The Impact of Welfare Reform Policies on Child Protective Services: A National Study

Diana Romero

Diana Romero [*]

The 1996 welfare reform bill set forth major changes in social welfare policies. In addition to federal work requirements and time limits, new state policies impose behavioral mandates that may be accompanied by financial sanctions for noncompliance. Analysis of a survey of state Child Protection Services (CPS) directors focuses on four major areas: effect of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) on CPS; interaction between the two agencies; role of TANF sanctions in referrals to CPS; and select special areas of concern. This research provides empirical insight into the interaction between these two agencies, specific TANF sanctions, and the potential conflicts between TANF policies and CPS concerns for the welfare of children and families under its charge.

In 1996, federal welfare reform (Personal Responsibility Work Opportunity and Reconciliation Act [PRWORA], 1996) paved the way for major changes in state social welfare policies and resulted in dramatic declines in welfare caseloads (Administration for Children and Families, 1999a). These state policies require work activities for those receiving welfare assistance and impose time limits and behavioral mandates, which may be accompanied by financial sanctions for noncompliance. Moreover, the PRWORA allowed states the option to impose requirements on parental behavior, such as childbearing, compliance with child immunization, child school attendance, paternity identification, and child support collection. Whereas initial concerns about welfare reform focused largely on economic outcomes, such as employment and income (Coe, Acs, Lerman, & Watson, 1998; Nightingale, 1997; Regenstein, Meyer, & Hicks, 1998), very little attention has been paid to the potential consequences for Child Protective Services (CPS). For example, for those women who fail to obtain stable employment:

1. Will decreased resources (from loss of benefits) increase family hardship (Sherman, Amey, Duffield, Ebb, & Weinstein, 1998) and possibly increase child neglect?

2. Will maternal behavioral mandates result in expanded definitions of abuse and neglect?

3. Will maternal compliance with work requirements in the face of inadequate child services lead to decreased supervision of children and charges of neglect?

The lack of attention to the potential impact that the new welfare program, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), might have on CPS is disturbing, considering that in 1996 about 12% of reports to CPS came from social services personnel (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children's Bureau, 1998) and that families receiving welfare have been overrepresented in child welfare caseloads (Committee on Ways and Means, 1994). An early report pointed out that many "provisions in the welfare act have serious implications for the children and families who come to the attention of the child protection system and are likely to result in increased demands for support and services" (Children's Defense Fund, 1996, p. 3). More recently, a study utilizing administrative and survey data from the Illinois welfare and child protection agencies investigated whether income loss in families receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC, the pre--welfare reform program) increased the risk of families' involvement with the child welfare system. It found that income loss was positively associated with risk of child welfare involvement, after controlling for behaviors and circumstances of welfare recipients (e.g., unemployment, recent birth of a child, alcohol or drug use; Shook, 1999).

The objective of this study was to document whether recent changes in state welfare policies have had an impact on CPS. We were interested in determining whether TANF sanctions for noncompliance with state-mandated maternal behavior requirements (also referred to as "family life obligations") have been considered a basis for referrals from TANF to CPS and whether loss of income would be construed as de facto neglect. We were also interested in understanding the nature of the administrative relationship between the two agencies.

Method

We surveyed state administrators (e.g., director, secretary, bureau chief, assistant commissioner) of CPS in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. [1] The telephone survey was administered by trained interviewers utilizing a standardized instrument with both closed- and open-ended questions (average length = 36 min). Prior to use, the survey instrument underwent an extensive expert review, followed by a period of pretesting and revision.

Interviews took place between December 1998 and March 1999. An introductory letter was mailed to CPS directors describing the project, which was followed by a telephone interview. We offered confidentiality to minimize possible reluctance to participate on the part of child welfare officials. A follow-up, two-page survey requesting additional quantitative data was mailed to each respondent wherein we asked about the number of referrals to CPS from AFDC/TANF for select years, the number of such referrals resulting from specific TANF sanctions, and average caseload.

This article presents the results from an analysis focusing on four major areas: TANF effect on CPS; interaction between the two agencies; the role of TANF sanctions in referrals to CPS; and areas of special concern, including child care, child support, teen mother options or alternatives, and evaluation or monitoring.

Findings

TANF Effect on CPS

We asked state administrators about their caseload in the preceding year and the effect that the changes in welfare policy had on their agency's work (Table 1). Approximately half (52%) of the states reported an increase in their caseloads. Fifty percent (26) said that their caseload profile had changed in the preceding year, with 57% (16) of these specifying that more cases were serious or complicated, 21% (6) reporting more substance abuse, and 7% reporting both more domestic violence (2) and foster care (2). Seventeen percent of respondents reported a decrease in caseload.

The response was mixed as to whether the change in welfare policy had helped their agency or had made it more difficult to carry out its efforts. New welfare policies were considered beneficial by 48% of respondents, with 43% citing increased coordination with TANF as the primary reason and 27% attributing the improvement to increased funding. In contrast, 29% of respondents felt that welfare policy changes were detrimental to CPS, primarily because there was an increase in confusion (41%) and workload (24%) and a decrease in funding (12%) and agency input (12%). About 10% stated that it was to "too soon to tell" what the effects of welfare reform meant for their agencies.

Agency Interaction

As shown in Table 2, a formal written policy exists for the state TANF office to report suspected cases of neglect or abuse to CPS in 23% (n = 12) of the states, as had been done during the AFDC era. There is a specific procedure in place for handling cases referred from TANF in 33% of states; the other two thirds said that the procedure for handling referrals was uniform regardless of the source of the referral. Sixty-two percent of states notify TANF of the disposition of the cases referred. Almost two thirds of CPS respondents reported interacting with TANF staff on a regular basis (62%) and having had at least one joint training program (60%). States that reported regular interaction with TANF were more likely to also report having had ajoint training session (Pearson [[chi].sup.2] = 10.332, p [less than] 0.01; Spearman correlation = 0.454, p [less than] 0.01).

TANF Sanctions

We were interested in the possibility that noncompliance with certain TANF requirements (and, therefore, subsequent financial sanction) might be construed as de facto neglect or abuse of a child (Table 3). Thus we were interested in respondents' level of knowledge concerning their own state's welfare policy. We asked if, to their knowledge, their state had a policy to sanction TANF recipients for noncompliance with any of 11 possible family life obligations. The level of knowledge varied across TANF policies as well as across respondents, with an average "don't know/maybe" response of 21%. Respondents were most familiar with work requirements (don't know [DK] = 6%), family caps (DK = 10%), and mandates concerning child support collection, children's school attendance, and teen residency with a parent or other adult (DK = 14%). CPS officials knew least about TANF sanctions relating to positive drug tests (DK = 35%), immunization requirements (DK = 31%), paternity identification (DK = 25%), and teen mother sch ool attendance requirements (DK = 25%).

We asked whether a sanction would constitute the basis for a TANF report to CPS in those states that had included one or more of the 11 TANF family obligation requirements in their new state welfare reform policies (Table 4). Although the majority of respondents answered "no," the five sanctions most likely to result in a TANF report to CPS were those for school absenteeism (52%), positive drug test (43%), teen mother's school absenteeism (38%), teen mother's residency (36%), and noncooperation with child support collection (15%). The three sanctions most likely to be considered grounds for investigation were those for a positive drug test (23%), teen absenteeism (16%), and child absenteeism (13%). Fewer respondents (3%--6%) said that reduced economic resources resulting from a TANF sanction would provide the basis for an investigation. Respondents were then asked about the likelihood of investigating a referral from TANF if (1) financial benefits were cut off for the mother alone ("mother-only" sanction); ( 2) benefits for children were reduced as well ("full-family sanction"); or (3) a woman had been previously sanctioned for the same reason, (4) for a different reason, or (5) for more than one reason. About two thirds of respondents said an investigation would be "very unlikely" for all scenarios; a full-family sanction elicited the highest likelihood rating (25% "somewhat" or "very likely" to investigate). This finding was corroborated by a response to a different question that asked which TANF sanction would most likely result in referrals to CPS. Twenty-three percent (12) of respondents said a full-family sanction or loss of all benefits, an equal number noted that referrals are not based on sanctions, 15% (8) said it was too early to know, and 11% (6) stated a sanction for substance use. We note that one state has an "automatic referral" policy to refer all cases in which TANF sanctions are imposed to CPS. [2]

Areas of Special Concern

Fifty-three percent (n = 12) of respondents who thought there might be a policy to sanction TANF recipients for lack of adequate child care also reported that there was not enough affordable child care for low-income families in their states. When those respondents were asked about alternative avenues of child care women could pursue that would be considered satisfactory to CPS, the majority said family members or friends (n = 8), one respondent said TANF exemption from work was possible, and three respondents could offer no solution.

Welfare recipients have historically managed to survive poverty by piecing together financial and material support from various sources. In response to anecdotal reports of TANF recipients being sanctioned for not reporting informal sources of support, we asked states that require cooperation with child support collection (n = 47) if CPS would investigate such a case (i.e., a mother who is charged with fraud for not reporting material support she received from her children's father). Seventy-nine percent of respondents said they would not investigate such a case, 6% said they would, and 15% said they might.

In states that reported a TANF requirement that teen mothers live with a parent or under other adult supervision, we explored the alternatives CPS might offer teens who are victims of domestic violence or abuse. As shown in Table 5, 81% and 92% of respondents indicated that there were alternatives for teen mothers not living at home because of substantiated claims of domestic violence and sexual abuse, respectively (54% for both situations if the claims were unsubstantiated). The main options were living in foster care, with other family members, in group homes, or in a domestic violence program/shelter and independent living programs. Sixteen percent of states indicated that there might be an alternative for teen mothers living in violence if there was a threat of imminent danger and neglect or abandonment of the teen. If a claim of sexual abuse was unsubstantiated, 24% of respondents said that there might be alternatives but not necessarily within CPS. More than three quarters of respondents said their res idence alternatives would keep the mother and child together; the remainder would do so if possible.

Seventy-one percent of states reported some follow-up to determine whether termination of benefits might have adverse effects on children, whereas no such assessment was underway in 21%. Assessments were conducted by CPS alone (12%), TANF alone (25%), CPS and TANF jointly (40%), or another agency (20%). They ranged from assessments performed on a case-by-case basis, to preliminary visits prior to arrival of a time limit, to a single follow-up visit after a time limit had been reached, to special individual-based programs. Few of these efforts appeared to be long-term, systematic, or comprehensive. Only 10 states indicated that they already had data linkage capabilities between TANE and CPS, either as part of the Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) or on their own.

Discussion

In this study, we were most interested in identifying the potential impact of state welfare policies on CPS. We found a substantial amount of variability among states in procedures and reasons for referring cases from TANF to CPS. This lack of standardization was accompanied by both incomplete knowledge of the new TANF requirements among CPS respondents and fragmented efforts to monitor the effects of welfare reform on families.

Several measures point to a substantial amount of interaction between CPS and TANF, such as formal procedures for TANF referrals to CPS and for CPS to handle cases referred from TANF. Changes resulting from the PRWORA may account for an increase in agency interaction, as more than half of the respondents reported at least one joint training session focusing on welfare reform.

Despite agency interaction, CPS knowledge of TANF behavioral requirements is incomplete. We find it noteworthy that respondents knew little about several family life obligation requirements, since many of these issues fall within CPS's purview. It appears that CPS involvement may have less to do with the specific TANF sanction and more to do with the size of the financial penalty (i.e., full vs. partial sanction).

The lack of child care in the United States (Salmon, 1999) and other problems facing many TANF recipients may preclude them from obtaining and retaining employment (Long & Clark, 1997; Long, Kirby, Kurka, & Waters, 1998). Even in states that sanction TANF recipients for inadequate child care, respondents conceded that there are very few child care options available. Similarly, not all states with teen residency requirements were able to provide alternative living arrangements for teen mothers at risk of physical abuse.

The PRWORA does not mandate that states conduct evaluations of their programs; therefore, there are no comprehensive or comparative assessments of individual state programs. In fact, 20% of states had not undertaken any assessment of the consequences for children of time-limited benefits, and the rest had performed predominantly one-time, limited ventures. This is consistent with the recent General Accounting Office (GAO) analysis of the existing 17 state "leaver studies" (i.e., studies of clients who stopped receiving TANF), which found that only seven states collected sufficiently similar data to allow any comparison (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1999). Thus, if welfare reform policies are having a negative impact on children, it appears that neither TANF nor CPS staff would be in a position to determine this empirically.

Several factors must be taken into account when interpreting the findings from this study. The cross-sectional data in the study were collected after welfare reform policies had been implemented, and we do not have comparison data of CPS practices from the previous AFDC period. Although we asked respondents about changes in trends and practices in their states prior to and since the passage of the PRWORA, this approach introduces the potential for recall bias. The study protocol offered respondents confidentiality in an effort to minimize reluctance on the part of state administrators to criticize official policies.

These findings are necessarily limited by the timing and scope of the study. Specifically, if changes in cash assistance policy have an impact on CPS, there may well be a time lag before the effects of these policy changes become manifest. Moreover, concurrent changes in various other areas of social assistance (e.g., loss of Medicaid and food stamps) could exacerbate the effects of TANF requirements on CPS caseloads (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1996; deMause, 1998; Families USA Foundation, 1999; Food and Nutrition Service, 1999; Polner, 1999).

Conclusions

Since state TANF policies attempt to shape maternal behavior, the impact of new TANF requirements on these families should be further investigated. The lack of standardization across the states in procedures involving TANF and CPS interaction, however, indicates that in some states loss of financial resources may lead to increased CPS involvement. This is particularly important given that the support services available from CPS have not changed measurably in response to states' changed welfare policies.

Welfare caseloads declined by 37% between 1995 and 1998 (Administration for Children and Families, 1999b; Rector & Youssef, 1999; Schott, Greenstein, & Primus, 1999). The decline in the proportion of people living below the federal poverty level over the same time period, however, was relatively small. In fact, the proportion of children living in severe poverty increased (Primus, Rawlings, Larin, & Porter, 1999; U.S. Census Bureau, 1999). Other support and safety net resources (e.g., rent and utilities vouchers, child care, food assistance) could play a critical role in mitigating the effects of loss of income. The findings from this study indicate the need for continued attention to the potential impact of TANF policies on child welfare. More immediately, we recommend that TANF and CPS administrators review the safety net programs that are available to their clients to ensure that loss of financial resources does not result in either increased risk of child neglect or inappropriate investigations of neglec t.

DIANA ROMERO is the Project Director of the "Finding Common Ground" project on welfare reform and women's and children's health at Columbia University. She is a doctoral candidate in the Division of Sociomedical Sciences at Columbia University. Her primary research interest is in reproductive health policies. particularly as they concern Hispanic and African American women. Her current work focuses on welfare reform policies and their impact on the health of poor women and children.

WENDY CHAYKIN is Co--Principal Investigator of the "Finding Common Ground" project on welfare reform and women's and children's health at Columbia University. She is a Professor of Clinical Public Health at the Mailman School of Public Health and a Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the College of Physicians & Surgeons, both at Columbia University. Her current research focuses on welfare reform policies and their impact on the health of poor women and children.

PAUL H. WISE is Co--Principal Investigator of the "Finding Common Ground" project on welfare reform and women's and children's health at Columbia University. He is an Associate Professor of Pediatrics at Boston University School of Medicine and the Director of Social and Health Policy Research in the Department of Pediatrics at Boston Medical Center. His primary research focuses on the impact of medical innovations on social disparities in child health and the relationship between women's and children's health.

(*.) Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Diana Romero, Project Director, Center for Population and Family Health, Joseph L. Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, 60 Haven Avenue, B-3, New York, NY 10032 [e-mail: drr6@columbia.edu].

(1.) The overall project design was approved by the Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center Institutional Review Board (IRB #0742) on October 14, 1998. A special effort was made to first contact administrators in the 13 states that elected new governors in November 1998 in order to minimize the impact that changes in CPS personnel under a new administration could have on the study.

(2.) State memorandum of agreement requiring that a report be made to CPS for any TANF sanction or investigation undertaken.

References

Administration for Children and Families. (1999a). Change in welfare caseloads (January 1993--September 1998). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Administration for Children and Families. (1999b). Data from US Department of Health and Human Services [on-line]. Available: www.acf.dhhs.gov

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (1996). The depth of the food stamp cuts in the final welfare bill. Washington, DC: Author.

Children's Defense Fund. (1996). The implications of the Welfare Act for child protection. Washington, DC: Author.

Coe, N., Acs, G., Lerman, R. I., & Watson, K. (1998). Does work pay? A summary of the work incentives under TANF (No. A-28). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Committee on Ways and Means. (1994). 1994 Green Book. Washington, DC: U.S. House of Representatives.

deMause, N. (1998, December 27). Food stamp probe spurs Fed probe. In These Times, p. 8.

Families USA Foundation. (1999). Losing health insurance: The unintended consequences of welfare refoon. Washington, DC: Author.

Food and Nutrition Service. (1999). Who is leaving the food stamp program? An analysis of caseload changes from 1994 to 1997. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Long, S., & Clark, S. J. (1997). The new child care block rant: State funding choices and their implications (No. A-12). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Long, S., Kirby, G. G., Kurka, R., & Waters, S. (1998). Child care assistance under welfare reform: Early responses by the states. Occasional paper no. 15. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Nightingale, D. (1997). Work-related resources and services: Implications for TANF(No. A-7). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, Pub. L. No. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105-2355 (1996).

Polner, R. (1999, January 18). A welfare "mess": Fed report, state official fault city's food stamp policy. Newsday, p. A3.

Primus, W., Rawlings, L., Lam, K., & Porter, K. (1999). The initial impacts of welfare reform on the incomes of single-mother families. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Rector, R., & Youssef, S. E. (1999). The determinants of welfare caseload decline. Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation.

Regenstein, M., Meyer, J. A., & Hicks, J. D. (1998). Job prospects for welfare recipients: Employers speak out (No. A-25). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Salmon, J. L. (1999, September 19). For many children, nowhere to go. Washington Post, p. A1.

Schott, L., Greenstein, R., & Primus, W. (1999). The determinants of welfare caseload decline: A brief rejoinder. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Sherman, A., Amey, C., Duffield, B., Ebb, N., & Weinstein, D. (1998). Welfare to what? Early findings on family hardship and well-being. Washington, DC: Children's Defense Fund.

Shook, K. (1999). Does the loss of welfare income increase the risk of involvement with the child welfare system? Chicago: Northwestern University/University of Chicago, Joint Center for Poverty Research.

U.S. Census Bureau. (1999). Poverty in the United States. P60-207. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children's Bureau. (1998). Child maltreatment 1996: Reports from the states to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1999). Welfare reform: Information on former recipients' status. GAO/HEHS-99-48. Washington, DC: Government Accounting Office, Health, Education, and Human Services Division.

                            TANF Effect on CPS
Variable                                               Percentage
In the past year, caseload ...
  Increased                                                52
  Decreased                                                17
  Did not change                                           29
In the past year, change in kinds of cases?
  Yes                                                      50
  No                                                       46
  Don't know                                                4
Change in welfare policy helped/assisted agency's
efforts?
  Yes                                                      48
  No                                                       39
  Don't know                                               12
Change in welfare policy made it difficult for agency?
  Yes                                                      29
  No                                                       61
  Don't know                                               10
Note. N = 52. Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.
                      CPS and TANF Agency Interaction
Variable                                        % yes
Formal policy for referrals from TANF?           23
Specific CPS procedure for referrals from TANF?  33
Notify TANF of disposition of cases?             62
Interaction with TANF ...
  Regularly                                      62
  Occasionally                                   29
  Infrequently                                   10
Joint staff training programs?                   60
Note. N = 52.
                        Knowledge of TANF Sanctions
State policy to sanction
noncompliance?            % yes % maybe % don't know
Positive drug screen       19      4         35
Immunization               23      4         31
Teen mother attend school  44      2         25
Paternity identification   58      4         25
Pediatric health visits    15      0         17
Adequate child care         8      4         15
Child support cooperation  69      6         14
Children attend school     42      4         14
Teen mother residency      54      2         14
Family cap                 39      2         10
Work requirements          92      0         6
Note. N = 52.
       TANF Sanctionable Policies Most Likely to Be Considered a Basis for
                              Referral to CPS
                          Number of states
Sanctionable Policy         with policy
Child absenteeism                31
Positive drug test               43
Teen mother absenteeism          37
Teen mother residency            36
Child support cooperation        46
                           Percentage of states where sanction
                          can be basis for TANF referral to CPS
Sanctionable Policy                        (n)
Child absenteeism                        52 (16)
Positive drug test                       43 (13)
Teen mother absenteeism                  38 (14)
Teen mother residency                    36 (13)
Child support cooperation                15  (7)
Note. Percentages reported are sum of "yes" and "maybe/depends" responses.
                   CPS Alternatives to Teen Mother TANF
                          Residency Requirements
Variable                                    Substantiated claim
                                                                % maybe/
                                                   % yes        depends
CPS alternatives for minors exposed to              81             16
domestic violence?
  Alternatives provide for keeping mother           78             19
  and child together?
CPS alternatives for minors whose pregnancy         92              8
resulted from sexual abuse at home?
  Alternatives provide for keeping mother           78             22
  and child together?
Variable                                    Unsubstantiated claim
                                                                  % maybe/
                                                    % yes         depends
CPS alternatives for minors exposed to               54              13
domestic violence?
  Alternatives provide for keeping mother            --              --
  and child together?
CPS alternatives for minors whose pregnancy          54              24
resulted from sexual abuse at home?
  Alternatives provide for keeping mother            --              --
  and child together?
Note. N = 37.

COPYRIGHT 2000 Plenum Publishing Corporation
COPYRIGHT 2001 Gale Group