do not receive it.

The systems have many barriers to working together, including differences in attitudes toward clients, training and education, and different funding streams. The response to the needs of clients in the CPS system for substance abuse treatment services is inadequate to ensure that the intended outcomes of either the welfare or the CPS system will be achieved. These barriers become explicit when we view the four "clocks" of the systems.

1. The New Timetable for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Recipients—Income assistance for 24 consecutive months and a 60-month lifetime cap.

2. A Shorter Time to Ensure a Child Has a Safe and Permanent Home—Children removed from the home and placed in protective custody must have a permanency plan at 12 months, according to the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act (P.L. 105-89). Parental rights may be terminated if the child has remained in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months, or if the child was abandoned, or if the parent has killed a sibling or committed a felony assault against the child or sibling.

3. The Indefinite Time for Recovery From Addiction—The substance abuse treatment system operates on its own timetable, viewing recovery as a lifelong process requiring a long-term commitment to sobriety to achieve family stability. However, substance abuse treatment funding under health care reform (e.g., managed care) has moved to shorter lengths of covered treatment benefits.

4. The Developmental Clock for Children—Underlying each of these policy-generated timetables is the most important of the clocks: the developmental clock for the children in the family. This is the clock that cannot be externally driven. Experts in the field of neuroscience increasingly warn us of the critical importance of a child's early years. Yet, it is this clock that is most frequently neglected at the intersection of these service systems.

Need for Linkages
The adequacy of the connections among the systems can be measured by reviewing five features of their linkages: daily practice, information systems, budgeting, staff development, and alternative service delivery systems. A major problem is the fragmentation of the funding systems for child welfare, welfare, and substance abuse treatment services. Although each of these systems carefully tracks the number of individuals that receive treatment and other services, they have generally not been held accountable for their results. But just as the substance abuse treatment field is moving toward results-based accountability, so too are the child welfare and welfare systems. Unfortunately, these system-specific efforts have formulated no policies to sustain linkages that can be measured in terms of their effect on all three systems. It seems clear, however, that the separate goals of these systems cannot be achieved unless they are working together to achieve and measure their common goals for the families they share.

To summarize, many children's lives are diminished by the inability of their parents to care for them adequately, and many of these parents suffer from substance abuse problems. These children's lives are also affected by the lack of clear policy to assist and/or compel the parents to address their substance abuse problems. If treatment services are fully available for the parent, removal and reunification should be contingent on the parent staying in compliance with a treatment program or an aftercare program. Thinking more clearly about and act-ing on creating a family support system could help far more children and families than continuing to deny the realities of substance abuse in these families and their potential for recovery.

Creating a Family Support System

The following are necessary to create a family support system for substance abuse treatment clients under welfare reform: